Trump: Clinton's bodyguards should be disarmed; let's see what happens to her

[Virginiá]

What an effin liar Trump is. He continually says Hillary wants to take away your guns. That's a complete lie.

Many of the people who say/think such things will never equate "gun control" with anything less than the complete repeal of 2nd amendment rights. It's really that simple for them. It doesn't matter if she (or any other Democrat for that matter) sat there for 2 hours face-to-face and explained to them her ideas and exactly what she means. They would walk out of the room saying to each other "she is lying. she wants our guns." They would think the same no matter who it was.

[Virginiá]

What an effin liar Trump is. He continually says Hillary wants to take away your guns. That's a complete lie.

Many of the people who say/think such things will never equate "gun control" with anything less than the complete repeal of 2nd amendment rights. It's really that simple for them. It doesn't matter if she (or any other Democrat for that matter) sat there for 2 hours face-to-face and explained to them her ideas and exactly what she means. They would walk out of the room saying to each other "she is lying. she wants our guns." They would think the same no matter who it was.

The leftist do want a full repeal of the 2nd amendment.   What Trump said was right, If she wants to disarm the citizens why should she have the luxury of armed guards with those scary assault rifles?    Oh of course she wants a "assault weapons ban", but its clearly obvious the plan here. See the Communist republic of California and its assault weapons bans.  Its damn near impossible for law-abide folk to carry firearms.


Why should we trust a crooked liar anyway with the subject of guns?        

Case in point.

I didn't even have to propose a gun control measure that time before the 2nd amendment repeal stuff started flying

[Virginiá]

God forbid that there are background checks for gun owners. I'm missing the part where he proposed to take away everyone's guns and abolish the 2nd.

MK is a living stereotype. He is exactly the kind of person I was referring to earlier. It doesn't matter what you say, or show him, or prove, or whatever. It will never make a difference. He has made up his mind already and basically nothing is going to change that.

[Virginiá]

Yup. It's incredibly obvious what he meant by the statement: If she's so anti-gun then why is it okay for her to have armed guards while the average person in the street isn't allowed to bring a weapon to defend themselves. The argument isn't terribly convincing, but this statement isn't what its detractors make it out to be.

It isn't really I guess, but Trump's comparison is pretty stupid. Clinton still looks to be favored to be the next President of the United States, and that makes her exponentially more important and critical to defend than the average American. As much as I loathe having to say it, Trump is also in the same position.

At any rate, are Democrats/Clinton even calling for a ban on concealed carry? I don't recall seeing anything like that on her website or the Democratic Party platform, but, then again, I could be wrong. I don't think I am, though. If no one is, then this argument is pointless.

[Virginiá]

Lol, what. You are crying like a baby.

And yet you roam around the GE polls subforum whining about unskewing literally every day.

[Virginiá]

All spawned from a completely ridiculous strawman from Trump, where he assumed Clinton wants to take away everyone's guns (she doesn't), and that if average citizens can't carry a weapon (she never proposed they not be allowed), then she shouldn't be protected. I mean really, probable future POTUS shouldn't have armed police protection? That doesn't even make sense.

Given his past statements on this stuff, it's not hard to see how people got the impression they did.

[Virginiá]

It's not, actually. You just replace them. The VP role is designed for exactly that. I also would like you to define deplorable, because I doubt I fit the category you are trying to fit me in.

It's not like human life isn't valued here when we say the president requires more protection. They run the military and the federal government and have a lot of enemies and people who would potentially go after them if left unsecured in one way or another.

You can't just keep replacing presidents like you propose, either. You reduce the effectiveness of the office if you keep putting people in there that are not up-to-date on what is going on and have no experience in there. We elect people every 4 years in part to mitigate this issue.

And even when everyone deserves protection, there are people who deserve more protection because they face more threats, and more complex threats at that. You can't compare Joe the plumber to Obama the president. It's just not even comparable in the threats they face.

Lastly, people do have protection - it's called the police. We are limited in resources so we really can't protect everyone with personal bodyguards - if we did, who would protect the bodyguards? The entire country's economy would be nothing but bodyguard-related. We don't have personal robots, either. Police are the only real way we can try and protect large amounts of people. For people more important and more critical to this country (or those who can pay for their own private security), they get more personal protection.