Trump's Second Amendment Rhetoric Again Veers Into Threatening Territory

[Ray From Cleveland]

and I did accuse you of saying the president could repeal the second amendment ... I clearly said the president doesn't have a vote in the matter... like I said when hillary gets elected president she too can't repeal the second amendment ... only the congress and the people of the united states

The problem here is that YOU are the only one talking about repealing the second amendment. Did you ever read any of us talking about an amendment repeal?

 

[bripat9643]

Anyway, trump doesn't give a hoot about this second amendment thing, for one, he knows the second amendment will never be eliminated,

and second,

He's said what he said because he WANTED another controversy for the press to talk about in HOPES that they would focus on this instead of his useless "show and a dance" he put on yesterday at his new hotel and with his fallen flat Birther Statement....he doesn't want the "talk" this weekend to be on his Birther stances....

Are you guys truly so clueless on Trump's modus operandi? This is what he does...creates another scandal to get the press off of the last scandalous thing he said....

Nonsense. Trump wants the media focus right where it's at: Hillary passing out and calling Americans a basket of deplorable's. The longer they are focused on that, the better for Trump.

Oh, pleeezz. Liar, liar pants on fire. She did not call America a basket of deplorables. She called about 50% of Trump supporters deplorable. And she was right! You are deplorable for making up that lie you just posted.

That's the moral equivalent of calling half of Hillary's supporters "wetbacks."

 

[2aguy]

Another sad product of government schools. Yeah, they put in the second amendment that government can regulate a right they can't infringe on

Time to go back to remedial English, boy

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb

1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

A law, or constitutional right, can be regulated without being infringed upon

Cherry picking definitions I see.

This is also a definition of infringe:

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

• "his legal rights were being infringed" ·

It's amazing, isn't it? You can limit an unlimited right! Liberals actually can simultaneously believe two totally contradictory things at the same time. It's amazing

The right to bear arms is not a limitless right. Go back to school

No one said it was....moron. You idiots see that "not a limitless right" and think you are clever........twits......we have more than enough limits already.....we have all the limits on it that we need yet you morons think that it not being limitless means you can regulate it out of existence.......

 

[Spare_change]

Anyway, trump doesn't give a hoot about this second amendment thing, for one, he knows the second amendment will never be eliminated,

and second,

He's said what he said because he WANTED another controversy for the press to talk about in HOPES that they would focus on this instead of his useless "show and a dance" he put on yesterday at his new hotel and with his fallen flat Birther Statement....he doesn't want the "talk" this weekend to be on his Birther stances....

Are you guys truly so clueless on Trump's modus operandi? This is what he does...creates another scandal to get the press off of the last scandalous thing he said....

Nonsense. Trump wants the media focus right where it's at: Hillary passing out and calling Americans a basket of deplorable's. The longer they are focused on that, the better for Trump.

Oh, pleeezz. Liar, liar pants on fire. She did not call America a basket of deplorables. She called about 50% of Trump supporters deplorable. And she was right! You are deplorable for making up that lie you just posted.

That's the moral equivalent of calling half of Hillary's supporters "wetbacks."

That's just NOT true .....

it's 38%

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another sad product of government schools. Yeah, they put in the second amendment that government can regulate a right they can't infringe on

Time to go back to remedial English, boy

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb

1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

A law, or constitutional right, can be regulated without being infringed upon

Cherry picking definitions I see.

This is also a definition of infringe:

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

• "his legal rights were being infringed" ·

It's amazing, isn't it? You can limit an unlimited right! Liberals actually can simultaneously believe two totally contradictory things at the same time. It's amazing

The right to bear arms is not a limitless right. Go back to school

Bull shit!

Tell me moron, what does the plain English statement "Shall not be infringed" mean?

The founding fathers wrote it expressly to tell future generations that this was NONNEGOTIABLE and was not open to ANY government regulations... Do you know why?

 

[kaz]

Another sad product of government schools. Yeah, they put in the second amendment that government can regulate a right they can't infringe on

Time to go back to remedial English, boy

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb

1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

A law, or constitutional right, can be regulated without being infringed upon

Cherry picking definitions I see.

This is also a definition of infringe:

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

• "his legal rights were being infringed" ·

It's amazing, isn't it? You can limit an unlimited right! Liberals actually can simultaneously believe two totally contradictory things at the same time. It's amazing

The right to bear arms is not a limitless right. Go back to school

Yes, not be infringed meant can be infringed, great argument ...

 

[Contumacious]

united states has laws

We already discussed that.

no you didn't discuss it ... I'm only talking about US law ... not Australia
law ... not russian Law Chinese law or any other countries law ... not concerned with their laws one bit ... what I'm very concern is that republican are so stupid when it comes to constitutional law ... that they say any president can take your guns away.. thats a out right lie... they can't take your guns away .... when the constitution says they haven't and say in the matter of any amendment that's what bothers me ... when people like you pushing this lie just because of your hate of hillary clinton .... fine hate hillary clinton for all I care .... tell us why you hater her ... thats you business ... but don't come here and try and tell us lies about her taking your guns ... it will never happen ever by any president whether it trump or hillary they can't take you guns .... the fact that you have to lie or buy into a lie about her taking you guns ... she can't take them ever...

LISTEN RETARD


I ALREADY TOLD YOU TO READ THE DISSENTING OPINION IN HELLER , WHEREIN 4 FASCISTS LIBERALS , DECIDED TO PERPETRATE A FRAUD BY CLAIMING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARM IS A ******FICTION*******


ONE MORE FASCIST "justice" AND THE RIGHT WILL DISAPPEAR.


.

 

[billyerock1991]

united states has laws

We already discussed that.

no you didn't discuss it ... I'm only talking about US law ... not Australia
law ... not russian Law Chinese law or any other countries law ... not concerned with their laws one bit ... what I'm very concern is that republican are so stupid when it comes to constitutional law ... that they say any president can take your guns away.. thats a out right lie... they can't take your guns away .... when the constitution says they haven't and say in the matter of any amendment that's what bothers me ... when people like you pushing this lie just because of your hate of hillary clinton .... fine hate hillary clinton for all I care .... tell us why you hater her ... thats you business ... but don't come here and try and tell us lies about her taking your guns ... it will never happen ever by any president whether it trump or hillary they can't take you guns .... the fact that you have to lie or buy into a lie about her taking you guns ... she can't take them ever...

LISTEN RETARD


I ALREADY TOLD YOU TO READ THE DISSENTING OPINION IN HELLER , WHEREIN 4 FASCISTS LIBERALS , DECIDED TO PERPETRATE A FRAUD BY CLAIMING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARM IS A ******FICTION*******


ONE MORE FASCIST "justice" AND THE RIGHT WILL DISAPPEAR.


.

well repub-lie-tard.... if you pulled your head out of your ass, you would have know that the President nor the Supreme court can repeal the second amendment ... you bring up these retarded cases that hasn't any bases to the accusation that Hillary will take you guns if she become president ... she can't ...she hasn't the athority to only the congress can and the people can accomplish that by voting it out ... I don't see that every happening ... dumb fucks like you seem to think the Supreme court and hillary can ... thats show us what a dumb fuck you really are ....

 

[billyerock1991]

united states has laws

We already discussed that.

no you didn't discuss it ... I'm only talking about US law ... not Australia
law ... not russian Law Chinese law or any other countries law ... not concerned with their laws one bit ... what I'm very concern is that republican are so stupid when it comes to constitutional law ... that they say any president can take your guns away.. thats a out right lie... they can't take your guns away .... when the constitution says they haven't and say in the matter of any amendment that's what bothers me ... when people like you pushing this lie just because of your hate of hillary clinton .... fine hate hillary clinton for all I care .... tell us why you hater her ... thats you business ... but don't come here and try and tell us lies about her taking your guns ... it will never happen ever by any president whether it trump or hillary they can't take you guns .... the fact that you have to lie or buy into a lie about her taking you guns ... she can't take them ever...

LISTEN RETARD


I ALREADY TOLD YOU TO READ THE DISSENTING OPINION IN HELLER , WHEREIN 4 FASCISTS LIBERALS , DECIDED TO PERPETRATE A FRAUD BY CLAIMING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARM IS A ******FICTION*******


ONE MORE FASCIST "justice" AND THE RIGHT WILL DISAPPEAR.


.

P.S.
Just like amendment 2 all of the other amendment have to go through the same process .... they have to have 2/3 of the congress to vote them out ... they must have 3/4 of the american people to vote them out after that has been accomplished then they can take one of those rights away ... but until then no president or Supreme court can take you right away ... the states can try and pass a law that might voids that right but we all know the ACLU will jump all over that law and have them removed that law in a state ...like they always do ... look how many time these repub-lie-tard have tried to pass laws on abortion where the ACLU steps in then the supreme court steps in and has it removed ... that's what happes ... there isn't any president or the supreme court that say we don't like this amendment so were going to remove it ... they can't do that ... everything that you have posted is when a right was being attacked and the supreme court decided if it was constitutional ... but never have they ever tried to take your rights away ... they haven't the authority to do so

 

[billyerock1991]

Another sad product of government schools. Yeah, they put in the second amendment that government can regulate a right they can't infringe on

Time to go back to remedial English, boy

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb

1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

A law, or constitutional right, can be regulated without being infringed upon

Cherry picking definitions I see.

This is also a definition of infringe:

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

• "his legal rights were being infringed" ·

It's amazing, isn't it? You can limit an unlimited right! Liberals actually can simultaneously believe two totally contradictory things at the same time. It's amazing

The right to bear arms is not a limitless right. Go back to school

No one said it was....moron. You idiots see that "not a limitless right" and think you are clever........twits......we have more than enough limits already.....we have all the limits on it that we need yet you morons think that it not being limitless means you can regulate it out of existence.......

to regulate it out of existence as you say violates the second amendment ... that would never happen ... I don't see a problem for the person who buy guns have back ground checks ... I don't see any problem of keeping guns away from criminals and crazy people ... you gun owners thinks it s ok for them to have ... othere wise you wouldn't protest a back ground search ... so whe i see shit like you posted here, well its totally BULL shit ...

 

[Iceweasel]

to regulate it out of existence as you say violates the second amendment ... that would never happen ... I don't see a problem for the person who buy guns have back ground checks ... I don't see any problem of keeping guns away from criminals and crazy people ... you gun owners thinks it s ok for them to have ... othere wise you wouldn't protest a back ground search ... so whe i see shit like you posted here, well its totally BULL shit ...

Your problem is you don't know what you're talking about. We have had NCIS checks for a long while now. Sometimes I've had to wait three days before I could pick up my gun.

And as has been repeated often already, it's the presidential appointments of judges that can kill off the 2nd A, leftists don't care if it's constitutional or not. They only care about the constitution if it benefits them.

 

[kaz]

Time to go back to remedial English, boy

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb

1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

A law, or constitutional right, can be regulated without being infringed upon

Cherry picking definitions I see.

This is also a definition of infringe:

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

• "his legal rights were being infringed" ·

It's amazing, isn't it? You can limit an unlimited right! Liberals actually can simultaneously believe two totally contradictory things at the same time. It's amazing

The right to bear arms is not a limitless right. Go back to school

No one said it was....moron. You idiots see that "not a limitless right" and think you are clever........twits......we have more than enough limits already.....we have all the limits on it that we need yet you morons think that it not being limitless means you can regulate it out of existence.......

to regulate it out of existence as you say violates the second amendment ... that would never happen ... I don't see a problem for the person who buy guns have back ground checks ... I don't see any problem of keeping guns away from criminals and crazy people ... you gun owners thinks it s ok for them to have ... othere wise you wouldn't protest a back ground search ... so whe i see shit like you posted here, well its totally BULL shit ...

What's wrong with "background checks" is there is no consequence to failing one. Arrest the criminals who fail them and put them back in prison. Since we simply say "no" now, they go on and on trying to by one until they succeed. That makes background checks only another hurdle for legal gun owners.

As for "you gun owners thinks it s ok for them to have them," this is the chicken shit lying leftist that you are. You're a complete intellectual and moral vacuum who can't have a serious discussion, so you smear us with your idiot strawmen, pat yourself on the back and go on having accomplished jack shit because you can't grow a pair and engage in an intellectually honest discussion.

I'll let you say what you want, but the reality of what you accomplish with your laws is you do zero to keep guns from criminals, you just put up barriers to citizens. You know who was shooting back in Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, ... No one. If guns aren't banned, why don't we have them when we need them? They are banned

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

to regulate it out of existence as you say violates the second amendment ... that would never happen ... I don't see a problem for the person who buy guns have back ground checks ... I don't see any problem of keeping guns away from criminals and crazy people ... you gun owners thinks it s ok for them to have ... othere wise you wouldn't protest a back ground search ... so whe i see shit like you posted here, well its totally BULL shit ...

We do keep guns from crazy people and criminals. Wouldn't you know it, they don't care about the laws??????

 

[Tom Horn]

What business(s) have the Clinturds started and run? Oh, none? It seems the million$ these criminals have accumulated have come from us taxpayers and foreign governments they sold our secrets to. So I'm wondering who's more qualified to turn an economy around....a billionaire from the private sector or a couple of wrinkled, diaper-wearing old rapist and lesbian communists?

 

[kaz]

to regulate it out of existence as you say violates the second amendment ... that would never happen ... I don't see a problem for the person who buy guns have back ground checks ... I don't see any problem of keeping guns away from criminals and crazy people ... you gun owners thinks it s ok for them to have ... othere wise you wouldn't protest a back ground search ... so whe i see shit like you posted here, well its totally BULL shit ...

We do keep guns from crazy people and criminals. Wouldn't you know it, they don't care about the laws??????

You have to forgive billyerock, he's an idiot.

The left doesn't care about that because restricting guns from honest citizens is actually their goal. Honest citizens are the threat to their beloved government. We work together. Criminals aren't really a threat, they don't cooperate. So criminals having guns is less of a concern to them

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You have to forgive billyerock, he's an idiot.

The left doesn't care about that because restricting guns from honest citizens is actually their goal. Honest citizens are the threat to their beloved government. We work together. Criminals aren't really a threat, they don't cooperate. So criminals having guns is less of a concern to them

The problem is they are told what to say by their leaders. They don't actually sit back and try to use logic. If they tried to think for themselves, they'd be Republicans.

Oh! if we just get more background checks, that will stop the criminals who don't get their guns from gun stores from getting them. What??

Well we already do that if you get your guns from a gun dealer. But OH! What about those gun shows? Name the last mass murder where the killer got his guns from a gun show.

But people that are on the terror watch list can still legally buy a firearm! Okay, so who was the last shooter that was on the terror watch list?

The debate goes on and on. They are told what to say, and we have to do the thinking for them.