Did Trump just suggest that 2nd Amendment gun owners should assassinate Clinton?

Well if she manages to get the right SCOTUS justices she could certainly make it meaningless. There was a large push to have people ignore the part where it talks about a "right of the people" and solely focus on the first part talking about a need for a militia in a free state in order to make it seem like the right of the people to keep and bear arms is only talking about the National Guard. Get the right SCOTUS justices and have them hear a case on the subject and you could absolutely destroy the 2nd amendment within the next 4 years

 

I was quoting Trump.

 

This is true, kinda scary how sc justices have such opinionated power whether left or right leaning

 

Has Hillary ever even hinted at something close to this? Or is it just "some people are saying"?

 

It wouldn't even be something she'd directly do, it would be something done as a result of her presidency. If a far left justice fills Scalia's seat it will swing the court harshly to the left, to a place where that kind of thinking about the 2nd amendment is acceptable. There are justices on the court right now who would vote that way if a case came up, add one more and a leftist replacement for Ginsberg and IMO it's just a matter of time. Hell Kennedy is already 80 so the court's only centrist could be on the way out too.

 

It's always the same crap from the right. "If (insert Democratic nominee) gets elected they're going to destroy the 2nd amendment and take away our guns OMG!!" And then when that doesn't happen it will be ignored and the same garbage will be repeated again in 4 years. You guys need new material.

 

When that stops being a goal, it'll stop being talked about. This election is the first time it is actually a possibility due to the SCOTUS being in flux. In other elections you might have politicians who seek to ramp up gun control, but this time it's different, with a far left SCOTUS one case is all it would take to fundamentally change the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

That said, there's not a viable alternative to Hillary so this isn't a "don't vote for Hillary or she'll take away your guns" type of issue, it's a "when Hillary puts leftists on the SCOTUS and swings the balance of power, this is what is likely to happen" situation. I certainly wouldn't support allowing Trump to nominate a SCOTUS justice either.

 

Bobby is right on this one. Hillary is not personally going to push a law to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What she will do is appoint judges on the left side of the spectrum, further to the left than Garland most likely, who will hear cases regarding the 2nd amendment and will interpret it differently that long standing law.

Garland himself for example has a history of being very much in line with the left on guns.

For the first time in a long time I think it is actually reasonable to say that the Democrats taking the white house has the potential to dramatically change the 2nd amendment in this country.

 

Hillary isn't looking to ban guns either. She's just looking for better gun control which the vast majority of Americans, including republicans support.

Preventing people from easily getting the kind of guns that can commit mass murder is common sense. Making sure the people who have these guns are sane and well-trained and licensed is a good thing for this country. I have no idea why the right fears gun control when what it does is keep the guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals.

When ISIS's strategy in the U.S. is to have people exploit lax gun laws to commit acts of terror, it should give everyone pause.

 

Fist of all, Hillary Clinton has not made any public statements regarding the second amednment and any plans to take away any "right" to own guns. So any concern about electing her for fear of losing any "right" to own guns can't be supported by anything she has said or done. (Note, my quotes around "right" since I am not convinced the Second Amendment guarantees unlimited right to gun ownership).

Second, the USSC has not shown any inclination to take away the "right" to own guns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-second-amendment_us_5761a98ae4b05e4be8609bac

So any prediction that any future Supreme Court will take away the "right" to own guns is again, not based on any facts. Until a Supreme Court justice is nominated and his/her opinion on the Second Amendment and gun ownership rights has been discussed, no one can possibly know what might happen or change. Even though the NRA and other gun nuts claim Garland is "anti-gun" and would take away guns, his court decisions do not support such a position.

 

How many people has she had "commit suicide"?

 

Besides bobby being right, the only thing I would change in your analysis would be this:

 

Bobby isn't talking about tweaking gun laws through rulings, he literally just said that Hillary will appoint judges that could destroy the 2nd amendment in the next 4 years. So no, he isn't right at all.

 

There are already like 300,000,000 guns in circulation. I don't see how that is going to change.

 

Whatever terminology you want to use, gun fans have legit reason to worry about a Clinton presidency.

 

They absolutely could. When Washington DC wanted to ban gun ownership claiming that the 2nd amendment only grants the states the right to have a militia, not private gun ownership, Merrick Garland supported their argument.

 

This is an extremely pivotal election.

Scalia is dead, Beyer is 78, Ginsburg 83, Kennedy 80, Thomas 68.

It is quite possible that Ginsburg retires so that Clinton may name a replacement, same with Beyer. That leaves Kennedy and Thomas.... statistically there is a good chance another Justice has to retire from death or because of health reasons.

That puts anywhere from 2-4/5 Justices in play.... including likely two Republicans (Kennedy/Scalia).

There is a real possibility that the next election sets the composition of the Court from a liberal/conservative perspective for the next 20 years.

It is doubtful that Clinton will nominate anyone north of 55 years old, and the other Justices (Alito/Roberts/Sotomayor/Kagan) are all in their 50's and 60's and likely to stay on the Court for a decade or two.

 

The best part about this is Matt Drudge going full damage control and off the deep end. "Oh yeah well Hillary is old and dying. And she murdered a staffer. And Obama is rigging the election." "CORRUPTION!"

All the while Trump was like "Hillary gon get shot". Complete denial.

 

Longstanding law? Heller was decided in....2008. McDonald v. Chicago, 2010 - that is the sum total of the Supreme's major 2nd amendment jurisprudence.

My Clutchfans account is way older than either of those things.

If there's any longstanding law, it's the 200+ years where the second amendment did not create an individual right.

 

And this kind of nonsense just hammers home what I was saying would happen. Idiots on the left will try to argue that the 2nd amendment didn't create a "right of the people" to keep and bear arms when it said that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed.

Stack the SCOTUS with justices that believe that twisted logic and the next thing you know, the 2nd amendment will be dead for all practical purposes. I would be more surprised if that doesn't happen in the next 4 years than I would be when it happens.