# Donald Trump winks and nods to the Second Amendment people **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 9, 2016, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283 "2016-08-09T22:03:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![leftfield6](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leftfield6/32/18780_2.png) [@leftfield6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leftfield6)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/261 "2016-08-11T10:50:24Z")
> [@john\_L](#): > > Trump made the 2nd amendment remark everyone’s so upset about \*\*\*\*\*\*only once, \*\*\*\*\*\* before only 3,000 people in North Carolina. > > if it was so " dangerous " , shouldn’t it be the mass media that’s charged w/ inciting violence , since it’s them that’s repeated it over-n-over a zillion times, to a zillion folks , not trump ? Coming soon to a theater near you, Donald Trump in the thriller “The Candidate Too Dangerous To Cover”. Nice blame defection there. How about Trump goes more than a news cycle without saying something so stupid that most people who hear it interpret it as a threat to violence? Most people can get through a day without that happening to them. ---
**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:** [August 11, 2016, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/262 "2016-08-11T12:22:56Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Yes - there are minimum standards in law - and I don’t see anyone suggesting those should change. > > Then there are standards that voters - ie YOU…should expect / demand of your candidates. > > Regardless of whether or not you agree with their viewpoints, with their beliefs, they should at least be people that you can respect for the way they conduct themselves right? Shouldn’t a candidate represent the “best of us” and not the “worst of us”? Why should we “allow” a candidate like Trump to gain so much traction? > > Do people really “respect” him and what he stands for? > > And make no mistake - when you forward the argument that Trump is “qualified” to be President, as you have, then you are “allowing” his candidacy Of course Trump is qualified to be a presidential candidate or even the president. That is a feature of democracy. The people get to vote regardless of what their “betters” wish. And if you don’t think the perception of elite derision is a factor in Trump’s popularity you might want to listen to actual Trump supporters and take them at their word. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/263 "2016-08-11T12:38:33Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Of course Trump is qualified to be a presidential candidate or even the president. That is a feature of democracy. The people get to vote regardless of what their “betters” wish. And if you don’t think the perception of elite derision is a factor in Trump’s popularity you might want to listen to actual Trump supporters and take them at their word. This is just quibbling about the definition of “qualified”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/264 "2016-08-11T12:57:27Z")
> [@Mona\_Lisa\_Simpson](#): > > I disagree. Donald Trump was talking about what a horrible day it would be when a second amendment type took action to prevent President Hillary Clinton from appointing judges. I don’t think this sentence is getting enough attention. It seems to clarify exactly what he meant. Not sure I understand your point. You disagree with the _fact_ that he mentioned the snd amendment leading up to the statement that everyone is quoting? If so: (Emphasis mine.) > [@](#): > > **Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment**. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if – if – Hillary gets to put her judges in." And if that is not what you meant, how do you know that his “horrible day” portion was referring to the day that Hilary had been elected. That seems much more logical—if one does not reflexively insist in putting everything Trump says into the worst possible light and contort logic to insist that he meant it that way. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/265 "2016-08-11T13:33:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And if that is not what you meant, how do you know that his “horrible day” portion was referring to the day that Hilary had been elected. That seems much more logical—if one does not reflexively insist in putting everything Trump says into the worst possible light and contort logic to insist that he meant it that way. I just wanted to point out that there is some ambiguity over the punctuation after “horrible day”, whether its: > [@](#): > > Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if – if – Hillary gets to put her judges in. Right now we’re tied. Or: > [@](#): > > Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day. If – if – Hillary gets to put her judges in–right now we’re tied. Whether there being a comma or a period after the “horrible day” changes the interpretation slightly. I’ve seen it reported both ways, but listening to the full audio clip a few times, it seems more likely to me that it’s the former. I still think the rest of the quote is obviously playing to the paranoid fantasy of armed resistance to the Feds, but I agree that the “horrible day” part is more ambiguous. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/266 "2016-08-11T13:35:04Z")
> [@john\_L](#): > > Trump made the 2nd amendment remark everyone’s so upset about **only once,** You mean “…so far” – obviously, if there were no negative consequences (i.e. if the media followed the ridiculous bend-over-backwards policy you suggest), it would become a standard talking point, until the stochastic-terrorism trigger was pulled or the campaign ended, whichever came first. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/267 "2016-08-11T13:42:51Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > By “success” you mean “losing an election against the worst Democratic candidate in a generation,” right? I have to push back a bit against this assertion. Al Gore made Jeb “Low Energy” Bush look like the Wally West Flash after washing down a carton of Pixie Stix with a gallon of expresso. That said, I’m occasionally tempted to believe that il Doofus is really trying to throw the election, until the logic of the simpler explanation (he really is that far gone in narcissistic buffoonery) reasserts itself. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/268 "2016-08-11T14:22:15Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I found it perfectly defensible at the time, if not advisable in retrospect. I thought it was obvious (and I was a strong Obama supporter at the time) that she was not even hinting “hey, maybe Obama will get assassinated, you never know” but rather “let’s not declare the race over so soon: we remember Bobby Kennedy getting assassinated in June, when he won the California primary in what was still an actively contested race” (whether Bobby had any realistic shot at the nomination was doubtful, but…). It was tasteless in how self-serving, thoughtless, and opportunistic it came across. Things were so heated in that election that it wasn’t a stretch to think Obama _was_ at high risk of being assassinated. I’m sure I wasn’t the only black person extra nervous about that happening. But of all the things Clinton could’ve cited as justification for staying in the race (like being determined to win and not letting her supporters down), why that one? It went without saying that had Obama been assassinated, she would have been nominated, whether she stayed in or out the race. So you have to wonder what she thought she’d gain by reminding voters Obama had a bullseye on his back. There was no reason to even go there unless she was trying to portray herself as the safer choice. Obama was gonna take us back to crazy 1968 with his black, charismatic self, but not good ole pragmatic Hillary! That’s what made it indefensible. It’s poor form to stake your own electability on the life-and-death risks your opponent must contend with through no fault of their own. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/269 "2016-08-11T14:36:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Not sure I understand your point. You disagree with the _fact_ that he mentioned the snd amendment leading up to the statement that everyone is quoting? If so: > > (Emphasis mine.) > > > [@](#): > > > > **Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment.** By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if – if – Hillary gets to put her judges in." > > And if that is not what you meant, how do you know that his “horrible day” portion was referring to the day that Hilary had been elected. That seems much more logical—if one does not reflexively insist in putting everything Trump says into the worst possible light and contort logic to insist that he meant it that way. Maybe he threw in the part about Second Amendment people to deflect from the fact that he unequivocally _lied_ about Clinton wanting to abolish the Second Amendment. That little sleight of hand worked, because no one has called him out on that lie and I’m sure his followers believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/270 "2016-08-11T14:40:19Z")
There was no attempt at deflection-he just doesn’t have a governor for his mouth. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/271 "2016-08-11T14:51:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > There was no attempt at deflection-he just doesn’t have a governor for his mouth. How about Jim McGreevey? That’s a _nice_ handbasket. ---
**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:** [August 11, 2016, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/272 "2016-08-11T16:06:18Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is just quibbling about the definition of “qualified”. My post is more concerned with the nature of people and democracy than the concept of standards. People want democracy? People want to vote in another party’s primary? Well, live with the consequences. Truthfully I hope the manipulation of the Republican primary by political trolls backfires. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/273 "2016-08-11T16:35:39Z")
Yeah guys, reporting on something is just as bad as doing it yourself. Why can’t you see that? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/274 "2016-08-11T16:40:57Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > My post is more concerned with the nature of people and democracy than the concept of standards. People want democracy? People want to vote in another party’s primary? Well, live with the consequences. Truthfully I hope the manipulation of the Republican primary by political trolls backfires. Well you got the right candidate. Donald will be known as the biggest troll ever. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/275 "2016-08-11T17:10:42Z")
> [@john\_L](#): > > nope-- you’re just 😕 on your end. :D: No, I’m not. If Trump would STFU with the clueless comments, the media would report on something else. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/276 "2016-08-11T17:15:43Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > No, I’m not. If Trump would STFU with the clueless comments, the media would report on something else. I think it’s pathological with him. He looks at the news, and sees that Clinton is a featured story (and it’s often a bad-news story about her). This enrages him. He cannot understand that it is a GOOD THING if the media is reporting a negative thing about your opponent. He is jealous. He WANTS some of that sweet, sweet media time. So, he figures he needs to run his mouth and say something outrageous. More outrageous than last time. THAT will bump Clinton off the front page! So bad news for Clinton lasts only a short time, with Trump making sure he replaces her by saying something idiotic. I know it makes no sense, but you have to think like an egomaniac with no real desire to actually become president. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/277 "2016-08-11T17:20:40Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > Yeah guys, reporting on something is just as bad as doing it yourself. Why can’t you see that? I still haven’t forgiven those rat bastards Woodward and Bernstein… ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/278 "2016-08-11T17:26:50Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Treat them as equals instead of inferior, lesser beings because they can’t make a living on minimum wage. Give them a chance at the same opportunities as everyone else so they feel they have a future and a stake in the country, instead of getting left behind by high tuitions, below-poverty line wages and exhorbitant housing prices. Don’t shut them out of the system by making voting even harder for them. IOW, treat people with basic respect and they won’t be so desperate that they fall for a con artist. > > Sound familiar? Except that Trump voters are not, by and large, poor whites living in trailers. His strongest supporters are white male Boomers with above average incomes but a lot of resentment that the country is becoming browner and multicultural, not to mention that they can’t get away with the sexism that was endemic when they were young. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > That’s what made it indefensible. It’s poor form to stake your own electability on the life-and-death risks your opponent must contend with through no fault of their own. I just don’t think that’s where her mind was going at all, although of course in retrospect she realized she failed to choose her words carefully. I think the point was that we only remember that day because he was assassinated (if he had just won the primary and stayed alive, only a much smaller number of political junkies and historians would remember). But since it is so well remembered, she was saying “Hey, you know that day that was so famous? That was in _June_, and there was still an active race going on. This isn’t over yet!” I really don’t think the actual fact that he was assassinated was part of what she was trading on there, not at all. ---
**Author:** ![john\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c2a13f/32.png) [@john\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/john_L)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/279 "2016-08-11T17:51:39Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > You should be at Rio since you’re that good at mental gymnastics. > > The media’s job is to report what the candidates are saying, but it’s perfectly possible to report on what they’ve said while also condemning it. All the media coverage of this that I’ve seen has been overwhelmingly negative. As for a lone crazy nut, well they could have decided to try and kill Clinton for any reason at all, maybe because the machine elves told them to. I’m pretty confident that the Secret Service’s precautions would be enough to stop a lone crazy nut. > [@leftfield6](#): > > Coming soon to a theater near you, Donald Trump in the thriller “The Candidate Too Dangerous To Cover”. > > Nice blame defection there. How about Trump goes more than a news cycle without saying something so stupid that most people who hear it interpret it as a threat to violence? Most people can get through a day without that happening to them. > [@Steve\_MB](#): > > You mean “…so far” – obviously, if there were no negative consequences (i.e. if the media followed the ridiculous bend-over-backwards policy you suggest), it would become a standard talking point, until the stochastic-terrorism trigger was pulled or the campaign ended, whichever came first. > [@cochrane](#): > > No, I’m not. If Trump would STFU with the clueless comments, the media would report on something else. just "faux outrage " , as usual from lefties. if "real danger " existed , you certainly wouldn’t continue broadcasting that danger, over-n-over. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/280 "2016-08-11T18:01:18Z")
> [@john\_L](#): > > Trump made the 2nd amendment remark everyone’s so upset about \*\*\*\*\*\*only once, \*\*\*\*\*\* before only 3,000 people in North Carolina. > > if it was so " dangerous " , shouldn’t it be the mass media that’s charged w/ inciting violence , since it’s them that’s repeated it over-n-over a zillion times, to a zillion folks , not trump ? As President, you’re allowed to say this \*\*zero \*\*times. That is the issue - it goes to character and temperament. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283.md?page=15)