Controversy on the campaign trail: Donald Trump talks gun control

[rooster59]

Controversy on the campaign trail: Donald Trump talks gun control

 

 

Donald Trump has, once again, sparked controversy on the campaign trail.

 

This time, the Republican nominee in the race for the White House has attacked his opponent Hillary Clinton’s pledge to introduce tighter restrictions on gun ownership and control.

 

Trump says the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is “about self-defense, plain and simple.”

 

“I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm, right? Right? I think they should disarm. Immediately. What do you think? Yes? Yes. Yeah. Take their guns away, she doesn’t want guns. Take them, let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away. OK? It would be very dangerous.”

 

The Clinton camp has, again, labelled Trump “unfit to be President.”

 

In a statement on behalf of the former Secretary of State, her campaign manager Robby Mook said:

“Whether this is done to provoke protesters at a rally or casually or even as a joke, it is an unacceptable quality in anyone seeking the job of commander in chief.

 

“He is unfit to be President and it is time Republican leaders stand up to denounce this disturbing behavior in their nominee.”

 

Her supporters also denounced his comment, saying it alludes to violence against the female nominee.

 

Clinton, meanwhile, was following in Trump’s footsteps and recording an appearance on Jimmy Fallon’s ‘The Tonight Show.’

 

When Fallon asked her about her “serious demeanor,” the Democratic nominee said it was important to talk with gravity about subjects such as the ISIL militant group.

 

However, she was quick to poke fun at herself following a bout of pneumonia. As Clinton entered the studio, Fallon jokingly protected himself from infection with a surgical mask, provoking a laugh and a high five from the candidate. Following the exchange, the late night talk show host pulled out a bottle of hand sanitiser…

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-09-18

 

[LomSak27]

He's doing good, the rqace is tightening ... but Shock, Gasp, Horror ... He steps on his ... uh, SHOE, AGAIN 

 

"Donald Trump again raises specter of violence against Hillary Clinton"

 

 

 

 

 

[jesimps]

1 hour ago, LomSak27 said:

He's doing good, the rqace is tightening ... but Shock, Gasp, Horror ... He steps on his ... uh, SHOE, AGAIN 

 

"Donald Trump again raises specter of violence against Hillary Clinton"

 

 

 

 

 

Can't see what the problem is. You're either for the use of guns for self-defence or against it. I'd say that others in your employ carrying guns in your defence comes under self-defence. Reckon Mr Trump is spot on there.

 

 

[stevenl]

First of all Clinton has never said she wants to get rid of all guns in the US. I have said that, but I doubt my word is being confused with Clinton's here, simply cheap rhetoric.  And even I don't mean that law enforcement etc. should get rid of their guns.

 

So all in all Trump's suggestion is at best misleading and on top of that cheap rhetoric. Nothing new then.

[smutcakes]

42 minutes ago, stevenl said:

First of all Clinton has never said she wants to get rid of all guns in the US. I have said that, but I doubt my word is being confused with Clinton's here, simply cheap rhetoric.  And even I don't mean that law enforcement etc. should get rid of their guns.

 

So all in all Trump's suggestion is at best misleading and on top of that cheap rhetoric. Nothing new then.

 

Its not even cheap rhetoric, its just mind boggling babyish....

[Pimay1]

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Her supporters also denounced his comment, saying it alludes to violence against the female nominee.

Absolute lefty liberal spin nonsense. These little snowflakes should run back into their safe spaces.

[stevenl]

10 minutes ago, Pimay1 said:

Absolute lefty liberal spin nonsense. These little snowflakes should run back into their safe spaces.

2 possibilities. Either it leads to violence against her, in which case he incited, or it does not lead to violence, in which case all guns could be taken.

[Rimmer]

A way over the top, post has been removed

[williamgeorgeallen]

3 hours ago, Pinot said:

If Trump was seen on live TV defecating on the flag and pleasuring an ISIS commander, his fans will still vote for him. They love the hate and false promises he spews. They are a basket of deplorable, mindless, gun-toting wingnuts. Trump being "Unfit" doesn't begin to cover his issues.  

same for hillary. she has screwed up plenty but her supporters still vote for her. bill lied outright about his sex affairs with his staff but he still had massive support when he left office.

[ncc1701d]

4 hours ago, jesimps said:

Can't see what the problem is. You're either for the use of guns for self-defence or against it. I'd say that others in your employ carrying guns in your defence comes under self-defence. Reckon Mr Trump is spot on there.

 

 

He would be "spot on" if Clinton had said anything of the sort. But she hasn't. To suggest the mass shootings in the USA is "simple" is disengenuous at best.

 

The "problem" is that without a doubt he's suggesting that Clinton would be physically harmed if she didn't have armed body guards protecting her and that's a case for not trying to restrict gun ownership. What he also does is inciting violence against his openent. I don't think he means or knows he's doing it because he's an idiot.

 

There is too much false information and irony to go into here to cover such ridiculous statements from trump.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2016 by ncc1701d

[maoro2013]

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

First of all Clinton has never said she wants to get rid of all guns in the US. I have said that, but I doubt my word is being confused with Clinton's here, simply cheap rhetoric.  And even I don't mean that law enforcement etc. should get rid of their guns.

 

So all in all Trump's suggestion is at best misleading and on top of that cheap rhetoric. Nothing new then.

Your use of the word' all' is obviously wrong. What about the army. Your's is simply a provocative statement.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

3 hours ago, Pimay1 said:

Absolute lefty liberal spin nonsense. These little snowflakes should run back into their safe spaces.

2 possibilities. Either it leads to violence against her, in which case he incited, or it does not lead to violence, in which case all guns could be taken.

 

What Trump is saying, witch you will surely not understand (But americans do), is that if you tighten restrictions on firearms and by default remove citizens right to protect them selves, then the person promoting it should also disarm. You can't walk around with armed bodyguards and say everyone else should not have protection. Its literally saying "I have more value than you and I deserve protection. I am more important and my life is more important than yours"

 

He is not inciting violence he is making a point. The extreme libs take it and say "But.... But.... He is saying she should be harmed!!!" No. Just no. He is simply stating that if she wants to disarm the people - she should go first. 

[Pimay1]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

What Trump is saying, witch you will surely not understand (But americans do), is that if you tighten restrictions on firearms and by default remove citizens right to protect them selves, then the person promoting it should also disarm. You can't walk around with armed bodyguards and say everyone else should not have protection. Its literally saying "I have more value than you and I deserve protection. I am more important and my life is more important than yours"

 

He is not inciting violence he is making a point. The extreme libs take it and say "But.... But.... He is saying she should be harmed!!!" No. Just no. He is simply stating that if she wants to disarm the people - she should go first. 

Excellent post. You nailed it perfectly.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed. 

[Jingthing]

He's a total total troll. There is no point. People for reasonable gun control as Hillary is are not against law enforcement people being armed.

[sirineou]

 This is not an indictment on Trump, Trump is doing what works for him. This is an indictment on the people that support him, and their inability to use critical reasoning. It is really scary that people can be that stupid, and their affect on my and my family's feature, the ones correctly termed "basket of deplorables"

The indictment on Trump will come if something was to happen to HRC .

I would think that one would say, Hey ,I might not agree with HRC, I might not even like her, but that's not what she said,, If he is misrepresenting this, what else is he misrepresenting??

HRC is protected by the secret service, as Trump is , as all presidential nominees always are. I dont know of anyone that has ever suggested disarming the Secret Service.

Trump always says that if everyone had guns some shooting incidents would not happen, or would be minimized, yet he would not allow everyone to carry a gun  in his events. etc etc.

Critical thinking my friend. Nobody wants to take nobody's guns, just apply some logic in the process. 

Apply some logic, reduce the violence, and law abiding citizens would have no problem, but a little of inconvenience,

But let thing go in the direction they are going, and you might find more stringent measures necessary. 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

What Trump is saying, witch you will surely not understand (But americans do), is that if you tighten restrictions on firearms and by default remove citizens right to protect them selves, then the person promoting it should also disarm. You can't walk around with armed bodyguards and say everyone else should not have protection. Its literally saying "I have more value than you and I deserve protection. I am more important and my life is more important than yours"

 

He is not inciting violence he is making a point. The extreme libs take it and say "But.... But.... He is saying she should be harmed!!!" No. Just no. He is simply stating that if she wants to disarm the people - she should go first. 

"is that if you tighten restrictions on firearms and by default remove citizens right to protect them selves"

And there you're wrong already. A restriction does not mean citizens right to self protection are removed.

[Pinot]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

What Trump is saying, witch you will surely not understand (But americans do), is that if you tighten restrictions on firearms and by default remove citizens right to protect them selves, then the person promoting it should also disarm. You can't walk around with armed bodyguards and say everyone else should not have protection. Its literally saying "I have more value than you and I deserve protection. I am more important and my life is more important than yours"

 

He is not inciting violence he is making a point. The extreme libs take it and say "But.... But.... He is saying she should be harmed!!!" No. Just no. He is simply stating that if she wants to disarm the people - she should go first. 

 

Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. You've taken his twisted bullshit, twisted it further and made it even more ridiculous, if that's even possible. Congratulations, you win Trumpeteer of the Day!

 

"Basket of Deplorables" doesn't begin to cover his lemmings. Babies need to be given guns at birth. Every man, woman and baby needs to be armed so they can protect themselves. "By default remove citizen's right to protect themselves?" All gun control is evil. Let's hand out guns to everyone, so we can all be safe.   

 

Let's pray for America. Hail Mary full of grace...

[hansnl]

3 hours ago, ncc1701d said:

He would be "spot on" if Clinton had said anything of the sort. But she hasn't. To suggest the mass shootings in the USA is "simple" is disengenuous at best.

 

The "problem" is that without a doubt he's suggesting that Clinton would be physically harmed if she didn't have armed body guards protecting her and that's a case for not trying to restrict gun ownership. What he also does is inciting violence against his openent. I don't think he means or knows he's doing it because he's an idiot.

 

There is too much false information and irony to go into here to cover such ridiculous statements from trump.

 

 

One must have a very flexible and devious mind to see incitement to violence in his rhetoric.

I think he is right, if you want to restrict ownership of firearms, or do away with them, start with yourself, do away with firearms around you.

But that will not happen.

Maybe she wants citizens not able to defend themselves, but of course politicos are different, better people....

 

[Strange]

31 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"is that if you tighten restrictions on firearms and by default remove citizens right to protect them selves"

And there you're wrong already. A restriction does not mean citizens right to self protection are removed.

 

1 minute ago, Pinot said:

 

Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. You've taken his twisted bullshit, twisted it further and made it even more ridiculous, if that's even possible. Congratulations, you win Trumpeteer of the Day!

 

"Basket of Deplorables" doesn't begin to cover his lemmings. Babies need to be given guns at birth. Every man, woman and baby needs to be armed so they can protect themselves. "By default remove citizen's right to protect themselves?" All gun control is evil. Let's hand out guns to everyone, so we can all be safe.   

 

Let's pray for America. Hail Mary full of grace...

 

I knew this was going to wind up a few of you and you can say all the hail marys you want. Luckily your opinion on the matter has zero impact on what a lot of us believe. I am not deplorable. I don't really like Trump but I REALLY don't like Hillary. I was just illustrating for you guys what he was saying. He was not calling for the harm of hillary. He was saying - you go first. Want an assault weapons ban? Ok Hillary you go first. You want to limit handgun magazine capacity to 5 rounds? Ok hillary you go first. She is no more important than the guy that flips her burgers. Her life is no more important than the woman that cleaned her hotel room. 

 

You can choose not to have any firearms and thats up to you. We already have a lot of gun control. We are not the UK and we don't want to be and most of us do not care what you guys do. I am all for gun control that targets criminals without infringing on lawful americans rights. 

 

 

[Doc46]

7 hours ago, jesimps said:

Can't see what the problem is. You're either for the use of guns for self-defence or against it. I'd say that others in your employ carrying guns in your defence comes under self-defence. Reckon Mr Trump is spot on there.

 

 

Good onya DT.

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, Pinot said:

"Basket of Deplorables" doesn't begin to cover his lemmings. Babies need to be given guns at birth. Every man, woman and baby needs to be armed so they can protect themselves. "By default remove citizen's right to protect themselves?" All gun control is evil. Let's hand out guns to everyone, so we can all be safe.

 

And lets just be real here - nothing in this statement has any basis of truth. 

 

"Hilary is no more important than the citizens the represents. If she wants some form of control, she should lead by example"

 

"OMG THATS JUST CRAZY GEEZ JUST GIVE GUNS TO BABYS SO EVERYONE CAN KILL THEMSELVES MY GOD IF THIS WAS THE UK....."

 

Stop. Just stop.

[sirineou]

15 minutes ago, hansnl said:

One must have a very flexible and devious mind to see incitement to violence in his rhetoric.

I think he is right, if you want to restrict ownership of firearms, or do away with them, start with yourself, do away with firearms around you.

But that will not happen.

Maybe she wants citizens not able to defend themselves, but of course politicos are different, better people....

 

" if you want to restrict ownership of firearms, or do away with them, start with yourself, "

That is a big "If"  "

If she wanted to do away with them. but she does not

If she wanted to restrict the Secret Service agents that protect her ownership of firearms, but she does not.

She wants the mentally ill to be restricted, and I can guarantee you that her security detail is screened for mental illness.

She wants gun registration,, I can guarantee you that all guns in her security detail are registered.

she wants all with criminal record to be restricted and I can guaranty you non in her security detail has a criminal record.

 

 

 

[dunroaming]

This is not that hard.  The people who think that there is nothing wrong with what Trump said are Trump supporters and they are programmed to believe he is the great god and can say or do nothing wrong.  The rest of us see it for what it is, just Trump trying to pump up the mob. Best to simply chuckle and move on

[jcsmith]

10 hours ago, jesimps said:

Can't see what the problem is. You're either for the use of guns for self-defence or against it. I'd say that others in your employ carrying guns in your defence comes under self-defence. Reckon Mr Trump is spot on there.

 

 

 

I have mixed feelings on the gun issue personally. I can see both sides of the argument. But by that logic a country can't arm their military unless guns are legalized? Nor could police, security, etc. Apples and oranges.
 

[dunroaming]

It's called gun control.  No question of guns being banned.  Trump just using stupid rhetoric and the mob falls for it.

[ncc1701d]

On 9/18/2016 at 8:12 PM, hansnl said:

One must have a very flexible and devious mind to see incitement to violence in his rhetoric.

I think he is right, if you want to restrict ownership of firearms, or do away with them, start with yourself, do away with firearms around you.

But that will not happen.

Maybe she wants citizens not able to defend themselves, but of course politicos are different, better people....

 

 

There is no question he alludes to violence against her. "we'll see what happens"? Someone will give her a box of chocolates?

 

No where does she say or ever said (including Obama) they want to "do away with them" (sic). So that's a straw man argument.

 

To equate restricting gun ownership to people without mental illness and not arming the secret service is, of course, ludicrous.

[Linzz]

On 9/18/2016 at 9:59 PM, Strange said:

 

What Trump is saying, witch you will surely not understand (But americans do), is that if you tighten restrictions on firearms and by default remove citizens right to protect them selves, then the person promoting it should also disarm. You can't walk around with armed bodyguards and say everyone else should not have protection. Its literally saying "I have more value than you and I deserve protection. I am more important and my life is more important than yours"

 

He is not inciting violence he is making a point. The extreme libs take it and say "But.... But.... He is saying she should be harmed!!!" No. Just no. He is simply stating that if she wants to disarm the people - she should go first. 

 

Finally got a good answer. Of course it was making a point, not inciting violence against Hillary. The Dems are too literal and too simple to understand...no I retract that, too disingenuous. The intent is to pick up anything and twist it into what it is not, just like CNN inserting the word "racial" into "profiling" deliberately misquoting Trump to change the meaning.

[Chicog]

While we're on the subject, I notice the NRA are spending wads of cash on TV adverts intimating that Clinton wants to repeat the 2nd amendment, which is patently absurd on many levels, but not if you are a gun-toting, brain-dead Trump fan and probably don't even have a clue what that would entail.

 

 

[Publicus]

9 hours ago, Linzz said:

 

Finally got a good answer. Of course it was making a point, not inciting violence against Hillary. The Dems are too literal and too simple to understand...no I retract that, too disingenuous. The intent is to pick up anything and twist it into what it is not, just like CNN inserting the word "racial" into "profiling" deliberately misquoting Trump to change the meaning.

 

The way Trump talks about it, as in "we'll see what happens," defines him as a crackpot. Especially given the consistent history of political assassination in the United States. It includes candidates for Potus and four Potus assassinated plus six unsuccessful attempts to assassinate a Potus.

 

Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY) was assassinated campaigning for the Democratic party nomination for Potus. Gov. George Wallace of Alabama was severely wounded by an intended assassin while campaigning for Potus.

 

President Ronald Reagan was shot and seriously wounded during his first months in office as Potus.

 

Saying HRC wants to ban all guns is assinine [sic], ridiculous, absurd and contemptible.

 

Rightwhinger gun nuts are presenting themselves as mind readers -- and cynics. There will always be guns in the USA, so the question is how to access them and by whom.

 

That the Secret Service must carry and be expert in weapons is a given. To try to argue that gun laws advocates in politics and government should have unarmed protection where it is absolutely required is focking stupid. It points out the inherently flawed, desperate and wild state of mind, emotion and psychology of those who talk the absurd nonsense. It shows they have no rational or sensible argument.