| Lafiel said: I have to disagree here he says the 2nd amendment people, which is a very diverse group only connected by their love for (and usually ownership of) guns, have the possibility to influence what happens in a Hillary presidency (as I showed, the controversial sentence is linked to the one before it, therefore the context still is a Hillary presidency) additionally the 2nd is very often touted as a way for the populace to "defend itself against a tyrannical government" and Trump certainly thinks of her that way (now - before his candidacy he spoke very differently of her) stating she was incompetent, crooked/the most corrupt candidate ever, the founder of isis and the devil so in my opinion this can definitely be seen as a hint at violence, be that riots or otherwise, to possibly safe the 2nd amendment, which btw isn't in danger from Hillary as a plurality of democrats are very much pro-gun aswell |
Sure you can argue for that interpretation as much as you want but the content he was bringing up along with the audience doesn't match your case when his goal was to get pro-gun supporters ...
There's no strong evidence to suggest from his speech that he was implying any sort of violence when that wasn't made explicitly clear and the fact that he was also trying to pick on Clinton's anti-gun background in his speech but I guess we'll agree to disagree since it's your opinion ...
I don't know about the 2nd amendment not being in danger from Clinton when her history says otherwise when we take a look at her objection to the supreme court's ruling about DC vs Heller, being open to the idea of a buyback program, even more damning is her past record as it's one of the MOST CONSISTENT stance she's ever had for being anti-gun according to OnTheIssues ... (her voting record speaks for itself too)
Anytime Clinton is asked a question about reaffirming her support for that consistitutional right she keeps dodging about the subject at hand while the NRA reprimands her every time for being against the second amendment without trying to even confront them ...
Clinton should know that each time she delays her stance it only brings more uncertainty thus scaring away pro-gun democrats from her ...
| Lafiel said: and as far as I know "dog whistling" in the political sense is a way to speak to a (often extremist) target-group within a crowd without alerting the normal people, like saying "the thugs are bringing down america" and meaning specifically afro-americans - as Trump outright accuses Hillary of wanting to abolish the 2nd, there is not much of a dog whistle (= a tone normal humans can't hear) there |
He wasn't dog whistling about Clinton abolishing the second amendment, he was dog whistling for his firm SUPPORT on gun rights, big difference there as he's trying to capture their votes ...
