Hudson stated, "He said that he was getting his gun off of a dresser when it fell, went off, striking him in his left hand, and unfortunately also struck his four-year old that was standing outside of the bedroom."
We still may not know all the details to this, depending on what was reported. With most newer guns, dropping it in and of itself will not make it go off. If he had tried to grab the gun as it was falling, now he very well could have grabbed the trigger. If the gun was left in a cocked position, semi or revolver, (or even not cocked depending on the trigger action and weight) this could bypass a couple of safety's (a firing pin block or hammer block on revolvers, is one-without pulling the trigger the pin/hammer, will not make contact with the bullet primer) most of the more well made guns have. There are some that don't, depending on age. Depending on how he caught the gun and where his son was standing, both could have easily been in the line of fire.
I could see several scenarios as to how this could occur, but without knowing the type of gun and how it was left on his dresser (esp. in or out of a holster, which would rule out trigger pull), hard to say for sure. A few guns can be defective. Still though, it happens, but more often than not, due to negligence on the part of the gun owner. I don't suppose will got much more detail on a smaller story like this. Regardless, it could have been much worse. At least they lived.
So let me get this straight: Michael Cohen is out there during the entirety of the 2016 campaign with a nearly a million dollars in hush money just waiting to be spread around, and clearly NONE of it was reported on any FEC filings?? Again, as the article suggest, possible bank fraud, money laundering, and campaign finance issues all rolled into one here. No way this ends at Stormy Daniels.
In Canada, the father would be charged right off that bat with improper storage of a fire arm ( s. 86 (2)) and could be jailed for 2 years (although probation would be the most likely accord). He wouldn't be labeled a 'victim,' well maybe of his own stupidity.
How guns are suppose to be stored in Canada:
Storage of Restricted Firearms 6 An individual may store a restricted firearm only if (a) it is unloaded; (b) it is (i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or (ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked; and (c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in (i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or (ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked.
That is some spectacular bad luck. The gun either hit both of them in one shot, effectivey making gravity more accurate than the average police officer, or it somehow went of TWICE due to the impact.
My first thought was about the improbability of one shot hitting both.
But then I considered ricochet as being possible, article isn't really very detailed.
The bullet could have gone through his hand before hitting his son.
Given Trump and Pence's addresses to the NRA convention the last few days, it's safe to say that nearly EVERYTHING they said after the Parkland shooting was complete and utter horseshit. The bump stock "ban" is sitting in Jeff Sessions desk collecting dust, where it will remain for all of eternity. Not a single thing has even been attempted, much less done. The Republican Party is and will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of the gun lobby.
Part of his address to the NRA was a graphic description of a London hospital as having blood all over the floor as a result of knife attacks. It is certainly true there has been a sharp increase in knife attacks in London this year, but suggesting replacing those with guns would help hasn't gone down well with the hospital. Somehow I don't think that this is going to reduce the extent of protests if Trump comes to the UK in July as currently planned ...
Part of his address to the NRA was a graphic description of a London hospital as having blood all over the floor as a result of knife attacks. It is certainly true there has been a sharp increase in knife attacks in London this year, but suggesting replacing those with guns would help hasn't gone down well with the hospital. Somehow I don't think that this is going to reduce the extent of protests if Trump comes to the UK in July as currently planned ...
He also said we might as well ban cars and trucks as well, completely ignoring the fact that cars and trucks require both testing, licensing and insurance. And even if you take into account the decent chance that someone looking to kill by running a car into a crowded area wouldn't follow those guidelines anyway, there is STILL the matter of dealing with the fact that it is far, far cheaper to get a gun than a car. And yes, knives can kill people. But there is no conceivable situation in which they can kill MORE people than a firearm.
Part of his address to the NRA was a graphic description of a London hospital as having blood all over the floor as a result of knife attacks. It is certainly true there has been a sharp increase in knife attacks in London this year, but suggesting replacing those with guns would help hasn't gone down well with the hospital. Somehow I don't think that this is going to reduce the extent of protests if Trump comes to the UK in July as currently planned ...
He also said we might as well ban cars and trucks as well, completely ignoring the fact that cars and trucks require both testing, licensing and insurance. And even if you take into account the decent chance that someone looking to kill by running a car into a crowded area wouldn't follow those guidelines anyway, there is STILL the matter of dealing with the fact that it is far, far cheaper to get a gun than a car. And yes, knives can kill people. But there is no conceivable situation in which they can kill MORE people than a firearm.
Given Trump and Pence's addresses to the NRA convention the last few days, it's safe to say that nearly EVERYTHING they said after the Parkland shooting was complete and utter horseshit. The bump stock "ban" is sitting in Jeff Sessions desk collecting dust, where it will remain for all of eternity. Not a single thing has even been attempted, much less done. The Republican Party is and will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of the gun lobby.
You mean the guy that needed a handwritten note to remind him to say "I hear you" to mass shooting survivors didn't do anything after all about guns?
Anyone skeptical of whether Trump and Netanyahu are on the same hawkish path toward ending the nuclear deal and guaranteeing an eventual conflict with Iran, I think this story from The Guardian is going to put that matter to rest. Are we seriously footing the bill for this shit?? A spy operation against the previous Administration?? This is Nixonian. How was this paid for, who approved this??
The last 'assault weapons ban', and I use that term loosely, was a joke. By the time it got through legislation it was hardly worth the paper it was printed on. At least that was what I saw at the gun shows, dealers, and mail order businesses at the time. There were so many loopholes, guns and gun items grandfathered in that you could pretty much still buy the same basic gun, but it might mot have looked as high tech or have all the bells and whistles. We had enough pre-ban (legal) high capacity magazines around that they could still be bought by the time the Clinton era ban ended (higher priced but still). Personally, I am more than happy seeing people need to get a license (with a full and detailed background check as well). All that means to me is one less person to be a little less 'concerned' about, from a defensive/offensive standpoint. Personally I find it strange that a perfectly legal gun owner/enthusiast would push for no restrictions, as it just means more for them to potentially have to defend against (from a threat perspective). I put that on the agenda that is drilled into so many heads(mostly the NRA) that everyone's guns will be taken away. I honestly think that the move to remove all restrictions on buying and not requiring legal CCW permits, is just the thing to make it more likely (which I would NOT want to see). There are way too many people in this country to go by some 'golden rule' on responsible unregulated gun use.
In the same speech that Trump referred to the knife problem in the UK, he also told the NRA that if only one of their members had been visiting Paris at the time of the 2015 attacks they would have been able to kill the terrorists or make them run away. I'll skip over just how delusional this is and wonder instead how Macron is feeling right now. He's invested heavily in sucking up to Trump, which exacerbates the impact of this sort of statement by Trump, but he hasn't yet got anything real to show for his efforts.
In the same speech that Trump referred to the knife problem in the UK, he also told the NRA that if only one of their members had been visiting Paris at the time of the 2015 attacks they would have been able to kill the terrorists or make them run away. I'll skip over just how delusional this is and wonder instead how Macron is feeling right now. He's invested heavily in sucking up to Trump, which exacerbates the impact of this sort of statement by Trump, but he hasn't yet got anything real to show for his efforts.
No one who lowers themselves to try incur favor with Trump will ever succeed. To give you an idea of what we are dealing with, there are reports today either coming from John McCain or those close to him (it sounds like he doesn't have much time left at all) that he doesn't want Trump at his funeral. This is coming directly on the heels of him not being welcome at Barbara Bush's funeral. Now, let's try wrap our head around this situation. The President of the United States is not welcome at funerals of major public figures because he is so devoid of basic human empathy that if he actually showed up, he would almost certainly say or do something completely insensitive and inappropriate. His attempts at consoling everyone from shooting victims to military widows have been horrific disasters. But, again, I reiterate. The President is unwelcome at the funerals of a former First Lady and one of the major political figures of the last 25 years because he is just THAT big of a pile of shit as a human being. To tie it into British politics, he won't be allowed at the Royal Wedding because he once commented that he would have slept with Princess Diana only if she took an HIV test.....and he said this 3 years after she was dead.
If you put aside his political policies which often change, what are we left with?
A bitter unpleasant old man. A habitual liar who will lie about the important and the trivial. A caustic personality who tosses insults at literally everyone. A being devoid of empathy. An emotional immature elderly man with a giant ego who is also deeply insecure and needs constant affirmation.
He's that nasty uncle who when he shows up at your house is loud and obnoxious and tries to be the center of attention and make everything about himself. He's not the type of guy you want anywhere near your funeral or any other family event.
This Washington Post article is basically the textbook explanation of how a criminal money laundering operation works.....which I have been predicting for over a year. This is why we've never seen his tax returns, this is why he is deathly afraid of what was in Michael Cohen's office:
An unusual lack of concern regarding risks, commissions or other transaction costs. - Check. Bought many properties at well over market value...with cash
Offers to pay higher than normal charges for secrecy. - See answer to #1
A high volume of cash-intensive transactions. - For the two years preceding his election, Trump started spending cash like a drunken sailor.
Requests to settle transactions through means outside a recognized clearing system. - Everything Trump does is secret with NDAs to keep people quiet
Transactions inconsistent with the customer's known legitimate business or past history. - Trump was all about debt. He always used other peoples money. All of a sudden, he's spending millions in cash...supposedly of his own money.
There is 0% chance Trump is clean in this. As has been said many times before, there is simply no way his business practices can stand up to serious legal scrutiny. And as I've been saying for months upon months, Donald Trump was laundering Russian money through his real estate empire. It's always been obvious.
There has been rapid development in the private spy firm the White House apparently used to attempt to collect dirt on members of the foreign policy team of the previous Administration, who are now private citizens being gone after directly by the Executive Branch. One of the individuals targeted (a member of Joe Biden's staff) has come forth on Twitter with details about suspicious inquiries his wife received last year. And it is all tying back to a firm know as Black Cube. They appear to be the same people who were used by Harvey Weinstein to suppress and attack his accusers. This story has to be gotten to the bottom of. If the White House is hiring private spy firms to conduct smear campaigns against members of the previous Administration, we are again entering a situation just like Nixon and his "domestic enemies":
I only support 2 gun regulations. - No guns for gun control advocates - No armed security for gun control advocates
Not infringing this two rules, if you like make an homemade full auto heavy machine gun and sell it on internet, should be your right.
I am glad that is not the prevailing opinion here in the US. We have enough problems enforcing the gun laws as they stand now. Personally, I think one can support gun control and still be armed. As for the NRA, I don't much care for them myself, as they make it harder to get support for gun control measures (new, improving the existing measures, and closing loopholes) that could possible make a difference. Being anti NRA does not always equate to no guns.
I only support 2 gun regulations. - No guns for gun control advocates - No armed security for gun control advocates
I assume you're not being serious, because this is not a Second Amendment stance--it's the precise opposite.
For what it's worth, I don't see an inconsistency between demanding gun control and saying that security forces should have weapons to deter criminals. Personally, I believe that bodyguards, like police officers, should be able to pass a background check if they're going to carry weapons.
Devin Nunes is trying to obstruct the Russia probe by threatening to hold Jeff Sessions in contempt of Congress for not turning over documents that he wants to leak.
Can Nunes be charged with a crime yet? He's totally trying to interfere with the probe.
Besides Jeff Sessions has recused himself, he's not supposed to be providing jack anything. Nunes is terrible.
I only support 2 gun regulations. - No guns for gun control advocates - No armed security for gun control advocates
Not infringing this two rules, if you like make an homemade full auto heavy machine gun and sell it on internet, should be your right.
Although the title of the link says "antigun" the story itself says the event was anti-NRA, not anti-gun. The tweet from Alyssa Milano included in that story says that, but here's a background story fleshing out what the NoRA group want to achieve - they are not trying to ban guns, but are concerned that the NRA tactics result in abuses of the political system.
For what it's worth I agree with that view about the NRA. I looked in detail at their website when guns were being discussed a long time ago in this thread and found nothing in their origins or founding principles that could possibly justify the type of political campaigning they now undertake on this issue - the style and rhetoric included in some of their adverts seems to me akin to what you would get from a religious cult.
You would expect a group that was formed to promote education, training & marksmanship to be sympathetic to some level of gun control - and for its first 100 years of existence that was indeed the case. NRA views became more extreme from the 1970s onwards and they switched from a group focused on education and training to one focused on political campaigning. That campaigning was rewarded in 2008 when the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment gave individuals a right to bear arms (the SCOTUS had previously considered the same issue several times and decided that the right was not an individual one, but applied in the context of maintaining a militia). It's easy to forget just how recent that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is given the way the NRA currently talks about the need to preserve historic rights. This article gives some interesting background to the shifting views over time on gun control and the impact of the NRA on that.
NRA policy is actually rather different from the views of its rank and file. The majority of NRA members support basic background checks for gun purchases, but the NRA leadership opposes it. The NRA leadership is dominated by lobbyists for gun manufacturers--not ordinary gun owners.
I only support 2 gun regulations. - No guns for gun control advocates - No armed security for gun control advocates
I assume you're not being serious, because this is not a Second Amendment stance--it's the precise opposite.
For what it's worth, I don't see an inconsistency between demanding gun control and saying that security forces should have weapons to deter criminals. Personally, I believe that bodyguards, like police officers, should be able to pass a background check if they're going to carry weapons.
It was only a joke. A new point that i din't talked before is the hypocrisy... Other example of hypocrisy is on some USA states and in most countries in world, is common for the legislation to consider someone capable to defend the state, but incapable to defend himself. For example, raising the age to own a gun to 21 years... If the state consider someone at age of 18 capable of killing in another country with an full auto rifle by the politician interests, then the same people is capable of owning a gun to self defense.
You could justify that policy with all kinds of arguments. To name just one: you could say that national self-defense was a necessity and that there was no alternative, while personal gun ownership was not a necessity and that the police already provided that service.
There has been rapid development in the private spy firm the White House apparently used to attempt to collect dirt on members of the foreign policy team of the previous Administration, who are now private citizens being gone after directly by the Executive Branch. One of the individuals targeted (a member of Joe Biden's staff) has come forth on Twitter with details about suspicious inquiries his wife received last year. And it is all tying back to a firm know as Black Cube. They appear to be the same people who were used by Harvey Weinstein to suppress and attack his accusers. This story has to be gotten to the bottom of. If the White House is hiring private spy firms to conduct smear campaigns against members of the previous Administration, we are again entering a situation just like Nixon and his "domestic enemies".
Meanwhile, John Kerry--now a private citizen and not connected to the United States government in any way--is meeting with Iranian and UN diplomats in an effort to keep the Iran nuclear deal, part of his legacy as SecState, in place. Although this technically violates the Logan Act--a very old law for the United States, enacted in 1799--only two people have ever been indicted under the statute and neither one received a conviction. The TLDR version of the Logan Act basically just says that a person (whether they are a member of the government or a private citizen) cannot meet with foreign officials in an attempt to influence or change policy without the direct approval or sanction of the United States government. If you recall, people were stating in late 2017 that Flynn had violated the Logan Act.
Anyway, recall that the "Iran nuclear deal" was really a "joint plan of action" signed by Iran, the P5+1 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany), and the EU--it wasn't a treaty so the Senate didn't have to approve it. From our point of view, it was nothing more than a piece of foreign policy enacted by the State Dept (under John Kerry's leadership) so canceling or pulling out of the Iran deal would not require Congressional approval, either, only action by Pompeo with approval from his boss. *Should* the Trump Administration pull out of the Iran deal? Probably not, even though Iran tested missile systems in November 2015 which it shouldn't have. *Will* the Trump Administration pull out of the Iran deal? Even I cannot say for certain whether they will. If they do, it will be after elections this coming November.
You could justify that policy with all kinds of arguments. To name just one: you could say that national self-defense was a necessity and that there was no alternative, while personal gun ownership was not a necessity and that the police already provided that service.
This is not truth. Takes a very long time to police arrive, Police is good for punish criminals, not for prevent criminals. Also, the majority of invasions in other countries are for interests of meta-capitalists, not for the defense of your country.
Guys and gals, this could very well be my last post in this thread.
A convicted felon best known for selling weapons to terrorists is set to become the next president of the NRA.
I mean, I could troll this thread for another millennium and still never achieve a fraction of the epic troll that the NRA just pulled.
Oliver North getting this position is the least surprising thing I've heard in weeks. When I heard the news, my only thought was "of course he is." And if you think that can't be beat, pay attention to what West Virginia GOP primary voters are inching towards doing tomorrow night.
Comments
We still may not know all the details to this, depending on what was reported. With most newer guns, dropping it in and of itself will not make it go off. If he had tried to grab the gun as it was falling, now he very well could have grabbed the trigger. If the gun was left in a cocked position, semi or revolver, (or even not cocked depending on the trigger action and weight) this could bypass a couple of safety's (a firing pin block or hammer block on revolvers, is one-without pulling the trigger the pin/hammer, will not make contact with the bullet primer) most of the more well made guns have. There are some that don't, depending on age. Depending on how he caught the gun and where his son was standing, both could have easily been in the line of fire.
I could see several scenarios as to how this could occur, but without knowing the type of gun and how it was left on his dresser (esp. in or out of a holster, which would rule out trigger pull), hard to say for sure. A few guns can be defective. Still though, it happens, but more often than not, due to negligence on the part of the gun owner.
I don't suppose will got much more detail on a smaller story like this. Regardless, it could have been much worse. At least they lived.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-campaign/index.html
So let me get this straight: Michael Cohen is out there during the entirety of the 2016 campaign with a nearly a million dollars in hush money just waiting to be spread around, and clearly NONE of it was reported on any FEC filings?? Again, as the article suggest, possible bank fraud, money laundering, and campaign finance issues all rolled into one here. No way this ends at Stormy Daniels.
In Canada, the father would be charged right off that bat with improper storage of a fire arm ( s. 86 (2)) and could be jailed for 2 years (although probation would be the most likely accord). He wouldn't be labeled a 'victim,' well maybe of his own stupidity.
How guns are suppose to be stored in Canada:
6 An individual may store a restricted firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked; and
(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in
(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/05/trump-team-hired-spy-firm-dirty-ops-iran-nuclear-deal?CMP=edit_2221
Personally, I am more than happy seeing people need to get a license (with a full and detailed background check as well). All that means to me is one less person to be a little less 'concerned' about, from a defensive/offensive standpoint.
Personally I find it strange that a perfectly legal gun owner/enthusiast would push for no restrictions, as it just means more for them to potentially have to defend against (from a threat perspective). I put that on the agenda that is drilled into so many heads(mostly the NRA) that everyone's guns will be taken away. I honestly think that the move to remove all restrictions on buying and not requiring legal CCW permits, is just the thing to make it more likely (which I would NOT want to see).
A bitter unpleasant old man. A habitual liar who will lie about the important and the trivial. A caustic personality who tosses insults at literally everyone. A being devoid of empathy. An emotional immature elderly man with a giant ego who is also deeply insecure and needs constant affirmation.
He's that nasty uncle who when he shows up at your house is loud and obnoxious and tries to be the center of attention and make everything about himself. He's not the type of guy you want anywhere near your funeral or any other family event.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-the-king-of-debt-trump-borrowed-to-build-his-empire-then-he-began-spending-hundreds-of-millions-in-cash/2018/05/05/28fe54b4-44c4-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.47a9ed79a0c9
As one of the comments in the story breaks down:
The 5 signs of money laundering:
An unusual lack of concern regarding risks, commissions or other transaction costs. - Check. Bought many properties at well over market value...with cash
Offers to pay higher than normal charges for secrecy. - See answer to #1
A high volume of cash-intensive transactions. - For the two years preceding his election, Trump started spending cash like a drunken sailor.
Requests to settle transactions through means outside a recognized clearing system. - Everything Trump does is secret with NDAs to keep people quiet
Transactions inconsistent with the customer's known legitimate business or past history. - Trump was all about debt. He always used other peoples money. All of a sudden, he's spending millions in cash...supposedly of his own money.
There is 0% chance Trump is clean in this. As has been said many times before, there is simply no way his business practices can stand up to serious legal scrutiny. And as I've been saying for months upon months, Donald Trump was laundering Russian money through his real estate empire. It's always been obvious.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/report-trump-team-targeted-iran-deal-with-weinstein-tactics.html
source : https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/hollywood_actress_attends_antigun_protest_with_armed_bodyguards.html
I only support 2 gun regulations.
- No guns for gun control advocates
- No armed security for gun control advocates
Not infringing this two rules, if you like make an homemade full auto heavy machine gun and sell it on internet, should be your right.
Personally, I think one can support gun control and still be armed. As for the NRA, I don't much care for them myself, as they make it harder to get support for gun control measures (new, improving the existing measures, and closing loopholes) that could possible make a difference. Being anti NRA does not always equate to no guns.
For what it's worth, I don't see an inconsistency between demanding gun control and saying that security forces should have weapons to deter criminals. Personally, I believe that bodyguards, like police officers, should be able to pass a background check if they're going to carry weapons.
Can Nunes be charged with a crime yet? He's totally trying to interfere with the probe.
Besides Jeff Sessions has recused himself, he's not supposed to be providing jack anything. Nunes is terrible.
For what it's worth I agree with that view about the NRA. I looked in detail at their website when guns were being discussed a long time ago in this thread and found nothing in their origins or founding principles that could possibly justify the type of political campaigning they now undertake on this issue - the style and rhetoric included in some of their adverts seems to me akin to what you would get from a religious cult.
You would expect a group that was formed to promote education, training & marksmanship to be sympathetic to some level of gun control - and for its first 100 years of existence that was indeed the case. NRA views became more extreme from the 1970s onwards and they switched from a group focused on education and training to one focused on political campaigning. That campaigning was rewarded in 2008 when the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment gave individuals a right to bear arms (the SCOTUS had previously considered the same issue several times and decided that the right was not an individual one, but applied in the context of maintaining a militia). It's easy to forget just how recent that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is given the way the NRA currently talks about the need to preserve historic rights. This article gives some interesting background to the shifting views over time on gun control and the impact of the NRA on that.
Anyway, recall that the "Iran nuclear deal" was really a "joint plan of action" signed by Iran, the P5+1 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany), and the EU--it wasn't a treaty so the Senate didn't have to approve it. From our point of view, it was nothing more than a piece of foreign policy enacted by the State Dept (under John Kerry's leadership) so canceling or pulling out of the Iran deal would not require Congressional approval, either, only action by Pompeo with approval from his boss. *Should* the Trump Administration pull out of the Iran deal? Probably not, even though Iran tested missile systems in November 2015 which it shouldn't have. *Will* the Trump Administration pull out of the Iran deal? Even I cannot say for certain whether they will. If they do, it will be after elections this coming November.
An example? Gadhafi’s Gold-money Plan Would Have Devastated Dollar
https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafi-s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar
Consider someone capable of killing by FED interests but incapable of self defense with a semi automatic version of the same gun is hypocrisy.
A convicted felon best known for selling weapons to terrorists is set to become the next president of the NRA.
I mean, I could troll this thread for another millennium and still never achieve a fraction of the epic troll that the NRA just pulled.