Posted on 05/21/2016 1:45:49 PM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
Donald Trump... told the NRA that Hillary Clinton would take away the right to bear arms ... Trump, ... dove right into attacking Clinton, saying she "wants to abolish the Second Amendment." "We're not going to let that happen," Trump said. "We're going to preserve it, we're going to cherish it."
Trump ... suggested that Clinton would take away gun rights via the Supreme Court. "If she gets to appoint her judges, she will abolish the Second Amendment," Trump told an enthusiastic crowd...... She quickly responded ... on Twitter. "You're wrong, We can uphold Second Amendment rights while preventing senseless gun violence," she tweeted.
Trump hammered home his argument that gun rights are critical to fighting terrorism -- raising the specter of recent terrorist attacks -- but spent most of his speech sharpening his attacks on Clinton.... arguing that Clinton is telling "every woman that she doesn't have the right to defend herself" with a firearm. "That is so unfair and that is so egregious and I'll tell you what, my poll numbers with women are starting to go up," he said.
Chris Cox, energized the crowd by bashing Clinton and urging Republicans to "get over" their sore feelings about the primary process and unite around the presumptive Republican nominee.... argued that the "Second Amendment is on the ballot in November,"...
Chris Cox,...: "the stakes in this year's presidential election could not be higher for gun owners." "If Hillary Clinton gets the opportunity to replace Antonin Scalia with an anti-gun Supreme Court justice, we will lose the individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense,"...
"Mrs. Clinton has said that the Supreme Court got it wrong on the Second Amendment. So the choice for gun owners in this election is clear. And that choice is Donald Trump."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Trump sees the integrity of the Supreme Court at stake: Trump recently released a list of his potential Supreme Court nominees; he called on Clinton to do the same. He suggested the contrast between the Trump / Clinton SCOTUS appointments would be 180 degrees.
Jeff Sessions stated that in essence Clinton could rescind the 2nd Amendment by appointing justices who would reverse the Heller decision. Therefore, Donald Trump's claim that 'Clinton wants to rescind the 2nd Amendment' is true. Clinton would underhandedly accomplish the goal by destroying the integrity of the Supreme Court.
Rick Perry stated that if you're a person that cherishes the Second Amendment or a person who loves Constitution, "Donald Trump's your man." IMHO, It's so obvious, any NRA member that votes for Hillary needs to have his head examined and deserves to be the first to lose his right to bear arms.
To paraphrase Lincoln:
I like this Trump - He fights.
Hmmm. So it’s called “going after” someone that wants to further infringe on a supposed guaranteed right? Odd eh? How about we back off all the current ‘infringements’ for a start?
Her answers are interesting...because they are non answers. Come Hillary...tell us how you’re going to stop this killing. By making sure they have playgrounds, a vegie lunch??
Trump is such a refreshing change from the crooked pansies of the GOPe. No wonder they hate him. Especially LOSERS like Romney and the rest of them. We know who they are.
from the article :
“If Hillary Clinton gets the opportunity to replace Antonin Scalia with an anti-gun Supreme Court justice, we will lose the individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense,” Cox said.
“If Hillary Clinton gets the opportunity to replace Antonin Scalia...”
She will appoint a ‘transgender’ freak (preferably) a handicapped America-Hating, Moslem!
GRRR!
We can’t fight all necessary battles simultaneously; it isn’t even wise. There is a logical sequence to a successful conquest. As Sun-Tzu said, win the war before you leave home.
Her answers are poll and focus group driven. Her problem is that she is not running against another poll and focus group controlled candidate.
Her answers are weak and indefensible. She is punching above her weight. I cannot believe Trump is drawing her out like this so early on. She knows nothing about taking a punch, counter punching nor timing, three things Trump is master of - he will demolish her in a debate if she agrees to one.
Also she isn’t even using a focus group that has heard Donald out. She’s going to have an unrealistic picture that way.
Her best hope would be to take a tack hard right, to even try to out-conservative Donald a little bit. But I bet she won’t.
I think the party made a mistake.....but it's too late.
It will probably look as unbalanced as Jimmy Carter vs. “there you go again” Ronald Reagan.
Except Donald won’t be as courteous about it as Ronald was.
Could the Dems try to split the difference with Bernie as her running mate?
But Bernie probably relishes that idea about as much as he relishes getting cholera.
She needs a good looking guy to boost the women’s vote and attract a few white males.....cuz Trump is going to steal them females away and white males are our strongest suit.
Also, Trump will be the “I’M GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF BEING SHACKLED IN THIS SHRINKING RUBBER ROOM” choice for millions of Americans.
Yeah, Hillary is trying to put lipstick on a Democrat pig that has become dead and rotten. Donald wants to serve good bacon for breakfast.
It’s probably not even going to be close. My friends who are afraid of Donald because he will challenge their existing business plans, need to think ahead of how they can prosper in a Donald America. Donald will strive to open up possibilities that have long been closed off.
Damn but she is dumb. Pretty much by definition you cannot prevent senseless acts. Doesn't matter if it is related to gun violence or teenagers trying to skateboard off the porch roof into the pool. People are going to commit senseless acts, period. You cannot prevent that without some fascist utopia of regulating all human behavior. Unless you explicitly list everything that is allowed, and everything that is banned, people are going to do stupid s**t. Even then, people are still going to do stupid stuff and criminals are still going to disregard laws. ergo, you can't legislate us into safety from violence. We can only be prepared to defend ourselves and make violence an unattractive option.
Also by definition, anything the government does that in any way involves restricting citizens' access to firearms is on very questionable ground. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear on that: shall not be infringed. Anything that is an infringement - background checks, taxes, magazine capacity limits, feature restrictions, feature requirements (eg. smart guns) - any of it is in some way an infringement and thus unconstitutional.
Mr. Trump has got to send this witch packing. I shudder to imaghine the SCOTUS picks she will make.
The lying tramp has spoken warmly about the mandatory Australian gun “buyback” (as if the government was buying back a product it sold). That means ONLY one thing: effective confiscation.
F#%& you, you lying, thieving, tyrannical, Leftist bitch!
Oh, and F#%& the idiot #NeverTrump asswipes who will sit on their hands (at best) and allow this beast to destroy our 2nd Amendment rights...for starters.
For the #NeverTrump idiots:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Samuel Adams
Love the Samuel Adams quote!
Thanks. It is entirely accurate and appropriate. They are today’s Loyalists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.