# Assassinating the President of the United States, the Debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2017, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207 "2017-12-01T01:38:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/61 "2017-12-01T06:44:18Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Here is the thing: the act of assassination results in outrage. The effect of that outrage is to stoke sympathy toward the victim, strengthening the position of his supporters. Hence, removing the “immediate threat” almost always establishes a worse situation than what was addressing. Assassination is simply a bad idea because it creates backlash. It is like trying to fix a stuttering engine by whacking the head with a sledgehammer. You end up worse off than you were. > > To anyone actually considering this “remedy”, please reconsider. You will make life much worse for everyone. Taking this line of thought down another path: once one side of a bitterly bipartisan divide elects to resort to violence, the door is then open for the other side to respond in kind. We have a name for that: civil war. A quick search tells me that the U.S. population circa 1860 was approximately 31,500,000 people, and that the _total_ casualties of that conflict was just over 1,000,000. “Scale Up” for a population over ten times that of 1860, factor in much more lethal weaponry available today over 1860, as well as advances in war-fighting tactics… …yeah, it’s not a pretty picture. _For either side._ Terms like “Phyrric” come to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/62 "2017-12-01T06:44:33Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Well, we _are_ talking about Zombie Hitler. > > _Hitler._ > > So, given that hypothetical, I think that I can safely say yes, those old boys (survivors of D-Day, Bastogne, etc.) wouldn’t bat an eye at putting a 30-06 FMJ through the brain pan of even _that_ duly elected President. I feel like I am not going to dissuade you. That’s too bad, I was going for more of a universally self-evident Kantian categorical imperative, but it appears that is not to be, either. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/63 "2017-12-01T06:45:32Z")
Completely agree with **Little Nemo** with this. But I’d add that isolated assassinations generally don’t change policy. That usually requires a full blown coup d’etat (which often involves an assassination). In a liberal democracy, assassinated political leaders are generally revered and in many cases their political platforms carried out posthumously (e.g. JFK). ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/64 "2017-12-01T07:04:03Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > Was that blindly partisan comment really called for, or did you just see an opportunity to throw in an insult of liberals, and do it for shits and giggles? The guy who started this thread put this in the OP: > [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > … Again, given the misery and death that a president’s policies can cause, I don’t know. People should have the final say in their government, but an evil, self-serving, or insane government must be stopped, and stopped by whatever means are necessary. … and then posted this: > [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > That’s a very good point. I’m not sure how we would go from “the entire government is sufficiently corrupt or dysfunctional” to “the old regime collapses”, though. Hope the voters wise up before the next election cycle, and just muddle through whatever happens between now and then the best we can? and then added this little gem later: > [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > Then let’s up the ante. Is it good and moral to make an end to a president who has begun that process, but who hasn’t yet completed it? So yeah, it felt pretty damn appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/65 "2017-12-01T07:09:06Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I feel like I am not going to dissuade you. That’s too bad, I was going for more of a universally self-evident Kantian categorical imperative, but it appears that is not to be, either. You’re not trying to dissuade _me_; I’m merely positing an educated guesstimate of how certain people I know would react to Zombie Hitler. _Your_ universally self-evident Kantian categorical imperative says, “Never assassinate a President.” _Their_ universally self-evident Kantian categorical imperative is probably more like, “_That_ sumbitch needs to get dead, and _stay_ dead!” Eh. Then again, I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/66 "2017-12-01T07:12:52Z")
I don’t mind multiple Kantian categorical imperatives, but for gosh sakes, they can’t be mutually exclusive! ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/67 "2017-12-01T07:27:00Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I don’t mind multiple Kantian categorical imperatives, but for gosh sakes, they can’t be mutually exclusive! Why not? Will they react like matter/anti-matter if they come in contact? Will the collision of the two cause some kind of rupture in space/time, ripping our Universe apart at the seams? Or will the Universe completely ignore the gibbering’s of some semi-evolved simians on an insignificant rock in the middle of nowhere, and keep on spinning? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/68 "2017-12-01T07:40:12Z")
You really think a society with a tremendous amount of liberty will continue having those liberties if political assassinations become the method to deal with politicians you don’t like? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/69 "2017-12-01T08:21:55Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Why not? Will they react like matter/anti-matter if they come in contact? Will the collision of the two cause some kind of rupture in space/time, ripping our Universe apart at the seams? > > Or will the Universe completely ignore the gibbering’s of some semi-evolved simians on an insignificant rock in the middle of nowhere, and keep on spinning? An individual would not be able to form a consistent doctrine out of it, that much is for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/70 "2017-12-01T11:32:24Z")
Man, I’m afraid to even reply to this thread. I hope you’re ready for the knock on your door from the men with sunglasses! > [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > When is assassinating the president the just and moral choice? The basis for the government, in modern, Humanist thinking, is that it’s a thing invented by the people and for the people, and only operates with their consent. Now, granted, none of us chose to grant the government this consent since none of us are 200+ years old, but I think we can run with the argument that we’ve all sort of quietly agreed that we’d make the same choices as our forebearers and that their logic was sound. We’ve also all quietly agreed that government exists as an organism for us to compromise with all of the other humans around us, and so we can’t expect to get our way all nor most of the time. Sometimes we’ll win, but mostly we’ll get a compromise or simply lose. That’s just reality. Me not getting what I want doesn’t mean that the government is a tyrannical and unjust force of evil. But so, in order to talk about revolution, assassination, coups, etc. you basically need to demonstrate to and satisfy a reasonable percentile of the population that the government has ceased operating within parameters where you can say that it’s honestly serving at the behest of the population. The President won the office by force and threats, congressional roles are being passed from father to son, etc. All of the mechanisms that allowed the government to serve its role as a way to negotiate on the behalf of its electorate have either been disbanded or made so toothless that it’s just as well to say that it’s not a real thing. The key point in there, though, is that _you have to satisfy a reasonable percentile of the population in this regard_. You and your buds in the Minuteman Watch Guard are not a sufficient jury to make this decision. When the American Revolution was begun, about 1/3rd of the total population were satisfied that the British government had no justifiable basis for governing them. Another 1/3rd couldn’t be bothered, and the last 1/3rd thought that the British government was the legal and justifiable governing body. Given that I would have to be a traitor to argue against the American Revolution, I basically have to accept that 1/3rd support is sufficient to get the ball rolling. If you don’t have at least that much support then, in my personal opinion, you simply don’t have enough evidence that the government has ceased to be supported by Humanist theory. (Granted, the people who supported the Monarchy may not have been thinking in those terms, so this number might be too low. But I can’t think of any other number that would have a better argument and also not make me wonder if it’s even possible to get that much support. People might vote against something simply because they’re too lazy or they’re more worried about change than they are about the question being asked - i.e., whether the government has mechanisms in place to represent their interests.) > [@](#): > > Our current method for deposing a bad president by impeachment and conviction was, as I understand it, implemented as an alternative to assassination. So, if impeachment and conviction of a bad president is not possible because of politics, is it the moral and just choice to kill the president? I’ll grant that my memory isn’t perfect, but I believe that “getting voted out” was the fallback. Granted, I think that Hamilton might have wanted a Monarch for Life, but I don’t think that discussion ever went far enough to get to the point where they’d be debating assassinations. And I suspect that they’d still land on something like, “Voting him out” or “Impeachment”, not assassination, based on the discussions which did happen. > [@](#): > > We have, built into the framework of our government, a method for regular non-violent transfer of power. Is it always the case that the transfer should be both regular and non-violent? The Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, so that they are immune to political whim. Their appointment is thus not regular. And given that it sometimes requires their deaths to force a new appointment, you could make an argument that it is sometimes violent - it’s just not a requirement (nor an expectation). > [@](#): > > The president is elected by the people, so is it ever the good and moral thing–the democratic thing–to subvert that collective will with a bullet? Since you explicitly specify “subvert the collective”, no. If an individual believes that we’re living in a dictatorship, but somehow the other 99.99999% of everyone disagrees, then he needs to trust that if he’s being outvoted, he is **wrong**. (I assume that you meant “the” not “that”.) > [@](#): > > In short, it is against the law to kill any given president. But is it ever the right thing to do? Despite everything that I have said above, about the nature of government, “the collective”, and “democracy”, I could possibly offer one single loophole where you could make a case in court and possibly be found innocent for killing the President. If the President starts walking down the street, in the United States, shooting at people, then you can shoot him. If the President breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you wake up, grab your gun, call out a warning for the intruder to leave or you’ll shoot, and the President calls back, “Fuck you! I’m coming up to kill you and your wife!” Then you can shoot him. Basically, in the few cases where one can lawfully kill any American citizen, you can kill the President. Beyond that, you’re out of luck unless you can convince 1/3rd of the populace that we’re living in a Dictatorship. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/71 "2017-12-01T11:33:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The guy who started this thread put this in the OP: > > and then posted this: > > and then added this little gem later: > > So yeah, it felt pretty damn appropriate. Point taken. But, if you would, indulge me in reflecting on one of my late father’s favorite expressions: “Two stupids don’t make a smart.” I understand your need/desire to reply back in a similar fashion. I really do. It just struck me as “punching down” in this instance. YMMV, obviously. And it’s not worth a continued hijack of the thread. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/72 "2017-12-01T12:54:09Z")
I think this is a horrible thread, and I don’t think it should have been allowed. This is below this group - I would have hoped. I’ll also state this (as a middle of the road guy who voted from Obama and didn’t vote for Trump), this would not have been allowed while Obama was President. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/73 "2017-12-01T13:24:26Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > I’ll also state this (as a middle of the road guy who voted from Obama and didn’t vote for Trump),\*\*\* this would not have been allowed while Obama was President\*\*\*. I know, right? Funny old thing, ain’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/74 "2017-12-01T13:35:35Z")
What if you don’t directly assassinate the president–what if you befriend John Hinckley and drop subtle hints that Jodie Foster _really_ doesn’t like the president? Is that morally acceptable? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/75 "2017-12-01T13:39:35Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > I know, right? > > Funny old thing, ain’t it? > **[Assassinating the President](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=191033)** > > Whoa Nellie, put down those moderation powers I’m just trying to get views and hopefully answers. Is there a law in the United States where discussing the assassination or planning on the harm of an American president is highly illegal? I know that... > **[When Is Rebellion/Revolution Justified?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=616197)** > > When is a rebellion or a revolution against a government justified. From what I can gather of Romans 13:1-7, I believe rebellion/revolution is only justified in order to protect human lives and then only because there is no other way to protect human... > **[Why hasn't someone tried to assassinate G.W. Bush yet?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=406736)** > > I’ve been thinking about this lately - Bush seems to be the most universally hated president of the past 100 years or so. Moreso, he’s one of the most actively dangerous, as he’s done so much to harm the U.S. already and is looking to do more in the... > **[Could Bill Gates have the President killed, if he really wanted to?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=444866)** > > For some reason, Bill Gates decides that he wants George Bush dead. He’s willing to use up to $50 billion to accomplish this task. Could he, with no current spy/assassin knowledge and contacts, assemble the manpower/intelligence/resources he needs to... ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/76 "2017-12-01T13:54:34Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > [Assassinating the President - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=191033) > [When Is Rebellion/Revolution Justified? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=616197) > [Why hasn't someone tried to assassinate G.W. Bush yet? - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=406736) > [Could Bill Gates have the President killed, if he really wanted to? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=444866) 3 of those date from the W Administration; of those, one is a GQ about the general legality of discussing such, one is a GQ asking if Bill Gates could swing it, and only one is an IMHO direct question as to why no one’s gone after W yet. The forth discusses/debates Rebellion/Revolution in general. Not a single one poses the question(s) the OP does during the timeframe of O’s Administration. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/77 "2017-12-01T14:07:51Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > 3 of those date from the W Administration; of those, one is a GQ about the general legality of discussing such, one is a GQ asking if Bill Gates could swing it, and only one is an IMHO direct question as to why no one’s gone after W yet. > > The forth discusses/debates Rebellion/Revolution in general. > > Not a single one poses the question(s) the OP does during the timeframe of O’s Administration. So the inference that the mods would have shut such a thing down is unsupported. The closest previous threads in the general realm, under the previous two presidencies, were all allowed to stand. It may not be a large sample size, nor an exactly matching sample set, but it’s the complete and closest data set to judge by, and nothing it says indicates that a similar thread wouldn’t have gotten clearance in previous times. While I do think that the mods have become more prudish in the last couple of years, I don’t think that they’ve become more partisan nor less open to basic facts. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/78 "2017-12-01T14:28:39Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > So the inference that the mods would have shut such a thing down is unsupported. The closest previous threads in the general realm, under the previous two presidencies, were all allowed to stand. > > It may not be a large sample size, nor an exactly matching sample set, but it’s the complete and closest data set to judge by, and nothing it says indicates that a similar thread wouldn’t have gotten clearance in previous times. > > While I do think that the mods have become more prudish in the last couple of years, I don’t think that they’ve become more partisan nor less open to basic facts. Hey, I don’t know why you’re getting all pissy with me; I just agreed with someone else who made the assertion that this kind of thread/discussion wouldn’t have been allowed during the O administration. While I’m not privy to whatever search terms you used to obtain your results, it was your results that I addressed; 3 from the W administration, one of which did directly ask about assassinating W. Only one thread from the timeframe of the O administration, debating justification for rebellion/revolution. I didn’t wade through the entirety of a 6+ y/o thread to see if it discussed or otherwise posited Presidential assassination, in general, or against any specific president. My take of the first few posts is that it’s a general debate about rebellion/revolution. Feel free to look through your own search results your own self, and correct/quote/link to any post that might correct or otherwise clarify and misunderstanding I might have. If you take exception to the assertion that “theoretical debates” about Presidential assassination were NOT allowed by Mods & Admins to go forward during the tenure of O, then address your point(s) of contention to the person who made it, not me. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/79 "2017-12-01T15:00:34Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > Point taken. > > But, if you would, indulge me in reflecting on one of my late father’s favorite expressions: > > “Two stupids don’t make a smart.” > > I understand your need/desire to reply back in a similar fashion. I really do. It just struck me as “punching down” in this instance. > > YMMV, obviously. And it’s not worth a continued hijack of the thread. It’s a good point. I’ll try to keep it in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Khendrask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3e96dc/32.png) [@Khendrask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khendrask)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/80 "2017-12-01T15:10:29Z")
> [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > When is assassinating the president the just and moral choice? Never. As far as I know, Murder is against all laws and moral codes. And there are actual procedures to remove a president (legally), and it is not all that far fetched to imagine convicting and imprisoning one. Oddly, if you were advocating a martial overthrow of the US government, with the backing of a majority of the citizens, I could see declaring a civil war, and taking out all of Washington DC (for starters) as having more just cause than a simple assassination. > [@](#): > > Our current method for deposing a bad president by impeachment and conviction was, as I understand it, implemented as an alternative to assassination. So, if impeachment and conviction of a bad president is not possible because of politics, is it the moral and just choice to kill the president? Again, no. If impeachment is not possible due to politics, then it is up to the electorate to replace the politicians. Launch recall campaigns (serious ones). Put new congresscritters in place. > [@](#): > > We have, built into the framework of our government, a method for regular non-violent transfer of power. Is it always the case that the transfer should be both regular and non-violent? With the exception of a revolutionary overthrow of the entire government as I stated above, my answer here is an absolute yes. > [@](#): > > I don’t know. A president has broad powers to hire and fire and appoint and change policy and could bring misery and death to countless citizens. Misery, definitely. Death? Where is that happening? And again, there are valid methods to remove a sitting President. > [@](#): > > The president is elected by the people, so is it ever the good and moral thing–the democratic thing–to subvert that collective will with a bullet? Again. No. Absolutely wrong. > [@](#): > > Again, given the misery and death that a president’s policies can cause, I don’t know. People should have the final say in their government, but an evil, self-serving, or insane government must be stopped, and stopped by whatever means are necessary. And here, such a government cannot be stopped by eliminating just a President. You are talking about the overthrow of the entire government, which can have a just and moral reason. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207.md?page=5)