Did the MSM intend for people to jump to this conclusion??

[daws101]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

The only solution you've offered is to disarm victims

maybe they should try not to be victims?

 

[S.J.]

Yes, they did. And we can include Fox in the category of MSM.

faux is about as mainstream as it gets.
if you believe it's not than it's no wonder you support trump.

What did I just say, dummy?

nothing as usual ,slapdick...

IOW you can't read. Got it.

 

[occupied]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

The only solution you've offered is to disarm victims

My solution is for gun nuts to start acting like responsible adults and quit talking all that cold dead hands bullshit.

 

[Dekster]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

Some are, but then there are women who fear for their lives who might be a democrat but be carrying in their purse. Hard to know what women who are victims of domestic violence, stalking, etc really will do when they step into the voting booth.

 

[Moonglow]

Now gee, how does one demolish an amendment to the US constitution, anyone? Can anyone from the right answer that?

 

[Dekster]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

trump supporters aren't smart, or apparently honest.

How could they be dishonest and too dumb to recognize the truth at the same time on the same issue? They would have to be one or the other. The ones they showed the footage of were saying that they just took it as an imprecise statement not intended to call for violence.

 

[ClosedCaption]

maybe there is, I don't know.

sly and sleazy

Maybe the OP likes to fuck kids. Maybe, I dont know

 

[Dekster]

Now gee, how does one demolish an amendment to the US constitution, anyone? Can anyone from the right answer that?

I already have. They can say it only applies to militias and the military/police are the only militia; they could say it is antiquated or too vague to mean anything like happens with some other amendments in some judges' hands.

 

[ogibillm]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

trump supporters aren't smart, or apparently honest.

How could they be dishonest and too dumb to recognize the truth at the same time on the same issue? They would have to be one or the other. The ones they showed the footage of were saying that they just took it as an imprecise statement not intended to call for violence.

not all are too dumb. some are dishonest.

i guess what i was trying to say is you either recognize he was alluding to assassination or you are too stupid to understand english.

 

[Moonglow]

Now gee, how does one demolish an amendment to the US constitution, anyone? Can anyone from the right answer that?

I already have. They can say it only applies to militias and the military/police are the only militia; they could say it is antiquated or too vague to mean anything like happens with some other amendments in some judges' hands.

I doubt that so

 

[occupied]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

Some are, but then there are women who fear for their lives who might be a democrat but be carrying in their purse. Hard to know what women who are victims of domestic violence, stalking, etc really will do when they step into the voting booth.

I am all for responsible gun ownership but I'll be damned if I am on the same side of the debate with all those crazy doomsday cultists the NRA has created. I have a certain number of firearms myself but to me they are overly expensive tools and are no more precious to me than a nail gun or screw gun. People who have fetishized the gun have been fed a line of bullshit that only serves to enrich gun manufacturers who can charge obscene prices for guns and ammo because it is something that will soon be banned in the firearm consumer's paranoid little minds.

 

[Dekster]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

trump supporters aren't smart, or apparently honest.

How could they be dishonest and too dumb to recognize the truth at the same time on the same issue? They would have to be one or the other. The ones they showed the footage of were saying that they just took it as an imprecise statement not intended to call for violence.

not all are too dumb. some are dishonest.

i guess what i was trying to say is you either recognize he was alluding to assassination or you are too stupid to understand english.

Maybe he was alluding to civil war, not assassination. Not sure. Just another in a long string of Trumpism. I am sure there will a few new ones by next week. He is a steady supplier of outrage. It keeps people from attacking him on his actual weak spot--specific policy proposals.

 

[Dekster]

Now gee, how does one demolish an amendment to the US constitution, anyone? Can anyone from the right answer that?

I already have. They can say it only applies to militias and the military/police are the only militia; they could say it is antiquated or too vague to mean anything like happens with some other amendments in some judges' hands.

I doubt that so

I answered your question with intent to further a discussion. Apparently you asked your question with intent to troll.

 

[dannyboys]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

The ONLY "epidemic of gun violence in this country" is negro on negro gun violence.
I doubt not one in 10,000 guns used in negroes murdering other negroes so they can STEAL THEIR FUCKING GARBAGE CANS! is legal.
Why don't you attempt to be honest for once?
Send the NG into the negro shitholes and confiscate every fucking gun and the "endemic" gun violence in the country will drop by 99% overnight!

 

[kaz]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

The only solution you've offered is to disarm victims

My solution is for gun nuts to start acting like responsible adults and quit talking all that cold dead hands bullshit.

Sounds like you're the one with the talking point bullshit. That's a line a few people lose. Grow up and stop applying it with your broad brush

 

[healthmyths]

Perhaps if he were somewhat more coherent and less train of thought in his comments controversies like this would not come up. Another problem is that gun nuts are always talking about guns being the ultimate protection against government tyranny. There is price to pay for all that apocalyptic talk of insurrection against the government. Quit talking crazy about armed conflict against the "gun grabbers" and maybe people will quit thinking you are out to murder your political opposites.

So you disagree with the 2nd Amendment?
Let's look at it again...
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.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So you have problem then with the individual taking care of themselves in the event the security of a free state is in jeopardy?

 

[Moonglow]

Now gee, how does one demolish an amendment to the US constitution, anyone? Can anyone from the right answer that?

I already have. They can say it only applies to militias and the military/police are the only militia; they could say it is antiquated or too vague to mean anything like happens with some other amendments in some judges' hands.

I doubt that so

I answered your question with intent to further a discussion. Apparently you asked your question with intent to troll.

The only way to completely strike down a Constitutional Amendment is by the provisions of Art. IV.. .The US Supremema Courta coulda noa doodit...

 

[Dekster]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

Some are, but then there are women who fear for their lives who might be a democrat but be carrying in their purse. Hard to know what women who are victims of domestic violence, stalking, etc really will do when they step into the voting booth.

I am all for responsible gun ownership but I'll be damned if I am on the same side of the debate with all those crazy doomsday cultists the NRA has created. I have a certain number of firearms myself but to me they are overly expensive tools and are no more precious to me than a nail gun or screw gun. People who have fetishized the gun have been fed a line of bullshit that only serves to enrich gun manufacturers who can charge obscene prices for guns and ammo because it is something that will soon be banned in the firearm consumer's paranoid little minds.

What is "responsible gun ownership" in your mind? That is about as ambiguous a phrase in reality as "a living wage". Personally, I think if we can pass laws that require car manufacturers to meet fuel efficiency standards at some point in the future they currently cannot meet, then there is no reason we can't pass legislation that requires fingerprint technology on all guns at some point in the future as well.

 

[healthmyths]

trump statement was ambiguous in a planned way .
he says stupid shit and gets free air time .
my guess is he also worded that statement that way to try to frighten the intellectually challenged to pick up there guns and go after Hillary.
the wording is perfect for plausible deniability ....

Wow... so this sounds like the GWB argument! GWB was too stupid to be president BUT at the same time he was smart enough to plan 9/11!
right...

 

[daws101]

Yes, they did. And we can include Fox in the category of MSM.

faux is about as mainstream as it gets.
if you believe it's not than it's no wonder you support trump.

What did I just say, dummy?

nothing as usual ,slapdick...

IOW you can't read. Got it.

False! You can't write or more accurately understand what you've written.
If it was sarcasm it failed .