When Donald Trump speaks at the NRA tomorrow, lo and behold, guns will suddenly be banned

Originally published at: When Donald Trump speaks at the NRA tomorrow, lo and behold, guns will suddenly be banned | Boing Boing


This racist right-wing organisation’s survival in the wake of so much scandal, corruption and betrayal of its own supposed values (this being a case in point) ranks up there with Cancun Cruz’s continued ability to get elected to office as one of the great mysteries of our times. America’s cultures of white supremacy and greed and even the “own the libs” branding don’t fully explain it for me.

I will say that it has been amusing to watch some ammosexuals who used to rely on the NRA’s talking points slowly and quietly backing away from it, thinking no-one will notice or remember.


I assume that they’d prefer to avoid saying “because we’re important and your kids are expendable…” in so many words(insert waffling about 'high profile target, etc.); but more than the (unpleasant but deeply unsurprising) ‘for me but not for thee’ this behavior really seems to cut against the argument-from-futility/‘if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns’ arguments.

If you really believed that guns were inevitable and any measure that doesn’t achieve the platonic ideal of success is useless, you’d not bother frisking people for handguns at the door because a guy with a marksman rifle across the street could always take you out anyway. Obviously, and correctly, the Secret Service is aware that there are degrees of risk and imperfect measures(like keeping opportunists with handguns away) can meaningfully reduce risk.

Since consistency is now for liberals and RINOs I don’t think this will trouble them; but this aspect is really more corrosive to the argument than the special treatment aspect is: one can see a willingness to coddle politicians and leave children to die as unjust and/or monstrous(and one would be reasonable to do so); but the injustice of bodyguard allocation isn’t directly related to gun control.

The fact that professional bodyguards ignore all-or-nothing arguments in favor of pragmatic risk-reduction strategies for their clients, though, very much implies a belief in pragmatic risk reduction that runs directly counter to the arguments commonly advanced.


I’m sure tough guy Trump will talk about how he would have single-handedly stopped the shooter in Texas, just like he would have done at Parkland if he only had the chance.


All they have to do is search people and forbid anyone with electronics that can play rap music or video games, just ignore any guns or explosives they might be carrying.


Too many bone spurs to handle a war where the DoD provides significant training and military grade arms; but decades of getting old and weak and he’d totally Rambo it up without training, warning, or equipment. That seems eminently plausible.


Presumably with a giant “mission accomplished” banner.


Remember kids, we are paying for the traitor’s secret service protection still. I’m sure they are staying at the most comfortable hotel money can buy.

What’s he afraid of anyway?


Exactly. This is the same guy who skipped the WWI memorial ceremony in France because it was raining. The idea of him running to the rescue during a school shooting is so pathetic it truly isn’t funny.


Because cops should be tough, and ignore things like bonespurs. Justice should be swift and harsh. Except against rich people committing tax fraud, education fraud, charity fraud, self-dealing, bribery, emolument violations, theft of top secret classified documents, insurrection, arranging to hang subordinates…


Why the fuck is Trump speaking at an NRA event? He actually reduced gun rights more than Obama by enacting the bump stock ban via executive order. He doesn’t give two shits about it - it’s just a grift.

They are a complete dumpster fire now.


I assume that guns have just joined taxes as axiomatically linked to parties: everyone knows that it’s “tax and spend democrats” and the “party of fiscal responsibility” so there’s no need to concern yourself with a bunch of boring empirical measures; and everyone knows that liberals are a bunch of gun-grabbing nanny state snowflakes; so anyone who identifies as an enemy of the liberals is thus axiomatically a friend of guns.


You’re right and it is extremely frustrating that this issue has become largely a virtue signal and party identifier to wave around.


Well, he is a Republican. A party that seems to be built on fear and dishonesty.

They all seem to be afraid of:

Gun control
Black people
Higher taxes on the wealthy
Brown people
Higher taxes on corporations
Immigrants that aren’t fashion models
Covid vaccines
Immigrants coming to steal your jobs
(but not immigrants they can pay low wages to)
The truth of American history and slavery
Universal health Care
LGBTQ people
Equal rights (and the ERA!)
Budget deficits Not caused by a war
Clean air
Clean water


Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; and hate leads to suffering.


6 posts were merged into an existing topic: Guns Don’t Kill Americans, Stale Bad Arguments Do

They have compared themselves favorably to the Death Star in the past…


By active design. The Republicans have made the protection of the right to own firearms, no matter no dangerous and how recklessly, part of their own brand. They’ve also branded the other duopoly party, which tries to enact sensible legislation that could prevent horrors like this, as people who want to eliminate guns rather than control them. A lot of fools buy into that, and ammosexuals who are not Republicans tend to stay home on election day because “both parties are equally bad.”



They’re clearly saying it’s the Secret Service not the NRA that’s prohibiting guns. They didn’t say, but I think it’s clearly implied that if it was up to the NRA they wouldn’t do this. Doesn’t matter if that’s true or not, they want to imply it.

It’s all deflection.