Donald Trump suggests 2nd Amendment folks do something about Hillary

[Final Rehab]

This election is a culture war. Thise on the other side will do literally anything to deny what they view as "white male conservatism" a victory.

I'll agree with the "culture war" part of this because I think that's always what it really is even if it's disguised by some other pretense.

But FFS, if Donald Trump is the champion of the white male conservative then I'm on the other side, and I don't like Hillary for shit. Honestly it's perplexing to see so many conservatives who should stand against anything and everything about this crazy orange fool's character support him, I mean it's weird. I mean if you want to be honest and say "I hate Hillary Clinton with the burning passion of a thousand suns and I'd vote Charles Manson before I'd vote for her" that's straightforward and understandable, insane as it might be. It's the defense of Trump that blows my mind. This particular "2nd Amendment folk" quote might in and of itself be overblown but this guy's unfit for Presidency, and I think more of his supporters know this than let on, and it has quite a bit more to do with Trump being seen as a white male conservative.

 

[Horse Style]

Man, I thought ripskater was simple with all the demon talk but holy shit, something about this sub-forum attracts the lowest common denominator among the right wing. The sane conservatives must face-palm constantly reading the nonsense from these wing-nuts

 

[vertical_leap]

Trump did not suggest assassinating Clinton or anything ridiculous like the media is implying.

 

[KillerElite]

I hope both of them jump off a bridge

 

[Greoric]

Lol the most fundamental right. Jesus Christ bro. I'm a firearms enthusiast myself but you guys act like any discussion towards trying to curtail gun violence is an infringement on your most "fundamental right"

Yes, because it is. The whole "shall not be infringed" part should be a clue to it's intention. It wasn't "shall be incrementally stripped away."

With all due respect, I'd like an answer to my question. If weapons are outlawed who's initiating violence in that situation?

 

[TheStruggle]

I'm impressed with the upkeep of this delusional. Anyone who makes a suggestion for gun control (emphasis on "control") and right wing-nuts automatically hear "the government is going to take away your guns". lol wat

How are you going to 'control' guns without taking them away? "oh well background chec...." Yeah we already have those, every so called measure is already done so the only way to control them is to make what is already legal, illegal and punish those who don't comply.

 

[DangDaGawd]

I don't think its a persons worth, adjustment, or level of success that will determine how they view this election in the future. No, it will only be a persons honesty level and/or desire to know and represent the truth.

I disagree. The successful in society are forward thinking. They don't wallow in their misery crying about rigged systems because they are able to directly influence the system.

The powerless and unrefined, if you will, are the one susceptible to wild conspiracy theories.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

True, but do you really want a presidential candidate even mentioning that this can be done to stop his opponent? You know it's not responsible.

No I don't and have said as much. I think it lacks tact. Not gonna make me suddenly vote for Hillary or anything, but ya it doesn't look good

 

[mtron929]

Even if he didn't mean to threaten Clinton, it is just a poor choice in the words and makes him seem (again and again) very unfit to be the President. It is pretty mind blowing how some of you support Trump, who is a ticking bomb that an lash out at anyone and everyone. It would be similar to the left supporting Kanye West as a presidentital candidate and defending all the dumb things that he says. Pretty crazy and mostly sad that Trump is still receiving so much support from so many people in the country.

 

[cooks1]

Cmon- Relax Guys. He was just joking. He wasn't serious. Can't you tell the difference between when someone is joking about assassinating a presidential candidate and/or supreme court nominees and when someone is serious about assassinating a presidential candidate and/or supreme court nominees?

I have every confidence the Hillary hating, gun toting Trump acolytes who just heard a Trump surrogate say Hillary should be put in front of a firing squad on a radio interview in the middle of the Republican National Convention will be able to make the distinction.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

So.... He is saying we shoukd shoot cops? That is not better.

Put it this way, if ANYBODY comes to my property looking to take what is mine, it will not end well. I'm not advocating hurting anybody, but I have the right to protect myself and my property granted to me by the constitution.

 

[Horse Style]

How are you going to 'control' guns without taking them away? "oh well background chec...." Yeah we already have those, every so called measure is already done so the only way to control them is to make what is already legal, illegal and punish those who don't comply.

So because you personally cannot see anymore ways to control the gun issue, further control MUST mean "ban".

I'm guessing it'll probably be pointless to explain the flaw in your reasoning. Regardless of what I say, you will think you're right (and from what I'm seeing, what I say will probably go right over your head).

 

[Space]

It's funny, and he's a complete idiot for saying it, but it came off so pathetic and low energy (uh oh, low energy Donald) that it's only worth giving press to document it as example #893 of him being a worthless dork.

Actually, it's like Hitler moaning in a puddle of his own urine, about to die, croaking "Could somebody please kill zee Jews, I cannot get up out of my own piss." I mean, yeah, he's technically saying a bad thing, but let's just give him this one.

Try harder, Fawlty Wiring.

 

[Greoric]

Put it this way, if ANYBODY comes to my property looking to take what is mine, it will not end well. I'm not advocating hurting anybody, but I have the right to protect myself and my property granted to me by the constitution.

Realistically, I'd like you to get this out of your head. The 2A movement, if it came to that point, wouldn't need martyrs. It would need to win.

In the worst of all cases, you don't defend your rights from your mailbox. You defend them from your neighbor's.

 

[Fawlty]

Try harder, Fawlty Wiring.

Oh I'm doing alright, bud. How are you lately? I see your favorite pro wrestler presidential candidate has been getting the everloving shit kicked out of him struggling lately because he's absolutely fucking stupid and crazy having a tough time with the media.

 

[Greoric]

So.... He is saying we shoukd shoot cops? That is not better.

For the ones that choose to stay in LE after that point, unfortunately yes. They're the overt enemy of liberty at that point. Though, I don't expect many would.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So because you personally cannot see anymore ways to control the gun issue, further control MUST mean "ban".

I'm guessing it'll probably be pointless to explain the flaw in your reasoning. Regardless of what I say, you will think you're right (and from what I'm seeing, what I say will probably go right over your head).

What does it say that you chose to spend time talking down to the other poster rather than simply supply some examples?

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

Lol at anyone voting based on who the polls tell them to vote for.

 

[TheStruggle]

So because you personally cannot see anymore ways to control the gun issue, further control MUST mean "ban".

I'm guessing it'll probably be pointless to explain the flaw in your reasoning. Regardless of what I say, you will think you're right (and from what I'm seeing, what I say will probably go right over your head).

And you can't point to one example.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

Yeah, it clearly suggested that "2nd Amendment folks" (i.e. gun-owners) could "do something about" Hillary if "she gets to pick her judges".

So he's either implying they could "do something about it" by shooting her, or the judges she nominates. The latter is the only vague part. He isn't precise about which liberals he is openly wishing for them to murder.

Of course, the open-ended nature of that suggestion doesn't rule out just murdering them all.

That's what the 2nd amendment is there for. To prevent tyranny.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

So because you personally cannot see anymore ways to control the gun issue, further control MUST mean "ban".

I'm guessing it'll probably be pointless to explain the flaw in your reasoning. Regardless of what I say, you will think you're right (and from what I'm seeing, what I say will probably go right over your head).

You going around advocating for gun control now? That's cute.