Trump: Clinton's bodyguards should be disarmed; let's see what happens to her

[Bismarck]

The ss should visit this bastard and arrest him. Trump is scum.

Hmmm you want the "Ss" to take out a political leader who opposes you. And republicans are the fascist ones 🙄

[JA]

Unsurprising, considering most Republicans seem incapable of understanding that: (a) Clinton never proposed disarming or seizing arms from all American citizens, and (b) that there is an irrefutable difference between a political candidate aspiring to the Presidency and a regular citizen in terms of their likelihood of being a target of violence. Personally, while I find everything that Trump says and thinks deplorable, he is but merely the id of our authoritarian, bigoted Republican electorate with a demonstrable lack of self-regulation.

I'm not a Republican, but you have some Democrats and leftists that would LOVE gun confiscation. You can't deny it. That's why this issue is brought up. Some Democrats and far-leftists have to STOP talking about gun control, it's too divisive. Suburban women voters need to let it go as well.

That's a ridiculous reason to bring this issue up in relation to Hillary Clinton, however. She has never articulated any position that even resembles what the Republican Party and, specifically, Trump are suggesting. What other Democrats and Leftists propose is essentially irrelevant in this context. Also, I wouldn't deny that there are some (not even most) Democrats and Leftists who'd enthusiastically support mass firearm confiscation and laws similar to those found in countries such as England - myself included.

You shouldn't. Are you a weakling? Be strong. Why are you so afraid of a gun? Are you going to use your hands to attack the robber or the criminal? Harden up, my friend, harden up.

Ah, the machismo argument. If you are opposed to guns, then you must be afraid of them, therefore toughen up. Wouldn't the more civilized answer to a culture of gun violence, directly stemming from our nation's adoration of such toxic masculinity and ready access to firearms, be to de-emphasize and de-glorify violence while removing the primary tool of causing mass deaths? But, I guess that might be asking too much of many Americans.

Come on my man, how are people supposed to defend themselves? Come on, man. How are you going to defend yourself?

From what am I supposed to defend myself? I have argued that guns need to be confiscated and banned, except for in tightly regulated and highly limited situations (such as farmers and licensed hunters). In that context, from what am I defending myself? A man with a knife or a baseball bat? Then the answer is a knife, a baseball bat, my hands, or some other object or, ideally, the police. But, again, if we focused on de-emphasizing and de-glorifying violence, along with actually tackling poverty, then the threat of violence would not be so widespread. I'm not saying it's a simple process, but it is the only legitimate process.

[Person Man]

The ss should visit this bastard and arrest him. Trump is scum.

Hmmm you want the "Ss" to take out a political leader who opposes you. And republicans are the fascist ones 🙄

Secret Service? They already talked to him once.

[Suburbia]

Unsurprising, considering most Republicans seem incapable of understanding that: (a) Clinton never proposed disarming or seizing arms from all American citizens, and (b) that there is an irrefutable difference between a political candidate aspiring to the Presidency and a regular citizen in terms of their likelihood of being a target of violence. Personally, while I find everything that Trump says and thinks deplorable, he is but merely the id of our authoritarian, bigoted Republican electorate with a demonstrable lack of self-regulation.

I'm not a Republican, but you have some Democrats and leftists that would LOVE gun confiscation. You can't deny it. That's why this issue is brought up. Some Democrats and far-leftists have to STOP talking about gun control, it's too divisive. Suburban women voters need to let it go as well.

That's a ridiculous reason to bring this issue up in relation to Hillary Clinton, however. She has never articulated any position that even resembles what the Republican Party and, specifically, Trump are suggesting. What other Democrats and Leftists propose is essentially irrelevant in this context. Also, I wouldn't deny that there are some (not even most) Democrats and Leftists who'd enthusiastically support mass firearm confiscation and laws similar to those found in countries such as England - myself included.

You shouldn't. Are you a weakling? Be strong. Why are you so afraid of a gun? Are you going to use your hands to attack the robber or the criminal? Harden up, my friend, harden up.

Ah, the machismo argument. If you are opposed to guns, then you must be afraid of them, therefore toughen up. Wouldn't the more civilized answer to a culture of gun violence, directly stemming from our nation's adoration of such toxic masculinity and ready access to firearms, be to de-emphasize and de-glorify violence while removing the primary tool of causing mass deaths? But, I guess that might be asking too much of many Americans.

Come on my man, how are people supposed to defend themselves? Come on, man. How are you going to defend yourself?

From what am I supposed to defend myself? I have argued that guns need to be confiscated and banned, except for in tightly regulated and highly limited situations (such as farmers and licensed hunters). In that context, from what am I defending myself? A man with a knife or a baseball bat? Then the answer is a knife, a baseball bat, my hands, or some other object or, ideally, the police. But, again, if we focused on de-emphasizing and de-glorifying violence, along with actually tackling poverty, then the threat of violence would not be so widespread. I'm not saying it's a simple process, but it is the only legitimate process.

I respectfully disagree. But if any Democrat or far leftist EVER proposes gun confiscation, there will be a civil war and only them will be to blame for anything that happens. I respectfully disagree with you, you're promoting weakness, in my opinion and this is why some people are saying that leftists are weak people. Come on man.

[DrScholl]

Making threats or inciting violence against your opponent is outside of political discourse. Wanting Hillary to be harmed is sick and anyone who supports Trump's comments proves that the basket of deplorables statement was correct.

[Suburbia]

Making threats or inciting violence against your opponent is outside of political discourse. Wanting Hillary to be harmed is sick and anyone who supports Trump's comments proves that the basket of deplorables statement was correct.

I obviously don't support it, but some Democrats just need to leave the Second Amendment alone. For the sake of the country.

[DrScholl]

Making threats or inciting violence against your opponent is outside of political discourse. Wanting Hillary to be harmed is sick and anyone who supports Trump's comments proves that the basket of deplorables statement was correct.

I obviously don't support it, but Democrats need to leave the Second Amendment alone. For the sake of the country.

Making death threats and inciting violence is not a part of the Second Amendment. Just because you hate Hillary doesn't mean that the Second Amendment gives anyone the right to harm her. The Second Amendment is not the right to shoot whoever you want.

[Deblano]

The ss should visit this bastard and arrest him. Trump is scum.

Arrest him for the high crime and misdemeanor of being mean to Queen Hillary?

It seems that both Trump and Clinton have a YUUUUUUGE cult of personality on the internet.

It's clear that Trump was implying that "if Clinton is so anti-gun, why does she have so many armed bodyguards?"

[GeorgiaModerate]

From what am I supposed to defend myself? I have argued that guns need to be confiscated and banned, except for in tightly regulated and highly limited situations (such as farmers and licensed hunters). In that context, from what am I defending myself? A man with a knife or a baseball bat? Then the answer is a knife, a baseball bat, my hands, or some other object or, ideally, the police. But, again, if we focused on de-emphasizing and de-glorifying violence, along with actually tackling poverty, then the threat of violence would not be so widespread. I'm not saying it's a simple process, but it is the only legitimate process.

In a hypothetical situation where all guns were banned, this might or might not be true.  But whether or not it's true, and whether or not it's even desirable (and I don't want to get into that discussion, which is really a separate question, or maybe two questions) -- you CAN'T get there.  There are too many guns already in circulation in this country, and no confiscation or ban could be anywhere approaching 100% effective.  That genie is out of the bottle, and it's not going back in again.  So it's rather pointless to speculate about banning guns, other than as an intellectual exercise.

The most effective course is to accept reality and try to come up with the best policies in view of that reality.  It's literally impossible to completely end gun possession in the U.S.  Now that doesn't mean there can't be effective regulations, and IMO there certainly should be; having no restrictions on the weapons you could own is a recipe for disaster.  (To carry this to an absurd extreme: should private citizens be able to legally own a nuclear bomb? Of course not.)

(In case you haven't noticed, I have an aversion to extreme positions on either end of the spectrum.)

[GeorgiaModerate]

The ss should visit this bastard and arrest him. Trump is scum.

Arrest him for the high crime and misdemeanor of being mean to Queen Hillary?

It seems that both Trump and Clinton have a YUUUUUUGE cult of personality on the internet.

It's clear that Trump was implying that "if Clinton is so anti-gun, why does she have so many armed bodyguards?"

That's what he's implying, but she's not that anti-gun.

[Suburbia]

Making threats or inciting violence against your opponent is outside of political discourse. Wanting Hillary to be harmed is sick and anyone who supports Trump's comments proves that the basket of deplorables statement was correct.

I obviously don't support it, but Democrats need to leave the Second Amendment alone. For the sake of the country.

Making death threats and inciting violence is not a part of the Second Amendment. Just because you hate Hillary doesn't mean that the Second Amendment gives anyone the right to harm her. The Second Amendment is not the right to shoot whoever you want.

I understand. I don't hate her, the far right does. I am just saying that these statements made by Trump and Gov. Bevin wouldn't have happened if Obama/Clinton and some Democrats keep demonizing gun owners. Background checks, leave guns and gun owners alone. The more gun control is mentioned, the more the NRA nuts gain power.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The ss should visit this bastard and arrest him. Trump is scum.

Arrest him for the high crime and misdemeanor of being mean to Queen Hillary?

It seems that both Trump and Clinton have a YUUUUUUGE cult of personality on the internet.

It's clear that Trump was implying that "if Clinton is so anti-gun, why does she have so many armed bodyguards?"

That's what he's implying, but she's not that anti-gun.

And he is not a racist; his supporters are not deplorables. So f**king what?

[Bismarck]

The ss should visit this bastard and arrest him. Trump is scum.

Hmmm you want the "Ss" to take out a political leader who opposes you. And republicans are the fascist ones 🙄

Secret Service? They already talked to him once.

Yes obviously.

[DrScholl]

Making threats or inciting violence against your opponent is outside of political discourse. Wanting Hillary to be harmed is sick and anyone who supports Trump's comments proves that the basket of deplorables statement was correct.

I obviously don't support it, but Democrats need to leave the Second Amendment alone. For the sake of the country.

Making death threats and inciting violence is not a part of the Second Amendment. Just because you hate Hillary doesn't mean that the Second Amendment gives anyone the right to harm her. The Second Amendment is not the right to shoot whoever you want.

I understand. I don't hate her, the far right does. I am just saying that these statements made by Trump and Gov. Bevin wouldn't have happened if Obama/Clinton and some Democrats keep demonizing gun owners. Background checks, leave guns and gun owners alone. The more gun control is mentioned, the more the NRA nuts gain power.

So, if you are for background checks, you deserve to have your life threatened? Ok.

[DrScholl]

The ss should visit this bastard and arrest him. Trump is scum.

Arrest him for the high crime and misdemeanor of being mean to Queen Hillary?

It seems that both Trump and Clinton have a YUUUUUUGE cult of personality on the internet.

It's clear that Trump was implying that "if Clinton is so anti-gun, why does she have so many armed bodyguards?"

Once again, Trump supporters or Trump-lites editorialize his bad comments to sound different. His intent was clear, because this is the second time he's made a similar comment. He's trying to incite violence.

[Suburbia]

Making threats or inciting violence against your opponent is outside of political discourse. Wanting Hillary to be harmed is sick and anyone who supports Trump's comments proves that the basket of deplorables statement was correct.

I obviously don't support it, but Democrats need to leave the Second Amendment alone. For the sake of the country.

Making death threats and inciting violence is not a part of the Second Amendment. Just because you hate Hillary doesn't mean that the Second Amendment gives anyone the right to harm her. The Second Amendment is not the right to shoot whoever you want.

I understand. I don't hate her, the far right does. I am just saying that these statements made by Trump and Gov. Bevin wouldn't have happened if Obama/Clinton and some Democrats keep demonizing gun owners. Background checks, leave guns and gun owners alone. The more gun control is mentioned, the more the NRA nuts gain power.

So, if you are for background checks, you deserve to have your life threatened? Ok.

No. But tone it down on the excessive gun control talk. Articles like this doesn't help.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613

[Deblano]

The ss should visit this bastard and arrest him. Trump is scum.

Arrest him for the high crime and misdemeanor of being mean to Queen Hillary?

It seems that both Trump and Clinton have a YUUUUUUGE cult of personality on the internet.

It's clear that Trump was implying that "if Clinton is so anti-gun, why does she have so many armed bodyguards?"

Once again, Trump supporters or Trump-lites editorialize his bad comments to sound different. His intent was clear, because this is the second time he's made a similar comment. He's trying to incite violence.

Yes, which explains why I have a Gary Johnson flair.

[JA]

From what am I supposed to defend myself? I have argued that guns need to be confiscated and banned, except for in tightly regulated and highly limited situations (such as farmers and licensed hunters). In that context, from what am I defending myself? A man with a knife or a baseball bat? Then the answer is a knife, a baseball bat, my hands, or some other object or, ideally, the police. But, again, if we focused on de-emphasizing and de-glorifying violence, along with actually tackling poverty, then the threat of violence would not be so widespread. I'm not saying it's a simple process, but it is the only legitimate process.

In a hypothetical situation where all guns were banned, this might or might not be true.  But whether or not it's true, and whether or not it's even desirable (and I don't want to get into that discussion, which is really a separate question, or maybe two questions) -- you CAN'T get there.  There are too many guns already in circulation in this country, and no confiscation or ban could be anywhere approaching 100% effective.  That genie is out of the bottle, and it's not going back in again.  So it's rather pointless to speculate about banning guns, other than as an intellectual exercise.

The most effective course is to accept reality and try to come up with the best policies in view of that reality.  It's literally impossible to completely end gun possession in the U.S.  Now that doesn't mean there can't be effective regulations, and IMO there certainly should be; having no restrictions on the weapons you could own is a recipe for disaster.  (To carry this to an absurd extreme: should private citizens be able to legally own a nuclear bomb? Of course not.)

(In case you haven't noticed, I have an aversion to extreme positions on either end of the spectrum.)

I'm glad to see a reasoned response, even if we have points of disagreement. I can certainly understand and respect the argument you've made, which is, admittedly, more practical and realistic. Obviously, the first step in the right direction is stricter regulations and restrictions on who can purchase a firearm or whose license may be revoked. Ideally, the end-result would be the end of guns in mass circulation, but the more pragmatic approach is tighter regulations, which I believe the majority of Americans would support.

[swf541]

The ss should visit this bastard and arrest him. Trump is scum.

Hmmm you want the "Ss" to take out a political leader who opposes you. And republicans are the fascist ones 🙄

Yea, you know the secret service.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The ss should visit this bastard and arrest him. Trump is scum.

Arrest him for the high crime and misdemeanor of being mean to Queen Hillary?

It seems that both Trump and Clinton have a YUUUUUUGE cult of personality on the internet.

It's clear that Trump was implying that "if Clinton is so anti-gun, why does she have so many armed bodyguards?"

That's what he's implying, but she's not that anti-gun.

And he is not a racist; his supporters are not deplorables. So f**king what?

The first point is not a given, and as for the second: of course not all Trump supporters, or even most of them, are deplorable.  But a bunch of them demonstrably are.  For example, the ones who punched out a 69-year-old lady protesting at one of his rallies.  Or the ones who pepper-sprayed a 15-year-old protester at another rally.  And then there are the ones who yell out "hang her" at Trump rallies.  We don't even need to go into details about David Duke and the other white supremacists who support Trump, do we?

There used to be something called civility and respect for political differences in this country.  And no, the Democrats are not completely innocent in this respect; but the Trump supporters are far, FAR worse.  Nor would I ever say that most Republicans are guilty of this behavior.  You didn't see this kind of thing at rallies for Romney, McCain, or any other candidate I can remember (and that's going back over 50 years).  I'd be willing to offer long odds that you wouldn't see it at Rubio or Kasich rallies if they had won the nomination.  Nor, I suspect, would they have tolerated it, let alone encouraged it as Trump does.

Trump is the problem.  He's a horrible person and encourages horrible behavior in others.  God knows I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, but her negatives pale in comparison to Trump's, and at least she'll probably be a reasonably effective President if she wins.  If Trump wins, I truly fear for the future of this country, and that's not hyperbole; he's spectacularly, dangerously unfit to be President.  I've batted about .500 in Presidential elections, but I've always had the feeling that if my candidate lost, the country would still be OK.  Not this time.

[Badger]

I think Trump's secret service protection should be removed and have no bodyguards and then see how much of a tough guy he is.

Don't worry. His mobs of rally attendees would jackboot-stomp anyone that came near him.

Not joking.

[Badger]

Unsurprising, considering most Republicans seem incapable of understanding that: (a) Clinton never proposed disarming or seizing arms from all American citizens, and (b) that there is an irrefutable difference between a political candidate aspiring to the Presidency and a regular citizen in terms of their likelihood of being a target of violence. Personally, while I find everything that Trump says and thinks deplorable, he is but merely the id of our authoritarian, bigoted Republican electorate with a demonstrable lack of self-regulation.

I'm not a Republican, but you have some Democrats and leftists that would LOVE gun confiscation. You can't deny it. That's why this issue is brought up. Some Democrats and far-leftists have to STOP talking about gun control, it's too divisive. Suburban women voters need to let it go as well.

That's a ridiculous reason to bring this issue up in relation to Hillary Clinton, however. She has never articulated any position that even resembles what the Republican Party and, specifically, Trump are suggesting. What other Democrats and Leftists propose is essentially irrelevant in this context. Also, I wouldn't deny that there are some (not even most) Democrats and Leftists who'd enthusiastically support mass firearm confiscation and laws similar to those found in countries such as England - myself included.

You shouldn't. Are you a weakling? Be strong. Why are you so afraid of a gun? Are you going to use your hands to attack the robber or the criminal? Harden up, my friend, harden up.

Ah, the machismo argument. If you are opposed to guns, then you must be afraid of them, therefore toughen up. Wouldn't the more civilized answer to a culture of gun violence, directly stemming from our nation's adoration of such toxic masculinity and ready access to firearms, be to de-emphasize and de-glorify violence while removing the primary tool of causing mass deaths? But, I guess that might be asking too much of many Americans.

Come on my man, how are people supposed to defend themselves? Come on, man. How are you going to defend yourself?

From what am I supposed to defend myself? I have argued that guns need to be confiscated and banned, except for in tightly regulated and highly limited situations (such as farmers and licensed hunters). In that context, from what am I defending myself? A man with a knife or a baseball bat? Then the answer is a knife, a baseball bat, my hands, or some other object or, ideally, the police. But, again, if we focused on de-emphasizing and de-glorifying violence, along with actually tackling poverty, then the threat of violence would not be so widespread. I'm not saying it's a simple process, but it is the only legitimate process.

I respectfully disagree. But if any Democrat or far leftist EVER proposes gun confiscation, there will be a civil war and only them will be to blame for anything that happens. I respectfully disagree with you, you're promoting weakness, in my opinion and this is why some people are saying that leftists are weak people. Come on man.

But they don't, and aren't about to. At all, despite NRA broadsheets to the contrary. That's the point.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

He is very obviously trying to get people to imagine Clinton being shot, just like with "Second Amendment people". (Otherwise, why "let's see what happens to her"?) What does this say about Trump's target audience? Let's be honest here.

[DrScholl]

Making threats or inciting violence against your opponent is outside of political discourse. Wanting Hillary to be harmed is sick and anyone who supports Trump's comments proves that the basket of deplorables statement was correct.

I obviously don't support it, but Democrats need to leave the Second Amendment alone. For the sake of the country.

Making death threats and inciting violence is not a part of the Second Amendment. Just because you hate Hillary doesn't mean that the Second Amendment gives anyone the right to harm her. The Second Amendment is not the right to shoot whoever you want.

I understand. I don't hate her, the far right does. I am just saying that these statements made by Trump and Gov. Bevin wouldn't have happened if Obama/Clinton and some Democrats keep demonizing gun owners. Background checks, leave guns and gun owners alone. The more gun control is mentioned, the more the NRA nuts gain power.

So, if you are for background checks, you deserve to have your life threatened? Ok.

No. But tone it down on the excessive gun control talk. Articles like this doesn't help.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613

If an article makes anyone want to make death threats, that person probably is the reason why gun control is even spoken of. I remember that Obama was supposed to seize everyone's guns, yet everyone still has their guns despite him being elected to two full terms.

[ProudModerate2]

Making threats or inciting violence against your opponent is outside of political discourse. Wanting Hillary to be harmed is sick and anyone who supports Trump's comments proves that the basket of deplorables statement was correct.