”Hillary wants to abolish – essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
Those who defend Donald Trump have been wrestling over these words.
”It was a joke!” That was the first interpretation, and probably the most true one, from a former, now fired, campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski.
”This is a political movement. This is a strong political movement, the Second Amendment, and there can be no other interpretation … I mean, give me a break.”
This is what Trump now told his favorite pundit Sean Hannity, and it’s the version that is explained over and over by his supporters.
“What we’re talking about is political power, there’s tremendous political power to save the Second Amendment, tremendous. You look at the power they have in terms of votes and that’s what I was referring to, obviously that’s what I was referring to and everybody knows it.”
I just have to poke around a bit among the sentences.
First of all: He didn’t actually tell them to kill her. So in order to prove that’s what he said, every other interpretation must be ruled out.
Who are ”the second amendment people”? Well, since not even Donald himself denies that he referred to the gun owners, that is a given.
Now, the interpretation he has provided, that he wanted them to vote, is not valid, simply because he starts with an ”if”, and what follows depends on that ”if”.
”If she gets to pick” places us in a situation where she was already elected. You can’t continue that sentence with ”we must make sure she wasn’t elected”, unless you’re in possession of a time machine.
Everything that follows ”if she gets to pick” must be based on the assumption that we’re in a future where Hillary Clinton is the president.
So, let’s simplify the sentences. What he said boils down to:
”When HRC has been elected president, gun owners can still do something about it”.
What can they do? Certainly not vote, for another four years. I would really love to hear any of DJT’s supporters provide alternative interpretations to ”shoot her”. Here are some suggestions:
- Sulk and hide
- Move to a war zone like Syria
- Buy an island and fund a new country
- Protest in the streets singing anti peace songs like ”We shall undercome” and ”Imagine all the people living life in war”
If I were on his side, I would have stuck with ”I made a bad joke”. It’s probably half true. The other half of the truth is most likely that he is so into his poisonous rhetoric that he thinks suggesting to shoot her is an acceptable thing to say, like the next step after ”lock her up” and ”she should be shot by a firing squad”.