answer my question first - how do they do something about Hillary choosing her supreme court justices when she is already elected president? and why is it important that these people are 2nd amendment supporters in order to be able to stop that?

He didn't imply that they CAN do something after the election as per my previous post ... 

As for why Trump is favouring the 2nd amendment there are around tens of millions of gun OWNERS in the US and he wants to get their vote, plain and simple ... 

It's not hard to understand what Trump is doing is dog whistling ... 

as per your previous post you didn't show any evidence that Trump left the hypothetical scenario of Hillary securing the presidency, plz do so and I may entertain the thought that he didn't imply actions after the election

He didn't imply a hypothetical scenario where they SHOULD do something after the election! That's where his word "maybe" comes in and saves the day where he says they can do something about it UP TO the election ... 

It's like the rape example where if a women doesn't say anything that doesn't mean they said "yes" ... 

let's look at the quote again "By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks .. Although the 2nd amandment people, maybe there is. I don't know .."

it's pretty clear that "nothing you can do folks" is linked to the "maybe there is", so this "maybe" is not about whether or not the people should take action, it's about that this action _could_ influence the situation and stop the "abolishment of the 2nd amendment"

that also shows pretty well that both these sentences are indeed linked and he never left the context of a Hillary presidency when saying them

im more worried about hillary's habitual lying than trumps warped sense of humor!

Hmm how should I say this ... 

He didn't say ANYTHING about the "second amendment people" using their guns or even hinted at it ... 

All he said is "maybe there is" but he didn't clarify anything about REVERSING it or REVOKING it with a FORCE of ACTION ... 

Yes there was ambiguity in Trump's statement but what he's doing is clear dog whistling when he accuses Clinton of abolishing the second amendment. His intent was clear enough to send a political message and not a message of violence when we look at the rest of the statements ... 

Forbes says he's got a net worth of $4.5B. In any case, all those corporations must been feeding Clinton some big money so, yeah, no doubt she's comfortable.

He was referring to after the election and he was implying gun violence. If like you and the Trump campaign say he was referring to before the election and implying voting power. If that lie was true it would be a great day 4 Trump and his supporters if they voted before the election but if you continue to play the tape he immediately begins to walk back his statements by saying" it would be a terrible day"if the president was assassinated.

No he wasn't! There's nothing that definitively implies what he wanted supporters of the second amendment to do after the election but nice try twisting what his intent was ... 

I shouldn't even have to point out the idiocy behind this whole media blowout about Trump "supposedly" threatening Clinton when he makes it clear with the very first quoted statement of "Hillary want to abolish, essentially abolish the second amendment" means that he's talking politics instead of getting personal or violent about it ... 

If you want to know what actual pro-second amendment supporters are thinking even the NRA thinks that Trump's most vocal critics interpretation is fucking stupid ...