Trump backer tells C-SPAN: Second Amendment remark means brace for armed revolt, not assassination

[DonViejo]

A C--SPAN caller from Michigan proved on Wednesday that even Trump supporters could interpret the GOP nominee’s comments about using the Second Amendment to stop Hillary as a call to gun violence.

-snip-

But a C-SPAN caller from Michigan named Greg proved on Wednesday that even some of Trump’s supporters found the comments to be a call to arms.

“Number one, Mr. Trump was not threatening assassination of Hillary,” Greg said. “But what he was implying and could happen is if Hillary got her way and did do away with Second Amendment rights, there are a lot of us who are gun owners who are going to object to that very strongly.”

“And since we do have firearms, it might if it comes down to it be us having to defend our rights with those guns, just as the revolutionaries did in the Revolutionary War.” Greg said that he hoped “it never will come down to that.”

-snip-

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/trump-backer-tells-c-span-second-amendment-remark-means-brace-for-armed-revolt-not-assassination/

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. So, calling for "armed revolt" against a legitimately elected leader is.........better/not so bad?

[anoNY42]

2. Just like Lexington and Concord!

"just as the revolutionaries did in the Revolutionary War.”"

Oh man, I hope they DO just come out in a field and stand in a line waiting for the feds and/or real Army to show up!

[Stubborn]

7. LOL!

[anoNY42]

9. Just imagine

those guys trying to slide across the hoods of their cars like the Duke boys!

[meow2u3]

17. Those goons don't have a prayer against these guys

[Capt. Obvious]

19. Or these guys

[deathrind]

3. Lol...

Last time I checked an F16 had a substantial advantage of over an AR...

[Wednesdays]

20. And I wonder how many tanks are owned by civilians

The U.S. Army might just have a few.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

21. There are actually privately owned tanks

The question now is, can they get ammunition for them?

[Stubborn]

4. I can see how it could be interpreted that way.

Much better than, 'he was asking people to vote against her'. That talking point makes no sense at all.

[louis-t]

5. Ohhh, that's different....

[NurseJackie]

10. :-P

[underpants]

6. I heard the exact same thing yesterday on local talk radio

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028085815

This excuse obviously ignores what happens, especially to leaders, in a revolution.

[joshcryer]

8. Trump is planning for a constitutional crisis.

Claim the election was stolen. Go all out crazy-man.

[C_U_L8R]

11. Even better

We're ready. Hahaha.
Those Krack Keyboard Kommandos better practice getting
their lard-butts out of their momma's basement.
What a joke.

[Grassy Knoll]

12. Reading Is Your Friend...Idiot

[neeksgeek]

13. Right, because armed revolt makes so much sense. n/t

[Land Shark]

14. Agreed. Which is what I said in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512355790

[apnu]

15. From who? Y'all-queda?

I don't doubt there are asshats in America who are so deluded and armed that they'd rise up in violence against local, state and federal governments. And I have no doubt these people mean harm and are willing to do it.

But they don't have their shit together enough to stage any kind of real revolt or civil war. Shooting at the cops and FBI is one thing, going to actual war against the United States military, even if its a state guard unit would be a disaster for them. They would be slaughtered to a man and they know it.

[tanyev]

16. Well that's much better.

[cagefreesoylentgreen]

18. I'm not so sure armed revolt is any better

/eyeroll