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

His comments are always perfectly ambiguous, aren't they? That's no accident. He's like a drug dealer who knows the exact amount of a felony charge and carries juuuuuust an ounce less.

And while we're rightly focused on his, again perfectly ambiguous call to assassinate Clinton, let's not sleep on the fact that what he said preceding that was an abject, unchallenged lie: "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the second amendment."

Hilary Clinton has never, at any point in time, said or even hinted that she wants to abolish the 2nd amendment. In fact, she literally said the exact opposite at her convention:

To me, *that's* what makes what he said so scary; his obvious call for violence was made on the foundation of a bald-faced lie specifically designed to (ahem) target a person who, when hearing it, has an almost Pavlovian response to it.

None of this was an accident, and anyone defending him on this one....

(Thank you; I will now leave the D&D and head back to the sports portion of the web site...)

 

Any quote or citation supporting this? I know when Bill O'Reilly made this claim politifact shot it down:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/mar/18/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-wrongly-says-merrick-garland-voted-ba/

 

Dead for all practical purposes in 4 years, in the current political climate?

No, that isn't going to happen, if for no other reasons than politics.

10-15 years down the line when the general mood and political climate has changed? Possible but not likely.

I do agree that a liberal leaning Court is more likely to restrict or limit gun rights. However it isn't a guarantee. The Supreme Court isn't as easy to read as some people think. The Justice's often times see their political and ideology change over time..... look no further than Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy and the recently retired Justice Souter.

 

Garland voted for the court to re-hear the case that overturned the DC gun ban. The decision the court had reached wasn't particularly controversial and was in line with what the SC would hold and he was outvoted. It's reasonable to interpret his vote as one in favor of their argument.

 

The Trump campaign in a nutshell.

They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

 

It just takes one case being heard by the court. The general mood and political climate means absolutely nothing to the SCOTUS.

Now if we were talking about congress doing something, sure, that would matter, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about a SCOTUS stacked with leftists.

 

He voted to rehear the case. He didn't vote on the actual decision. From the politifact I linked:

 

Sure, I see what you are trying to say here, but if you look at his overall voting record, it's pretty clear he's anti-gun. Gun rights related cases have come up 4 times and he's voted against gun rights every single time. Taken in context, it's reasonable to suggest that he was voting to rehear the case for more than intellectual curiosity.

 

Do you want to make a tipjar bet on how he will vote should a 2nd amendment case come before the courts?

 

I don't know how tipjar bets work, but as long as its not too much money, sure. Of course, the bet would need for him to be nominated (and not stonewalled again). And... the definition of "voting on a 2nd amendment case"... if you mean voting to take away guns, no problem (versus voting to require background checks or longer waiting periods).

So, with those in place, name your bet.

 

"Its pretty clear he is anti-gun", based on what? Voting to re-hear a case which you already admit seems a reasonable position. He didn't even vote on the case itself. btw, are you suggesting that the conservative judge that also voted to re-hear the case was doing it for "intellectual curiosity" while Garland had gun-grabbing reasons?

In 2000 he voted in favor of a an FBI change in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) established by the 1993 Brady Act that allowed the FBI to keep a log of gun owner registration audit information for six months (the original NCIS required that such ownership information be destroyed, but didn't dictate when the info was to be destroyed).

His only other second amendment related case was in 2012, when Garland voted to allow prosecution (with a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence) of automatic firearms offenses without the prosecutor having to prove the accused knew the weapon was automatic.

So as you can see, Garland isn't going into your house to take guns away.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aCEfA4U-GrM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Though with regard to religion, the Trump supporters are in direct conflict with their candidate, as he only found religion in time for his presidential run, and apparently he is not a regular church goer, as he even struggled to name his church.

In comparison, Hillary Clinton shares the same faith as I do (United Methodist), and has been a follower since early childhood, throughout college, and throughout her adult life. She speaks often of her Methodist teachings as inspiration for her public works including paraphrasing John Wesley (founder of the Methodist church):

Sorry to get into a religious side path here, but it sorta irks me that Trump seems to get the "religion card" and even questions Hillary Clinton's faith while his is, well, questionable at best.

 

Spoiler

 

Whatever you say...She was ripped by the media for her comments...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UcWRbVx3MT8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

As she should have been. But she wasn't suggesting that people who disagree with Obama should shoot him.

Also, from the video: "It was a terrible mistake, it was a terrible thing to say. She clearly seems to know that."

Trump does not seem to know the power of what he said.

 

She apologized and the story goes away...Trump clarifies his intent...and its still a national presser.

People on here desperately want to address national issues...Instead, every damn time I turn on the news or read an article its about what Trump did today. At some point, the media has magnified his actions and given him tremendous press coverage. He has used the good and bad press to his advantage... He gets more air time just from the national news channels than Hillary's attack ads...He mentally OWNS the media...And they are consumed by him.

Never really seen the media get this riled up about anyone/thing... Its like they want us to know that on today's poll...Hillary is destroying him in Georgia. So much attention to a gentlemen that everyone believes will be steamrolled in November.

Feel so bad...for the Black Lives Movement. No coverage.

 

Have Trumps words awoken a Manchurian Candidate?!

 

What's funnier is the fixation on this over the fact more evidence of Hillary being a crook as a public servant is laid at your feet and as the DNC states her supporters will remain ignorant.

 

The second amendment is poorly written and anachronistic, it should be brought before the court for clarification in a modern context.