It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Secret Service spoke to Trump campaign about 2nd Amendment comment

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI


I agree. If Hillary becomes president, there is nothing, legally, that can be done to my knowledge.



Bingo. Legally. Guns can accomplish something and it ain't always legal.




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

You lost me.

This went from what Trump said, to what people thought he said, to the SCOTUS and now guns. Sorry, I'm a lil dense and cant keep up.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Court nominees need to be confirmed by Senate.

So citizens certainly could influence this nomination, by petitioning their representatives en masse (the NRA and 2nd Amendment supporters are a powerful mass).

Sometimes Congress listens to the voters, such as if its a sure thing they will lose their job if they approve a nominee who will violate the constitution.

ETA: By the way - I learned all of that in government class. I guess you missed that one?


edit on 8/10/16 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: JinMI

The Voting Power of 95 Million American Gun Owners . In Reality , that is what he was eluding to , not what some others might Read Into that for some Imagined LAME Political Gain .


No way was he talking about voting. Once Hillary becomes president and puts her judges in the Supreme Court, those judges are in there for life. That's why he said, "there's nothing you can do". No amount of voting will change the judges who have already been appointed. Right after he said "there's nothing you can do" is when he made the comment about the second amendment people and implied maybe there was something they could do after all. Since voting wouldn't help after the judges had already been appointed, what else do you think he could have meant when referring to those second amendment people?

His claim that he was referring to voting power is an outright LIE.



Who is that stupid to believe he meant "AFTER" she would be elected and appointed the judges?

Oh wait!






posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: xuenchen

So you think that votes will stop a standing president from nominating their judges for the Supreme Court?

You guys either need to take a logic class or a government class.



You are *really* spreading this one out to extremes.

I give you an A+ for deflective tactics.




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: JinMI

Correct me if im wrong, but isnt the language of the 2nd Amendment itself calling for citizens to violently rise up against an oppressive government?
I believe thats THE ENTIRE POINT.

Yes, but that could only relate here to whomever is the government now, and that's not Hilarly Clinton, unless it's okay to bump off a potential Presidential candidate...in advance. I don't think that is applicable.
In some ways, it is a singular endorsement as to why people should have the use of guns at all, which again does not apply here.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Logic.

Because his 2nd amendment people statement was immediately after his statement that there's nothing you can do once she's elected president.

Here's a statement: If I am the sole winner of the lottery, you don't get any of it, unless you steal it from me. Does the stealing part come before I win the lottery or after I win it?

I can't believe I am having to explain sentence structure and syntax.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

If you don't win the lottery, how can I steal it from you?



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


The statement is: if I win it, you don't get it. It's not about if I don't win it. The assumption is, I've won it.

The assumption Trump presented was, if she wins. The assumption is, it's a done deal. What comes immediately after that statement applies to the assumption. There's no other way you can interpret that. Honestly, anyway.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

No, you want me to assume you won it but you however did not. Keyword being IF, If you won the lottery.

Example: If example A happens, then so will example B. If Example A doesn't happen then neither can B.


edit on 10-8-2016 by JinMI because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-8-2016 by JinMI because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

But Trump didn't say if she doesn't win. He said if she does win. So the subsequent sentence has to do with if she does win.



Your logic is, if she wins, there's nothing you can do, unless she doesn't win. That logic structure simply doesn't make sense.

Same with, If I win the lottery, you don't get it, unless I don't win it. Makes no logical sense.

True logic would be, if she wins, there's nothing you can do, unless you do something outside the norm (like steal it from me).



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: JinMI
True logic would be, if she wins, there's nothing you can do, unless you do something outside the norm (like steal it from me).



But, there IS something you can do that is perfectly normal, IF Hillary wins, and IF she nominates a Supreme Court nominee who has a record of being against the 2nd amendment:


originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: kaylaluv

Court nominees need to be confirmed by Senate.

So citizens certainly could influence this nomination, by petitioning their representatives en masse (the NRA and 2nd Amendment supporters are a powerful mass).

Sometimes Congress listens to the voters, such as if its a sure thing they will lose their job if they approve a nominee who will violate the constitution.

ETA: By the way - I learned all of that in government class. I guess you missed that one?



That's a "maybe" of course, because the Senate might do what they want regardless of the voters. But the "maybe" is what Trump was talking about. The 2nd Amendment people might be able to do something - stand up with their voting power.

I'm not sure why you are trying to twist his words into a pretzel.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

He doesn't have to say if she doesn't win because the alternative is him winning. It's the implied statement, the same as well I don't know, maybe those 2nd amendment people. If they don't vote for him, they vote for her and then she , not him, chooses the Justice.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

I have a handful of "Thank your for your letter," letters from writing those hooligans!



It's a chance, just not a big one.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: kurthall


My mistake. I see that you start sentences with "Uh" so I will explain what I was trying to say more plainly.
The NY Daily News is a tabloid much like The National Enquirer and does not qualify as a news source.
Hillery has been selected to be the our president but Trump is very popular and has a chance at winning a fare election.
This will not be allowed to happen and that is why we have CNN fabricating stories as described in the OP.
It is also why you have "fish-wrappers" like NYDN pushing hard against him. Certain people will be fooled by a lie if it is repeated enough times.

A fish-wrapper is a bad newspaper that prints lies.




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Well, first of all, Trumps handlers claim he was talking about the 2nd amendment people voting for Trump instead of Hillary, NOT voting against Congress members. So there's a lie right there.

Secondly, his actual words were, "if she gets to pick her judges", which means if she is successful at getting her judges appointed. By then, it's too late to threaten Congress - it's a done deal.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Yep, I have some of those too


I'm sure that's why Trump kind of shrugged when he said "maybe".

"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

It's a really big maybe, and I agree with his "I don't know" too.

That's why we need to avoid the whole thing and keep Hillary from being in a position where she can nominate.

Anyone with common sense knows what Trump meant. You have to be nuts to read violence into that.


edit on 8/10/16 by BlueAjah because: spelling



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

First of all:
Exactly.
sheesh
Please read my previous post.

Second:
No it is not too late to threaten Congress.
There is a process after nomination. Reviews, interviews. Lots of time for Congress to reject the nominee.




edit on 8/10/16 by BlueAjah because: eta

edit on 8/10/16 by BlueAjah because: clarifying



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Anything to keep us small folks talking. Your thread on that woman speaking out against Hillary is real news!



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

so TRUE!

This whole matter is deflection from the damaging info that has come out in the last couple of days regarding Hillary.



new topics




 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join