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

[Badger]

I think Trump's secret service protection should be removed and have no bodyguards and then see how much of a tough guy he is.

Don't worry. His mobs of rally attendees would jackboot-stomp anyone that came near him.

Not joking.

[Badger]

Unsurprising, considering most Republicans seem incapable of understanding that: (a) Clinton never proposed disarming or seizing arms from all American citizens, and (b) that there is an irrefutable difference between a political candidate aspiring to the Presidency and a regular citizen in terms of their likelihood of being a target of violence. Personally, while I find everything that Trump says and thinks deplorable, he is but merely the id of our authoritarian, bigoted Republican electorate with a demonstrable lack of self-regulation.

I'm not a Republican, but you have some Democrats and leftists that would LOVE gun confiscation. You can't deny it. That's why this issue is brought up. Some Democrats and far-leftists have to STOP talking about gun control, it's too divisive. Suburban women voters need to let it go as well.

That's a ridiculous reason to bring this issue up in relation to Hillary Clinton, however. She has never articulated any position that even resembles what the Republican Party and, specifically, Trump are suggesting. What other Democrats and Leftists propose is essentially irrelevant in this context. Also, I wouldn't deny that there are some (not even most) Democrats and Leftists who'd enthusiastically support mass firearm confiscation and laws similar to those found in countries such as England - myself included.

You shouldn't. Are you a weakling? Be strong. Why are you so afraid of a gun? Are you going to use your hands to attack the robber or the criminal? Harden up, my friend, harden up.

Ah, the machismo argument. If you are opposed to guns, then you must be afraid of them, therefore toughen up. Wouldn't the more civilized answer to a culture of gun violence, directly stemming from our nation's adoration of such toxic masculinity and ready access to firearms, be to de-emphasize and de-glorify violence while removing the primary tool of causing mass deaths? But, I guess that might be asking too much of many Americans.

Come on my man, how are people supposed to defend themselves? Come on, man. How are you going to defend yourself?

From what am I supposed to defend myself? I have argued that guns need to be confiscated and banned, except for in tightly regulated and highly limited situations (such as farmers and licensed hunters). In that context, from what am I defending myself? A man with a knife or a baseball bat? Then the answer is a knife, a baseball bat, my hands, or some other object or, ideally, the police. But, again, if we focused on de-emphasizing and de-glorifying violence, along with actually tackling poverty, then the threat of violence would not be so widespread. I'm not saying it's a simple process, but it is the only legitimate process.

I respectfully disagree. But if any Democrat or far leftist EVER proposes gun confiscation, there will be a civil war and only them will be to blame for anything that happens. I respectfully disagree with you, you're promoting weakness, in my opinion and this is why some people are saying that leftists are weak people. Come on man.

But they don't, and aren't about to. At all, despite NRA broadsheets to the contrary. That's the point.

[Badger]

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?       

As usual, your post has no basis whatsoever in reality. It is easy as $hit to get most types of firearms anywhere in Cali.

Your frothing paranoia does note what the vast majority of gun owners, even non-dolts unlike present company. 1) contrary to any evidence, gun owners believe Clinton, and indeed most Democrats, deeply want total gun confiscation. 2) even the most common sense, tepid legal restrictions on gun control, even those supported by overwhelming numbers of gunowners, are flatly considered the first step towards total gun confiscation.

[Badger]

This story is desperate, overblown BS. Only someone dropped on their head as a child could honestly interpret this as a death threat.

^^

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.

when has Clinton ever said that?

also, how deepin the sand do you have to sitck you head in context of LITTERALLY everything Trump says to miosconstrue this as a second amendment article.