Trump Suggests 'Second Amendment People' Could Act Against Clinton

[Speed of Sound]

The message of defense is, unsurprisingly, in disarray. "It was a joke!", "He meant vote!", "He meant NRA afterwards!", "But Hillary!", "Don't get gun-toters angry!" This isn't double speak, it's septuple speak. I did see that Trump spent the morning personally insulting his critics with ad hominems on Twitter, though. At least that message from his campaign is consistent.

[Saruman]

Personally, I actually do think that Trump didn't mean to mean what he said and I do buy that what he was supposed to say, "but second amendment people, you can do something about that by electing me" which was garbled because he is an unscripted moron.

But here's the thing, all Trump has to do is say "I misspoke, I meant to say _______,  I do not condone any violence against Hillary Clinton" (see that Trump, you didn't even have to apologize!) but he refuses to admit that he makes ANY mistakes. Instead we're just treated to a week-long press cycle where the press goes after him, his surrogates put out a bunch of different and conflicting defenses, and all he does is deny deny deny and yell at people on twitter.

[Hermit For Peace]

As much as I can't stand Trump, my gut tells me that this particular statement of his was overblown by everyone. I don't think he's really that stupid to advocate for people to harm Hillary, or cruel to want her to be assassinated. Not even Trump is that depraved.

But he was very reckless in what he said because his meaning was not crystal clear. If so many "normal" people can "misinterpret" what he said, what are the crazies out there -- who aren't as discerning as sane people -- going to think about what he said? And what are they going to do about it?

Trump is an insidious "seed planter." Little things like "Crooked Hillary" and comments like that, stick, whether they are true or not. So what is his little 2nd Amendment people "seed" going to sprout down the road?


And for crying out loud, he's also responsible for continually telling the lie that Hillary wants to get rid of the 2nd Amendment and take away people's guns. He's only saying that because he knows he'll get a rise out of people, but it's a BIG LIE.

Jesus!

[ProudModerate2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I thought only Dem hacks thought this was an issue!!!!1!!!

[Wells]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I thought only Dem hacks thought this was an issue!!!!1!!!

No, only Trump hacks think it's a non-issue.

Also, this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fargobison]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Statement from the pathological liar...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/763477408909500416

[Wells]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Statement from the pathological liar...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/763477408909500416

Is the Secret Service official lying. . . or is Trump lying?

Real tough decision.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Statement from the pathological liar...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/763477408909500416

Is the Secret Service official lying. . . or is Trump lying?

Real tough decision.

It might be a tough decision for Seriously?

lol

[Mr. Reactionary]

My favorite hits of this thread:

Hitler

Arrest him and round up his major supporters/allies.  We need to make an example out of him.

Why didn't the Secret Service tackle him onstage for making a threat to a presidential candidate?

Hate speech is illegal. This is borderline, but only because it is technically "political speech" and the least regulated of all types of speech.

[Virginiá]

Personally, I actually do think that Trump didn't mean to mean what he said and I do buy that what he was supposed to say, "but second amendment people, you can do something about that by electing me" which was garbled because he is an unscripted moron.

But here's the thing, all Trump has to do is say "I misspoke, I meant to say _______,  I do not condone any violence against Hillary Clinton" (see that Trump, you didn't even have to apologize!) but he refuses to admit that he makes ANY mistakes. Instead we're just treated to a week-long press cycle where the press goes after him, his surrogates put out a bunch of different and conflicting defenses, and all he does is deny deny deny and yell at people on twitter.

If you meant "supposed to say, but mouth said the opposite of what brain thought", then maybe. However, Trump's words were implying after she was elected. This has been gone over quite a bit in the news now. I think the more plausible "pro-Trump" explanation here is that he meant exactly what the media is saying, except that he didn't think it was a big deal and wasn't joking, but wasn't really serious either. In other words, he just said whatever crap came to mind and then moved on, as he usually does. This is Trump's M.O. - He just says whatever pops into his head.

[Likely Voter]

After a day my less than hot take on this is that this is another example of Trump dog-whistling to a popular but fringy view on the right. In this case, that second amendment as more than a right to bear arms for sport, hunting and protection. They talk about it in terms of how it is a check on the government. Ted Cruz said last year it was "fundamental check on government tyranny." The extreme version of this is of course the sovereign citizens movement.

Perhaps the next time a reporter talks to him about this they shouldnt ask about if he was talking about someone shooting Clinton, he should ask him if he agrees with that interpretation of the second amendment.  Do citizens have a right to fight (with guns) against a 'tyrannical government' and if so, how does one define 'tyranny'?  Then you can get to the Clinton question. What actions of a potential Clinton government or Clinton-appointee on SCOTUS would he consider 'tyranical'?  

[Fuzzy Bear]

CNN is talking endlessly about this now.  This non-issue.  As if folks can't evaluate what they see and make up their own mind about temperament.

The maelstrom of criticism about Trump is an attempt to deflect attention from the newly-released e-mails showing the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during the Clinton years there.  At best, those e-mails show that Hillary wasn't willing or able to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety.  Whether or not she avoided ACTUAL impropriety, conflict of interest, etc., remains to be seen.  It's amazing, however, that problems surrounding the perception of impropriety never seem to dog Barack Obama, and he's a guy whose enemies have taken "dogged" to a new level.

[skoods]

CNN is talking endlessly about this now.  This non-issue.  As if folks can't evaluate what they see and make up their own mind about temperament.

The maelstrom of criticism about Drumpf is an attempt to deflect attention from the newly-released e-mails showing the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during the Clinton years there.  At best, those e-mails show that Hillary wasn't willing or able to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety.  Whether or not she avoided ACTUAL impropriety, conflict of interest, etc., remains to be seen.  It's amazing, however, that problems surrounding the perception of impropriety never seem to dog Barack Obama, and he's a guy whose enemies have taken "dogged" to a new level.

Oh get a grip ya right wing nut job.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Personally, I actually do think that Trump didn't mean to mean what he said and I do buy that what he was supposed to say, "but second amendment people, you can do something about that by electing me" which was garbled because he is an unscripted moron.

But here's the thing, all Trump has to do is say "I misspoke, I meant to say _______,  I do not condone any violence against Hillary Clinton" (see that Trump, you didn't even have to apologize!) but he refuses to admit that he makes ANY mistakes. Instead we're just treated to a week-long press cycle where the press goes after him, his surrogates put out a bunch of different and conflicting defenses, and all he does is deny deny deny and yell at people on twitter.

I think, he'd actually benefit and win back some educated, if he'd apologize/admit that he had misspoken. But he won't :/

[Blue3]

I like Ronald Reagan's daughter's comments on his earlier 2nd amendment comments.


To Donald Trump: I am the daughter of a man who was shot by someone who got his inspiration from a movie, someone who believed if he killed the President the actress from that movie would notice him. Your glib and horrifying comment about "Second Amendment people" was heard around the world. It was heard by sane and decent people who shudder at your fondness for verbal violence. It was heard by your supporters, many of whom gleefully and angrily yell, "Lock her up!" at your rallies. It was heard by the person sitting alone in a room, locked in his own dark fantasies, who sees unbridled violence as a way to make his mark in the world, and is just looking for ideas. Yes, Mr. Trump, words matter. But then you know that, which makes this all even more horrifying.

[Wells]

I like Ronald Reagan's daughter's comments on his earlier 2nd amendment comments.


To Donald Trump: I am the daughter of a man who was shot by someone who got his inspiration from a movie, someone who believed if he killed the President the actress from that movie would notice him. Your glib and horrifying comment about "Second Amendment people" was heard around the world. It was heard by sane and decent people who shudder at your fondness for verbal violence. It was heard by your supporters, many of whom gleefully and angrily yell, "Lock her up!" at your rallies. It was heard by the person sitting alone in a room, locked in his own dark fantasies, who sees unbridled violence as a way to make his mark in the world, and is just looking for ideas. Yes, Mr. Trump, words matter. But then you know that, which makes this all even more horrifying.

If Trump supporters won't listen to Reagan's daughter, who will they listen to?

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Doesn't secret service usually track people down and talk to people that say these kinds of things?

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/trump-second-amendment/

[sparkey]

After a day my less than hot take on this is that this is another example of Trump dog-whistling to a popular but fringy view on the right. In this case, that second amendment as more than a right to bear arms for sport, hunting and protection. They talk about it in terms of how it is a check on the government. Ted Cruz said last year it was "fundamental check on government tyranny." The extreme version of this is of course the sovereign citizens movement.

Perhaps the next time a reporter talks to him about this they shouldnt ask about if he was talking about someone shooting Clinton, he should ask him if he agrees with that interpretation of the second amendment.  Do citizens have a right to fight (with guns) against a 'tyrannical government' and if so, how does one define 'tyranny'?  Then you can get to the Clinton question. What actions of a potential Clinton government or Clinton-appointee on SCOTUS would he consider 'tyranical'?  

The 2nd amendment was absolutely put in the Constitution to protect against tyranny, but a lot of right-wingers get the implications of that backwards. The historical context of who was lobbying for the Bill of Rights and what they thought of a standing army is very important. The 2nd amendment doesn't imply a right of insurrection against whatever perceived tyranny there is. Rather it maintains that a well-armed population helps protect our free country, hence the whole militia clause. The militia is actually in contrast to a permanent standing army, who were considered a potential tool of tyranny.

"The 2nd amendment is an important tool to help keep the standing military small" is unfortunately a forgotten sentiment. It was in fact a primary purpose of the 2nd amendment, with self-defense and hunting real but secondary purposes.