Official Donald Trump for President thread (2 Viewers)

[Eminence]

The next person elected President has the constitutional right to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Trump just suggested that perhaps someone should assassinate her before she can do so. This has nothing to do with taking away our guns.

That's not what Trump said.

 

[Peyton Marino]

Official Donald Trump for President Thread: Eminence takes on world's most powerful government, largest military, in defense of 2nd amendment.  Not a stretch!

 

[Bayhawks]

If someone is trying to take away our second amendment, responding with force isn't a stretch.

Yes, it is.  The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to attack people with those guns if political changes are trying to be made.  That's basic civics.

 

[jamny]

This is easily the worst comment Trump has made to date and that's not an easy thing to do.

 

[moleculo]

You don't mess with the constitution.

do you know what an amendment is?

What is your position on article 5? (yes, I looked it up)

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

If someone is trying to take away our second amendment, responding with force isn't a stretch.

Stretch or no, it's treason as defined by Article III, Sec. 3, Cl. 1 of the Constitution.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The next person elected President has the constitutional right to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Trump just suggested that perhaps someone should assassinate her before she can do so. This has nothing to do with taking away our guns.

When you argue against a bull#### argument you give it credibility it doesn't deserve.  No one seriously doubts what Trump said or meant -- they're just desperate to rationalize it and make it seem less heinous.  Don't take the bait.  Ignore it.  Mock it.  But don't argue against it.

 

[elbowrm]

This has to be it, right?  He blatantly just called for the assassination of the next president of the United States.  

 

[General Malaise]

We have a constitutional right to bear arms. You guys would put up with someone taking away your constitutional rights without a fight?

I don't think so, folks.

I'm pro-abolishing the 2nd amendment.  Take it away.  I don't care.  I'm for it.

Unsolicited advice:  I'd probably walk back the current rhetoric now.  You're making dangerous statements right now that I'm right certain the site owners do not want here.  

 

[Eminence]

We have no constitutional right to fight against the government.  We do have a constitutional right to change the constitution, and it isn't done with guns.

You have no understanding of how democracy works.

What are you talking about? Try to keep up. If Hilary were to abolish the second amendment, we have the right to revolt.

 

[apalmer]

That's not what Trump said.

It's exactly what he said and you admitted that several times in your posts, claiming it was reasonable to use gum violence to stop her.

 

[The General]

This has to be it, right?  He blatantly just called for the assassination of the next president of the United States.  

Until tomorrow when he tops it. 

 

[massraider]

No I'm not, we have the right to bear arms in the constitution. If someone tried to take away that right, we have the right to revolt.

What would be next? Freedom of speech?

Who told you Hillary was trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment?

What do you reckon the chances are off that happening?

 

[Zerp]

do you know what an amendment is?

 - Jim Jeffries

 

[The General]

Eminenece debating the constitution should be a thread

 

[perry147]

No I'm not, we have the right to bear arms in the constitution. If someone tried to take away that right, we have the right to revolt.

What would be next? Freedom of speech?

Are you seriously complaining about Freedom of Speech when you are playing the part of the censor?

You still haven't answered my question. I guess you are you beloved candidate have another thing in common. 

 

[apalmer]

What are you talking about? Try to keep up. If Hilary were to abolish the second amendment, we have the right to revolt.

Please cite the Constitutional provision that protects the right to revolt.

ETA: In most circles, revolting against the government is known as treason.  Are you suggesting that Trump isn't advocating murder, but only treason?

 

[Bayhawks]

We have the right to arm ourselves and form militias against the possibility of a tyrannical government taking over our country.

Excellent point; however, making changes, LEGALLY (which is what would happen if the SC were to issue any rulings that weakened or even nullified the 2nd Amendment) IS NOT an example of a tyrannical government taking over our country.  Other than that, you were spot on.

 

[SWC]

i am totally against protests brohans but i have no idea how to show it take that to the mitch bank bromigos 

 

[MikeIke]

That's not what Trump said.

I've heard people saying that's what he said. Lots of people. The smartest people.

 

[Eminence]

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. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

 

[massraider]

Everyone should stop responding.

It's like a group of cats playing with a mouse with no hind legs.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

This is easily the worst comment Trump has made to date and that's not an easy thing to do.

And the clowns that support him are still trying to spin it as a positive!

 

[Eminence]

Who told you Hillary was trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment?

What do you reckon the chances are off that happening?

I already said I didn't think it was happening. But if somebody tried to eliminate or change this part of our BILL OF RIGHTS.

We have a duty to protect our Liberty and Consistition.

 
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. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

 

[moleculo]

What are you talking about? Try to keep up. If Hilary were to abolish the second amendment, we have the right to revolt.

how, exactly, would Hillary abolish the second amendment?

 

[Eminence]

how, exactly, would Hillary abolish the second amendment?

She wouldn't but that's the entire context of Trump's quote.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Yes, joking about child abuse is awful

oops!

 

[Daywalker]

Everyone should stop responding.

It's like a group of cats playing with a mouse with no hind legs.

 

[Eminence]

Which part of the Bill of Rights would you people have to lose before you decided your government had gone too far and Revolution was needed?

 

[msommer]

You don't mess with the constitution.

You do know it's been amended, right? And in Article five are the means to do it again and again and again, right?

From Wiki

Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been proposed by the United States Congress and sent to the states forratification since the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789. Twenty-seven of these, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, are part of the Constitution. The first ten amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these amendments are still technically open and pending, one is closed and has failed by its own terms, and one is closed and has failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it.

Article Five of the United States Constitution detailed the two-step process for amending the nation's frame of government. Amendments must be properly Proposed and Ratified before becoming operative. This process was designed to strike a balance between the excesses of constant change and inflexibility.[1]


An amendment may be proposed and sent to the states for ratification by either:

• The United States Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary;
  

OR

• A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds (presently 34) of the states.
  

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress):

• The legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any;
  

OR

• State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (presently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any.
  

Upon being properly ratified, an amendment becomes an operative addition to the Constitution.

Approximately 11,539 proposals to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress since 1789.[2] Collectively, members of the Houseand Senate typically propose around 200 amendments during each two–year term of Congress.[3] Most however, never get out of theCongressional committees in which they were proposed, and only a fraction of those that do receive enough support to win Congressional approval to actually go through the constitutional ratification process. Beginning in the early 20th century, Congress has usually, but not always, stipulated that an amendment must be ratified by the required number of states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states in order to become part of the Constitution. Congress' authority to set ratification deadline was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court inColeman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).

In the immortal words of Khizr Khan: "Have you even read the constitution?"

 

[apalmer]

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. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

If only that meant what you think it means.

 

[Hobgoblin]

You don't mess with the constitution.

Doesn't the Constitution specifically allow for amendments?

 

[Eminence]

It's exactly what he said and you admitted that several times in your posts, claiming it was reasonable to use gum violence to stop her.

We should use gun violence if any politician tried to abolish any amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Those rights protect our freedoms, freedoms which many Patriots died so we can have.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

We've seen you in the YouTube videos, guy. Your threats of violence and revolt aren't exactly frightening.

 

[Peyton Marino]

this whole idea that we have the second amendment now to protect against a tyrannical government is noble, but ludicrous.  you're going to use commercially available weapons to fight against a government with access to the world's largest military (and ####### nuclear weapons, by the way)?  it may have been what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote it, but modern combat weaponry has uh, advanced a bit since the late 1700s.    

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Absolutely ####### horrible.

You cant spin that crap. 

 

[moleculo]

We should use gun violence if any politician tried to abolish any amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Those rights protect our freedoms, freedoms which many Patriots died so we can have.

this is great.

So, are there limits to freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights?

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

We should use gun violence if any politician tried to abolish any amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Those rights protect our freedoms, freedoms which many Patriots died so we can have.

Maybe try defeating the attempt through the democratic process set up by the Constitution?

 

[jamny]

CNBC reporting it.

 

[squistion]

well there is that pivot that we have been expecting from ole cheeto munchkin hands take that to the bank bromigos 

Mat Johnson ‏@mat_johnson 27m27 minutes ago

August is usually when the candidates pivot to political assassination.

 

[Eminence]

this whole idea that we have the second amendment now to protect against a tyrannical government is noble, but ludicrous.  you're going to use commercially available weapons to fight against a government with access to the world's largest military (and ####### nuclear weapons, by the way)?  it may have been what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote it, but modern combat weaponry has uh, advanced a bit since the late 1700s.    

It's working for ISIS.

 

[Bayhawks]

What are you talking about? Try to keep up. If Hilary were to abolish the second amendment, we have the right to revolt.

Maybe you should try to keep up.  Hillary (nor any other President) CAN NOT abolish the 2nd Amendment.  Trump suggested that if Hillary became POTUS, she would appoint SC judges, who would then "over-ride" the 2nd Amendment with their rulings.  There is nothing illegal about this, if it were to come to pass.  An armed uprising because you don't like rulings of the SC IS NOT within your rights.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Doesn't the Constitution specifically allow for amendments?

Also empowers presidents to nominate judges, as it turns out.  Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

We should use gun violence if any politician tried to abolish any amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Those rights protect our freedoms, freedoms which many Patriots died so we can have.

Its an AMENDMENT! 

i.e. a change.

 

[moleculo]

Maybe try defeating the attempt through the democratic process set up by the Constitution?

 

[apalmer]

We should use gun violence if any politician tried to abolish any amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Those rights protect our freedoms, freedoms which many Patriots died so we can have.

But, the people who propose the use of lawful, constitutional means to effect amendments to the Constitution don't have any freedoms?

John Wilkes Booth thought Lincoln had abolished his "right" to own slaves.  Lee Harvey Oswald thought JFK was trying to abolish his right to support Castro.  I guess in your book both of them were merely patriots.

 

[Eminence]

Maybe you should try to keep up.  Hillary (nor any other President) CAN NOT abolish the 2nd Amendment.  Trump suggested that if Hillary became POTUS, she would appoint SC judges, who would then "over-ride" the 2nd Amendment with their rulings.  There is nothing illegal about this, if it were to come to pass.  An armed uprising because you don't like rulings of the SC IS NOT within your rights.

I know it's stupid but in the hypothetical Trump gives, fighting for our 2nd Amendment with said guns would be the course of action to take.

He's just trying to fire up his supporters, that's all.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Its an AMENDMENT!

 

[Agent 47]

No I'm not, we have the right to bear arms in the constitution. If someone tried to take away that right, we have the right to revolt.

What would be next? Freedom of speech?

What well regulated militia are you a part of?

 

[Eminence]

Its an AMENDMENT! 

i.e. a change.

Should we change the first amendment then? Who needs freedom of religion.