Trump appears to encourage gun owners to take action if Clinton appoints anti-gun judges

Click on this to see what Trump said Is Trump calling for Clinton assassination? http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tru...

Donald Trump appears to encourage gun owners to act if Hillary Clinton appoints anti-gun judges http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article...

There he goes again!!!!

This was actions taken after she "Hilary Clinton" is President. What unity can the 2nd Amendment people have to stop Hilary after the vote for president have been counted?

Don't be ridiculous. Judges are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Of course the NRA can do something if she is elected.

What America wants to know is the state of Hillary's health, and why Seddique Mateen was seated behind her.

What must this man say before he cross your lines?

Trump is not the one who equated me with an assassin. You and your liberal cohorts did that.

Are you that Second Amendment people, Trump is talking about, I don't know?

I take "second amendment people" to mean the NRA. How do you take it Ron?

Hmmm! Maybe you have a very good point there. Now, all Donald Trump is looking for is the weak among you guys to exercise their Second Amendment rights on Hillary Clinton when she becomes president when she starts picking out judges to to fill the many vacancies throughout the country.

Don't you hear that call or was he just joking?

Ron, he was responding to something said from the audience. No one has reported what that was, not even Rudy Giuliani, who was there.

CNN commentator and Trump supporter Kayleigh McEnany explained it this way:

"I think he's referring to the fact that the National Rifle Association is the most powerful lobby, hands-down, in the United States. So if anyone can stop a very anti-Second Amendment agenda, it would be the NRA and the Second Amendment folks."

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/09/489364948/tr...

Steven, A CNN report that the Secret Service spoke with his campaign about his "Second Amendment people" remarks.

Now Donald said "No such meeting or conversation ever happened - a made up story by 'low ratings' @CNN," the Republican presidential nominee tweeted.

Why would his own Secret Service spoke with Donald's campaign about his "Second Amendment people" remarks?

and why would the Donald LIE about the meeting?

Steven, you heard him say this: "By the way, and if she gets to pick — if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks," Trump warned.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

What can the Second Amendment people or the NRA people do after Hilary is President of The Untied States?

All kinds of things Ron. The media needs to get its mind out of the gutter.

This is what I saw Donald said that came out of his mouth.

The Senate needs to confirm nominees, and the Second Amendment People can and wll contact their Senators. It's not a rubber stamp Ron.

As of 2010, 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Twenty-nine nominees (including one nominated for promotion) have been unsuccessful on at least the first try.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessf...

When Abe Fortas resigned in 1969 because of a scandal separate from his Chief Justice bid, Nixon nominated Clement Haynsworth, a Southern jurist. His nomination was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 45–55 on November 21, 1969[25] due to concerns about Haynsworth's civil rights record and perceived ethical lapses.[18] In response, Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell, a Southerner with a history of supporting segregation and opposing women's rights. The Senate rejected his nomination 45 to 51 on April 8, 1970 following much pressure from the Civil Rights and Feminist movements.[26] Nixon's third nominee for the Fortas vacancy was Harry Blackmun, who was confirmed by the Senate with no opposition on 17 May 1970.

Nixon was soon faced with two more Supreme Court vacancies when John Harlan and Hugo Black retired in the fall of 1971. Nixon considered nominating Arkansas lawyer Hershel Friday and California intermediate appellate judge Mildred Lillie to the high court. By tradition at the time, potential Supreme Court nominees were first disclosed to the American Bar Association's standing committee on the federal judiciary. When it became apparent that this twelve member committee would find that both were unqualified, Nixon passed over Friday and Lillie,[27] and nominated Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist. Powell was confirmed by an 89-1 vote, and Rehnquist was confirmed 68-22.[1]

When Lewis Powell retired in July 1987, Reagan nominated Robert Bork. Bork was a member of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia at the time and known as a proponent of constitutional originalism. Bork lost confirmation by a Senate vote of 42 to 58, largely due to Bork's controversial opinions on constitutional issues and his role in the Nixon Saturday Night Massacre.[28]

Reagan then announced his intention to nominate Douglas H. Ginsburg to the court. Before Ginsburg could be officially nominated, he withdrew himself from consideration under heavy pressure after revealing that he had smoked marijuana with his students while a professor at Harvard Law School.[29] Reagan then nominated Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed by a Senate vote of 97–0.[1]

In July 2005, Bush nominated John Roberts as an Associate Justice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Following the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist in September 2005, Roberts was instead nominated to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice. Roberts was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 78 to 22.[1]

There was still an appointment to be made for a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor, and on October 3, 2005 Bush nominated Harriet Miers, a corporate attorney from Texas who had served as Bush's private attorney and as White House Counsel. Miers was widely perceived as unqualified for the position, and it later emerged that she had allowed her law license to lapse for a time. The nomination was immediately attacked by politicians and commentators from across the political spectrum. At Miers' request, Bush withdrew her nomination on October 27, ostensibly to avoid violating executive privilege by disclosing details of her work at the White House.[30] Four days later, Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the seat. Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58–42 on January 31, 2006.[1]

We are a nation of laws and Second Amendment People are law abiding citizens, not criminals and assassins.

Thank you for this information Steven but you see these words come from Donald Mouth:

"By the way, — if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks," Trump warned. "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

My question is, What can the Second Amendment people do after the election the president?

If you are saying: We are a nation of laws and Second Amendment People are law abiding citizens, not criminals and assassins. Then what is The Donald saying?

"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

I like Hillary's new do.

Trump appears to encourage gun owners to take action if Clinton appoints anti-gun judges

SUBJECT

---- the Last "well regulated Citizens Militia" was the Confederacy

-----2016.....only thing close to "well regulated Citizens Militia" is the NRAers......

A proud NRAer.....With biaWhite Hat....'whiteMan' steveAdam writes to hisBOI.... or hisCommunicator servant....

".......You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes......"
Thursday, August 11th 2016 at 1:39PM
Steve Williams

********************************************************

'blackHebrewIsraelites' .. The Addict: Hooked On Attention, Power or Money from.... 'whiteMan'...steveAdam

With this kind of crap I'm having trouble staying on the sidelines. Probably not Ron, probably I'll have to vote for Trump.

My question is, What can the Second Amendment people do after the election of the president?

My answer again. Lobby our Senators to vote against confirmation of any unfit nominee.

Yu don't not hear that come out of Donald's mouth. What you heard was: By the way, and if she gets to pick — if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks," ... "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

Have you ever heard a Senators being referred as a Second Amendment person?

Ron. I'm a Second Amendment person, the two Senators from Pennsylvania represent me, and I can petition them on votes they cast. The other 5 million NRA members can do the same. That's the power of the Second Amendment People.

If you or your senator could not stop anyone from being elected for president, what can your two senators do to stop the president from appointing his or her people to those vacate office.

Now let us take it from a different point of view. Trump said that in public, and that weak NRA member may have heard the meaning to use your 2nd Second Amendment right against Hilary. You know it only takes one weak soul, just one.

I don't think any Second Amendment Person would have heard the word "assassination". Only a non-Second Amendment Person would hear such a thing.

Steven, what you think, may well be of the sane Second amendment person but what about that one insane one?

By the way can you point me anywhere, at anytime that Hillary Clinton is coming for someone for guns like the Donald expresses in his propaganda?

Show me where?

They say this even though Hillary Clinton said the Supreme Court got it “wrong on the Second Amendment.” When she said this Hillary must have been talking about the Heller and McDonald (2010) decisions. Both were 5-4 rulings by the Supreme Court. In Heller, the Court determined that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right. In McDonald, the Court ruled that the individual right to bear arms also restricts state and local governments (not just the federal government). If Hillary thinks the high court got it wrong on these basic questions about the U.S. Bill of Rights, then she clearly would nominate Supreme Court justices who would agree with the minority opinions in both of those rulings. Both of those minority opinions argued vociferously that there is no individual right to bear arms. If a future Supreme Court rules that way then the Second Amendment will be gutted of meaning, or as Donald Trump says, “Abolished.”

Sure, more recently, at the Democratic National Convention, Hillary said, “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns.”

The trouble for her isn’t just what she said in that closed fundraiser in Manhattan, but that she is or has previously been in favor of gun bans, for laws that prevent law-abiding Americans from carrying concealed, for adding secret government black lists to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), for national gun registration and for Australian-style gun confiscation. There are videos, audio recordings and more showing she is or has been for just about every type of gun ban or other gun-control idea proposed in the U.S. in the last three decades.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2...

Chris Murphy was unqualified in his definition of "second amendment people". This is what he thinks of me and every other NRA member.

Murphy tweeted immediately, “Don't treat this as a political misstep. It's an assassination threat, seriously upping the possibility of a national tragedy & crisis.”

Murphy, who held a 15-hour filibuster on the Senate floor to press for gun control legislation, also tweeted, "This isn’t play. Unstable people with powerful guns and an unhinged hatred for Hillary are listening to you."

http://ctmirror.org/2016/08/09/murphy-accu...

On the recording you can hear these wealthy and/or connected people applaud after Hillary says, “I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later.

A ban assault weapons, A ban assault weapons I lie to highlight " A ban assault weapons " This is the weapon of choice of the terrorist. A very clear point is, without sensible weapon legislation on assault weapons, the people, the terrorist would buy that same style weapon from a gun show, using the gun show loopholes to commit the next Florida.

Do you want that?

Omar Mateen didn't use any "gunshow loophole."

CARLSON: I read the legislation and it said that it would regulate “barrel shrouds.” What’s a barrel shroud and why should we regulate that?

MCCARTHY:The guns that were chosen back in those days were basically the guns that most gangs and criminals were using to kill our police officers. I’m not saying it was the best bill, but that was they could get out at that particular time.

CARLSON: Ok. Do you know what a barrel shroud is?

MCCARTHY: I actually don’t know what a barrel shroud is. I think it’s the shoulder thing that goes up.”
“The shoulder thing that goes up.” It’s not the “shoulder thing that goes up.” There is no “shoulder thing that goes up.” The “barrel shroud” (a term nobody uses) is simply a hand guard that goes around a barrel. That embarrassing spectacle happened over seven years ago, and yet over that period of time, McCarthy’s fellow gun banners still haven’t seen fit to learn the slightest thing about the objects they wish to regulate.

If the cosmetic features used to define an “assault weapon” in the 1994 law strike you as really stupid ways to define an “assault weapon,” it’s because the 1994 law was a stupid law with stupid definitions written by stupid people. And not only was it a stupid law, it was a stupid law that didn’t even accomplish its stated goal. How do we know? Because today, more than a decade after the law’s expiration, the number of people murdered by rifles is 36 percent lower than it was during the last full year the assault weapons ban was in effect.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/the-as...

I was quoting from the link that you provided for discussion http://ctmirror.org/2016/08/09/murphy-accu...

Now you want to jump from that link and introduce something new.

I asked you a question Steven and I was very clear that I was talking about assault weapons.

A ban assault weapons, A ban assault weapons I lie to highlight " A ban assault weapons " This is the weapon of choice of the terrorist. A very clear point is, without sensible weapon legislation on assault weapons, the people, the terrorist would buy that same style weapon from a gun show, using the gun show loopholes to commit the next Florida.

Do you want that?

Oh by the way Steven, Trump was just being BULL💩ING couldn't you tell?

You didn't quote from any of my links Ron. None of them mentioned a weapon of choice or gunshow loopholes.

But in your link, it did mention A ban assault weapons, which I said three time to you so you would know exactly what was said, three times Steven and you still came back with this.

In my statement to you the phrase Weapon of choice is my description, my words of the terrorist like the assault weapon as a weapon of choice.

Now let us try this again.

A ban assault weapons, A ban assault weapons I lie to highlight " A ban assault weapons " This is the weapon of choice of the terrorist. A very clear point is, without sensible weapon legislation on assault weapons, the people, the terrorist would buy that same style weapon from a gun show, using the gun show loopholes to commit the next Florida.

Do you want that to happen?

Oh by the way Steven, Trump was just being BULL💩ING couldn't you tell? He was just using "SARCASM."

You came to the aid of a BULL BULL💩ING artist. You was used by Donald Trump. That weak one that I was referring to earlier, could have well been a person like yourself. (LOL)

WOW!!!

Again Ron, the AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It's not the weapon of choice for terrorists. There is no gun show loophole. And second amendment people are not "unstable people with powerful guns and an unhinged hatred for Hillary."

The term is purely political, just like the term Saturday night special. Like the earlier term, its only use is fear mongering.

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms.[1] The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.[1][2] Some firearms are specified by name.[3] At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, the U.S. Justice Department said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."[3] The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, gun control groups, the media, and the firearms industry itself.[1][4][5][6] It is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle", which refers to selective-fire military rifles that can fire in automatic and / or burst mode.[5]

Oh by the way Steven, Trump was just being BULL💩ING couldn't you tell? He was just using "SARCASM."

I wouldn't call it sarcasm, I'd call it wit. The truth is Ron, the NRA is constantly exercising our power regardless of Presidency, Congress, or Supreme Court, as they are comprised from time to time.

You will call it WHAT? "WIT"... Wit Let us take a look at WIT for amount. WIT, a mental sharpness. Trump get out of the way of Trump. Would someone who has as c would someone who has all of there marbles together, would ask the Russian to hack in a private citizen server Who invite espionage against his opponent?

WIT, natural aptitude for using the best words. That sounds like the Donald, BIGLY!!! Or HUGE!

Do any of this sound familiar?

No one needs to ask anyone to hack Hillary. Hell my info has been compromised because I left myself on her list. After Obama suckered me in 2008.

You probably were too smart for that, huh Ron?

So, you still call Trump's LIES, "WIT?"

I call Trump's wit wit.

You have been lied to and the sad part about that is, you don't care about the Facts in this matter.