# 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:** 8
**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 10, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/141 "2016-08-10T16:54:01Z")
I haven’t see anyone else point this out, but Trump’s comment reveals what he really thinks about “2nd amendment people”. He clearly sees them as reactionary, violent, and likely to commit murder when displeased with the decisions of elected officials. He’s not above painting them with the same brush that many extreme gun control advocates do, except he’s using that brush to rally folks against Clinton instead of the NRA. Trump sees nothing wrong with implying gun right supporters are inherently dangerous. And you see, the reason why the 2nd amendment should remained unadulterated is so we can keep these dangerous people appeased. Horrible things will happen if we don’t. Now if we were talking about any other people, Trump would be portraying them as terrorists and menaces to law and order. But “2nd amendment people” are allowed to be so angry and violent that we can jokingly speculate about them attacking an elected official, while still being pandered to in a campaign. ---
**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 10, 2016, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/142 "2016-08-10T17:07:24Z")
> [@Briny\_Deep](#): > > Anecdote: my Evangelical dad is 100% behind that Town Hall writer, formerly hating Trump as a hedonist, a boor, and even as a dangerous madman before he clinched the nomination, but now, the only thing is to defeat the Liberals by any means necessary. He has focused his outrage on the Liberal Media for throwing a hissyfit every time Trump says something supposedly controversial. > > All the Trumpisms are having the exact desired effect; there is literally no downside. Even folks like my dad who once couldn’t stand him, now recognize that defeating the Liberal enemy is worth any price. It is worth mushroom clouds, I really believe that, because God will know we were on the side of hating Liberalism. > > There is **no** line Trump could cross at this point and lose Evangelical support. Maybe, _maybe_ if he said something like “Of course my worthy opponent means well for this country as we all do, but her ideas are mistaken…” that would be a bridge too far. Which is a side effect of partisanship. What matters now, to many, is if their state is blue or red not what blue or red means. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/143 "2016-08-10T17:07:35Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Super pedantic nitpickery, but half the people have a below-median IQ. There are ways for a large majority – or tiny minority – to have a below- or above-average numerical quality such as IQ, height, weight, etc. > > (“I’m outraged that fully half the people in this country have a below-median income!”) > > Sorry. The masked statistician strikes again! I see your Super pedantic nitpickery and raise you a split hair. Unlike Income or height, IQ is defined based on a Gaussian distribution so the mean is equal to the median in that case. 😃 ETA: Dammit Shalmanese! ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/144 "2016-08-10T17:15:23Z")
If Trump meant, _"Those who are worried about their 2nd amendment rights being taken away or eroded_ in the future need to make sure they get to the polls on election day and defeat Hillary Clinton,"\* then he should have said that. \*The word eroded might be too _bigly_ a word for him to use. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/145 "2016-08-10T17:27:00Z")
Unlike most of you I think Trump knew exactly what he was doing. The ability to emit a dog whistle spontaneously is pretty so I think he must have planned it. And how can any sane person doubt what he meant. The only way to prevent a president Clinton from appointing the wrong court justices is up to the 2nd amendment people. And that would be a horrible day (we can agree on that). There is simply no other interpretation possible. And you don’t joke about things like that. ---
**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 10, 2016, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/146 "2016-08-10T17:34:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The “horrible day” thing confirms, IMO, that Trump was talking about violence. Why else would it be a “horrible day” if “2nd Amendment people” take some action in opposition to Hillary Clinton? And the excuse that it was about “voting” does not wash either. Trumps hypothetical was AFTER the election, when Clinton would put those evil liberal judges in place. THEN, he supposed, the “second amendment people” would have to solve the problem. They sure could not do so by voting at that point. They’d only have one solution left then, hmmmmm? Too cute by half. ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/147 "2016-08-10T17:36:26Z")
“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.” ---
**Author:** ![koeeoaddi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/koeeoaddi/32/408_2.png) [@koeeoaddi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/koeeoaddi)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/148 "2016-08-10T17:44:02Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Unlike most of you I think Trump knew exactly what he was doing. The ability to emit a dog whistle spontaneously is pretty so I think he must have planned it. And how can any sane person doubt what he meant. The only way to prevent a president Clinton from appointing the wrong court justices is up to the 2nd amendment people. And that would be a horrible day (we can agree on that). There is simply no other interpretation possible. And you don’t joke about things like that. That was no dog whistle. That was a clarion call. Joke or otherwise, of course he meant it the way just about everyone thinks he meant it. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/149 "2016-08-10T17:57:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > To a degree, yes. But that doesn’t mean that every time people take what you say and put it through the Super-Duper Worst Possible Meaning Translator, that it is expressing reality. Well, here’s what he says: > [@Trump](#): > > If she gets to pick her judges ― nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people. Maybe there is. I don’t know. The Super-Duper Best Possible Meaning Translator says he meant, > [@](#): > > If she gets to pick her judges [which means that she’s won the election] – nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people [have built a time machine enabling them to go back into the past, before the election I was just saying she won, organize better, and retroactively win the election, erasing the timestream that I was discussing]. Maybe there is [such a time machine]. I don’t know. Once she’s won the election, she gets to pick her judges. Unless there’s a time machine. Or unless someone shoots her in the face. I’m proud of you for using the Best Possible Meaning Translator, and urge you to tell us more about the time machine if you’re holding out. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/150 "2016-08-10T18:00:41Z")
> [@koeeoaddi](#): > > That was no dog whistle. That was a clarion call. Joke or otherwise, of course he meant it the way just about everyone thinks he meant it. > [@](#): > > “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks,” he said. > > Trump then added, “Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.” Up front - I’m in the ‘bad joke that no reasonable candidate should make’ camp with a side of winking to the true believers in 2nd amendment solutions. However, you don’t have to twist reality too hard to read the second statement above as a call to the 2nd amendment folks to get out and vote so that Hillary _doesn’t_ get to “pick her judges”. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/151 "2016-08-10T18:13:05Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Poor Rudy. He still thinks he could be Attorney General some day. Why the fuck didn’t someone ask him about the “horrible day” part? ---
**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 10, 2016, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/152 "2016-08-10T18:13:25Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > However, you don’t have to twist reality too hard to read the second statement above as a call to the 2nd amendment folks to get out and vote so that Hillary _doesn’t_ get to “pick her judges”. Twist it? You would have to destroy it to get that interpretation…unless you deliberately leave off what he said next about that action: “And that would be a horrible day (we can agree on that)” It would be a horrible day if people got out and voted against his opponent? _Really?_ ---
**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 10, 2016, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/153 "2016-08-10T18:20:31Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > Up front - I’m in the ‘bad joke that no reasonable candidate should make’ camp with a side of winking to the true believers in 2nd amendment solutions. > > **However, you don’t have to twist reality too hard to read the second statement above as a call to the 2nd amendment folks to get out and vote so that Hillary _doesn’t_ get to “pick her judges”.** Then why didn’t he say that? 'Hillary wants to take your guns. All you supporters of the 2nd Amendment, get out and vote." Completely unambiguous. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/154 "2016-08-10T18:20:43Z")
I hope the NRA actually runs this [advertisement](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxqx5CjfrgE&feature=youtu.be) where they call Clinton a hypocrite for having secret service protection despite favoring gun control. Leaving aside that this argument is silly, it’s pretty easy to point out that it’s not hypocrisy if your opponent has openly advocated murdering you with a gun. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/155 "2016-08-10T18:33:44Z")
> [@by-tor](#): > > Little Nemo, I am not saying it is a winning strategy but it is his strategy. It got him past all the “boring” nominees and won him the nomination. > > Obviously it is not working in the real race so far but I do not think he has a plan B. > > He gets way more press saying obnoxious things and acting out than if he was a reasonable, conservative candidate talking about realistic policy. I don’t see how you can dispute that. There is some truth to this but the problem is in the use of the word “strategy”, which implies a coherent plan. One of my favorite universal truths is “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” and it has many variants; in Trump’s case, substitute “strategy” for “malice” and it’s still true. He didn’t consciously decide that being an outrageous, offensive blowhard was a winning strategy – that’s who he is, and always has been. He’s an idiot who emits stupidity everywhere he goes with the penetrating intensity of a foghorn and about as much eloquence. He doesn’t have a “Plan B” because he never had a “Plan A”, and he can’t help himself even as it sinks him in the general election campaign. It will continue like this – he’ll keep blundering around saying whatever he wants, and his handlers will be mopping up after him and desperately trying to spin it. At some point I imagine one or more of his handlers will quit in disgust or be fired for daring to challenge him. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/156 "2016-08-10T18:33:57Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > However, you don’t have to twist reality too hard to read the second statement above as a call to the 2nd amendment folks to get out and vote so that Hillary _doesn’t_ get to “pick her judges”. If this was the case it would be a very weak and bizarre statement for a politician to make. “Maybe” if my supporters get off their asses we can defeat her? If he’s talking like that he’s already lost. You don’t take a statement like “we must not let these policies be enacted” and then qualify it with a maybe. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/157 "2016-08-10T18:39:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Twist it? You would have to destroy it to get that interpretation…unless you deliberately leave off what he said next about that action: “And that would be a horrible day (we can agree on that)” It would be a horrible day if people got out and voted against his opponent? > > _Really?_ The implausible twist there seems to be to interpret it like this: if the day comes when she’s elected president, she’ll then pick judges who’ll ignore our rights. Now, I’m holding out hope that people who advocate for Second Amendment rights can work within the system to legally stop such an outcome – after all, they’re unusually numerous, and they’re single-issue voters, and they donate a lot of their own time and money when organizing protests and letter-writing campaigns – but if the day comes when she’s elected, why, then, such a day could only be described as ‘horrible’. No, I don’t believe he had that in mind. But is it a minimally-plausible fig leaf? Well, again, no, of course not. But is it an _implausible_ fig leaf? Yeah, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![MN\_Maenad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e95f7d/32.png) [@MN\_Maenad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MN_Maenad)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/158 "2016-08-10T18:45:31Z")
If Trump thinks it’s ridiculous to interpret his words as a call to violence, maybe he should tell [his supporters](https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/trump-reactions?utm_term=.ohmlQzVkE#.bhp0xoXBL) instead of just criticizing the media. At least some of them interpreted it that way too. ---
**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 10, 2016, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/159 "2016-08-10T18:48:54Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But is it an _implausible_ fig leaf? Yeah, I guess. And that’s what the current crop of enablers are scrambling for. It’s all they’ve got, so they’ll go with it. The only other strategy they’ve tried recently is “Trump didn’t actually mean what he said, because he said that dumb shit in the primary. Please forget it now.” ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2016, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/160 "2016-08-10T19:16:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Unless he was referring to her being elected, of course. > > Sigh. Only for the most tortured interpretation of the statement possible, involving a creative re-edit of the sentence order, and a mental block of the “Second Amendment people” part. Read the quote again. > [@](#): > > 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. 1. If Hillary is already elected, which is obviously the timeframe that Trump’s talking about, what are the Second Amendment people going to do? 2. If the intent of the supposed action is limited to innocuous things like calling their senator, or writing their newspaper, why reference the Second Amendment people in particular, whereas all the other Trump supporters (presumably also for gun rights) in the audience can apparently do absolutely “nothing”, at that point? 3. If the action for the Second Amendment people is innocuous, why is he only “maybe” , “i don’t know” sure about whether or not it’s a valid option. Why does he need to hint at something, if it’s completely innocent? Why distance himself? 4. Why is the “horrible day” sentence immediately following the possible Second Amendment people’s action, if it’s meant to refer to just Clinton getting elected/picking judges? Why is it phrased as “Future bad thing…but here’s hope for an action to stop it…It’d be horrible?” It makes absolutely no sense with that order, unless the horrible thing is describing the Second Amendment people’s action, and he’s trying to insulate himself from the logical result of said action. Look, maybe one or two of these sentences, in isolation, can charitably be interpreted as “a jumbled mess of sentence phrasing that Trump just happened to be put together that unintentionally hinted at something threatening”, but taken together, it’s obvious that it’s a half-joking call to either: A. Assassinate future-President Clinton, and/or her judges B. Commit armed insurrection against the federal government, in the event a Clinton election. C. Commit armed insurrection against the federal government, in the event of a hypothetical abolishment of the 2nd Amendment and subsequent gun grab under the future-President Clinton administration. (i.e, “pry it from my cold dead hands!”). Maybe you can quibble with my inclusion of A&B, and maybe you can argue it was more of a joke than a half-joke on Trump’s part. But there really isn’t another way to spin this, that makes any kind of sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283.md?page=9)