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

Would you mind quoting the rulings so we can research more?

I was looking at Georgia common law. There is something about slaves not having 2nd Amendment rights, of course; something about concealed carry vs. open carry. . . .

The 1876 case appears to be United States v. Cruikshank, after the Colfax massacre, in which 105 blacks and three whites were killed. . . . Wikipedia includes:

 

Yes i do realize that there is a difference but what you seem fo imply that only one out of the 2 is a crook. If Trump is a crook outside of politics, what makes you think he wont do it when he is in office where he has more power?

 

Agree that the sudden 'shock' and aversion by his own party members, some high-ranked, is just too funny. The bolded part is not that far of a stretch. He could come out in a few years with a documentary or statement that he only ran to see how many votes he would get, it was just for fun etc.

 

First, the thing is Hillary took the guess work out of the equation. She has already done it and currently lying to cover it up.

Second, we don't know what anyone who hasn't been there would do. The thing is that position has way more attention to it than a CEO and therefore a lot of public scrutiny and government watchdogs.

 

First, the thing is, that your chosen candidate, who moonlights as a pro-Putin stooge has already promised that he would do a terrible job as president and that he would willfully work to destroy the social contract and postwar order. He has expressly promised this, it's not a projection or speculation.

Even your urine-soaked sheet, fantasy version of Hillary the devious racketeer really can't hold a candle to being a racist, pro-facist, xenophobic Russian Toady...and admitting it ...(again, this does not even count the Trump-NAMBLA donation angle that a lot of people, very smart people, by the way, are talking about)

But, that is who you choose, and who you support instead:

Trump.

 

Go away, little one.

 

Well Scalia himself has said the second amendment has limits. I think most people agree it has limits. The disagreement is where those limits are.

But this appears like you're disagreeing with the idea of any limits.

Do you believe people should be allowed to carry Bazookas or grenades? They can build and maintain ICMBs, Cruise Missiles?

Or is it okay to limit the right to possess those arms?

 

My apologies, had the wrong southern state. It was actually Bliss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 12 Ky.(2 Litt.) 90. The fact pattern and holding were correct though. A man had a cane sword, was punished for carrying it (a fine, if I recall correctly), and the court overturned his conviction on the grounds that the Kentucky constitution guaranteed his right to bear arms, "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned".

I don't have a problem with an unlimited 2nd amendment. If the people collectively would like a limitation (or "infringement") on the right to bear arms, there is a process available by which to accomplish that, and it is not general legislation in Congress, but rather Constitutional Amendment.

 

The primary issue in this entire discussion is that we have a candidate for the highest office of this country openly insinuating that someone may need to consider killing his opponent if he loses.

This 2nd amendment derail only deflects from the real issue: Trump is unfit for the presidency.

His deliberately incendiary utterances could lead to dire actions within the ranks of his most disturbed followers.

 

The flaw in your logic is cost. Its not like if cruise missiles were legal, someone could go down to your local Piggly Wiggley and buy a discount pack of 10.

Libtards love to use the world illegal or banned when talking about weapons. One can own many of these "illegal" or "banned" weapons with the proper permits. Grenades and bazookas and fully automatic weapons are all heavily regulated, not banned. Once you start getting past fully automatic weapons, its extremely difficult to find someone to sell you these weapons even with permits. Much of these nonsensical arguments are already self regulated.

 

Does the regulation of grenades and bazookas go against the 2nd amendment?

 

I think if 7 million Jews had guns, 6 million would have still be slaughtered. You act like guns are some magical panacea. People have to be trained and organized.

And an armed populace - thinking that would stop an invasion...so laughable.

Yeah so how come it's illegal to make a bomb? It's not expensive, it could be used in self-defense, and you don't need anyone to sell you it.

 

This coming from a guy (Trump) who said Obama literally formed ISIS.

This guy is the worst speaker these ears have ever heard. He doesn't even know what he is saying half the time. Most of his stuff is obviously not scripted or he wouldn't keep putting his foot in his mouth. Just imagine him as president saying stuff like he says. It's unfathomable.

 

Yeah that's pretty ridiculous, ISIS was formed in 1999. Now it's fair to say that the policy of abandoning Iraq that Obama supported helped rapidly expand ISIS and greatly strengthened the group, but that group existed long before anyone cared what Obama had to say about anything.

It's just another example of Trump saying stupid things.

 

Then we just can heavily regulate semi-automatic weapons. One can own any of these weapons with the proper permits instead of buying them from a stranger online that they met in a Bass Pro Shops parking lot to finalize.

 

Idk. He said "the way we got out of Iraq was the founding of ISIS". ISIS was founded before but they didn't become what they are today until that awful pull out game.

 

The bull**** Iraq War 2 opened countless cans of warms, including ISIS.

 

Yeah but that's factually inaccurate, it wasn't the founding of ISIS, it was just something that made ISIS much stronger than they were before. Making statements like that are a great way to kill credibility especially when there isn't any reason to exaggerate. The accurate statement is bad enough as is.

 

How many times do I need to make this analogy. Blaming Obama for the power vacuum that resulted in the invasion of Iraq is akin to blaming the clean up crew of the BP oil spill.

 

Say what? The Nazis managed to defeat the million man strong Polish army & 3+ million man strong French army armed with tanks, aircraft, artillery, etc , but 7 million Jewish civilians with no training & armed with only basic small arms will turn the tide.

So a military that's power & technologically advanced enough to defeat the US military & neutralize our nuclear arsenal will run for the hills and retreat back to their motherland at the sight of a bunch of untrained civilians armed with nothing but small arms....... interesting