Facts don't affect Trump supporters. I bet you believe acorn will steal the election and the video of money being paid to Iran.

I'm sorry, but I am going for the context here. And it's clearly visible for me that he gives the people the idea of using the 2nd amendment against Hillary of trying to abolish the 2nd amendment. It's not that the media blows it out of propotion, but even the secret service went into action. So, they've got the message like everyone else.

Trump is not fit for president. He doesn't think before speaking and that one can get you into trouble when dealing with foreign countries. There is no room for such fuckups.

Much like how they don't affect his detractors ... 

Secret service interfering is a lie perpetuated by the mainstream media ... 

Even they're not making a big deal out of this since they're not dense enough to confuse Trump's true intentions ... 

Ok, I take the secret service part out. I was wrong there.

starts around the 3 minuet mark:

3years ago :  Donal Trump "I do have a relationship with putin"

today :  Donal Trump "I have no relationship with putin"

today : "I didnt meet him in moscow"

2years ago: " I was in moscow resently, and I spoke directly and indirectly with putin, who could not have been nicer"

Donal Trump is like a pathalogical lier... the fact your claiming Hillary lies more? jeez, seriously doubt thats true.

He keeps saying things that contradict themselves, and has got caught in so many lies.

It could really help everyone a lot to cross check the claims that are made out there ... 

That been said though if the secret service didn't try to prosecute him for it or the NRA denouncing his statements for it then I think it's time for a lot of people to drop the BS about his threats and that especially applies to Elizabeth Warren when it's hardly a reasonable interpretation considering the time, place, and audience of where the speech was done along with his references to his opponents past record ... 

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

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

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 ... 

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 ... 

So, when I heard the backlash from his comments, and I went and listened the speech. I don't see the coorelation as much as I was being told.

Real talk, how is this inciting violence any more than encouraging people to protest for any other perceived injustice? I see no difference in his comments about people standing up for what's important to them and the White House encouraging the BLM protests. I don't believe either person/group is inciting or wishing violence on people even though that may be the result of encouraging those people.

It was a stupid statement, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say maybe he didn't mean it that way but he's engaged in "dog whistle" politics so often this campaign mixed with a stupid statement every 2-3 days that he's not being given the benefit of the doubt by a lot of people now.

The man simply is not very thoughtful about what comes out of his mouth.