Controversy on the campaign trail: Donald Trump talks gun control

[Linzz]

48 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

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.

 

Fine. I did actually suggest quite some time ago that Trump could be assassinated by a hired Mexican or Muslim because of the threat he represents to the political liberal establishment, but was laughed at by one of your mates as a conspiracy theorist. Although Bill says Hillary is a change agent, she is not but Trump is (for better or worse). Thus I think he is under more threat than she.

[Publicus]

Just now, Linzz said:

 

Fine. I did actually suggest quite some time ago that Trump could be assassinated by a hired Mexican or Muslim because of the threat he represents to the political liberal establishment, but was laughed at by one of your mates as a conspiracy theorist. Although Bill says Hillary is a change agent, she is not but Trump is (for better or worse). Thus I think he is under more threat than she.

 

but was laughed at by one of your mates as a conspiracy theorist.

 

You'd need to address whomever you might think could be my "mate" on this unsupported allegation.

 

In the meantime, Trump is talking madman garbage when he accuses HRC of wanting to ban all guns, repeal the Second Amendment, and that her armed protection should be disarmed so we can "see what happens."

 

This guy is himself a political assassin. A nutcase.

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, Publicus said:

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.

 

 

I get it. Its dangerous and you likely need a highly trained personal security detail. No one is arguing that fact. But what makes her more special than anybody else? Can you honestly say that a politician deserves better security and protection than any other regular person? A politician deserves a better armed and higher trained personal security detail than their constituents? 

 

46 minutes ago, Publicus said:

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.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

Quote

Here is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[33]

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Going back to basics here, but therein lies the problem to your statement. 

 

 

[Scott]

An off-topic, troll post has been removed.   Stay on topic or face a 30 day suspension.  

 

You have been warned. 

[Publicus]

On 9/22/2016 at 8:49 AM, Strange said:

 

I get it. Its dangerous and you likely need a highly trained personal security detail. No one is arguing that fact. But what makes her more special than anybody else? Can you honestly say that a politician deserves better security and protection than any other regular person? A politician deserves a better armed and higher trained personal security detail than their constituents? 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

 

Going back to basics here, but therein lies the problem to your statement. 

 

 

 

Denying government its proper role to balance interests and valid arguments in the most reasonable and feasible ways is both anarchy and nihilism.

 

That is the true thrust of my statement.

 

Writing Second Amendment laws that only have the approval of the National Rifle Association is not governance. It is a dictatorship by one single special interest gun crazy group.

 

Oddly and interestingly, the NRA does not speak out against armed protection of politicians and the key figures of the national government. It may be happenstance that the NRA is silent on this aspect of gun laws and personal protections, so it may have no relation to the arguments of old timers who still can't read the Second Amendment.

 

I owned a handgun in USA for a long time and was expert in its use due in large part to my voluntary service in the Army as an officer of Infantry. It came in handy one night in particular as I was being stalked then too. I had been in a sense my own civilian militia so I do not try to argue against our most important national leaders or figures receiving armed protection. We see each day that there are stalkers in society.

 

I do object to Trump's lunatic language that Hillary Clinton's armed protection detail of the Secret Service be disarmed so "we can see what happens." Trump is a flat out lunatic crazy man -- the fact of the matter that cannot be said often enough. Nor can it be rationally or reasonably denied. 

[Linzz]

2 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

Denying government its proper role to balance interests and valid arguments in the most reasonable and feasible ways is both anarchy and nihilism.

 

That is the true thrust of my statement.

 

Writing Second Amendment laws that only have the approval of the National Rifle Association is not governance. It is a dictatorship by one single special interest gun crazy group.

 

Oddly and interestingly, the NRA does not speak out against armed protection of politicians and the key figures of the national government. It may be happenstance that the NRA is silent on this aspect of gun laws and personal protections, so it may have no relation to the arguments of old timers who still can't read the Second Amendment.

 

I owned a handgun in USA for a long time and was expert in its use due in large part to my voluntary service in the Army as an officer of Infantry. It came in handy one night in particular as I was being stalked then too. I had been in a sense my own civilian militia so I do not try to argue against our most important national leaders or figures receiving armed protection. We see each day that there are stalkers in society.

 

I do object to Trump's lunatic language that Hillary Clinton's armed protection detail of the Secret Service be disarmed so "we can see what happens." Trump is a flat out lunatic crazy man -- the fact of the matter that cannot be said often enough. Nor can it be rationally or reasonably denied. 

 

Oddly enough I agree with a lot you said (!) but your last sentence.

Are you not reading it a bit too literally? I saw it as Trump making a political point. They're not going to suddenly take Hillary's protection away "to see what happens" just because Trump said try it are they? To me I could only interpret his statement as facetious, even misguided but certainly not literally asking for Hillary to be shot or he would have been arrested  for incitement to violence. However he did provide his opposition an excuse for exaggeration and pretend outrage.