Donald and Hunter

It’s amazing how similar these two cases are. Both involve prosecutors going after people who committed minor technical violations, with the full force of the law. It’s likely that neither case would have been brought if the individuals had not been famous.

There is one big difference however. One guy is the top Republican, and the other guy is the top Democrat’s son. Therefore, among our totally irrational public there is almost zero overlap between those who sympathize with Donald and those who sympathize with Hunter.

It’s a stupid world, and we’re all forced to live in it.

PS. Reason says that roughly 20 million Americans are committing Hunter’s crime right now—right at this moment. Should they all be in prison? How much would it cost to build all those prisons? What would it do to the economy if you suddenly withdrew this many people from the workforce?

This is madness, but people don’t care because it doesn’t involve them.

PPS. Of course Donald should be in prison for other crimes, and perhaps the same is true of Hunter. (I haven’t followed his life as closely because . . . who cares?)



46 Responses to “Donald and Hunter”

  1. Gravatar of Eharding Eharding
    11. June 2024 at 17:14

    I don’t sympathize with either individual.

  2. Gravatar of Cameron Cameron
    11. June 2024 at 17:15

    Lets all agree neither Donald Trump nor Hunter Biden should be president.

  3. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    11. June 2024 at 18:39

    I don’t think it’s a good idea to simply allow addicts to own guns. Even if 20 million other Americans are guilty of the same crime, accepting the law doesn’t necessitate a crackdown. It can just be the case that those who happen to be caught violating the law should be prosecuted.

    Yes, a lack of an ability to widely enforce this law may undermine its legitimacy, but there are many such laws, and I think a lot of people just look for excuses for those who break laws anyway. I’m not saying that’s the case with this post, but I think it’s all too common.

    Hunter Biden is more of a victim in this case than Trump in that he’s apparently an addict, so he’s genetically and/or epigenetically much more vulnerable to addiction than most. But, we can’t just excuse people from following the law because they’re addicts. I take the laws he violated seriously and I think he should face serious consequences.

    There are many unnecessary laws on the books, but I don’t think the campaign finance laws, laws against accounting fraud, laws against addicts owning guns, or failing to pay taxes are among them.

    Punish Trump and Hunter Biden.

  4. Gravatar of Matthias Matthias
    11. June 2024 at 20:19

    Perhaps you don’t want addicts to be able to own guns. That might be reasonable.

    But as far as I can tell from the Reason article, that’s not what the law in question has in mind.

    That law also punishes non-addicted users. But only of some drugs that the law doesn’t like, like marijuana, but not of other more dangerous drugs, like alcohol, that the law-makers do like.

  5. Gravatar of Sean Sean
    11. June 2024 at 22:25

    Don’t disagree Hunter shouldn’t be prosecuted on this charge.

    1. Sumner just assumes Trump should be in jail but doesn’t know the crime

    2. “Who cares” – besides the bribery that Joe was probably a part of. Unregistered foreign agent.

    Scotts position is just any crimes in the Biden house should be no punishment but Trump should be in jail for ……undisclosed reasons.

  6. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    11. June 2024 at 23:17


    Why make the perfect the enemy of the good? I would ban guns in cities entirely, if it were up to me. I would only allow people to own hunting rifles and shotguns, stored in safes in bait and tackle shops near legel hunting and fishing areas.

  7. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    11. June 2024 at 23:28


    People who ae ultra-partisan like you have no hope of understanding people who aren’t.

  8. Gravatar of Peter Peter
    12. June 2024 at 03:22

    @Michael .. pretty sure the Constitution says “shall not be infringed”. There is absolutely zero proof addicts having guns increases harm in a meaningless way; even less drug users. Meth is meth, my “gun danger” doesn’t matter if I buy it off the street or the pharmacy (yes you can get prescribed actually methamphetamine, it’s branded as docyxin) if the claim is the chemical itself makes you irrationally dangerous. Obviously not given we prescribe it to the general public as well as give to nuclear bomber pilots and special forces operators on mission to combat fatigue.

    Regardless it’s all theater with Hunter. His sentencing will get delayed until after the election hence will remain free until then. Dad will pardon him the day after the election is ratified or the day before Hunter reports to prison, whichever comes first after election day. The entire Biden family is crooked, I can’t wait for Trump to win and start the reprisals; sadly he won’t though in reality as unlike Biden he’s not a grudge bearer.

    Regardless Scott is correct here BUT I’d support mass enforcement of those laws ala legamoron. Likewise child porn laws as you would see 95% of America teenagers jailed well into their 30’s with life long registration. Not a week goes buy where I don’t hear first hand stories of mass child porn generation by my kid’s fellow high schoolers. Just today for example a junior sent another junior a dick pic who in turn blasted it out, by the end of the day maybe 75% of that school’s class of 300 had transmitted child pornography multiple times among each other. I look forward to the police arresting the entire upper middle class of kids and imprisoning them all tomorrow /s

  9. Gravatar of steve steve
    12. June 2024 at 06:11

    They both broke the law so I dont feel sorry for either of them. However, as pointed out, Hunter did the same thing 20 million other people are doing so it does seem more selective. If it were up to me I would take guns away from people who either commit a crime while on drugs or commit a DUI. If you are so irresponsible as to take a 2 ton vehicle on the road and endanger others while high or intoxicated you shouldn’t have weapons that let you easily kill people.


  10. Gravatar of Student Student
    12. June 2024 at 06:32

    1.) It is likely that neither case would have been brought if the individuals were not famous. Fame has a price. When you put yourself out there for money or notoriety or power, your life is out there.

    2.) Both are guilty of crimes that are on the books.

    3.) We have way to many laws. So many that I wouldn’t doubt that at least half of America could be thrown in the can for something. Are we just immoral people or are we a bunch of Karens that like to make everything we don’t like illegal? Even things that might lead to things we don’t like. It seems to me that laws to lock people up because they might lead to crimes are a big problem. Hunter can’t own a gun because he uses drugs people don’t like (he should have boozed it up cuz people don’t mind that even though it’s probably as dangerous as crack and 100 times as dangerous as marijuana) and that might lead to a gun crime at some point (maybe 1 in 100,000 maybe). Even DUI laws (especially at a 0.08 threshold), they are crimes because they might lead to crimes… weird. If you had 6 beers and are at 0.11 but don’t wreck, what’s the issue? You even have reasonable people like Mike suggesting that no one should be able to own a gun because in 1 out of 1,000,000 times, it might be used to commit an actual crime. Good grief are we are a bunch of crybaby Karens. It wasn’t that long ago you could carry a .44 revolver on your hip sitting in a bar drinking. Now we are so scared of everything that we want to eliminate any possibility of death or violence to the extent that half the population could be thrown in jail for something on any given day.

    4.) With this many laws and this many people getting locked up, we do need to ban the box on employment applications. I’d venture to guess we have 5-10% of the population that can’t be hired because they got thrown in the slammer for something like Hunter here and so can’t get a job for the next 15 years, after having paid their price and served their sentence. The punishment is still not over. Look at that guy in the case in the reason article, he got thrown in the slammer for years because he owned a gun and smoked weed. I’d bet money that guy is still suffering over that.

    6.) Mike you say you don’t want to make perfect the enemy of the good, but you want to ban guns because some people aren’t prefect in their ownership of them. You are advocating making perfect the enemy of the good. Sean, Scott knows the crimes… the Georgia shenanigans, encouraging supporters to attack the capital. You are doing exactly what Scott is calling out people for. You don’t think trump should be in jail cuz you like him, but think Biden should be because you say (without evidence) that he might have been involved in bribery. Peter, I like the first point and last points. People on pain pills, or anxiety medications, or alcohol or whatever… they are safe, dudes using the same substances off the street are not. The middle stuff is nonsense. Trump is is at least as crooked as Biden, IMO, much more crooked. I loath political reprisals. Banana republic alert!

  11. Gravatar of Sara Sara
    12. June 2024 at 06:36

    “Donald should be in prison for other crimes”.

    What crimes?
    Name one.

    You continue to say the dumbest things. Your latest statements include: “There is so much Russian propaganda all over the internet” (but you cannot name one). I mean, you thought the laptop was Russian propaganda. You continue to claim that Trump one in 2016 because of Russian propaganda.

    But when pressed you can’t provide one statement that has not already been rebutted and refuted.

    Repeating what you hear without thinking critically doesn’t make you smart.

    The other thing you convienantly omitted is that every businessman commits the same “crimes’ as Donald Trump. Everyone exaggerates to get better loans. Everyone avoids their taxes as much as possible. Every man who has the opportunity — you didn’t for obvious reasons — will sleep with a beautiful woman even if they’re a pornstar. And yes, they might try to pay them to stay quiet. Men like having sex with beautiful women, not fat lards like Miss Alabama, and they will have sex as much as possible. It’s what they are designed to do. And if you’re rich and handsome, like Donald, then you’re going to get a lot of offers. You’re none of those things, which is why you’re an old, bitter, bigot.

    You don’t get it, because you’re a virtue signaling, radical left academic, who cannot even change a doorknob. You’re not a chemist creating drugs, or an applied physicist who helps calculate the fuel necessary for a rocket to escape earth’s velocity. You’re not an engineer who builds skyscrapers, or an inventor with patents.

    You’re a busybody, just like the other morons in academy who posit nonsensical things like multiple universes so they can sell books.

    You’re unecessary; you’re obsolete. You’re useless. When you understand that, the world will be a much safer, more harmonious place. Because you and you’re elitist religion is the problem, not Donald Trump. Even the corrupt, disgusting, Hunter Biden is more tolerable than you.

  12. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    12. June 2024 at 07:33

    Way too many laws on the books. Punishments for minor crimes are draconian. If laws are enforced on less than 1% of offenders, they are inherently unfair. Selective prosecution of political opponents is an anathema to democracy.

  13. Gravatar of Ricardo Ricardo
    12. June 2024 at 07:56

    Yep, everything is Russian propaganda.
    When I pooped this morning it was Russian propaganda.
    When my dog barks it’s Russian propaganda.

    The big, horrible, no good Russian bear is coming. Build a bunker Sumner. Do it now before they get you. They’re coming. OMG. Any day now. Super duper, big bad Russian.

    The Hunter laptop, his job in Ukraine, the lab leak, the Chinese hedge fund Biden created, the 2016 election, the 20 shell companies Biden has, the shelling in Donbas, and the chemical laboratories in Ukraine funded by U.S. agencies are all Russian propaganda.

    Never happened. Just fake stories.

    LOL. Talk about insanity. These boomers…they’re going to kill us all with their delusions.

  14. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    12. June 2024 at 08:07

    Michael, You said:

    “Even if 20 million other Americans are guilty of the same crime, accepting the law doesn’t necessitate a crackdown.”

    My view is that if a person doesn’t accept the consequences of enforcing a law, then deep down they don’t accept the wisdom of the law.

    Should every bank robber face jail time? Yes, so bank robbery should be illegal. Should all drug users be in prison? No, so don’t make drug use a felony.

  15. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    12. June 2024 at 08:57


    I don’t favor putting drug users in prison. I favor total drug legalization. I also favor banning the private ownship of guns outside of hunting areas.

  16. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    12. June 2024 at 09:02

    Michael, That was badly worded, I know you don’t favor that for drug use. I meant it as an example of how to think about potential laws. We both think that would be a bad idea.

    I favor prison penalties only in cases where I’d bite the bullet and imprison every single violator of the law.

  17. Gravatar of Solon of the East Solon of the East
    12. June 2024 at 15:08

    Bananarama time in The Big Banana Republic?

  18. Gravatar of Lizard Man Lizard Man
    12. June 2024 at 19:05

    I don’t think either crime was a minor technical violation, and I do think that people who submit fraudulent documents to the government or knowingly issue false and misleading financial statements should be prosecuted and imprisoned, and not nearly enough people who commit those kinds of crimes are punished (because it is difficult and expensive to prosecute). Likewise, I think that responsible gun ownership requires sobriety, and that violating that principle is on a par with a DUI because it endangers other people’s lives. The sentence is probably too harsh and like a DUI penalties for a first offense should likely be serious but less severe than for repeated offenses. But I would be quite happy to see both serve some time. So put me down as believing those actions meet the criteria of the categorical imperative of criminal punishment.

  19. Gravatar of Jon Jon
    12. June 2024 at 22:13

    The difference here is that:

    1) Gun crimes like Hunters are bread and butter for Federal prosecution. The criteria is broad and the volume of cases means the law is well established. This is the go to type of crime when the prosecutor knows the target is avoiding prosecution for other important crimes for mere technical reasons.

    2) The Donald was convicted on a very suspect interpretation of statue. The statute almost certainly means something different than the fact pattern that occurred. This was done because the prosecutor knows the target is avoiding prosecution for other important crimes for mere technical reasons.

    So — Donald’s prosecution is more evidence of politics at work than Hunter’s.

  20. Gravatar of David R Henderson David R Henderson
    13. June 2024 at 07:37

    Lizard Man,
    So you think it’s possible to influence the 2016 election with documents constructed in 2017?

  21. Gravatar of Student Student
    13. June 2024 at 09:42


    The documents were made in 2017 to disguise payments Cohen made to Stormy in 2016 or earlier so she would keep quiet about their affair, which Trump feared would hurt his chances in the election. Cohen fronted the money to Stormy and was paid back in increments under the guise of legal work that never really occurred.

    I don’t think trump knew they could construe these things as felonies under 17-152. I think he knew having Cohen pay stormy was a felony but he didn’t care because he thought Cohen would be the one to pay the price for it, not him. And trump doesn’t care about anyone but himself.

    He knew faking business documents were misdemeanors and figured, so what, I am a billionaire. Misdemeanors have no impact on me.

    I don’t personally think it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that trump knew what he had to know in detail. He knew it was wrong to have the affair, he knew it was wrong for Cohen to pay her off, but that’s probably the extent of it. But he got treated like a mob boss that gets away with murder but goes to prison on trumped up (pun not intended lol) tax violations.

    I hate this situation because I do think trump deserves to go to prison (not for this) but this is politically motivated and when he wins he is going to seek revenge and try to do the same back. We now have a tit for tat precedent set for presidents to jail their political opponents. The rubicon has been crossed… I fear there is no going back.

  22. Gravatar of David R Henderson David R Henderson
    13. June 2024 at 11:27

    Lizard Man,
    You didn’t answer my question. I won’t bother pursuing it further, other than to note that 2017 came after 2016, so it was impossible to affect the outcome of the 2016 election by what he did in 2017.

  23. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    14. June 2024 at 10:58

    David Henderson,

    I hope I’m not misunderstanding your point, but I’ll try to answer your question. Trump knew what Cohen was doing, except for perhaps the loan fraud as a means to obtaining the money. Cohen understood that Trump would compensate him in an illegal manner after the election.

    Please correct me if I misunderstand the poinnt you’re making.

  24. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    14. June 2024 at 11:06

    I’m with Lizard Man on this one though. I’m tired of so many white collar criminals getting off easy. I have no problem with the kinds of gargantuan lies in the Trump Organization’s books being classified as felonies with some minimum prison time. I wouldn’t put someonw without a record away for 10 years for such crimes, but how about 2 or 3 years, at least, and a ban from running corporations in the state?

    Likewise, I don’t think we take crimes such as DUIs and possessing weapons while under the influence nearly seriously enough. Hunter Biden should do some jail time. Again, not 10 years, but how about at least a year, and then maybe a few years of probation?

    The fact that so many people drink and drive, or possess firearms while often high or drunk should not mean that we should not have laws against these behaviors and enforce them when possible.

  25. Gravatar of Student Student
    14. June 2024 at 11:28


    There are studies showing the cell phone use is as dangerous as 0.08 BAC. Do you advocate putting those that used a phone while driving in jail… assuming the studies are correct (maybe they are not but let’s assume they are)?

    You go even further and say I should not allowed be allowed to possess a gun in my home. I would have to store it in some facility and would only be allowed to use it to hunt. Would you fence in and guard the hunting grounds and require everyone to pass a drug/alcohol test before they can check out and use their own property? What would stop someone from checking out their gun when they wanted to comity a crime? It’s like you want to be peoples daddy. The idea that a grown man needs can’t own a gun is hilarious to me. I think you go to far in the name of safety.

  26. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    14. June 2024 at 12:44


    Yes, driving while using a handheld cell phone should be more than a civil infraction. It should be a crime. At least until cars become truly self-driving.

    And yes, I don’t think you should be allowed to possess a gun in your home if you live in a major city. If you live in a very small town, in which wild life could even be a persistent threat on your property, then perhaps keeping a hunting rifle and/or shotgun should be allowed. But, I see no net gain in the aggregate from having most people be allowed to own guns in urban areas.

  27. Gravatar of Student Student
    14. June 2024 at 21:31

    1.) You know most accidents happen at night. It’s dangerous. Should we impose curfews too? Sounds a lot like a secular theocracy. I fear this level of state control way more than being a victim of a gun crime. I would not trade freedom for protection from a 1:100,000 event. I don’t think even a 1:10,000. I have a mom, I don’t need another.

    2.) How do you defend your children from intruders? Cities are dangerous. It’s great that you be protected by others, but I’d rather be able to defend my own family. It’s great that you don’t like guns. Don’t have one. But Liberty dictates that what you prefer and what I prefer are you to us. It’s amazing to me the level of imposition of the state even reasonable people seek these days.

    3.) Lithium batteries are pretty dangerous, should someone tell you it’s to dangerous for you. The internet is a dangerous place. Maybe the state needs to monitor our use of it to catch people looking up bad things. Where does this end? Yea that slippery slope; but IMO, your already down the slope. You don’t think I should able to have the mean to defend myself from criminals but need to rely others for that purpose to suit your preferences.

    4.) we are not going to agree and that’s ok. IMO, you are bordering on authoritarianism going this far. I oppose this kind of think as much as I do the nationalism of Trump. Your version of the roll of the state goes way past where I draw the line.

  28. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    16. June 2024 at 06:06


    You’re failing to make a distinction between victimless behavior and that which imposes externalities. I generally don’t care to punish people who are only trying to harm themselves. It is when behaviors individually, or collectively lead to net externalities that I get concerned.

    The fact is, your view on guns, while reflective of many in the US, is seen as extraordinarily odd in most other countries. Police in London, for example, still don’t typically carry guns. How many more criminals do they encounter than the typical American? America is full of irrational gun lovers and generally paranoid people.

    Yet, I’ve read that the number one cause of death for US children is the use of firearms. That’s insane, especially for the wealthiest large country.

    By the way, didn’t you express a preference for abortion restrictions? I’d say you’re violating two of your expressed principles in that case. You want to limit a woman’s reproductive freedom, too ofen in very harmful ways, to protect potential children, while favoring mass gun ownership that helps facilitate the single biggest cause of death to actual children.

    Also, we already ban the possession of the vast majority of weapons in existence, most of which didn’t exist when the US Constitution was written. I wouldn’t be concerned about people owning musket rifles in the city, as the potential for harm is relatively limited. Automatic handguns and assault rifles are very different, however, and even in many old westerns, sheriffs required that town visitors surrender their guns.

    Everyone draws the line and provides government with a monopoly on the vast majority of weapons. The only question is where one draws the line.

  29. Gravatar of Sean Sean
    16. June 2024 at 22:18

    The payments Cohen made weren’t illegal. It’s not illegal to pay a mistress. So I’m not sure what student is talking about. The former FEC was willing to testify that there was no crime here by Cohen but the judge wouldn’t let him.

  30. Gravatar of Student Student
    17. June 2024 at 06:05


    All good points. I would just point out that the negative externalities associated automobile use or alcohol consumption greatly surpass those of firearms. And I am talking about handguns, rifles, and shotguns here.. not grenades, machine guns or chemical weapons.

    Further, the reproductive right to do what? End the life ones children for money (ones own money but money nonetheless). In any other context that’s known as murder. And even then, the parents “own” their children until maturity. So I am open to it’s legality in the face of the fact it’s outright murder (the father should have a say btw)… externalities aside.

    Sean, the legality of paying for sex is odd. Paying for a gf (gold digger or whatever you call it) is legal. Paying for a sex scene in porn or only fans is legal. But in the privacy of ones home or hotel it’s illegal. If there was no issue, they why didn’t Trump just pay her? Why go through Cohen. To disguise the payment because it would hurt Trumps campaign. So in a way, it was a campaign contribution in excess of the legal amount. That is the issue. I’d legalize paying for sex, but the issue here is about campaign contributions.

  31. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    17. June 2024 at 08:42


    When does a fetus become a child in your mind? At conception, when it is just a zygote, with a single cell? If not, then at what stage? And why should your opinion on this question affect the rights of others, the majority of whom disagree.

    That’s the big difference here. The vast majority of people agree that murder should be illegal, but most do not agree that abortion is murder. An overwhelming majority of doctors and biologists do not consider abortion to be murder, at least within the frameworks within which it is legal in some states.

    Regarding your claim about the negative externalities associated with guns versus driving or alcohol consumption, nearly twice as many people die in gun violence versus in DUI accidents.

    Yes, some large fraction of gun deaths are suicides, but that still leaves a sizable proportion that are murders. And again, the number one cause of death of children is gun violence.

  32. Gravatar of Student Student
    18. June 2024 at 15:25

    Three options:

    1.) birth.
    2.) some arbitrary point that changes at a whim or court case or new technology because there is no clear line with option 2.
    3.) conception. Unique genetic material becomes present and the life cycle of a human being begins.

    I think option three is most consistent with reality/nature as we know it. But I will concede that the ownership of a parent over the child increases negatively with age.

  33. Gravatar of Student Student
    18. June 2024 at 15:26

    Your only counting DUIs not long run health, etc… yet you are including gang violence over the drug and other illicit trades and suicides for gun deaths. Not fair.

  34. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    19. June 2024 at 04:26


    Since you want to say human life begins at conception, when there is only a single cell, you probably believe in the existence of souls. I and millions of other Americans don’t. That is obviously a religious belief. Why should public policy be based upon your religious beliefs?

    When it comes to the numbers on gun violence, slice them anyway you like, but there’s no way to make them look good, particularly in the global context. Schools full of dead children don’t look good either.

  35. Gravatar of Student Student
    19. June 2024 at 07:40

    You don’t need religion to arrive at the conclusion that a unique instance of a human is instantiated at conception. You only really need a biology text book or a thought experiment like this. Suppose someone thinks that before 10 weeks an abortion isn’t murder but after it is. Then you ask so it’s murder after 10 but what about at 9 weeks, 23 hours, 59 minutes? What changed? Then one day earlier, then one more and so on. This can go one until conception, at which point there was no person before. This arriving at the point at which something that wasn’t becomes something that is. This the is the logical line in the sand. No other point really makes any sense. The most logical argument for abortion rights is then the argument that parents have ownership over their children until the age of reason or maturity or whatever and that while in the womb, this ownership is almost 100% and hence, they can do with their property as they wish. I can’t really object to that argument other than to say that IMO that is vicious.

  36. Gravatar of Tacticus Tacticus
    19. June 2024 at 08:04

    Oh, weird, I thought I made a comment on this post but it’s disappeared?

    Anyways, Michael, re: guns: many European states allow people to own personal hunting rifles and shotguns. Training, tests, and examinations are often required and there are very strict laws on how to store weapons and ammunition. As someone who likes to shoot (hunt), I think it’s quite reasonable. They don’t need to be only stored at a hunting shop.

    Amusingly, a firearm permit is one acceptable form of identification for the British Library!

  37. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    20. June 2024 at 03:45


    No offense, but I fnid that argument absurd, and the fact is, very, very few non-religious people favor much in the way of abortion restrictions, particularly at the zygote level of development. The idea that just because not everyone may draw a line they feel comfortable with means that they will logically conclude that even aborting single cell flies in the face of all evidence. If that were true, there would be almost no abortion controversey. Even the vast majority of religious people don’t see killing a zygote as murder.

    The restrictions opposed on abortion often make treatment difficult when problems with pregnancy arise in edge cases, causing treatment delays and sometimes the need to travel to other states for treatment, all to try to make a minority of people like you more comfortable with concepts that the rest of us are comfortable with.

  38. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    20. June 2024 at 03:48


    I would be open to compromising on a less restrictive gun policy in the US if doing so would not materially undermine the goal of reducing externalities. I’ll say though that restrictions that are sufficient for some countries may not be so for the US, due to cultural differences.

  39. Gravatar of Tacticus Tacticus
    20. June 2024 at 10:04

    Michael, unfortunately for Americans, I think even my little proposal would be far too ‘big government’ for many people, so it’s rather a moot point if the US could handle European restrictions.

  40. Gravatar of Philo Philo
    20. June 2024 at 11:17

    On 9., you write: “Fortunately, our politicians are too dumb to understand that Singapore’s [trade] surplus contributes to our [trade] deficit.” It’s the voters rather than the politicians who are dumb. The politicians understand that the voters would not understand the situation, even if someone explained it to them. If the voters don’t understand something, it is not a political issue.

  41. Gravatar of Philo Philo
    20. June 2024 at 11:24

    [Obviously misplaced.]

  42. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    20. June 2024 at 11:58


    Yes, for now you seem overwhelmingly correct, but a backlash may come at some point.

  43. Gravatar of Tacticus Tacticus
    20. June 2024 at 12:56


    Maybe… But nothing happened after Sandy Hook, so I won’t hold my breath.

  44. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    21. June 2024 at 09:59


    We may see the change come with generational change, as older generations fade.

  45. Gravatar of spencer spencer
    23. June 2024 at 07:17

    Total b.s. Hunter should not have been charged. The majority of addicts have already sold their guns to buy drugs. Thus, you can rob an addict with impunity.

  46. Gravatar of spencer spencer
    23. June 2024 at 07:31

    Some drugs require that the users not have guns. A person on wet will kill grandmothers and grandfathers after entering the wrong house.

Leave a Reply