| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 3,103
|
Exactly. His statement was poorly worded to a point where he can't really weasel his way out of it.
If she's already appointing judges, she's in office - so he's not calling on them to vote. If he's calling on them to vote in NEXT election, then her judges have already been appointed, so there's no way to prevent that.
The interpretation then lies into one of three scenarios:
1. Someone will use the second amendment to shoot Hillary.
2. Someone will use the second amendment to shoot the appointed judges.
3. Many people will defend their second amendment rights with an armed rebellion.
And...which scenario is the best, here? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by that G.U.Y.
Don't be silly: he meant shooting the judges, not Hillary.  |
Well that clears it all up... 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/8/2012
Posts: 6,632
|
quote leading up to his comment
Quote:
|
Now speaking to the NRA folks, who are great: when you, when you, and I tell you, so they endorsed me. They endorsed me very early. My sons are members. I’m a member. If you, we can add, I think the National Rifle Association, we can add the Second Amendment to the justices, they almost go, in a certain way, hand and hand. Now the justices are going to do things that are so important. And we have such great justices. You saw my list of eleven that have been vetted and respected and have gotten great, and they, a little bit, equate.
|
WHY does he talk like this? how can you support this? 
Quote:
Originally posted by Meh
Exactly. His statement was poorly worded to a point where he can't really weasel his way out of it.
If she's already appointing judges, she's in office - so he's not calling on them to vote. If he's calling on them to vote in NEXT election, then her judges have already been appointed, so there's no way to prevent that.
The interpretation then lies into one of three scenarios:
1. Someone will use the second amendment to shoot Hillary.
2. Someone will use the second amendment to shoot the appointed judges.
3. Many people will defend their second amendment rights with an armed rebellion.
And...which scenario is the best, here? |
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 14,942
|
How do you defend his crap? WHY?  You're probably locked and loaded right now.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/8/2012
Posts: 6,632
|
another analysis from online 
Quote:
Quote:
|
If she gets to pick her judges
|
In other words, if she is elected
Quote:
|
There is nothing you can do folks
|
The people will have nothing that they can do to influence her nominations and in turn their decisions. If she gets elected, it's over, she will act without regard to the opposition.
Quote:
|
Although [for] the second amendemt people maybe there is I dont know
|
There is something that the second amendment people, individuals or groups who support gun ownership can do that other people cannot do and that is effective even after an election win/nomination.
Quote:
|
Tell you what, that will be a horrible day
|
Whatever happens in the above scenario is "a horrible day" in his perspective, the outcome is bad.
If he was referring to lobbyists preventing any action, it would not be a horrible day and it would go counter to his previous point that once she is elected she will act without consideration of the opposition.
The only thing that prevents an elected Clintons nominated justices from enacting their legislation, relates directly to the second amendment and would be considered "a horrible day" is an assassination of either Clinton herself or a justice. There is no getting out of this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 3,103
|
Also, in the midst of this crazy statement, we've forgotten that he said "Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the second amendment."
What?
Hillary wants gun control, not to get rid of all guns. If wanting stores to require ID, perform background checks, and increase restrictions for previous offenders to buy guns is removing the second amendment, then... 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/17/2011
Posts: 8,965
|
So tired of this guy! Pathetic, sad. and the worst part is that SO MANY PEOPLE agree with him and stand by every freakin' word he says!
And I thought we had it bad in Mexico (our President isn't any better)
I need a drink!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/11/2012
Posts: 6,737
|
I feel ya are over reacting in all honesty. He was within his legal right of freedom of speech which also includes any hate speech all tho this wasn't hate, he actually has a sense of humor but ya wont admit that because ya wanna do the most because being "Anti Trump" is the cool trend of the moment.
Many people are "Anti Trump" to look cool and trendy on social media and its getting annoying  Half of ya in here are just following a trend, ya can care less if he wins or not..
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 14,942
|
The leader of the US shouldn't engage in hate speech of any kind and anyone who makes excuses for him is an idiot. Plain and simple. The man is a buffoon. 90% of the mess that comes out his mouth has to be spun or explained.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Liar
I feel ya are over reacting in all honesty. He was within his legal right of freedom of speech which also includes any hate speech all tho this wasn't hate, he actually has a sense of humor but ya wont admit that because ya wanna do the most because being "Anti Trump" is the cool trend of the moment.
Many people are "Anti Trump" to look cool and trendy on social media and its getting annoying Half of ya in here are just following a trend, ya can care less if he wins or not.. |
Again, when the secret service tell us they are aware of the comments it's pretty hard to justify anyone overreacting.
And I do believe it's a joke, he doesn't really want her shot. But in a country like this you can't say things like that. Someone will take it the wrong way
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/11/2012
Posts: 6,737
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Meh
Also, in the midst of this crazy statement, we've forgotten that he said "Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the second amendment."
What?
Hillary wants gun control, not to get rid of all guns. If wanting stores to require ID, perform background checks, and increase restrictions for previous offenders to buy guns is removing the second amendment, then... |
This is already in place and has been for years  You do know all It takes is a GOOD criminal record and a gun of your choice is yours. That's how the Orlando shooter got this! His record was clean! There is no longer such a thing as "Gun reform" its basically now a pandering issue what else can be enforced? School grades? Mental exam? Lets not forget a citizens right "shall not be infringed" which means what cant look beyond a criminal record if we do that's consider "infringing"
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/12/2002
Posts: 21,317
|
Another day, another disgusting remark from Trump
Ugh
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 832
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Liar
I feel ya are over reacting in all honesty. He was within his legal right of freedom of speech which also includes any hate speech all tho this wasn't hate, he actually has a sense of humor but ya wont admit that because ya wanna do the most because being "Anti Trump" is the cool trend of the moment.
Many people are "Anti Trump" to look cool and trendy on social media and its getting annoying Half of ya in here are just following a trend, ya can care less if he wins or not.. |
You give Anne Coulter a run for her money.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 123
|
He knows what can happen from saying that, I don't think he's unintelligent.
He wants some lone wolf shooter to assassinate her. It's pathetic. That's the type of "joke" to get the crazies to actually be motivated enough to get out and do something. Trump is the most dangerous person to America in my memory.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/12/2002
Posts: 21,317
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Liar
This is already in place and has been for years You do know all It takes is a GOOD criminal record and a gun of your choice is yours. That's how the Orlando shooter got this! His record was clean! There is no longer such a thing as "Gun reform" its basically now a pandering issue what else can be enforced? School grades? Mental exam? Lets not forget a citizens right "shall not be infringed" which means what cant look beyond a criminal record if we do that's consider "infringing" |
I wouldn't say his record was necessarily clean considering he was on the FBI watch list for an extended period of time and had been investigated for terroristic behavior more than once. The fact that you defend the notion that people such as that should have access to guns, especially automatic weapons is ludicrous.
That's the same dumb ideology that Trump tries to spin towards anyone for believing we shouldn't ban Muslims from entering the country. How can you defend the idea that a suspected terrorist should be allowed to purchase weapons, but he also should be monitored because he is Muslim? It's idiocy
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 16,870
|
@BeautifulLiar threats of violence are not protected by the first amendment. Please read the US Constitution
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/7/2011
Posts: 8,251
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Giselle
But, hun. If she is already appointing judges, this means she has already been elected. So how can the second amendment prevent that, other than by killing her? Don't quote me with that nonsense about the "media" "driving things into my brain" as I just said I often give him the benefit of the doubt. So again, tell me how the "second amendment people" can stop her once she's already been elected? |
The second amendment isnt meant for shooting politicians you don't like, and it doesn't give any one that right as many ill informed Americans (and foreigners that know nothing of our constitution) are claiming Trump said or implied or whatever the ****. Again, it's by virtue of existing that it will stop her should the time comes that she try to tamper with it. That's why it's there. That's why we have a constitution-- in part to prevent tyranny. Depending on what he meant by people (collectively referring to the crowd or talking about second amendment voters) it really could be interpreted many ways. His vague-ness doesn't help and it's a complicated issue.
But this is why Trump is so great, he gets people talking about everything being brushed under the rug by dems. Clearly everyone has different opinions and interpretations of the second amendment and it's important we talk about these things to reaffirm our values as a country together. Its been over 200 years since that stupid ass document was written and thorough understanding of it has waned each year since. In fact the more I think about it, it was a great comment on Trumps part. I guess we'll just agree to disagree but know that I think "assassination threat" is a ridiculous accusation (and character assassination, lmao).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 3,103
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Liar
This is already in place and has been for years You do know all It takes is a GOOD criminal record and a gun of your choice is yours. That's how the Orlando shooter got this! His record was clean! There is no longer such a thing as "Gun reform" its basically now a pandering issue what else can be enforced? School grades? Mental exam? Lets not forget a citizens right "shall not be infringed" which means what cant look beyond a criminal record if we do that's consider "infringing" |
Already in place for years? It's still legal to buy guns in THIRTY states without an ID.
I DO know that's all it takes, which is why I'd like to make it harder? New York state laws would have discovered the shooter's past of abuse towards his ex-wife, and New York also has laws that would have prevented the Orlando shooter from even owning the bullet magazines that he used in the shooting.
And let's not forget that New York's laws have withstood constitutional challenges, so no, they aren't "infringing."
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/18/2008
Posts: 40,057
|
He's running for President of the United States of America. If he wants to make jokes and be "funny", go back to TV. Nobody's laughing.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 59,596
|
@christinawilkie
Jeff Sessions won’t defend Trump: "You absolutely shouldn’t joke about [killing Clinton]. It’s contrary to everything we believe in.” — @CNN
Wow. When even Jeff Sessions won't defend him.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
