*sigh* "2nd Amendment people" means NRA/gun rights types, stupid lamestream media...

[Estil]

Okay, I am well used to the lamestream media and liberal activist (especially of the college variety) screaming that [insert name of conservative/pro-lifer, or especially Republican presidential candidate] is a dangerous divisive ignorant racist war on women mongerer who hates all Muslims and immigrants!!!! I'm well used to all of that, that's just par for the course for the left.

But even by their standards this whole "Second Amendment people will take care of Hilary" hysteria is beyond stupid and flaglarantly dishonest. *sigh* Trump meant that the Second Amendment people, the NRA/gun rights activists will take care of defeating Hillary politically, just as they've always done for any gun control supporters (especially ones running for President of course). Nobody (well virtually nobody) is saying to shoot/kill Hillary. :P

Trust me, it's not our side who writes books/movies about assassinating a President just because his views are different from their own *cough*George W Bush*cough* or celebrates and sings "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" when a former UK Prime Minister passes away *cough*Margaret Thatcher*cough* and doesn't call them out on it. All the more reason why this whole hysteria by the left that "OMG!!!! Trump wants Hillary "taken care of" as in NRA-types shooting her!!!!! How dangerous!!!!!!" is pretty darn amusing and silly, even for them. :P

[s_stabeler]

yes and no. I agree that Trump probably meant it politically speaking- and he's not entirely wrong, in that any move towards gun control would be bitterly resisted by the NRA- but the comments are calculated to appeal to people who really would at least claim to support Hillary being assassinated.(it's fair to say- and this goes for both sides- that quite a few people would say thye think Hillary should be assassinated, but would be amongst the first to express their shock and outrage if she actually was assassinated. (and by the way, most people were outraged when people were playing "ding dong the witch is dead" when Margaret Thatcher died. Say what you will about her, she was the PM that was arguably desperately needed when she was first elected, in that she was a strong leader that actually could stand up to the unions that were, frankly, getting a bit too arrogant. (the fundamental issue is that historically, worker rights have gone from one extreme- where employers hold all the cards- to another, where employees- or unions- hold all the cards, and a strike is impossible to ride out if it is unreasonable.(look at the issues Southern are facing in a dispute with the union representing their staff. They want to change the role of their staff without cutting staff numbers- or payroll- but the union are trying to insist on outdated working practices.) Margaret Thatcher moved the pendulum towards the employers. did she go too far? possibly, possibly not. It's up for debate. but the pendulum had to move.)

[Kheldarson]

All the more reason why this whole hysteria by the left that "OMG!!!! Trump wants Hillary "taken care of" as in NRA-types shooting her!!!!! How dangerous!!!!!!" is pretty darn amusing and silly, even for them. :P

Except he was talking about *after* she was elected. "Can't do anything then, folks, unless, you know, the Second Amendment people, maybe..."

He may have meant prior, but he was talking about after. What are the NRA and gun rights folks going to do *after* she's elected? All their political pull won't help with the selection of judges or overall policy, particularly if there's a Democratic sweep.

It's actually an exemplary example of why he is so disqualified for the Presidency. Either he is absolutely incapable of saying what he actually means (again, he was speaking of after she was elected, not prior) or he actually meant it. Either one makes him a piss poor leader.

[KabeRinnaul]

Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the second amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.

"If she gets to pick her judges" she's already been elected. What political opposition are second amendment voters going to provide then?

He didn't mean political opposition. That's his campaign's desperate attempt to walk back the latest offensive idiocy he's spouted.

There are really only two questions about this.

One, is this a dog whistle for actual violence, or a particularly awful attempt at humor? Given Trump's usual antics, probably the latter — not that that's acceptable.

Two, whether it was directed at Hillary herself or her eventual justice picks.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm well used to all of that, that's just par for the course for the left.

You can begin a topic without a paragraph worth of juvenile partisan wankery you know.

Trust me, it's not our side-

What side would that be? There are few on "your side" defending Trump at this point. Even Fox is having trouble bringing itself to defend this one. Is Fox part of the left wing "lamestream" media now?

[Tanasi]

It's all speculation as to what Trump meant, only he knows for sure.
Even is Hilary wins she still has to get whom-ever she nominates for SCOTUS through the senate. There's no guarantee that would happen even if the Dems get a majority in the Senate as there is still the filibuster.
As to any laws, they still have to go through both houses.
All that being typed even is laws are passed to confiscate firearms, who is going to go out and get them??? She can't use the military and I really don't think the LEOs will simply because bunches will not comply and will repond as they see fit and some will be violent. Heck when Canada had that gun registration lots of their gun owners didn't comply, with out history of being rebellious I really doubt many would comply. I wouldn't be surprised is several states secede or at least threaten. Hilary couldn't pull off what Lincoln did.

[TheHuckster]

It's all speculation as to what Trump meant, only he knows for sure.

I wouldn't even grant him that. I think half of what Trump says is either him just reading from cue cards written by other people without even thinking about what they mean, or (and this is more likely given his narcissistic personality) he just ad libs everything he says without even thinking about it. He's kind of like that awkward teenager who has a crush on someone and then blurts out in the middle of lunch, "I think your left ear is sexy" before the filter has time to catch it. Only in Trump's case, what he says isn't immediately met with self-realization that it was horribly worded and poorly timed. He just hears the cheers and thinks to himself, "I done good."

[Gravekeeper]

I think half of what Trump says is either him just reading from cue cards written by other people without even thinking about what they mean, or (and this is more likely given his narcissistic personality) he just ad libs everything he says without even thinking about it

He's a narcissistic pathological liar and all around attention whore. There's no way he's reading what anyone else gave him. This is all pure, unadulterated Trump. Frighteningly enough.

And he's not even a good liar at that. He routinely lies about easily verifiable things even when there's no actual benefit to doing so. He just can't help himself and its not like its a recent thing. He's always been like this. Its just that he's finally found an audience as divorced from reality as he is from honesty.

An audience the GOP has been unwittingly preparing for him for years. -.-

[Kheldarson]

He's a narcissistic pathological liar and all around attention whore. There's no way he's reading what anyone else gave him. This is all pure, unadulterated Trump. Frighteningly enough.

Let's be fair: he *can* read from cue cards. He's even done it a couple of times on the campaign trail! He just generally refuses to.

[Daskinor]

Trumps one great skill when giving a speech is his ability to read and react to a crowd. When he got a reaction to these lines.

"Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish — the 2nd Amendment."

and

"By the way, and if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

I think he could not help himself. He had to take it a step forward and see if he get a cheer from the crowd's dislike of the abolishing the second amendment. So he added off the cuff;

"Although the 2nd Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know."

I think he was going for a thinly veiled political 'dog whistle' only to rile people up. It did not fit into the narrative of the speech.

Trump is also not a great orator, so its easy to tell when he is off script. when he makes a mistake like above; "Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish" he pauses and needs a few moments to find his place. After he added his comment, it took him a few moments to get his place back.

Whatever what his true meaning is at the time I can not say. But I do sincerely believe he was trying to rile up and get a cheer out of the second amendment people in the audience.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Basically Trump f's up the one thing necessary for the Presidency: he does not check his speech for the .00001 percent. There's a reason presidents are often boring and inspirational rather than cynical, nihilistic, or circumspect. When you or I go on about our day to day and say something off the cuff that might be seen as inciting the .00001 percent, that's perfectly fine (and has even been fine for Trump outside of this setting.) You don't come into contact with enough people that the .00001 you need to worry about.

Trump (and his supporter's) logic flaw is this, they misunderstand the megaphone that is the presidency. When what you say is seen by 300,000,000+, all of a sudden that .00001 becomes 3,000 people. There's a reason the Secret Service Admonished him for it. They know he just made their job harder. And yes, conservatives can pat themselves on the back because they are correct, NORMAL people do not view that as iciting things (I viewed it as an off-color joke). Too bad. In the real world, you have to account for crazy. And in the real world, 4 of 44 presidents died by assasination. There were 4 stopped plots involving Obama. 1 for George Bush. 4 for Bill Clinton. There's been attempts on every President since FDR save for (edit) Eisenhower.

Those that can't deal with really basic shit, shouldn't be president. Those can't anticipate the predictable, shouldn't have that kind of power. The only thing Trump's proved is by now despite my complete and utter lack of my own business, I'm about 99% sure I'd be a better President than he would. And that 1% is because I know my flaws enough to know I shouldn't be President in the first place.

I'm honestly very, very sorry conservatives have painted themselves into a bit of a corner in regards to Hillary. Ultimately, you don't get a better election to prove you care more about the country than your party. But her characterization as some sort of Machiavellian super-demon, rather than the uninspiring, uncharismatic beureaucrat that she is has some people completely unable to see reality at this point. This shouldn't even be close. Go out and pour that money into your senate races. It's not funny anymore (and the media paranoia isn't helping.) The media isn't making it up. He's a historically incidiary candidate who has thrown more red flags than any of the past Presidential race losers combined. It's not helping that I'm watching his act on the heels of Edrogan purging over in Turkey.

[s_stabeler]

The issue with Trump is my read of things is he would be far too willing to engage in brinksmanship internationally. While North Korea has done so with some success, the reason why is because nobody ever truly believed that t was more than rhetoric. I fear that Trump will use the nuclear arsenal as an explicit threat (as in talking of glassing a country) which, to be blunt, would plunge the world straight back to the heights of the Cold War, but with someone in charge who may not understand the consequences of his actions.

[Greenday]

The main problem is Trump just isn't fit for the position he's running for. Someone who doesn't think about what he says and just says whatever he can to rouse a crowd whether it's good or bad has no business being in a position of leadership.

[TheHuckster]

The issue with Trump is my read of things is he would be far too willing to engage in brinksmanship internationally. While North Korea has done so with some success, the reason why is because nobody ever truly believed that t was more than rhetoric. I fear that Trump will use the nuclear arsenal as an explicit threat (as in talking of glassing a country) which, to be blunt, would plunge the world straight back to the heights of the Cold War, but with someone in charge who may not understand the consequences of his actions.

I disagree to a certain extent. I think he would know that hitting (or threatening to) hit the big red button would be disastrous, and everything he's done so far has been solely to gain voters. If he's elected, I think you're going to see a huge change in persona, not necessarily a better persona, mind you, but different.

My prediction of what will happen is he will follow the "carry a big stick" mantra for sure, but will not talk about nukes. Rather he'll be onto other powerful war machines such as drones and cluster bombs. He'll go after Libya (to avenge Benghazi), and Syria of course, and generally make an already delicate and volatile situation worse.

The end result will likely be the same, though. Countries will take his threats seriously and the middle east will descend into even more chaos. What will make this far, far worse than Iraq or Afghanistan is we did at least have allies (more in Afghanistan with NATO support, and UK and Australia support in Iraq). Seeing that Trump has expressed desire to leave NATO, and having a generally abrasive attitude toward our allies (the UK being one of our strongest having wanted to ban Trump from even entering the country is not a good sign of things to come in relations between us), especially those supporting refugees and Muslim immigration, he's going to have few allies in any middle east operations, and will very likely alienate our existing allies to the point they could even become hostile or at the very least contentious.

[Gravekeeper]

If he's elected, I think you're going to see a huge change in persona, not necessarily a better persona, mind you, but different.

I don't know. He's consistently and historically a pathological narcissistic dick harpoon both publicly and privately. He *needs* attention and can't really help himself with much of the shit he says. I doubt it would be much different. He would just have a different set of things to brag about.

What little restraint he has left is probably going to go out the window in the first debate. I'm be impressed if he gets through all the debates without using the world "cunt" at least once.