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

Why is Hillary the only one being labeled as a crook while the Trump has been a sleezebag of a businessman?

 

It was very clearly written. The words were clearly written and the intent was clearly written.

 

Indeed. Let's look:

The premise is that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

For this reason, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Now, if we have something like a nuclear triad, aircraft carrier groups, and so on:
1) that is counter to the intent of the 2nd Amendment (distrust of centralized power was so strong at the time of the revolution);
2) it makes the 2nd Amendment an anachronism.

 

I agree with this statement.

 

The Second Amendment couldn't be more clearly written. But it is certainly outdated. What with our massive-as-F federal Militia and all. . . .

 

You do realize there's a big difference between being a sleazy businessman and being a sworn in elected public servant, right? She has proven to be untrustworthy while holding public office.

 

It really was, the issue some have with it is that they simply don't like it and wish it would go away. That's why they've done mental gymnastics in order to try and come up with a way that something that says "the right of the people" somehow isn't talking about a right of the people.

Any time you get a group of liberals together for long enough, they'll start plotting to strip the people of their rights. It's just what they do.

 

I don't consider a bunch of random armed chodes with 4 hr safety classes a 'well regulated militia'.

 

What's funnier is that even cartoon supervillain Hillary who stalks your nightmares sounds less appalling than the *actual* narcissistic racist clown that is your chosen candidate:

Trump.

*and that's not including the Trump NAMBLA rumors that many people are talking about.

 

I am nearly 100% sure if the people who wrote the 2nd amendment were alive today and saw how it was being used to ensure insane people could get powerful weapons they would have chosen different wording.

 

I am nearly 100% sure that you aren't anywhere near 100% sure about that.

 

I actually agree with you on this. I am confident (I dont want to say 'nearly' 100% sure) they would have taken a very close look at Nazi Germany and noted what happens when insane people like Hitler get their hands on powerful weapons. Just imagine the outcome if 7 million Jews had the basic hunting rifle.

The one benefit of having plentiful weapons is no nation would be dumb enough to invade us.

 

Exactly right. Liberals need to strip people down to try and make everyone the same.
Everyone should get free college!!
Free health care!!!
Free food stamps!!!
Free daycare and diapers for their 8 kids they had and could never afford!

 

Fact: A Brookings survey shows that noncollege white males are far more likely than the average person to think that "Red Dawn" is based on a true story.

 

Armed citizens is what is preventing Mexico and Canada from invading us? Great, why are we spending crazy amounts of loot having the best navy, army and air force in the world?!?!

 

LOL, look who has come skulking here.

Wrong login, JaDaveon

 

JaDaveon.../ they really are running out of names for people now days

 

The 2nd amendment was so clearly understood by the founders that the first bill in even state governments to challenge it was a provision of Georgia law disallowing cane swords, a law that was struck down for violating the owner's right to bear arms in self-defense. The first Supreme Court case interpreting the Second Amendment was in 1876, and stated only that the amendment restricted actions of the government (specifically Congress) and not private citizens.

 

Well said, Dubious, well said. I'm a gun owner, but I'm a gun owner sick to death of the power and influence the NRA has over the national conversation about guns, both in Congress and out. It is past time that the Supreme Court gives a modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, in my humble opinion.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

One could interpret the amendment to mean that the people who are members of a militia have the right to keep and bear arms. This would be similar to what I've seen first hand in Switzerland. Here is a description of their gun policy:

The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 34 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia can be kept at home as part of the military service. However, it is generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted. At the end of military service period the previously used gun can be converted to a privately owned gun after a weapon acquisition permit has been granted (fully automatic weapons will be rebuilt into semi-automatic ones).

That seems reasonable to me. It is both similar and yet quite different than our current gun laws. Personally, I like it.

 

Dude you're not clever, funny or worth my time to respond too. Cartoonish describes your bloated opinion of yourself. Even people who think like you are aware that you are an a-hole.