Oh, I agree, hence the “didn’t express herself very well”.
The woman is a wackadoodle but that was my take as well. She was saying as a last resort she would shoot whoever was threatening her grandchildren.
But… I doubt it would be a last resort, I suspect she would shoot first, ask questions later
She said the same thing on June 9th only that time she said shoot the hypothetical killer.
It appears she has that speech memorized but was so excited she repeated it wrong.
When one of the kids inevitably finds a loaded gun in her home and shoots it, she’ll be the good guy with a gun and shoot her grandchild
Beat me to it. Seconded.
I’m guessing you’re a mandatory reporter, too.
People who are excited about gun issues really worry me.
My heart rate and blood pressure both elevate when people start gunwanking: that’s a sign of physiological excitement, right?
I’m pretty sure she meant shoot someone who threatened them and not actually shoot her kids. I am 100 percent certain she misspoke and fumbled the words.
Now I completely disagree with her actual intended point but saying “gotchya” on something like this? Doesn’t really win any points for the side of reason.
I mean, she misspoke. It took me 3 listens to be sure what she meant.
But instead of clearing it up and correcting herself, she says people are twisting her words. No, she said the wrong words. No mentions of someone trying to harm her grand kids were mentioned in order for “them” to reference them. Instead it referenced her grand kids and makes a pretty horrible sound bite.
I think she meant to say that if she saw any of her grandchildren speaking in public to a Democrat or an LGBTQ person, she would be forced to shoot them to wipe out the stain on the family honor.
I get what you’re saying, but should we really be giving her the benefit of the doubt? Because the reality is that, in a situation where there are “assailants” and she’s shooting, statistics show that even highly trained professionals hit friendlies at about a 50% clip. In this hypothetical, Grandma Debbie is going to shoot her grandkids whether she means to or not.
Oh, but you know she would offer the same understanding to someone on the other side of the political aisle
i think the easiest “them” in context is the guns. she’s saying she’d shoot the guns that she has - she’d shoot them - if it protected her grandkids
the real question is: would she give up her guns if it protected her grandkids. and since it would, and she hasn’t, the answer sadly is no.
guns before grandkids everytime
That’s the closest thing the Republicans have to a platform.
Exactly, she’s a fascist. Don’t give her any benefit of he doubt. Use this clip and her follow up statement against her. We are far too close to a fascist takeover to take the high road.
she suffers - as do many gun owners i think - from lake woebegone syndrome: where everyone thinks they’re above average.
they think the guns will protect them from intruders in a way not proven out by statistics. they think they’ll be a far better shot than average. they think they won’t hesitate like average. and they think that if they do manage to shoot someone, they’ll recover faster from the trauma of being a murderer than most
they think their gun is less likely to get stolen than average. they think that no one in their house will have a crisis and die by gun suicide despite the statistics. they think, despite the odds, they’ll never have an accident, and neither will their kids
in every way they think they are exceptional when really they’re average. but don’t ever tell them how human they are because they’ve got god, nra anecdotes, and an entire eco system of fake news on their side
( sorry. /diatribe. i’m so f’ing pissed at the magical thinking )