Trump's Second Amendment Comment

[Ben]

I guess I don't have to post a link since it spread like wildfire over the MSM. What are you're thoughts?

I think Trump is a terrible speaker with a vocabulary problem. He often speaks in half sentences, which is okay if you're doing it on your TV show, but not so much if you're running for POTUS.

However, I think you have to be an idiot to take his comment as a "call for assassination". Trump is not so stupid as to suggest murder in a speech. Further, all the liberals ever talk about is the political behemoth that is the gun rights movement. Except in this case, where I guess they've forgotten their previous narrative. Not to mention the truckload of "Kill Wayne Lapierre" comments in Op-Eds everywhere.

I would say that this could help him in the polls, given that intelligent people would see both what he meant and what the MSM and liberal politicans are doing, but we don't seem to have intelligent or common sense voters.

[Pb]

Ok, I thought Trump's comment was hilarious... didn't offend me at all (and I hate Trump).  Second Amendment advocates say stuff like that all the time. 

But serious- he's not stupid enough to suggest murder in a speech?  Of course he is!

“When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families"

-Trump

[TommyGunn]

Trump is an oaf.  Unfortunatly his opponent is a narcissist, liar, statist, criminal, thug, dipshit, uh, ....  and so forth.
The  idea that he was threatening violence must be inferred from his statement.  The idea he was threatening Ms. Clinton requires a larger inference.  But, unfortunatly neither inference is completly unreasonable.  Thus my suggestion that Trump is an oaf.
But I prefer oafs to  ..... *SIGH!* ..... Hillary.

[MechAg94]

If we don't want to have professional politicians in D.C., we need to understand that the non-professionals will not be perfect speakers and they will put their foot in the mouth occasionally.  If we overreact to every little questionable thing they say, we are just training them to not say anything just like the professional liars we don't like. 

[HeroHog]

How is it that someone, poorly stating that Hildabeast will stack the SCOTUS in such a way that the Second (and First for that matter) Amendments to the US Constitution will be crippled, if not destroyed, could be called a call for assassination or a joke about such? What kind of mental gymnastics are these?

[Perd Hapley]

It seems obvious he was making a joke about rooftop voting. But he, and others, are choosing to spin it as being about the political process, which is just laughable. He seems to have let himself be cowed, when he should have just said, "I was joking. It may not have been in good taste. At least I didn't get Americans killed, by exposing classified information, or by bungling up security for our diplomats."

His main attraction has been that he doesn't let the Left tell him what to say. And now this. 

[griz]

He not only made a dumb joke guns, he made a joke about HILLARY and guns.  That's the definition of a thought crime in the minds of many liberal reporters.  The brute must be verbally chastised and fingers must be wagged.  It's what one does.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Ok, I thought Trump's comment was hilarious... didn't offend me at all (and I hate Trump).  Second Amendment advocates say stuff like that all the time. 

But serious- he's not stupid enough to suggest murder in a speech?  Of course he is!

“When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families"

-Trump

Yeah, I'm with you.

I thought it was funny as well. And, by my way of thinking, that particular line isn't anything close to a specific threat.

It's merely the statement of the fact that second amendment supporters have a significantly higher ability to resesist legislation they don't like both legally and ... well, actually, if you're reading between the lines of the constitution, legally. 

[dogmush]

Wait.  Let's assume he's serious.

He said that Hillary might stack SCOTUS in such a way as to allow obvious violations of the Bill of Rights to be "Legal" and fed.gov would enforce them. Specifically confiscation of firearms and speech/religion curtailments.

And if that happened the citizen's with firearms could use those firearms in the way the framers intended.



What's the problem, exactly?

[Ron]

I have no problem with what he said one way or another.

At the very worse he was saying MOLON LABE.

With all the success of the second amendment defenders in both legislation and the courts I just assumed the Democrats would never be dumb enough to attempt a gun grab. I have to say these last couple years have really shaken me out of that delusion.

[grampster]

One has to read the transcript of the entire comment to get the context.   CNN posted it, surprisingly, because it was not what the exploding heads want you to believe.

[Angel Eyes]

And if that happened the citizen's with firearms could use those firearms in the way the framers intended.

The government, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

(more than a bit ironic, given how Mr. Lincoln violated the Constitution six ways from Sunday.)

What's the problem, exactly?

The Constitution has always been a problem for them.

[makattak]

You know, I can only wonder what this election would have been like if we had a candidate who was quite deliberate in his choice of words so that the media has a much harder time with their "SQUIRREL!!!" mission to distract from Clinton's scandals.

If only we'd have had a candidate like that in the primary...

[MechAg94]

You know, I can only wonder what this election would have been like if we had a candidate who was quite deliberate in his choice of words so that the media has a much harder time with their "SQUIRREL!!!" mission to distract from Clinton's scandals.

If only we'd have had a candidate like that in the primary...

Then they wouldn't be Trump and Jeb Bush's money might have amounted to something.  Trump's media attention sucked up all the attention and showed how weak Jeb Bush was on critical issues.  Would Jeb have made the "Act of Love" comments had he not been trying to fight against Trump's popularity?

You could say that Cruz might have been that guy, but I am not sure how he would have lasted if the media had been attacking him the whole time without Trump attracting all the commentary. 

Everyone likes to say how great Reagan was, but a whole lot of people on the R side didn't like him before he was elected.

[makattak]

You could say that Cruz might have been that guy...

Not only could I say that, that's exactly what I'm saying. 

[Ron]

Not only could I say that, that's exactly what I'm saying. 

Cruz couldn't even handle Trump, who spent no money beating him to a pulp.

Hillary would have destroyed Cruz.

Between her money and the media Cruz wouldn't have stood a chance.

Not to mention the man is unlikable even compared to her and Trump, and that is saying something.

[makattak]

Cruz couldn't even handle Trump, who spent no money beating him to a pulp.

Hillary would have destroyed Cruz.

Between her money and the media Cruz wouldn't have stood a chance.

Not to mention the man is unlikable even compared to her and Trump, and that is saying something.

LOL. A $2 Billion donation in kind to Mr. Trump by the media was a bit of an advantage to overcome, YET, he came the closest of any candidate to succeed in doing so.

Instead we now have a candidate (like we always end up with) who had the media on his side during the primary and seems unable to deal with their sudden turn against him, now that he's attacking THEIR side.

[AJ Dual]

Then they wouldn't be Trump and Jeb Bush's money might have amounted to something.  Trump's media attention sucked up all the attention and showed how weak Jeb Bush was on critical issues.  Would Jeb have made the "Act of Love" comments had he not been trying to fight against Trump's popularity?

You could say that Cruz might have been that guy, but I am not sure how he would have lasted if the media had been attacking him the whole time without Trump attracting all the commentary. 

Everyone likes to say how great Reagan was, but a whole lot of people on the R side didn't like him before he was elected.

Yeah, "St. Reagan" isn't everything his uber-fans think he was. Although of course, out-capitalising, spending, western-civ'ing the Soviet Union is good enough for POTUS hall of fame status of course, even if he was a lynchpin in modern California-style gun control.

I agree that Cruz could have been the guy, if he had Rubio's face, and maybe was more of a regular main-line McProtestant, instead of whatever snake-handling stuff the family was into.  

Although Cruz was my guy, even with the snake-handling.

[roo_ster]

Not only could I say that, that's exactly what I'm saying. 

Cruz wasnt that good on the issues until trump hopped in and cruz became a metoo candidate.  Cruz would have been just a shade to the right of jeb and rubio without trump in the race.  And then there is the sociopathy and uncanny valley cruz oozes.  I was much more positively disposed to cruz before i saw video of him and he creeped out me and the wife.  We are smack dab in his target demographic on the issues and culturally but we were just plain repelled by him.

[makattak]

Cruz wasnt that good on the issues until trump hopped in and cruz became a metoo candidate.  Cruz would have been just a shade to the right of jeb and rubio without trump in the race.  And then there is the sociopathy and uncanny valley cruz oozes.  I was much more positively disposed to cruz before i saw video of him and he creeped out me and the wife.  We are smack dab in his target demographic on the issues and culturally but we were just plain repelled by him.

I find it amusing for someone supporting Trump to claim someone else's candidate is a sociopath.

sociopath
[soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-]

noun, Psychiatry.
1.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Yeah, that's been Cruz's track record, stepping on anyone in his way to get what he wants...

[MechAg94]

Cruz was expecting to be THE outsider candidate that the establishment didn't like.  Trump came in and took that label from him along with taking some of the voters Cruz needed.  At this point, I don't know what the primary debate issues would have been if Trump wasn't there.  His media attention focused everything on immigration and whatever he talked about.  I know Jeb would have been stronger deeper into the process which would have changed the whole picture.  As it was, Jeb was a dead man walking before the primaries even started.  In addition, there are whole lot of Trump supporters that would not be active in this campaign were it not for Trump.  I don't know if Cruz would have had the charisma to bring them in.

[MechAg94]

Rush mentioned something on today's show about a media directive from Clinton's campaign that "suggested" everyone react to any Trump comment about guns/violence in exactly the way they are reacting.  I don't remember where it came from and I can't find a link. 

[Ron]

LOL. A $2 Billion donation in kind to Mr. Trump by the media was a bit of an advantage to overcome, YET, he came the closest of any candidate to succeed in doing so.

Instead we now have a candidate (like we always end up with) who had the media on his side during the primary and seems unable to deal with their sudden turn against him, now that he's attacking THEIR side.

Early on Cruz was pretty much my choice. Like with Hillary though, the more I actually saw and listened to him the less I liked him. He was good on paper for the most part. His demeanor and weakness on immigration is what lost me.

Trump never has had my trust but I no longer think he is a Hillary stalking horse. A strong America is what is good for Trump enterprises and he is doing what he can to make that happen. I'm not getting much of a globalist vibe off him, ha ha ha

[Ben]

“When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families"

-Trump

Point taken. I forgot about that.

[Ben]

If we don't want to have professional politicians in D.C., we need to understand that the non-professionals will not be perfect speakers and they will put their foot in the mouth occasionally.  If we overreact to every little questionable thing they say, we are just training them to not say anything just like the professional liars we don't like. 

I agree with your sentiment, but having non-professional politicians doesn't mean they have to be crappy speakers. Whether you like or hate them and what they say, a sample of somewhat recent "non-professionals" who jumped into politics and spoke/speak eloquently, or at least clearly:

Reagan
Obama
Fred Thompson
Even Arnold "English is my second language" Schwarzenegger managed to get his points across about 300% better than Trump.

I don't expect perfection by Trump, but he's been told 100 million times by now that he needs to engage his brain before putting his mouth in gear. He needs to use strict talking points for stuff he doesn't fully grasp, which is pretty much everything except the economy and infrastructure. I have heard several of his talks on both those subjects, and he generally does a very good job discussing them off the cuff and off script. Not so much other stuff.

I do fully recognize that the media has it in for him and that they have misrepresented / taken out of context what he has said probably ten times more often than he has legitimately screwed up.