Trump's Ear wound

[Slow Joe]

My personal approach is more like that the doctor said, "you were lucky, a bandaid will do", "no, no, put something BIG on". I admit, that's just my prejudice about Trump, fed by him being always reliably him.
About the reconstructive surgery I have to back track. That was yellow press gossip from "experts" shortly after the incident.

I feel you.
I feel exactly the same way about Biden.
I guess politicians have an innate ability for exaggerating. Natural selection at work.

 

[Ann K]

I feel you.
I feel exactly the same way about Biden.
I guess politicians have an innate ability for exaggerating. Natural selection at work.

You may "feel" that way, but I'm struggling to think of any episodes where Biden played the drama queen the way Trump has. Any citations for that?

 

[deirdre]

You may "feel" that way, but I'm struggling to think of any episodes where Biden played the drama queen the way Trump has. Any citations for that?

wearing gauze over a wound is a drama queen?

needing to vent after coming an inch from being shot in the head is a drama queen?

 

[deirdre]

1. Is Trump milking this thing politically? He's been stating things like: "I took a bullet for democracy."

From todays senate hearing with Secret Service (ROwe) and FBI director Abbate. Bold indicates Abbate's stress marks.

2:34:29
Abatte: Senator there is absolutely no doubt in the FBI's mind whether former President Trump was hit with a bullet and was wounded inthe ear. No doubt, there never has been. I've been part of this investigation since the very beginning and that has never been raised.

kennedy: youre sure?
Abbate: yes.
Kennedy: it was a bullet
Abbate: it was a bullet Senator.
Kennedy: it was abullet that hit President Trump in the ear and almost killed him?
Abbate: 100% Senator.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?53737...estify-attempted-assassination-fmr-pres-trump

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Hasn't the FBI already defined a bullet fragment as a bullet?

FBI says Trump was indeed struck by bullet during assassination attempt

(Sort of)

https://apnews.com/article/trump-bu...stopher-wray-cb780b9d1a078f0be4191682e75101cf

"What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject's rifle," the agency said in a statement.

As of this statement on July 26, a bullet fragment is still on the table.



Did they specifically take bullet fragment off the table? Did the issue of bullet fragment come up?

Edited to provide link to quotation.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The distinction between bullet and bullet whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces
was not discussed. It's clear Kennedy came ill prepared and was not aware that the FBI has defined bullet in that way. He spends a lot of time being "cute."

Kennedy: Thank you. You are the deputy director of the FBI, is that correct?

Abbate: Yes, Senator.

Kennedy: Is there any doubt in your mind or in the collective mind of the FBI that President Trump was shot in the ear by a bullet fired by the assassin Crooks?

Abbate: Senator, there is absolutely no doubt in the FBI's mind that former President Trump was hit with a bullet and wounded in the ear. No doubt.

[Note that Abbate changes a word. Kennedy didn't notice.]

Kennedy: There never has been?

Abbate: I've been part of this investigation since the very beginning, and that has never been raised.

Kennedy: You're sure?

Abbate: Yes.

Kennedy: It wasn't a space laser?

Abbate: No.

Kennedy: It wasn't a murder hornet?

Abbate: Absolutely not.

Kennedy: It wasn't a Sasquatch?

Abbate: No, Senator. It was a bullet.

[...whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces; as previously defined by the FBI.]

Kennedy: It was a bullet, Senator, fired by Crooks?

Abbate: Yes, sir.

Kennedy: That hit President Trump in the ear and almost killed him?

Abbate: 100%, Senator.

Kennedy: Okay, glad we cleared that up.

Abbate told the truth, but did not raise the issue of bullet whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces. He did not commit perjury because Kennedy didn't come prepared to ask the right question. (Or was he under oath at all? I don't know. He lied by omission at the worst.)

My opinion is that Abbate was residing on Coy Hill and skillfully sidestepped. In the fullness of time, Kennedy may rue the day.


Edited to give link to source of quoted text.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I think, in his original statement, that Wray was using a loose definition of the word shrapnel. Sloppy word usage. He was, sloppily, using the word shrapnel to mean bullet fragment(s).

FBI Is Not Fully Convinced Trump Was Struck by a Bullet
https://dnyuz.com/2024/07/24/fbi-is-not-fully-convinced-trump-was-struck-by-a-bullet/

"My understanding is that either it or some shrapnel is what grazed his ear," Wray told Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.). "There is some question about whether or not it was a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear, so it is conceivable, as I sit here right now, I don't know whether that bullet, in addition to causing the grazing, could have also landed somewhere else."

In that light, his statement is consistent with the later statement: "What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject's rifle."


Definition provided by GPT

The term "shrapnel" originally referred to a type of antipersonnel artillery shell invented by British artillery officer Henry Shrapnel. This shell contained a large number of small, spherical projectiles (often lead or steel balls) and an explosive charge. When the shell exploded, it dispersed these projectiles over a wide area, causing injury or damage.

In contemporary usage, the term "shrapnel" has evolved to describe any fragmented pieces of metal or other material that are propelled outward by an explosion. This can include fragments from an explosive device itself (like a grenade or shell) as well as fragments of objects that the explosion has damaged.

Strictly speaking, "shrapnel" does not traditionally include bullet fragments or separated bullet jackets. However, in colloquial usage, people sometimes use "shrapnel" more broadly to describe any small, fast-moving fragments, including those from bullets. For instance, a person hit by fragments from a bullet that has broken apart upon impact may describe these fragments as "shrapnel."

In summary, while the strict technical definition of "shrapnel" pertains to fragments from explosive devices, in practice, the term is often used more loosely to describe various types of fragments, including bullet fragments .

Edited to give link to source of quoted text.

 

[iAlrakis]

No need for a conspiracy theory in my opinion. Have had some ear piercings and know for a fact that just a tiny puncture can bleed like something really bad happened. The other thing I've learned is how fast tiny holes in the ear can heal without any real scars.

 

[deirdre]

Hasn't the FBI already defined a bullet fragment as a bullet?

oh. so Trump saying "I took a bullet for democracy" doesnt irk you because it's not definitionally correct, it just irks you because you want to be able to say "it was only a piece of bullet". gottcha.

 

[deirdre]

Definition

youve really got to stop posting quotes without sources. It's not fair to the reader. I'm going to assume your quote is from Chat GPT? (i'm ok with your quote ['s content], as i think shotguns are referred to as "buckshot" not shrapnel etc..just saying you need to link sources. and linking to another MB thread for something the director of the fbi said is not a source. give us an outside source so we dont have to click TWO links to see full context.)

 

[Landru]

youve really got to stop posting quotes without sources. It's not fair to the reader. I'm going to assume your quote is from Chat GPT? (i'm ok with your quote ['s content], as i think shotguns are referred to as "buckshot" not shrapnel etc..just saying you need to link sources. and linking to another MB thread for something the director of the fbi said is not a source. give us an outside source so we dont have to click TWO links to see full context.)

Agreed. Please do not post information without the link to where you got it.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

oh. so Trump saying "I took a bullet for democracy" doesnt irk you because it's not definitionally correct, it just irks you because you want to be able to say "it was only a piece of bullet". gottcha.

What I'm trying to establish is why some people hold this notion and whether it can be debunked:
-Trump was not hit by an intact bullet
-Trump knows this, or suspects it, and is blocking the release of credible, reliable, and detailed information: Medical reports from the treating physicians at Butler Memorial Hospital, and even the names of the treating physicians.
-And Jackson is abetting him in that cover-up.

We can't debunk this idea, because it is plausible, though unproven.

-Bullets are known to fail and fragment in the air without hitting an object. Jacket-Core Separation.
-The FBI has not retracted or amended this statement:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-bu...stopher-wray-cb780b9d1a078f0be4191682e75101cf

What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject's rifle.

This is not to be confused with the idea that Trump was hit by nothing, there was no wound, and the blood flow was simulated. That is debunked.

The idea that Trump was hit by flying debris, such as glass, is implausible. We can safely say it is debunked.

 

[deirdre]

We can't debunk this idea, because it is plausible,

i wouldn't say it's plausible.

yea im a bit confused why anyone would think the ER doctor would know WHAT caused the wound on the ear. If the medical report /ER release papers say anything about a bullet it would be because the patient said "i got shot". Doctors aren't forensic investigators.

i highly doubt it can be "debunked" (not sure why it needs to be), unless the fbi recreation team determines the bullet that nicked his ear also went into one of the other injured victims. They do seem pretty interested in figuring out what bullet went where (abbate said in the hearing today).. not sure why they care so much but they were all fixated on what bullet holes where and casings at sandy hook too. But i imagine you arent going to get fine detailed report for quite a while.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

i wouldn't say it's plausible.

Plausible doesn't imply probability. Freak accidents can be plausible. It just means, "It could happen."

yea im a bit confused why anyone would think the ER doctor would know WHAT caused the wound on the ear.

If foreign bodies were plucked out? That ain't a bullet wound. I'm sure they would save those foreign bodies. And do a CAT scan to check for more. And according to Jackson, they did do a CAT scan.



There's an alternative scenario.

Trump is vain and secretive. He may have blocked the release of his medical information reflexively. No really good reason for it, but Trump is like that. He's not budging despite the rumors and puzzlement. Because Trump is like that. He can afford professional make-up artists; even Movie specialists. So the current state of his ear may not be that mysterious.



This is the best analysis I can do of the nature of the wound:

Jackson's words in his memo:

The bullet passed, coming less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head, and struck the top of his right ear. The bullet track produced a 2 cm wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear. There was initially significant bleeding, followed by marked swelling of the entire upper ear.

I think we may be running into some problems with ambiguous wording, and compounding errors, just as we've seen in UFO witness testimony and subsequent ideas spawned by that testimony.

I think people are taking the phrase " the top of his right ear" to mean the very top. The tip.

But how can you have a 2 cm wide wound on the very tip of the ear? There isn't room for that. In Freedom Units, 2 cm equals 3/4 of an inch. Is Jackson saying that 3/4 of an inch of flesh was knocked off the very tip of Trump's ear? Ears don't grow back. Therefore Trump's healed ear is entirely mysterious to some people.

I think what he's saying is not the very tip of the ear, but the upper portion of the ear.

But if it's 2 cm wide, how long is it? Does 2cm wide mean 2cm long? 2 cm deep?

I think he probably means shallow, narrow and 2cm long. A line. Perhaps a line of shallow abrasions?

To get the best idea, let's look at this photo of the smallest version of the bandage:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-ditches-his-white-ear-bandage-for-a-less-flashy-update

This is mostly tape. There's a fold in the tape, where tape is stuck to tape. The gauze is marked by the red arrow. And the green line marks my best guess as to the edge of the gauze.

Is there a line of abrasions 3/4 of an inch long, somewhere in there? Or does this gauze only cover the deepest spot, with the rest already closed. But would you want to stick tape to those fresh spots? That may be why the tape is folded over. An air gap.

But this just raises more questions. Where can you fit a 3/4 inch long but very shallow wound on an irregularly shaped thing like an ear?

It wouldn't be 3/4 inch deep. Jackspon couldn't mean that. An ear isn't even that thick.

How about a very short wound that's 3/4 inch wide? How does a 0.556 cm diameter bullet leave a 2 cm wide, but shallow gouge?

 

[deirdre]

Where can you fit a 3/4 inch long but very shallow wound on an irregularly shaped thing like an ear?

i dont know. i dont know how big Trumps head is. or his ears. [on me that area is 1/4 inch..just measured]

there is a pic with that flap lifted up. the only way to zoom in really though, that i know, is to click it and "save image" when it opens to the right and then open it on desktop. If i go to the article site it will only save as a webpage...so try searching it yourself for a bigger download.

the article pic is labeled "Michigan" which google says was July 20th.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This photo is all over Twitter...

Presented with this one in one Tweet... below

Source: https://x.com/dappergander/status/1817619215718785227


And there's a tale that goes with it.


Photo of healed ear was taken by AP photographer Alex Brandon.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4798519-former-white-house-photographer-deletes-x-account/

Former White House photographer Pete Souza deleted his account on the social platform X after receiving backlash over sharing a photo of former President Trump's ear.

In the post, Souza appeared to question the extent of Trump's wound from the shooting at his campaign rally in Butler, Pa., earlier this month.


In the Saturday post, Souza shared a photo from The Associated Press of Trump boarding his plane earlier that day and told users to look "closely" at the former president's ear that was struck by a bullet during the shooting.

"AP photo this morning," Souza wrote in his Saturday post. "Look closely at the ear that was 'hit' by a bullet from a AR-15 assault rifle."

Can we see a lump of "scar wax"?

 

[Mendel]

But how can you have a 2 cm wide wound on the very tip of the ear? There isn't room for that. In Freedom Units, 2 cm equals 3/4 of an inch.

France is the motherland of democracy ("Liberté! Fraternité! Egalité!"), and since the original meter is kept in Paris, "freedom units" are the SI units. You are referring to Imperial Units.

The width of the ear would be measured front-to-back, ample space for 2cm.

If the attending surgeons did not find anything in the wound, they would not necessarily know whether Trump was struck by an intact bullet. They would do a CAT scan out of caution anyway.

You keep on speculating, but there is still zero actual evidence for those speculations. Most likely Trump's ear was grazed by an intact bullet, and it was definitely fired by Crooks.

 

[captancourgette]

Sorry I'm out of the loop. Yes the lack of any visible wound is surprising.
I'm not sure how the ear heals (perhaps its like the tongue and regenerates quickly) I have no idea, I'm not sure if age plays a factor. I did assume yes but now with my daughter I'm now not sure (anecdote so quite worthless, she still has a scar on her chest now like ~12 months later, she is now 2.5 years old, yet I can't tell you how she got it cause IIRC it was such a minor accident at the time, I would of thought it would of disappeared completely within a week or two)

But what are they 'David Levitt' etc implying? That Trump was not wounded at all, i.e. it is fake blood, now *that* is a conspiracy. Slow hand clap.
and they presume Crook was a part / patsy in it.
Sorry not buying it, for one you would assume Trump would at least try and do a better job at faking an injury.
Then again this is the infamous 'laissez-faire'(*) Trump we are talking about

(*)I just looked this up, seems I've been using it wrong all these years, I've been using it like blase

 

[Mendel]

Yes the lack of any visible wound is surprising.

Any superficial wound would scab over, and at that point could be covered with cosmetics.

 

[Greene]

We are in the middle of an election campaign. It's important. When someone with a minor scratch on his ear wants to profit from "stolen valor", he and his handpicked doctor want to spin that to his advantage.

William Henry Harrison and other historical figures, not so much. (OT: when I was a kid, a classmate of mine lived in a huge drafty pile, a great place for Halloween parties, that had once been a staging inn. Harrison slept there on his way to his inauguration. We always thought that might be where he got sick!)

Is it equally important that there are quite a few people in opposition to the person in question who are trying to downplay the significance of Presidential candidate & former President who was struck by a bullet from an attempted assassination (regardless of the severity of the wound)?

 

[Mendel]

Is it equally important that there are quite a few people in opposition to the person in question who are trying to downplay the significance of Presidential candidate & former President who was struck by a bullet from an attempted assassination (regardless of the severity of the wound)?

What is the significance?
The shooter had no overt political motive.

I don't remember public figures making death threats against Trump, either. So it's kinda hard to attach responsibility for it to anyone significant.

 

[JMartJr]

What is the significance?
The shooter had no overt political motive.

Doesn't look like it -- but is that firmly established in public yet? But of course any time somebody shoots at a candidate for office or somebody in office, it is significant in that it perpetuates a very bad precedent in American (and world, to be fair) politics. While I would agree with those who characterize the former President and his approach to politics as a threat to our democratic system, I'd also argue that shooting at political candidates is also a threat to that system.

I don't remember public figures making death threats against Trump, either.

Explicitly, no, me neither -- but I have not done a search, either. But recall things like the staging of "Julius Caesar" by NY's Shakespeare in the Park in 2017 just as an example:


Source: https://youtu.be/-qfzqBr1qh0


You can read that in several ways -- "Go kill Trump, that's how to deal with dictators," or "beware, assassination as political expression leads to the fall of Republics and to demonstrate that we'll use a current American politician because subtlety is not our thing!"

Or you can look at the number of celebrities who called for violence against Trump, often in jest but did it always come across that way?
https://www.thewrap.com/hollywood-stars-donald-trump-violent-death-kathy-griffin-snoop-dogg/
It's hard to read this picture as a joke, for example: (Picture won't post for some reason -- written when the site was apparently down for a bit today -- probably just as well, but the picture is Kathy Griffin holding up a bloody severed head of Trump, it is about halfway down the page in the above link...)

I absolutely support the right of people to say what they want, and create art (or even "art") to express an opinion that I find distasteful, or to express it in a way that I find offensive. But I'd also urge people in a position of influence, which includes cultural "stars," to express themselves responsibly as well, were any of them to ask me.

So it's kinda hard to attach responsibility for it to anyone significant.

Direct responsibility lies with the shooter. Indirect responsibility may stretch much further, not in a legal sense, necessarily, but in a moral sense.


DISCLOSURE: As mentioned above, I agree that President Trump is a threat to our democratic system, and should not be placed back in office. I say that as a political conservative who worked much of my life electing conservative candidates. I strongly believe that the way to deal with this is through the institutions of a democratic system -- beat him in the election. You cannot defend democracy by shooting candidates you don't like and taking the decision out of the hands of the people.

 

[Mendel]

But recall things like the staging of "Julius Caesar" by NY's Shakespeare in the Park in 2017 just as an example:

Trump was in office then, so if you're looking to modernize Julius Caesar, he's an obvious choice.

Direct responsibility lies with the shooter. Indirect responsibility may stretch much further, not in a legal sense, necessarily, but in a moral sense.

If you're talking about subverting democratic institutions for power, then sure. But that reduces the shooting to one example in a larger pattern, and it wouldn't be in the interest of the Trump opponents to downplay that.

 

[JMartJr]

Trump was in office then, so if you're looking to modernize Julius Caesar, he's an obvious choice.

Sure, if you are trying to tie your production to modern politics -- which you can do, but you don't HAVE to do it. It's a choice. And a valid one, but not the ONLY one. (A few years before my time, thank goodness, the college I attended did a version of "King Lear" set on the Moon, so the range of choices in these things is pretty large.)

But it WAS a Trump stand-in being murdered in the production, and Trump was (and is) a controversial figure. And the choice made by that production was controversial, and got a lot of attention, which possibly was one reason for the choice being made -- and old theatre saying is "The only bad publicity is an obituary," a re-statement of "Print anything you want about me, boys, just spell my name right!"

If anybody staged "Julius Caesar" with an Obama look-alike during his time in office, I'm unaware of it, but if they did of course that would be controversial, and roundly condemned by some while others argued for artistic freedom and the like, as in fact happened with this production of
" 'Trumpius' Caesar." Does that sort of thing really contribute to "a climate of political violence?" Possibly, but in any case it counts, I think, as an example of people playing up the idea of violence towards Trump, even if they did not mean to be taken literally.

If you're talking about subverting democratic institutions for power, then sure.

I was thinking more about just adding to the cultural idea of "shoot politicians you don't like." Or even "shoot famous people (or a lot of people) and become famous yourself." I used the word "may" because I am not 100% confident of the extent to which this sort of stuff plays a part in leading up to actual incidents of violence.

But that reduces the shooting to one example in a larger pattern, and it wouldn't be in the interest of the Trump opponents to downplay that.

I think it is likely part of a pattern, though whether the "political assassination" pattern or the "mass shooting into a crowd" pattern I don't know. Seems like it may be the latter, if that is firmly established then talk about public figures playing up the idea of violence towards Trump or any other specific individual are not relevant to this incident any more, of course.

 

[Ann K]

I was thinking more about just adding to the cultural idea of "shoot politicians you don't like." Or even "shoot famous people (or a lot of people) and become famous yourself." I used the word "may" because I am not 100% confident of the extent to which this sort of stuff plays a part in leading up to actual incidents of violence.

What's the expiration date for a threat? Shakespeare's "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" comes to mind as one that hasn't the same foreboding of violence in the present day. That is not on a par with Trump's ominous pre-election "Stand back, and stand by", or his day of the insurrection order to take down the metal detectors because "they're not here to shoot ME". Just yesterday he reiterated his promise to free the insurrectionists who remain in jail "if they're innocent", and when it was pointed out to him that the ones in jail were already found guilty, he started disparaging the courts.

 

[JMartJr]

What's the expiration date for a threat?

Interesting question. I'd say it is context dependent... if it feeds into and reinforces a cultural meme, I'd say it can have a long-lasting impact, though possibly a small one. Of course, snowballs can get quite large a little bitvat a time.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Found here: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/07/politics/photographers-trump-shooting-cnnphotos/

Pre-Wound ear. I don't remember where I found it.

I'll let everyone take a look and decide what you see.

 

[Mendel]

I'll let everyone take a look and decide what you see.

that's the QAnon method
please don't
please make a point and support it

 

[deirdre]

That is not on a par with

it's funny how easily people twist and misinterpret the other party's rhetoric.

its funny how blind people are to their own party's rhetoric. the beating drum from the left and left wing media:
"put him in the bullseye"
"a call to arms"
"stolen valor"
"fight fight fight"
"existential threat"
"wants to be a dictator"
"Hitler"
"dangerous"
"racist"
"rapist"
"a threat to democracy"
"MAGA extremists"

sounds pretty scary to me. (the Right uses similar language, of course. point is you dont need to issue a direct call to violence to stir crazy people, which is what y'all claimed with the bogus jan 6th impeachment. if Trumps language can somehow incite an insurrection, why cant the above incite a disturbed incel with no future if Trump gets elected?)

 

[FatPhil]

tl

Maybe you're hearing what you want to hear?

 

[Ann K]

sounds pretty scary to me. (the Right uses similar language, of course. point is you dont need to issue a direct call to violence to stir crazy people, which is what y'all claimed with the bogus jan 6th impeachment. if Trumps language can somehow incite an insurrection, why cant the above incite a disturbed incel with no future if Trump gets elected?)

You are neglecting the significant factor of the gun. There is only one party who has the policy of having no gun control at all. "Both-siderism" advocates find it convenient to neglect that.

 

[deirdre]

Maybe you're hearing what you want to hear?

that's the point.

There is only one party who has the policy of having no gun control at all.

that's not exactly accurate. and is off topic to your point i was responding to.

But if you're under the delusion that gun control -as dems want- is gonna help all that much, that's cool.

 

[Slow Joe]

You are neglecting the significant factor of the gun. There is only one party who has the policy of having no gun control at all. "Both-siderism" advocates find it convenient to neglect that.

There always been more gunz than people in America, but we only started having issues in the last 3 decades.

Obviously something changed, but it was not gunz ownership.

 

[Ann K]

There always been more gunz than people in America, but we only started having issues in the last 3 decades.

Obviously something changed, but it was not gunz ownership.

Keeping guns out of the hands of - take your pick: insurrectionists, abusers, mentally deranged people, those who've committed crimes with firearms previously, those who threaten others with their guns - means that guns are still available to those who can use them responsibly. It isn't the number of them that matters (after all, a person can only shoot, at most, two at a time), but the NRA and the GOP support policies that allow anyone to be able to carry them, concealed or unconcealed, at any place, at any time, for any purpose.

Oh ...except for the GOP conference...

 

[NoParty]

There always been more gunz than people in America, but we only started having issues in the last 3 decades.

I don't believe that either of these assertions are true,
but if you sincerely believe they are, could you please share your evidence?

 

[deirdre]

take your pick: insurrectionists,

isnt that the whole main point of the Second Amendment? In case we needed to protect ourselves against a corrupt government?

but the NRA and the GOP support policies that allow anyone to be able to carry them

that's not true.

 

[NoParty]

isnt that the whole main point of the Second Amendment? In case we needed to protect ourselves against a corrupt government?

Nope! Not even close! Brush up on U.S. history and do NOT believe everything the NRA tells you.

(I'm assuming that you are not referring to a corrupt British government)

 

[deirdre]

and do NOT believe everything the NRA tells you.

yea im a card carrying NRA member and i read all their monthly magazines. seriously, you think i have any idea what the NRA says? I live in SW Connecticut.

(the words "foreign and domestic" arent in the Second Amendment? maybe a Mendela thing happening to me)

 

[John J.]

the words "foreign and domestic" arent in the Second Amendment?

Nope. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA (1791) reads, in full,

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Unless they were black people, who might be forgiven for thinking they were not living in a "free State".
However they were largely 'supervised' by people who kept and bore arms in line with their Second Amendment rights.

There are minor punctuation differences between the document in Congress and some of the copies ratified by some of the states.

The "foreign and domestic" phrase comes from the oaths sworn by USA armed forces personnel, senators and representatives.

Each officer and each enlisted member of the armed forces takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Stone River Law website, Stephen Howard, https://stoneriver.stephenhowardlaw...iative/to-support-and-defend-the-constitution

 

[Mendel]

There always been more gunz than people in America, but we only started having issues in the last 3 decades.

Obviously something changed, but it was not gunz ownership.

The US have had issues with presidential assassinations and school shootings going way back.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000) goes back to the 18th century.
To be more on topic, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots goes back to 1835.

Here's 5 decades worth of data:

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/