If you go back and really look at that statement,
“Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
There’s two things he does there that have nothing to do with inciting.
He acknowledges that there is such an animal as a “Second Amendment person.” It is a nice way of saying “gun nut.”
He acknowledges that he thinks they are capable of gunning down Clinton or judges.
Nah, he’s just running off the mouth. He didn’t know what he was talking about when he said it, how can we analyze what he meant if he doesn’t know himself? No doubt it includes the NRA, but he didn’t say “NRA”. Probably includes chubby middle-aged men who gather in the woods to wear camo and glower menacingly, but he didn’t say “moron militia”.
Its like a cloud, it could be a duckie, could be a horsie, all we know for sure is that it is a huge column of moist, warm air.
Right. How can these gun nuts fail to notice this?
I find it somewhat amusing that people are applying logic to parse the words of Donald Trump who put no logic into them in the first place.
Because it’s wrong. Not explicitly wrong, but it’s misleading enough to be wrong. While it’s true that a future President Clinton doesn’t have the ability to single handedly take people’s guns away, she would have the power to appoint judges. Those judges will rule on the constitutionality of future attempts to further restrict the ability of people to purchase and possess guns. That legacy will have legs, and in the future the actions of a President Clinton could realistically impact the right of people to own guns.
Heller was 5-4. If GWB isn’t elected, and Alito and Roberts aren’t on the court and instead their spots were filled with people more aligned with Ginsburg, do you think Heller would have had the same result? And if Scalia and Thomas weren’t on the court as well? Clinton has stated she believes that Heller was wrongly decided. Is there any doubt she’d have no qualms about appointing judges who feel similarly? It’s not just at SCOTUS either. At the lower court level where the cases originate those hurdles will grow larger with more Clinton appointments.
So Clinton can not directly come and take people’s guns, but she can create an environment where it’s easier to do so. Places like Montana and Utah will likely see no impact. But places like CA, NY, NJ, HI - those places will have no chance of regaining their rights under the nominees of a President Clinton.
He was approaching it in a nebulous way where you don’t really know exactly what you’re saying but you know what the idea is. I don’t think he was being serious about it in a ‘you should assassinate my opponent’ way. It’s more like she’s an obstacle to his goal and so he wants her removed. He doesn’t care how, he just knows that he wants it. But even he knows that if he comes out and says that, it would be bad. So he sort of talks around it without actually saying it.
Another random thought in Trump’s egocentric fantasy world.
And heaven forbid that gun rights should be limited in any way, right? It could lead to…limited gun rights! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together…mass hysteria!
You can determine for yourself what level of importance to put on any given issue. But the statement:
This statement just isn’t accurate.
If “dog whistles” did exist, then I will state for the record they are too subtle for Trump to use.
Maybe that’s because those “rights” aren’t what you think they are.
Altho it is true that some laws may be passed that limit magazine size and even ban future sales of 'assault weapons", at no time , nowhere in the USA have they ever “come and take people’s guns”. Even here in CA, where in theory certain “assault weapons” must be registered, they never went house to house, never got a list and went to take them away. Yes, sure, if there was some other reason for arresting that person or searching their house and they found illegal “assault weapons” those guns would be confiscated and perhaps addition charges levied- but the fantasy of “come and take people’s guns” is not ever going to happen.
I’ll admit that laws on restricting “assault weapons” are fucking silly and stupid, but no, “they” are not going to 'come and take your guns away". Ever.
You’re wrong, but only just so. California has the Armed Prohibited Persons System. That system keeps track of all registered weapons and to the extent there is a person that legally purchased a firearm and registered it, and then later becomes prohibited, this program has agents that seek them out, sans some other reason for arrest or search, to confiscate those weapons. Of course, mistakes will happen.
So in CA, police have gone house to house, with a list, and went to take people’s guns away. Granted, most of the time these people were not permitted to possess these guns as a result of some action so I can’t get too upset over it. Though at times the people could have been ignorant that they were prohibited. And this is fine only to the extent we trust the people with these lists. I don’t trust them very much.
Coming to take a felons guns away after he is convicted is not a violation of anyones gun rights.
This doesnt count.
“Shall not be infringed”, sir!
:rolleyes:
Convicted felons are people too, eh?
Does it count when they take guns from a person by mistake? Because that’s an example I cited. It also directly contradicts your statement.
Mistakes happen, but they gave the guns back and even apologized.
If guns are the centerpiece of your existence and you cast every single vote on this issue alone, then why even follow elections? You’re going to vote for the ® every single time for the rest of your life. No Democrat will ever get your vote nor should he/she even try. Presidential campaigns are more for the rest of us who have other issues that we think about.
I acknowledge that. So your earlier statement was incorrect, right?
Not at all. It’s like saying the US Army doesnt attack US civilians on US soil, then someone dragging out the time where some cannon accidentally discharged and hit a house.