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

Don't mind Space Ghost. He's the type of individial who believes Red Dawn to be a documentary.

 

Sam already used that joke. Get your own if you're capable.

Say what you want.

 

At least I'm not the guy who believes that a bunch of untrained civilians with smalll arms could defeat an entity that is capable of toppling the United States homeland defense systems.

 

"LOL". If only Koreans and Vietnamese got the memo from the Polish and French armies, then they might not have been blitzkrieg by the US and suffered a decisive defeat and and decades of occupation. Oh wait ....

 

I'll say something. Using the Holocaust to buttress your argument is beyond stupid. Putting aside the posts that have already given examples of the armies crushed by Hitler's Wehrmacht, armies with tanks and other armored vehicles (the French actually had better tanks than the Germans at the beginning of the war), you fail to mention that a huge percentage of the Jews murdered in the Holocaust were women and children. The argument is ridiculous. It's a fantasy perpetuated by the NRA and those who believe anything that comes out of their mouths.

 

What are you talking about? I never went on a rant about Obama rising up, taking control of the military and using on its own people.

Although you do sound like one of those who believes the US will be the only country to defy history and never collapse upon itself.

 

Umm an entity that destroyed our defense systems would not be Obama but a foreign entity.

 

Good job Deckard. At least you did recognize and diminish the point by noting women and children. But to act like an insurgency is irrelevant is just as ridiculous.

Germany was effective for many reasons. Literally killing off any insurgency before going to war helped. Europe still wasn't recovered from WWI. The last thing anyone wanted was another war. This is well documented. So lets not pretend both sides were fully ready for another war.

 

That's an interesting perspective on the Korean & Vietnamese wars.

 

What do you mean that Germany "killed off any insurgency before going to war"? In foreign countries? Before the war? Makes no sense. Facts, please. Links.

France built the Maginot Line. Sure they didn't want war, but they definitely prepared for one.

So you think that if the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Army cannot stop some foreign force from invading American soil, the American people, armed with hunting rifles, will put up a substantial resistance. . . .

 

Wolverines!!!!!

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hillary Clinton strategist Bob Beckel called for WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange to be assassinated. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DNCLeak?src=hash">#DNCLeak</a> <a href="https://t.co/9L2ixl24Er">pic.twitter.com/9L2ixl24Er</a></p>&mdash; WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763380671796678656">August 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Guess what year that video was

And what is his official position in Hillary's campaign?

 

I don't have a big beef in the 2nd amendment as it relate to "resistance" of an occupation, but I do want to point that it is because of a foreign occupation that make it possible for the 'native' to rise up. I.e., it would be much much more difficult to get not just the mind and soul of the local population, but to obtain an effective system and large number # of people to resist against a local government. That is more important than having readily available weapons at home.

In the case of the Jew in Germany - I'm very doubtful arms of the Jewish population there would have matter. The Nazi were local and the non-Jewish population there were supportive or not part of any large resistance idea.

Whereas in the case of Vietnam, the locals were somewhat supportive of the resistance idea, those that support the idea were fanatics of it, and any region that was under the control of the communist resistance forces kill you if you don't participate. Furthermore, prior to the Viet Cong, the Viet Minh were a resistance force against the Japanese occupation. Guess who supported them and provided them weapons? The US and China and eventually the Japaneses force (not by choice). These weapons were what was initially used against South Vietnam army and the US arm forces (again, they were obtained through 'wars' with support by big players).

But the small arms itself wouldn't be enough, even with heart and soul of the viet cong. They had access to heavy weaponry and that was a nightmare to the US forces. The guerrilla tactics only go so far if all they had were small arms.

What is probably much more important was the political nature of the war (come back to the idea of 'heart' and 'soul'). e.g. The Tet offensive was a military disaster for the north Vietnamese, but a massive political win that they couldn't have even thought possible. It was the turning point of the war showing the world a 'credibility gap' and giving a big rise in anti-war opinion in the US and the rest of the world.

So, having small arms at home isn't going to do much. An occupation force is likely going to force you to give it up immediately anyway. Resistance is slow and hard, do require weapons, but it's not itself that important to start it. It is a mindset and the ability to organize and 'form' an army with access to both small and heavy arms, under the right political environment that could make it successful. In the large scheme of thing, '2nd amendment' and access to arms at home is pretty small. And in the case of the US, with the world best military by far, it's simply a big zero.

 

Right but it is illegal to own them without the proper permits. Those permits are a restriction on the second amendment.

As far as price, not everyone could afford a cruise missile. But there are people who could afford one.

 

Thanks for responding. I'm curious do you believe in the limits on the first amendment?

If yes, then why do you think only some amendments should have limits?

 

I'm curious, if there were numerous groups out there claiming that the first amendment wasn't an individual right and that you should only have first amendment rights if you were a representative and you had numerous other groups claiming that first amendment rights were outdated and needed to be done away with......how would you respond to it when those groups proposed limits to the first amendment every single year?

 

I think I would disagree with them, and talk about limitations on the first amendment that most people can agree on.

I'm not in favor of the way most gun control laws are written etc. I also do believe the 2nd amendment is an individual right and disagree with those who think it's only for a group.

I'm not against the idea of some gun control. We already have background checks, and I'm fine with those and even stepping those up in different ways (not ones that include people on a list without the ability to have a defense).

But I also believe that limitations on the 2nd amendment make sense and aren't against the amendment itself.

To me most of the attempts at gun control are well-intentioned but come from people who don't know anything about the firearms they are trying to ban, and are influenced by sensationalist stories in the media.

I'm not in favor of any of that.

Also, living in CA. Our gun control laws are pretty extreme. In Los Angeles even more so. Starting in 2019 we'll actually have to be on a waiting list to buy ammo. So when they talk about national efforts, I disagree with most of them, but we're already doing that or beyond whatever is proposed.

 

Fair enough, we seem to see eye to eye on the issue.

 

Some points. I didn't say an insurgency was irrelevant. What I am saying is that a "Red Dawn" fantasy in Germany would have been just that, a fantasy. The Jewish population there would have had no chance if they had had small arms. Heck, the majority of the German people went along with Hitler and bought into his bull****. It would have been difficult to find assistance among the general population. Regardless, it would have been ineffective. The resistance in France, an active resistance, had little significant effect aside from getting intelligence to the Allies. They were able to do some relatively minor damage on D-Day and immediately after, but they were soon co-opted into the Free French armed forces after the invasion. They had no serious impact on a German occupation that lasted years, and that was in an occupied country.

As for Europe not wanting war? That was absolutely true. It drove the policies of Britain and France that allowed Hitler's rise and expansion of Germany prior to his invasion of Poland. None of that had anything to do with small arms among the population. Like I said, it's a fantasy perpetuated by the NRA in part to pay the salaries of those leading the organization. In my humble opinion.