• Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton’s Bodyguards Should Disarm to ‘See What Happens to Her’
    66 replies, posted
[quote=New York Times]MIAMI — Donald J. Trump once again raised the specter of violence against Hillary Clinton, calling on Friday for the Secret Service agents who guard her to voluntarily disarm to “see what happens to her” without their protection. “I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons,” Mr. Trump said at a rally in Miami, to loud applause. “I think they should disarm. Immediately.” He went on: “Let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, O.K. It’ll be very dangerous.” Mr. Trump suggested that the Secret Service should stop protecting Mrs. Clinton because, he falsely claimed, she wants to “destroy your Second Amendment,” apparently a reference to her gun control policies. [...] It was the culmination of a rocky and unpredictable day for Mr. Trump, who is known to veer from scripted performances to reckless moments of improvisation. It diverted attention, for a moment at least, from his grudging admission of error earlier on Friday, when he [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-obama-birther.html"]finally conceded[/URL] that President Obama was born in the United States, despite Mr. Trump’s longstanding claims to the contrary. On Friday night, breaking from his prepared remarks and turning his gaze from the teleprompters, Mr. Trump looked straight into the crowd as he made the insinuation about Mrs. Clinton’s safety. He gestured emphatically with his hands as he spoke, at one time pointing to a member in the crowd to find agreement. “What do you think?” he asked of his plan to disarm the Secret Service, as the arena erupted into cheers. In May, Mr. Trump accused Mrs. Clinton in a Twitter post of hypocrisy for accepting armed Secret Service protection while supporting some limits on access to weapons for civilians. That post also levied a false accusation against Mrs. Clinton, suggesting she supported a ban on all guns. She does not. “Crooked Hillary wants to get rid of all guns and yet she is surrounded by bodyguards who are fully armed,” Mr. Trump said. “No more guns to protect Hillary!”[/quote] [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html[/URL] did he not learn the first time he pulled this shit?
[QUOTE=TheHydra;51062795][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html[/URL] did he not learn the first time he pulled this shit?[/QUOTE] Well he's really just reiterating a statement that has been made by gun rights groups for a long time, which would make sense since he's trying to pander to them. I'm not going to go into the political aspects of that, but from his stand point it makes perfect sense. It's loud, edgy, somewhat nonsensical, and falls right into the train of thought that the demographic he is pandering to believes.
[quote=Article] Mr. Trump suggested that the Secret Service should stop protecting Mrs. Clinton because, he falsely claimed, she wants to “destroy your Second Amendment,” apparently a reference to her gun control policies.[/quote] [i]Apparently.[/i]
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51062819]Well he's really just reiterating a statement that has been made by gun rights groups for a long time, which would make sense since he's trying to pander to them. I'm not going to go into the political aspects of that, but from his stand point it makes perfect sense. It's loud, edgy, somewhat nonsensical, and falls right into the train of thought that the demographic he is pandering to believes.[/QUOTE] While it has indeed been a talking point of the right for awhile, I think there is a subtle difference in suggesting that people who surround themselves by armed guards but want to take away the average citizens right to self defense are hypocritical, and outright saying that her guards should disarm. Particularly when coming from someone who has made some problematic comments about Clinton and the second amendment in the past. This is coming from someone who disagrees pretty much entirely with Clinton's stance on guns.
This is pretty much something which has been said by gun-rights groups like the Heller Foundation for years now. It's nothing really uppity, just making a very blunt point about how hypocritical it can be to support gun control, while in the same note have guards armed with automatics and the like.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51062909]This is pretty much something which has been said by gun-rights groups like the Heller Foundation for years now. It's nothing really uppity, just making a very blunt point about how hypocritical it can be to support gun control, while in the same note have guards armed with automatics and the like.[/QUOTE] there's nothing hypocritical about calling for the restriction of guns from specific americans, and then placing guns in the hands of bodyguards to a presidential candidate of the united states you can criticize the policy's specifics all you want, but hypocrisy isn't a part of it unless you're just bad at english the only way you can construe it as hypocritical is if you [I]actually believed[/I] that her policy is to somehow take away guns from all US citizens, but even still would be incorrect due to presidential protection being a military/federal usage
lazy trump trying to get other people to eliminate the competition for him
[QUOTE=Cructo;51062955]If gun control actually worked you would have no need for armed guards.[/QUOTE] if gun control were magical you would have no need for armed guards half-effective gun control would still be a huge benefit to the country (or not, but that isn't the point), and still necessitate the protection of high-profile political leaders you tried for an epic zinger but it doesn't actually make any sense
[QUOTE=Cructo;51062955]If gun control actually worked you would have no need for armed guards.[/QUOTE] Its almost like you dont need guns to kill someone [editline]16th September 2016[/editline] or something
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51062962]Its almost like you dont need guns to kill someone [editline]16th September 2016[/editline] or something[/QUOTE] it's almost like comparing knives to guns in effectiveness of political assassination was a dumb idea
[QUOTE=bitches;51062949] the only way you can construe it as hypocritical is if you [I]actually believed[/I] that her policy is to somehow take away guns from all US citizens, but even still would be incorrect due to presidential protection being a military/federal usage[/QUOTE] Um, yes? A number of high ranking Democrats have previously stated that would ban every gun if they could.
[QUOTE=download;51063033]Um, yes? A number of high ranking Democrats have previously stated that would ban every gun if they could.[/QUOTE] I'm pro gun and all but source? [editline]16th September 2016[/editline] has hilary actually said "i'm going to ban all guns"? "i'm destroying the second amendment"? Do you guys realize the president can't even really do that?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51063035]I'm pro gun and all but source? [editline]16th September 2016[/editline] has hilary actually said "i'm going to ban all guns"? "i'm destroying the second amendment"? Do you guys realize the president can't even really do that?[/QUOTE] Off the top of my head I remember seeing a video where Feinstein said she would have banned guns if she could get the votes.
[QUOTE=download;51063060]Off the top of my head I remember seeing a video where Feinstein said she would have banned guns if she could get the votes.[/QUOTE] Fienstien probably would because she's a duplicitous person but again, this will always come down to the votes and the US is unlikely to ever vote to allow that to happen
[QUOTE=download;51063033]Um, yes? A number of high ranking Democrats have previously stated that would ban every gun if they could.[/QUOTE] wishing that you could wave a wand and erase guns from the country is not the same thing as saying that you would try to take guns away from the US populace as president this is because politicians know better that you cannot realistically accomplish that you can wish for all guns to magically exit the equation and still be in [I]practical[/I] support of [I]only[/I] light gun control (felons etc)
[quote=Article]Mr. Trump suggested that the Secret Service should stop protecting Mrs. Clinton because, he falsely claimed, she wants to “destroy your Second Amendment,”[/quote] I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment only covers weapons you own [I]yourself[/I], and not weapons [I]issued[/I] by your employer.
ROUND UP THE ANGRY FACEPUNCH EUROPEANS ITS THAT TIME AGAIN ITS TIME TO AIMLESSLY TRADE "BLOWS" WHEN IN REALITY NO SIDE IS MORE WRONG THAN THE OTHER
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51063035]I'm pro gun and all but source? [editline]16th September 2016[/editline] has hilary actually said "i'm going to ban all guns"? "i'm destroying the second amendment"? Do you guys realize the president can't even really do that?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=banana fana fo filly][URL="https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/07/hillary-clintons-simple-minded-gun-contr"]We should do everything we can to make sure the irresponsible and the criminal and the mentally ill don't get guns.[/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=hillibilly bo billy][URL="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/651070235349487620"]If Congress refuses to act to end this epidemic of gun violence, I'll take administrative action to do so.[/URL][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Chonch;51063090][/QUOTE] those are not sources to the claim that hillary wants to ban literally all guns how could you fuck up that badly?
[QUOTE=Chonch;51063090]Criminally Ill[/QUOTE] How is it bad to keep the criminally ill from guns how is that bad please explain
[QUOTE=Chonch;51063090][quote][url]https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/07/hillary-clintons-simple-minded-gun-contr[/url] [url]https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/651070235349487620[/url][/quote] [/QUOTE] just incase you switch the URLS to cover your inability to present proper sources
Straight from your reason source [QUOTE] If Congress does not act, Clinton said, she will try to broaden the background check requirement through an executive order.[/QUOTE] Whether or not this will actually work, and whether or not the ultimate goal of Clinton and the Democrats is to abolish the second amendment, that is absolutely not evidence of the thing you claimed it was evidence for.
[QUOTE=bitches;51063138]those are not sources to the claim that hillary wants to ban literally all guns how could you fuck up that badly?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=bitches;51063149]just incase you switch the URLS to cover your inability to present proper sources[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I try not to cut out parts of people's posts for fear of misinterpreting them. I'm responding more to the other two questions. [QUOTE]"i'm destroying the second amendment"? Do you guys realize the president can't even really do that?[/QUOTE] Off topic, I think you should chill out and maybe cheer up a little. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6s0sJIxIwQ"]Watch this video[/URL], it's really cute. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51063146]How is it bad to keep the criminally ill from guns how is that bad please explain[/QUOTE] Now there's nothing wrong with the general principle behind keeping weapons from criminals or the mentally ill, but these terms need to be defined by Congress, not the executive. I would feel much more comfortable with a body of elected officials debating and legislating this issue than one elected official and her hired staff.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51063251]I'm sorry, I try not to cut out parts of people's posts for fear of misinterpreting them. I'm responding more to the other two questions. Off topic, I think you should chill out and maybe cheer up a little. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6s0sJIxIwQ"]Watch this video[/URL], it's really cute. Now there's nothing wrong with the general principle behind keeping weapons from criminals or the mentally ill, but these terms need to be defined by Congress, not the executive. I would feel much more comfortable with a body of elected officials debating and legislating this issue than one elected official and her hired staff.[/QUOTE] Would you really? Because Congress doesn't bumble and fuck up as much as every other branch? I mean I love guns but I don't think there's any situation where the criminally ill or mentally ill need to be able to get ahold of them legally and I don't get your desire to prevent that from happening as a "fear of government"
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51063258]Would you really? Because Congress doesn't bumble and fuck up as much as every other branch? I mean I love guns but I don't think there's any situation where the criminally ill or mentally ill need to be able to get ahold of them legally and I don't get your desire to prevent that from happening as a "fear of government"[/QUOTE] I think he's trying to argue he trusts a large group of individuals with retardedly conflicting opinions deciding what defines mentally ill enough to be barred from firearm access more than a single woman and her personally elected staff.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51062909]This is pretty much something which has been said by gun-rights groups like the Heller Foundation for years now. It's nothing really uppity, just making a very blunt point about how hypocritical it can be to support gun control, while in the same note have guards armed with automatics and the like.[/QUOTE] Why do people act like they're the ultimate VIP living in a neverending action movie and that half the country is permanently hunting them down on an endless mission to kill them. Clinton has very real reason to have armed guards protecting her. You do not. Whether you believe you need your weapon for sport of self-defense, the chance of anyone specifically choosing to assault you is extremely low.
I seem to remember a Jon Stewart bit from a few years ago about how even if we put gun control laws in right this second and made it identical to gun laws in a non-warzone like Australia, it would be all for nothing because the ATF is legally not allowed to enforce said laws. Something something rider on a budget bill something something Republicans. If I could remember the exact quote or the Senator he was talking about I'd be able to find it and link it. This was also several years ago, it might have been fixed already (but I doubt it)
[QUOTE=lavacano;51063282]I seem to remember a Jon Stewart bit from a few years ago about how even if we put gun control laws in right this second and made it identical to gun laws in a non-warzone like Australia, it would be all for nothing because the ATF is legally not allowed to enforce said laws. Something something rider on a budget bill something something Republicans. If I could remember the exact quote or the Senator he was talking about I'd be able to find it and link it. This was also several years ago, it might have been fixed already (but I doubt it)[/QUOTE] Still wouldnt necessarily solve the root cause of gun crime, nor would it eliminate the current usage of guns.
He's right. The liberal elite is perpetually surrounded by guns, they call for diversity and open borders but never live around their cheap imported labor and voting blocs, rarely get prosecuted for anything and don't suffer from things like TPP and foreign wars. The right side of history isn't meant for plebs, it's meant for rich politicians, corporate media, banks, and others with a material interest in globalization
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51063258]Would you really? Because Congress doesn't bumble and fuck up as much as every other branch? I mean I love guns but I don't think there's any situation where the criminally ill or mentally ill need to be able to get ahold of them legally and I don't get your desire to prevent that from happening as a "fear of government"[/QUOTE] I feel pretty certain that a group of 535 people from all across the country tossing around and yelling about an issue for a few years and failing six times and then finally passing a bill is much more likely to produce a solution that represents the whims of all their fellow countrymen than a single decision by an executive voted into office by a relative minority of citizens. [editline]s[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;51063273]I think he's trying to argue he trusts a large group of individuals with retardedly conflicting opinions deciding what defines mentally ill enough to be barred from firearm access more than a single woman and her personally elected staff.[/QUOTE] Dude, woah.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.