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

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

He is very obviously trying to get people to imagine Clinton being shot, just like with "Second Amendment people". (Otherwise, why "let's see what happens to her"?) What does this say about Trump's target audience? Let's be honest here.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

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?        

"clearly obvious the plan here"? That's called a conspiracy theory. I might as well say, "If he wants to deport all Hispanics why should he have them working on his campaign? Oh of course he wants a 'border wall', but its clearly obvious the plan here. See the Communist dictatorship of North Korea and its border wall. Its damn near impossible for Southern-sympathizing folk to survive." I'd be insane for doing so, but it would make just as much sense as this.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

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.

It's so convenient when you have evidence that is not only immediately accessible, but comes to you too.

They used the same tired lines with Obama and their guns have gone nowhere in the last 8 years.

Give me a break.  Obama attempted multiple times and thinks to states rights and largely Republican House along with governorships has been unable to ram thru much of it.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2015/02/15/atf-proposes-new-rules-on-green-tip-ammunition-ban/

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx

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.

Anyone with half a brain would know that you don't just make a sweeping proposal of " We are coming to take the guns".  

Obama/ Hillary and the left will implement it in stages mostly centered around "common sense gun control" policy.    

and this, folks, is what we call a "conspiracy theory".

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Overreact much, leftists?

It's the rhetorical argument about gun control. If you take away the guns from one, why don't you take it away from all?

And if you do that, will Hillary or Cher or Rosie O'Donnell whatever loony actress or actor that spouts seizing people's 2nd Amendment rights away be better off or worse off?

Leftists like to piss on the little people and take away their rights. But when it comes to protecting their children, they'll hire security... with guns....

If you don't see what Trump was getting at here, you're just another DNC/leftist media shill.

I don't think that any of the SS are on the terrorist watch list...

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

He's not encouraging anyone to kill her, true, but he's making sport of the idea that Hillary Clinton would be shot. That's not acceptable by any stretch.

This. This is basically "second amendment people" all over again

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

He's not encouraging anyone to kill her, true, but he's making sport of the idea that Hillary Clinton would be shot. That's not acceptable by any stretch.

Trump is shaping "new normal". Right now. Right here.

He's trying to, definitely. Hopefully the American electorate is smart enough to realize what a dangerous path this leads down...

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

He's not encouraging anyone to kill her, true, but he's making sport of the idea that Hillary Clinton would be shot. That's not acceptable by any stretch.

Trump is shaping "new normal". Right now. Right here.

He's trying to, definitely. Hopefully the American electorate is smart enough to realize what a dangerous path this leads down...

What good can you see occur from a political system that revolves around violence and the spectre of violence? Maybe I'm a dumb liberal cuck and need enlightenment about why we want that...and what the ultimate goal would be.

Exactly. If Trump becomes a model for success, and future politicians take after him, then politics will become even more of a mess of empty rhetoric and bombast than it is now.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

It's pretty amazing the number of people here willing to explain away Trump's disgusting remarks on his behalf, as though he were simply alluding to some reasonable argument about gun control.

No country that restricts firearms has an unarmed police force.  The "argument" is a complete straw man.  Nobody is advocating that Trump has his Secret Service protection removed.  Stop pretending that his "point" has any basis in reality.

He's repeatedly encouraged his cultists to assassinate Hillary Clinton and he will continue to do so because people continue to try to legitimize it.

But just stop it.

Was it a strawman argument?                    Yes.
Was it encouragement to an assasination?  No.

Full remark:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But almost literally none of the maistream media quoted it. Do you still think they are not heavily biased against Trump?
Why could they not just quote 3 senteces istead of 1?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e7468cc09b5c4e1aa97f543b598843e2/trump-unarmed-clinton-guards-lets-see-what-happens
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/16/trump-clintons-bodyguards-should-disarm-immediately-and-see-what-happens-to-her/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html
http://time.com/4498067/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bodyguards-weapons/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/16/trump-miami-clinton-disarm-security-obama-birther
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-trump-clinton-disarm-20160917-snap-story.html

I think they're biased towards profit.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

I can see your argument, but by that logic, those earning minimum wage should pay the same taxes as the top 1%. It's the same logic: the poor are more subject to running out of money (by the very nature of being poor), so we give them greater protection by lifting their tax burden. Likewise, because being President makes you incredibly high-profile, and because there are likely millions of people who would prefer to see Tim Kaine in the White House, it makes sense to give Clinton extra protection.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

I can see your argument, but by that logic, those earning minimum wage should pay the same taxes as the top 1%. It's the same logic: the poor are more subject to running out of money (by the very nature of being poor), so we give them greater protection by lifting their tax burden. Likewise, because being President makes you incredibly high-profile, and because there are likely millions of people who would prefer to see Tim Kaine in the White House, it makes sense to give Clinton extra protection.

I don't support progressive taxation. Also, those ordinary citizens, in your scenario, are not getting the "income" they need. Without guns, anyone is a sitting duck. Guns for some but not all makes no sense. Either we should have them or we shouldn't.

So you support putting guns in the hands of potential terrorists and lunatics, or else spawning a gigantic, dangerous black market? ...OK

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Politicians do need bodyguards more than the rest of us. Say that there's a president and vice president who agree on everything except trade and abortion. Now there are some people who will badly want to assassinate the president, and a successful assassination could change a few of the major decisions (even possibly SCOTUS picks) that would be made during those four to eight years. Or if there was an important Supreme Court decision about to be made and one of the judges gets assassinated and instead of a 5-4 ruling striking down the lower court's decision, it became a 4-4 ruling which would uphold the lower court's ruling by default. Meanwhile, average inner city citizens getting shot wouldn't have the same drastic effect.

It does not matter what they support. What if a private citizens becomes an advocate and is actually changing minds? Should that person then have security? Should others still not? People elect a ticket for a multitude of reasons. It is not restricted to one or two policies, anyway.

The president is possibly the highest-profile individual in the world. To suggest that they do not need security would be equivalent to suggesting that we don't need secure voting booths, because someone's private CoD server doesn't get the same protection.