Donald Trump is deploying the same tactics that won him the Republican Primary. He says something that could be construed as outrageous, but doesn't specifically say what he's being accused of saying, and as a result he gets everyone talking about him and conservatives liking his verbalized positions.
“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment,” Trump said to boos from the crowd.
“By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks,” he then added.
“Though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.”
Did he say that gun owners should shoot and kill Hillary Clinton? No. Did he say that there is something the Second Amendment crowd could do? Yes.
I have been telling audiences on the radio and during public speaking engagements that California has the third largest number of gun owners in the nation. If the gun owners in California were to all start voting, and vote only pro-gun (against the Democrats) we could flip the State of California. The gun lobby is a powerful force in the country. Most Americans support the right to keep and bear arms. Donald Trump knows this, and capitalized on it with his statement.
Could you imagine what would happen if every gun owner in America decided to vote, and vote for Trump? It would be a landslide win for the Republican nominee.
However, let's just say for a moment he really meant what the media is flipping out about. Let's just say for a moment that he intended to mean that if Hillary took over the White House that those who support the Second Amendment should do what needs to be done with their firearms. I am not suggesting that in this case there should be such an action, but his verbiage would be in line with the attitude of the Founding Fathers.
The Second Amendment was not written to ensure we could hunt, or go trap shooting. The Second Amendment was written to ensure the federal government could not disarm the public in case the citizen warrior needed to be armed to take down a tyrannical government should one arise in Washington. Does it not say in the Declaration of Independence that it is the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [the government], and to institute new government. . . "?
The Democrats offer anti-constitutional policies that would be considered tyrannical to the founders.
If a Hillary Clinton White House were to act in a more tyrannical manner than we've already seen with Obama, going house to house to arrest conservatives and anyone else who dared to verbalize opposition to her administration, would not the gun owners of America have the right to do something about it?
The problem is that Democrats see love of government as being patriotism. Republican see love of country as being patriotism. And that means defending her against an enemy within, should such an enemy arise.
"Can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary