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

I recognize that there are limits, though I would be fine with an unlimited first amendment as well.

 

I don't know about that, in many ways that would be more dangerous than an unlimited 2nd amendment. There have to be limits.

 

If there need to be limits, they can be implemented by Constitutional amendment as well. Something like Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech except with regard to fraud, defamation, speech likely to lead directly and immediately to the injury or death of others, (whatever other exception people feel the need to make).

 

It's not necessary so long as the limits are based on the principle that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin or "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins".

IMO that's the proper way to determine the limitation of rights granted by the constitution.

 

Thanks for answering. I was mainly just curious as at your stance.

While I do disagree with you, but I can see your take on it is consistent, so I'll just respectfully disagree.

 

Based on this definition, what is the difference between the following arms:

knife
pistol
rifle
tank
nuclear bomb

What, in your definition, justifies that some are constitutional legal to own and others are not?

 

Not even that but it wasn't like Hitler announced he was exterminating Jews. They didn't make it public. They just showed up and moved them to Ghettos and moved them around - they didn't know where they were going or what would happen.

 

The difference is the ability to own them responsibly. In theory, I wouldn't be against some people owning a tank but I would be against them owning shells for that tank because they are simply too dangerous to own and care for responsibly. Even then, you wouldn't be able to take your tank out on the street because it's next to impossible to drive responsibly without putting others in unacceptable levels of danger.

A nuke is nearly impossible to own and care for responsibly without putting others in unacceptable levels of danger and honestly I don't think there's anyone that could, hence why it's illegal.

Rifles, pistols, and knives can all be easily owned and cared for without putting the public in danger so IMO there's no reason to ban them. Those who fail to responsibly own and care for their weapons should be punished for it and possibly even have their right to own them taken away.

 

Except there was an armed Jewish insurgency. In April of 1943 Jewish residents of the Warsaw ghetto rose up against Nazi forces. The residents were armed with light weapons and improvised weapons. The Nazi forces still crushed them.


Also since you brought up Korea and Vietnam. In Korea the US was facing a military armed with not just light weapons but also fully mechanized with tanks, artillery and fighter aircraft. Further when the PRC got involved they faced the largest land army.

In Vietnam the Viet Cong and Viet Minh weren't just fighting with small arms but also heavy weapons and an air force. Even while they inflicted heavy casualties on the US the end result is about 60K US dead to 1.1 million VC and VM dead.

 

The problem with that is that it would be almost to govern if any regulations of rights required a Constitutional Amendment.

As is the Constitution does give Congress the power to pass laws that regulate Constitutional rights and the USSC the power to determine if those rights are in line with the Constitution.

 

That is precisely the reverse of the way the Constitution is written. The rights are supposed to be inalienable, and the laws written in conformity with them, not chipping away at them until the Supreme Court says Congress has gone too far.

 

You're right, Judo. I was thinking more of Germany, but you use a good example with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in April of 1943, if a depressing one. They had no chance. None, and were crushed by the Nazi war machine, brushed aside like an irritant. Approximately 13,000 died there as the Nazi's burned the ghetto. German casualties were around 300 at the most. Something like 60,000 Jews were still there out of a 1939 pre-invasion population of 400,000. Small arms had no way of making an honest fight against the German military.

Arguing that an American population with a large number of small arms could do anything effectively against a modern military may seem "romantic" to some people, but as an argument for having essentially no gun ownership restrictions worth mentioning the idea is absurd. A better argument is home protection, hunting, collecting, and competing against someone else at a gun range, or competing against yourself. The extreme the NRA goes to is outrageous, in my humble opinion. Obama was supposed to, "Take away our guns!!" He did nothing and gun sales increased during his presidency.

 

The Confederates had lots of guns, and they still got their asses whooped by the Union.

 

Yuval Rabin: My father was killed at a moment like this

Donald Trump’s utterings about “Second Amendment people” taking matters into their own hands to block a President Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court picks were a new level of ugliness in an ugly campaign season.

In Israel, incitement such as this led to the murder of my father, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, 20 years ago. Because he dared pursue peaceful relations with our neighbors, my father was contemptuously called a traitor, and posters of him dressed as a Nazi war criminal were waved at right-wing rallies.

After his murder, politicians were quick to condemn the assassin as a lone wolf. They conveniently ignored their role in creating a poisoned environment that led someone to believe that taking a life was a justifiable political act.

More than one commentator in Israel and in the U.S. has pointed to the parallels between Israel in the 1990s and the U.S. today.

Trump has called Clinton “the devil”, claimed that the election might be “rigged”, denigrated entire religions, and questioned the impartiality of the justice system.

Intentional or not, the Republican presidential nominee is removing confidence in the democratic form of governance. If an election is seen as illegitimate, if those who supported a candidate are viewed as somehow lesser “Americans,” then it becomes acceptable — and even appropriate — to work outside the political system.

The social pact that democracies honor depends on words, not weapons, being used to debate issues. It relies on the populace accepting the outcome of elections, as well as on the ability and willingness of government officials to compromise.

But compromise becomes impossible when one’s political opponents are vilified. How can one enter into an agreement with a counter-party that is illegitimate, or worse?

Some critics have called Trump a threat to American democracy. It is not my place to make this claim, and my purpose here is much more limited. But I have been touched by political violence, and have witnessed the environment that led at least one person to believe such violence was called for.

While I do not expect Trump to modify his behavior, it is incumbent on responsible members of his party to unmistakably condemn these remarks and clearly state that they are unacceptable.

Trump’s words are not just words. They can sow the seeds for something much more sinister.

 

A terrific find, JeffB. Those dismissing Trump's incendiary words about Hillary Clinton should read this.

 

[Late to the party] I read the comments more as an incitement to armed rebellion than assassination. If Clinton nominates justices they don't like, assassinating her won't fix it. If they assassinate her before she appoints them, Kaine would appoint them instead. If they assassinate Justices, more anti-gun Justices can be appointed. Our political process is too robust to be thwarted with assassinations. The only real 'second amendment solution' would be armed resistance and ultimately dissolution of the federal government. That might include some assassinations, but it would have to be part of a very broad effort to overthrow a Clinton government, not just a simple murder of a key figure.

 

This is in line with Trump's accusations of a rigged election -- questioning the legitimacy on the most important political institution we have in voting. I think this is a dangerous game the Trump campaign is playing here. And Trump's spox are out still pushing this meme: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...91534-can-the-2016-election-be-rigged-you-bet

This is a candidate and campaign that doesn't have much regard for the health of the nation.

 

Also let's not forget the North Vietnamese received about $5 billion (inflation adjusted) worth of arm shipments annually from the Soviet Union & PRC.

 

Trump advisor clarifies stance: http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/08/trump_adviser_al_baldasaro_hil.html

 

You still think Trump supporters aren't going to do anything crazy when their candidate loses badly or quits?