That is how the rightwing reads the 2d. Everything in our history screams: That’s wrong, you fuckwits!
Nevertheless, they truly seem to believe it = that’s why the Idiot Sovereigns thought they could take over a national park and government building.
And as it has always gone, ever since the American Revolution ended and US government began, every single time a citizen raises arms against the government they LOSE.
I remember when I thought Orly Taitz was the most crazy-ass woman allowed to blather nonsense on news channels. But that was back when America was Great, I guess.
Thanks. I didn’t run across a full transcript and didn’t have the stomach to listen to much more than the immediate context. Check out the link I just posted. It puts it into historical context of the meaning of the second amendment as interpreted by the Rs.
P.S. New paragraph for every new train of thought??? That must have been a challenge. 
No one on the Democratic side is mentioning the NRA because no one on the sane side of the gun control debate wants to be associated with the likes of LaPierre and Nugent. By the way, Ms. Pierson, no one on the Democratic side wants to take away guns from law-abiding folks.
If that were the case, they could just all say, “In other news, Donald Trump attempted to incite unstable individuals to kill his political opponent today, but his campaign staff and surrogates have come up with a colorful array of bogus explanations for what he really meant by his statement. Now on to the winners of the Podunk Rodeo on Sunday…”
I hear it that way. The part in bold is practically gibberish. It’s almost like he’s suggesting there will be tie a la Bush v Gore and Scalia should have been around to give him the win. I do credit the “horrible thing” to Scalia’s passing (he has a remarkably small vocabulary), or maybe just not being around to break the tie for him, which is more likely. Anyway, parsing his nonsense is difficult enough, I think I’ll just stick to the implications of the one 2nd amendment sentence and quit trying to figure out how any one of his sentences is related to any other. They seem to be independent entities. Hell, we’re talking about a man that can contradict himself within a single sentence.
I thought Clinton (Bill) already took them back in the 90s.
It actually was. I replayed that video more times than I care to admit.
When Trump starts ad libbing I normally pick out the the main theme and throw the rest of it in the word salad mental bin. Here I actually tried to get into his thought process and that’s when I realized that he was trying to get back to that phrase but kept tripping himself up. Breaking it up into paragraphs helped organize it for me.
She just sounds like Baghdad Bob, right?
Well I thank you for your suffering. I can’t believe you took the time and sacrifice to listen to and transcribe it.
Didn’t Obama say something to the effect of “you’ll know how I’ll run the country by how I run the campaign”?
It’s madness following madness trying to make total sense of what Trump says. Normally I wouldn’t bother but this feel like a pivotal moment of the campaign, so I thought it was worth the effort to transcribe and fully understand it. It’ll help if I run into Trump supporters in the future.
As for that part you bolded, he is talking about the tied Supreme Court due to Scalia’s death which cost the conservatives their majority. My guess is that he is saying this to support his point that he needs to be elected to get that majority back.
And yes, ‘horrible thing’ is referring to Scalia passing away. It’s the same structure as the prior 2nd Amendment paragraph where he ended with the emotional comment, ‘horrible day’, on what he just said. This pattern is also mirrored in Trump’s tweets that end with some version of ‘so sad’.
Trumpology 101
So if I’m interpreting this un-American gibberish correctly, and I’ve heard some people say the Constitution and all its parts are a living document, that there’s a 2nd Amendment walking around somehow, and talking to people like Trump, which of course is no end of reassurance that Trump is as normal as the next guy, right? I mean, c’mon, who doesn’t talk to the 2nd Amendment (he? or she?, or LGBT? Dunno) on a regular basis anyway?
It’s like that Star Trek Alternate Universe episode with Spock with the little beard and all, only instead of Star Trek, it’s The Marx Brothers Duck Soup Alternate Universe.
The question is, does “horrible day” describe an assassination, or when she “gets to put her judges in”?
An assassination would be a horrible DAY – getting to put her judges in would be over the course of months or years. Therefore I think “horrible day” refers to an assassination. It his attempt to sound somewhat human regarding his opponent’s possible murder.
Best comment I saw today was attached to the first (of many) NY Times articles about Trump’s “Second Amendment people” remark.
JKL of New York wrote: “Even if it wasn’t a threat, his not being aware that it came off as a threat demonstrates his incompetence.”
I had one more thought about the Horrible Day thing. If you remove the 2nd Amendment ad-lib stuff from his statement, you’re left with what’s in bold here:
By the way, and 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. But…but I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.
So, it will be a horrible day when HC picks her judges.
That interpretation makes enough sense to me to remove Horrible Day from Assassination, although it doesn’t really change a thing. I’ll spend some time thinking of more important things now…
I was out, and you pulled me back in.
I agree. After listening to that part a couple more times, that too is a viable way to interpret it. It’d be an odd thing to totally ignore the prior two sentences, but Trump’s eccentric way of speaking works for him in this case. It’s plausible for him to do it.
In fact after thinking about it more (Why God! why!) am inclined to think that is what he meant. Trump has a habit of repeating himself or pausing when he tries to get back on track. Presumably he is trying to find his spot in his notes which causes this. The stuttering on the word “But” seems to indicate that he is trying to return to the speech. Then again, he could have been commenting on the assassination remark as part of the stall to find his place.
I’m still certain that Trump was talking about an assassination. I’m just somewhat less so now about using the ‘horrible day’ remark as proof.
Getting to put her judges in, to me, means the horrible day would be the Election Day he loses. Or perhaps the nominating day. It’s unlikely he understands the confirmation process, or even that they have to retire first. This is the guy planning to fire the govt employees en masse and replace them with his toadies.
That’s now 3 to 4 answers for only one possible explanation that sane reasonable people could come to.
If one sets aside the whole “2nd Amendment” comments for a moment, to the extent that the same and different representatives of the Trump campaign are giving distinctly different explanations and rationalizations for those comments says that the organization is dysfunctional and amateur. It speaks to how a Trump administration would govern, i.e. in chaos.