Trump: Clinton's bodyguards should be disarmed; let's see what happens to her (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 12:40:31 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Trump: Clinton's bodyguards should be disarmed; let's see what happens to her (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Trump: Clinton's bodyguards should be disarmed; let's see what happens to her  (Read 5251 times)
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,666
United States


« on: September 16, 2016, 06:30:43 PM »

He's crazy but some in the media/social media may be taking out of proportion.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,666
United States


« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2016, 06:50:24 PM »

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.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,666
United States


« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2016, 07:03:14 PM »

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.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,666
United States


« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2016, 07:15:05 PM »
« Edited: September 16, 2016, 07:20:03 PM by bronz4141 »

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? Come on, bro. Get serious.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,666
United States


« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2016, 07:26:31 PM »
« Edited: September 16, 2016, 07:30:09 PM by bronz4141 »

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.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,666
United States


« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2016, 07:33:24 PM »
« Edited: September 16, 2016, 07:35:23 PM by bronz4141 »

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.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,666
United States


« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2016, 07:42:12 PM »

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.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,666
United States


« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2016, 07:50:40 PM »

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
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 13 queries.