Trump: 'Second Amendment people' could deal with Clinton

[flexy]

Trump dummy really does a splendid job "getting his campaign back on track", after the previous week of disasters. Seriously it's like watching a train-wreck in slow-mo.

 

[Knowing]

Industry, Finance and defined processes for organization.

I do have to ask how does this relate to the topic. I am so tired of people left and right distracting from the subject. You either think what Trump said was right, wrong or irresponsible or maybe chose poor words. The Civil War does not factor into that answer.

Which wouldn't have been anything but war prizes if not for the men with guns.

I think it was a poor interpretation, and a complete lack of any desire for clarity.

 

[Bitek]

Said sixteen Republican primary candidates.

Maybe you should have listened. Jerb! wouldn't be making the rookie mistakes Trumpster is on the way to a historic implosion.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

haha Elizabeth Warrens tweet


Elizabeth WarrenVerified account‏@elizabethforma
.@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.

And this from an updated CNN story

The former head of the CIA, retired Gen. Michael Hayden, told CNN's Jake Tapper: "If someone else had said that said outside the hall, he'd be in the back of a police wagon now with the Secret Service questioning him."
US Secret Service communications director Cathy Milhoan told CNN the agency "is aware of Mr. Trump's comments."
Hayden added: "You're not just responsible for what you say. You are responsible for what people hear

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-second-amendment/index.html

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I first heard about this from a brother earlier today and based on how he paraphrased it, I wanted to call it as the media inventing things again, but yeah, his exact wording doesn't really make sense as anything other than an incitement to violence. What a dummy!

EDIT: The only way I can interpret as not being a call for violence, being that it's based on the hypothetical that Hillary already won the election, is if he was suggesting that the gun-loving people could lobby hard enough and their elected senate refused to confirm Hillary's appointments over her entire term, which obviously doesn't seem very realistic or likely to be what he's talking about.

 

[sportage]

I guess I'm a bit out of touch lately....
Does ANYONE still, actually, really support Donald Trump?
Anyone?
Is there one single thing, anything, that one would even imagine Donald is capable of actually doing as president, for them?
I mean, if you want a spoiled little brat that has no clue as to what is going on, my ten year old nephew is also available for the office of president. And he comes with his own marbles.
Trump has obviously lost all of his marbles. Assuming he ever had any.

So now Donald wants "his people", his second amendment people to take out Hillary Clinton?
And that is exactly what he said, meant to say, suggested, hinted at.
Others can spin this any way they want, but everyone paying attention and honestly paying attention know Donald was absolutely referring to a Clinton assignation.
Donald would never have the balls to do it himself, no surprise.
Donald expects someone else to do the crime and take the rap and spend the rest of their life in prison, or on death row for cold blooded murder.
And if we know one thing we all know about Donald Trump.
That if Donald at this stage in the game references anything or hints at anything, Donald knows exactly what he is suggesting.
No confusion over that.

I just can't figure out why the secret service has not arrested Trump and brought him in for questioning?
Better yet, lock "HIM" up for the duration of the election, for the safety of all others.
Many violent minded men make the very same threats towards women every day, and they go straight to jail.
It might be wise for Hillary to get a restraining order against Donald. I sure would.
And if they do debate, they can debate via close circuit TV.
Hillary could be in Ohio and Donald in the Kremlin with his good old buddy Vladimir Putin.
Surely, Putin knows how to take out his opponents and I suspect that is where Donald got this idea.

 

[flexy]

Aside the obvious implication, the other thing is that "Hillary wants to abolish the second amendment" is an outright lie.

This Fucktard manages it IN ONE SINGLE SENTENCE.....to tell a lie and use it to emotionally rile up his idiots...and make a threat. Absolutely fucking amazing. Amazing that someone like him is even CONSIDERED for president of the US...it's like out of a bizarre Stephen King novel but it's real.

 

[DrPizza]

Trump dummy really does a splendid job "getting his campaign back on track", after the previous week of disasters. Seriously it's like watching a train-wreck in slow-mo.

Last week, his train was crashing through a brick wall. This week, you discover the brick wall was an attempt to prevent the train from going over the cliff on the other side of the wall. Next week... ocean and man-eating sharks at the bottom of the cliff. The following week?

 

[alien42]

Aside the obvious implication, the other thing is that "Hillary wants to abolish the second amendment" is an outright lie.

This Fucktard manages it IN ONE SINGLE SENTENCE.....to tell a lie and use it to emotionally rile up his idiots...and make a threat. Absolutely fucking amazing. Amazing that someone like him is even CONSIDERED for president of the US...it's like out of a bizarre Stephen King novel but it's real.

a couple of weekends ago i listened to a rural Georgia local rant that Hillary would take all our guns one step at a time. the other relevant conversation that day by some of the related locals concerned "the blacks" and drugs and violence taking over the city (pop under 100k).

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yea, it's not going unnoticed
really wish I could copy the image of the tweet here, but the text is


https://twitter.com/SecretService/status/763142627202048000

Check me if I'm wrong Sandy, but the one group of law enforcement that truly does not fuck around is the Secret Service. Not that the FBI or CIA was clowntown. But the Secret Service is an elite corp, to the best of my knowledge.

At least when they're not doing hookers and blow.

 

[umbrella39]

Anyone who defends or tries to reinvent what he said or meant is a pathetic TrumpTard POS... He should be grabbed, cuffed, taken to a dark damp basement, strapped and waterboarded to find out what else he knows...

 

[sandorski]

Anyone who defends or tries to reinvent what he said or meant is a pathetic TrumpTard POS... He should be grabbed, cuffed, taken to a dark damp basement, strapped and waterboarded to find out what else he knows...

Seems like a waste of time.....

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Aside the obvious implication, the other thing is that "Hillary wants to abolish the second amendment" is an outright lie.

I don't see how that is an outright lie. If a politician wanted to introduce Christian curriculum into public schools and ban Muslims from practicing their religion, would you really take issue with the word "abolish" wrt the 1st Amendment even if freedom of speech and media was maintained? Just because she (or Trump) throws a "common sense laws" at every proposition aimed at eroding our Bill of Rights doesn't mean soften the consequences of what they want.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't see how that is an outright lie. If a politician wanted to introduce Christian curriculum into public schools and ban Muslims from practicing their religion, would you really take issue with the word "abolish" wrt the 1st Amendment even if freedom of speech and media was maintained? Just because she (or Trump) throws a "common sense laws" at every proposition aimed at eroding our Bill of Rights doesn't mean soften the consequences of what they want.

Yes, I would take issue with that. It's called exaggerating, and it implies something about the other person's position which may well not be the case. Is it too much to ask that we accurately describe the positions taken by others?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Last week, his train was crashing through a brick wall. This week, you discover the brick wall was an attempt to prevent the train from going over the cliff on the other side of the wall. Next week... ocean and man-eating sharks at the bottom of the cliff. The following week?

He'll probably try showing off his international connections by getting endorsements from Putin, Mugabe, Netanyahu, al-Baghdadi, al-Zawahiri and Kim Jong Un.

 

[xgsound]

Once upon a time arms were considered necessary to prevent tyranny. Back then arms were also considered necessary for personal protection. I don't think anything has changed and tyranny will follow the end of the second amendment as surely as daylight follows sunrise.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers.

 

[xgsound]

Said sixteen Republican primary candidates.

And 75% of the "experts" in Media.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes, I would take issue with that. It's called exaggerating, and it implies something about the other person's position which may well not be the case. Is it too much to ask that we accurately describe the positions taken by others?

So do you consider the word "abolish" appropriate only in the event that an amendment is officially repealed?

 

[ivwshane]

So do you consider the word "abolish" appropriate only in the event that an amendment is officially repealed?

I think the correct word you'd be looking for would be "infringing" or "violating". Words have meanings for a reason.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Let's say a hypothetical court makes a ruling that for all practical purposes removes the protections that an amendment might hold. Perhaps it is ruled that bullets may be wholly banned even if guns may not. Perhaps it is ruled that private news organizations are subject to censorship because "the press" is re-defined as a newly-created nationally held propaganda office. Would you still take "abolish" to be the wrong word?

 

[ivwshane]

Let's say a hypothetical court makes a ruling that for all practical purposes removes the protections that an amendment might hold. Perhaps it is ruled that bullets may be wholly banned even if guns may not. Perhaps it is ruled that private news organizations are subject to censorship because "the press" is re-defined as a newly-created nationally held propaganda office. Would you still take "abolish" to be the wrong word?

If a right, effectively no longer exists, then yes, you could claim the right was abolished. Anything short of that would be an infringement or a violation.

Do you recognize how far you've had to move your examples to try and make your point?

 

[woolfe9998]

So do you consider the word "abolish" appropriate only in the event that an amendment is officially repealed?

I might loosen it to include something like a total ban on all guns being the de facto equivalent. However, Clinton has proposed no such thing. You can argue a slippery slope, but to say that a person who advocates something far, far short of that end is actually intending to achieve that extreme is not being honest. Trump cannot make that assumption in all honesty. He knows nothing of what is in her mind. The notion that Clinton wants to ban all guns is just an extension of the common stereotype that conservatives have of liberals. It's why they run out and buy lots of guns whenever a democrat is elected, even if he didn't campaign on gun control. All Trump is doing is appealing to that stereotype. He can say it, because he knows they'll believe him.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Fair enough, I was using an extreme example because I wanted to know if a literal repeal is what constituted abolition to you guys vs a de facto one as you put it, and didn't want to get into a purely semantic argument.

You won't ever find her saying "I want to ban guns" because it would be bad for her, but I don't think she has ever seen a piece of gun regulation she didn't like, and she supported the unconstitutional handgun ban overruled in DC. I'll admit that she's craftier than, say, Obama who would like to see us have gun laws more similar to Australia's (a country which effectively has a gun ban outside of hobbyist interests).

 

[vi edit]

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.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

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.

Yup, the delivery is the key in this. And considering how many times he's openly called for violence at his rallies, and then walked it back, this is just another moronic statement from drumpf, but this time he's calling for people to kill hillary.
And Bart, still waiting to hear from you on your stance on this. You were clearly implying you agree that shooting hillary is an acceptable action.