I’m!! Trying!!

I really don’t know. I think it’s more people are glad he’s feeling the violence he put out into the world and because guns are so free and loose. To me it’s still quite a big deal, having not really lived through any assassinations in my life 😅

Does he have to fire his weapon for it to be an attempt? Wheres the line? The FBI is calling it an attempt. I suppose we’ll see if this is entrapment too. Until then, this kinda looks like an assassination attempt

What a time to be alive

No gotcha… just a legitimate question I asked you and myself. I ponder these things. I can see you are having trouble playing nice though which is unfortunate

deleted by creator

Ah - I had read reporting saying AK

If Kamala was at this golf course would you be singing a different tune? I have zero doubt they’re going to get whatever mileage they can out of this, but idk how we can pretend this is “nothing”.

Also, I’m positive a person intending to kill a (former) president being arrested 600yds away from their target is newsworthy.

I think Trump is reaping what he’s sown too, but I can’t pretend it’s remotely close to “nothing”

edit: Im literally just saying this news story is newsworthy y’all. surprisingly controversial

I guess so, other than his manifesto saying he wants to kill Trump and showing up at the same place and time. I don’t think I’d wanna be ak-bush-guy in court

edit: are AK’s even legal to carry around? I don’t know if FL has open carry

Man hiding in bush at Donald Trump’s golf course with AK-47 rifle is a nothing burger? Idk how to make customers happy these days ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

edit: people are saying it wasn’t an AK

Too many were hired irresponsibly, which is not the fault of the worker.

I am not remotely arguing against subsistence farming or hunting. Hell even hunting meat yourself that you consume. I wouldn’t do it willingly, but that doesn’t make it inherently immoral.

People are detached from the method of making their meat. It is far more unpleasant than most want to think about. The animals are mistreated. It’s hard to argue they aren’t. That’s really the point

I am underestimating no one. I do not remotely doubt humanity’s capacity for violence and depravity. I am saying that we as people can choose to minimize harm and violence (to each other, animals we farm, etc)

edit: I should also point out that we are FAR past the point of “subsistence” with out meat consumption. We consume more meat now than ever before. There are many costs associated with this to our health, the animals we eat, the planet …

You are literally arguing the definition of the word “cruelty” rather than dealing with the substance. I appreciate the engagement, but this is where I’ll stop. I hope you consider the conflicts in your worldview and work toward improving the world for yourself and the beings that inhabit it.

You do not need meat to survive

Do you buy blood diamonds? Do you buy grass fed beef? Free range eggs? Do you buy fast fashion? You have agency over your choices. Just because you don’t slaughter the animals with your own hands doesn’t mean they are free from blood.

To willingly inflict unnecessary suffering on sentient beings is cruelty. This is a semantic argument that ignores reality

Farm less meat. Farm meat in a way that minimizes suffering.

The systems by which we produce meat are intentional. Just because the people who set them up and benefit from them don’t care doesn’t mean these farms can exist outside morality.

Inflicting pain on an animal to save its life is directly related to your point. Raising animals in objectively painful and squalid conditions so they can be slaughtered is not at all the same.

You are equating saving the life of a human to the torture and slaughtering of an animals. They are not analogous

I am pointing out a dichotomy. I am appealing to your sense of logic. Why do you feel emotionally attached to dogs? Are they smarter than cows? Do they feel more or less? Is being cruel to a dog worse than being cruel to another animal?

By your logic, dog meat farms are fine – amoral. The cruelty does not matter because it’s inherent.

So you are arguing that because a ruthless and uncaring system is responsible for creating massive suffering, it doesn’t matter? It’s awfully convenient that we don’t have to care about cruelty when it’s inherent in the system. People created these systems. We have the capacity to reduce the suffering. Why wouldn’t you want that?

If dogs were raised in these conditions, people would be outraged (see korea, china, puppy mills, etc.) It’s a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?