Trump: 'Second Amendment people' could deal with Clinton

[fskimospy]

And who is the decider for instigating such a revolution? Why do they always see resorting to violence first instead of, idk, maybe voting?

Almost every coup justifies itself by saying that the government being ousted has somehow betrayed the nation, violated the constitution, whatever. It's a standard line.

The fact that anyone is okay with a presidential candidate saying that boggles my mind, even if you grant the (dubious) premise that his statement wasn't a call for assassination of Clinton and/or the judges she appoints.

 

[umbrella39]

That's a really bad attempt to spin that comment. People don't stay in losing races because their opponent may get killed. That's what was implied.

No... spinning is what YOU are trying to do. It's clear to anyone with a functioning brain what he was implying.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am not a Trump supporter in any way. I do not want him to win the election. That said, I do not take this comment as a call to assassinate anyone. I see it as a comment that if our country is corrupt and not following the constitution we can use the '2nd amendment' to take back our country. AKA Trump is saying that Hillary will corrupt the country so much the only answer is to overthrow the government and replace it with a new one. I see nothing here to condemn.

So, uhh, it wasn't a veiled threat against the opposition but a call for armed insurrection against imaginary oppression?

That makes it OK, I guess, at least in the minds of the Bundyites & their fellow travelers.

 

[dank69]

I am not a Trump supporter in any way. I do not want him to win the election. That said, I do not take this comment as a call to assassinate anyone. I see it as a comment that if our country is corrupt and not following the constitution we can use the '2nd amendment' to take back our country. AKA Trump is saying that Hillary will corrupt the country so much the only answer is to overthrow the government and replace it with a new one. I see nothing here to condemn.

A) You are giving to much credit to Trump with respect to an off-the-cuff remark
B) You are actually reading into the comment way more than us to arrive at that conclusion
C) His "I don't know" at the end was clearly his way of trying to play innocent while saying something he knows has the potential to be taken as offensive. He does this all the time with controversial statements.

 

[Ryan]

.

 

[fleshconsumed]

When you read the transcript there's at least a reasonable part of you that sits back and says "You know, maybe he is very poorly attempting to appeal to advocates to go out and vote".

But then you actually watch the speech and it's delivery. Nope. Nope. Fuck nope. It's exactly as it's implied.

Reddit has totally lost it's shit on this topic. Most "high traffic" posts over there in /r/politics are 1000-1200 replies. This single topic is almost 13,000 comments.

I'm curious, did you, or anyone else for that matter watched the whole video or just the soundbites circulating on the youtube/news?

Here's the uncut video of him talking:

And the the whole transcript goes like this: "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick... if she gets to pick her judges... nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know, but... but I'll tell you what... that will be a horrible day."

He clearly implies that if that were to happen that would be a horrible day. Overall what he said is still not OK, but the missing quote does add a lot of ambiguity to his statement. Most of the videos that get shown very cleverly cut just before the first "but" are misleading and missing quite a bit of context here. It's taking quote out of context which is what news media does best. It's the same as Obama's "you didn't build that" bullshit. Don't fall for that crap. The whole quote that he said is a lot more ambiguous than people would like to pretend.

 

[rudder]

Yep, this is what the NRA said about Obama in 2008:

Literally none of those things happened, yet here the NRA is again making the exact same insane claims. Do people seriously not figure out that they are being lied to?

That is because we had (up until Scalia died) a 5-4 pro 2A SCOTUS. But there have been attempted ammo bans (M855 ammo). The obama administration has been strong arming banks not to do business with the gun insdustry. Gun owner info is being illegally stored by the ATF. Then there are recent new regulations threatening the livelihood of gunsmiths. Now if they simply add a sight rail to a gun they have to pay a $2,250 manufacturers tax. Then there is the situation going on the the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. Recently the unconstitutional handgun ban was overturned. Almost immediately the governor imposed a $1000 tax per handgun. Now that $400 Smith and Wesson costs $1400. Don't think for a second that Hillary would expand this tax. There is a lot more on this but that shoul suffice for now.

And what about obama's latest pick to the SCOTUS? Merrick Garland had made judgements on 4 second amendment issues and voted anti-gun each time. The current 4 anti guns justices have also called for a review of the Heller decision.

Outright gun confiscation would cause a civil war.... but don't think there are other ways for the socialists to make owning and shooting a gun very expensive.

 

[sourceninja]

...

 

[dank69]

I'm curious, did you, or anyone else for that matter watched the whole video or just the soundbites circulating on the youtube/news?

Here's the uncut video of him talking:

And the the whole transcript goes like this: "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick... if she gets to pick her judges... nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know, but... but I'll tell you what... that will be a horrible day."

He clearly implies that if that were to happen that would be a horrible day. Overall what he said is still not OK, but the missing quote does add a lot of ambiguity to his statement. Most of the videos that get shown very cleverly cut just before the first "but" are misleading and missing quite a bit of context here. It's taking quote out of context which is what news media does best. It's the same as Obama's "you didn't build that" bullshit. Don't fall for that crap. The whole quote that he said is a lot more ambiguous than people would like to pretend.

All that does is solidify that he was talking about assassinating Hillary. That would be a horrible day. The people using their second amendment rights to free the nation from a tyrannical government would be a good day, no?

 

[HomerJS]

Trump does that crap all the time. He says "some people say".....insert conspiracy here... then feigns innocence with followup "I wouldn't say that"

dog whistle 101

However there are enough nuts in Trump world that will take it as a license to execute their 2nd amendment remedy

 

[ivwshane]

That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. Like it or hate it the founders thought that we needed the ability to fight our own government should it become a tyrannical. I am in no way advocating that a democratic win would be so bad as to require an overthrow of the government, but if enough people do feel this way it is their right to try to overthrow the government and defend their freedom.

Don't worry though, it will never happen. We are too fat, too rich, and too happy. Hell at this point if the government did come for my guns I'd probably be more upset on the value I'd get then the fact i'm giving them up.

That is not the purpose of the second amendment. Gun nutters word like that too be the purpose of the 2nd but that doesn't make it true. The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the state's had the constitution backing their right to protect themselves from foreign invasions and uprisings by having their own militias (as also referenced in article 1 section 8 of the constitution).

 

[yllus]

I'm curious, did you, or anyone else for that matter watched the whole video or just the soundbites circulating on the youtube/news?

Here's the uncut video of him talking:

And the the whole transcript goes like this: "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick... if she gets to pick her judges... nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know, but... but I'll tell you what... that will be a horrible day."

He clearly implies that if that were to happen that would be a horrible day. Overall what he said is still not OK, but the missing quote does add a lot of ambiguity to his statement. Most of the videos that get shown very cleverly cut just before the first "but" are misleading and missing quite a bit of context here. It's taking quote out of context which is what news media does best. It's the same as Obama's "you didn't build that" bullshit. Don't fall for that crap. The whole quote that he said is a lot more ambiguous than people would like to pretend.

That actually made it less ambiguous to me. It would be a horrible day because people would get hurt due to these Second Amendment folks using their weaponry.

 

[bozack]

That is because we had (up until Scalia died) a 5-4 pro 2A SCOTUS. But there have been attempted ammo bans (M855 ammo). The obama administration has been strong arming banks not to do business with the gun insdustry. Gun owner info is being illegally stored by the ATF. Then there are recent new regulations threatening the livelihood of gunsmiths. Now if they simply add a sight rail to a gun they have to pay a $2,250 manufacturers tax. Then there is the situation going on the the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. Recently the unconstitutional handgun ban was overturned. Almost immediately the governor imposed a $1000 tax per handgun. Now that $400 Smith and Wesson costs $1400. Don't think for a second that Hillary would expand this tax. There is a lot more on this but that shoul suffice for now.

And what about obama's latest pick to the SCOTUS? Merrick Garland had made judgements on 4 second amendment issues and voted anti-gun each time. The current 4 anti guns justices have also called for a review of the Heller decision.

Outright gun confiscation would cause a civil war.... but don't think there are other ways for the socialists to make owning and shooting a gun very expensive.

The AG of my state is a great example of government overreach in an effort to create a higher degree of confusion and further ban firearms. She added "clarity" to a 14 year standing piece of legislation which now essentially turned folks into felons, unable to sell their now "illegal" firearms if they even want to.

I have no doubt that Hillary would continue down the same path, she can say all she wants that she will not attempt to modify the second, when the reality is that she will do far more to burden be it financially, or from a process standpoint, or both, lawful firearm owners.

 

[Vic]

I support the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and own guns, but if you think your puny ARs are going to take down the government, you're an idiot. Period.

 

[Vic]

There are 2 popular myths about gun rights in the RWNJ world that really need clearing up.
First, Hitler did not ban guns. The Kaiser and the Weimar Republic did that years before he came to power. What Hitler actually did was legalize gun ownership for ethnic German citizens while maintaining the gun ban on Jews, etc.
Second, the 2A was not written so that ordinary citizens could overthrow the government. The Founding Fathers were 'elites' themselves who actually had a rather poor opinion of the common people, particularly of the militia. Which is why they didn't want to have to pay to arm the militia, hence the 2A.

 

[Jhhnn]

The AG of my state is a great example of government overreach in an effort to create a higher degree of confusion and further ban firearms. She added "clarity" to a 14 year standing piece of legislation which now essentially turned folks into felons, unable to sell their now "illegal" firearms if they even want to.

I have no doubt that Hillary would continue down the same path, she can say all she wants that she will not attempt to modify the second, when the reality is that she will do far more to burden be it financially, or from a process standpoint, or both, lawful firearm owners.

Which has nothing to do with what Trump said but it strokes your fear & resentment being able to say it, right?

 

[theeedude]

There is no constitutional right to violently overthrow a duly elected government just because you think it's tyrannical.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

There is no constitutional right to violently overthrow a duly elected government just because you think it's tyrannical.

Fortunately for the USA you were not around in 1775 when then-British subjects overthrew their duly elected (Parliament) government just because they thought it was tyrannical.

 

[brycejones]

Fortunately for the USA you were not around in 1775 when then-British subjects overthrew their duly elected (Parliament) government just because they thought it was tyrannical.

You have an interesting understanding of the political environment of 1775.

 

[Brainonska511]

Fortunately for the USA you were not around in 1775 when then-British subjects overthrew their duly elected (Parliament) government just because they thought it was tyrannical.

What was that slogan they bandied about then.... something about taxes and representation...

 

[JSt0rm]

Fortunately for the USA you were not around in 1775 when then-British subjects overthrew their duly elected (Parliament) government just because they thought it was tyrannical.

You should read about the % of people that were for and against the revolution. Or remain a buffoon. no one cares.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Parliament in 1775 was "duly elected" was it not? And the colonists were all British subjects were they not? And they overthrew their own government. Hopefully we won't need to do it again but if we do need to do so and we don't have the means then we're screwed.

 

[Vic]

Fortunately for the USA you were not around in 1775 when then-British subjects overthrew their duly elected (Parliament) government just because they thought it was tyrannical.

And the reason for that tyranny was because the American Colonies didn't have any representation in the British Parliament.

 

[ivwshane]

Parliament in 1775 was "duly elected" was it not? And the colonists were all British subjects were they not? And they overthrew their own government. Hopefully we won't need to do it again but if we do need to do so and we don't have the means then we're screwed.

Your ignorance is that of a cartoon character.

 

[Jhhnn]

Parliament in 1775 was "duly elected" was it not? And the colonists were all British subjects were they not? And they overthrew their own government. Hopefully we won't need to do it again but if we do need to do so and we don't have the means then we're screwed.

The colonists had no say, no vote & no representatives in the House of Commons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation

That's not true in this country other than for DC, particularly after Jim Crow voter ID requirements have been struck down. We all have a say.