NYT (a former newspaper) thinks they’re helping Hillary and Hurting Trump by running stories like this. They’ve got it exactly BACKWARDS!
Donald Trump has taken aim at Hillary Clinton by suggesting she should strip her bodyguards of their weapons and ‘see what happens’.
Trump – who has long claimed his presidential rival wants to overturn the Second Amendment – appeared to suggest such a move would court ‘danger’.
‘I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm, right?’ he asked his baying crowd of supporters at a rally in Miami.
The ‘controversial’ statements are in the clip below. Judge for yourself:
Leftists are losing their minds, jumping at shadows. Is this some sort of an implied threat?
It’s simple. Her security detail will never — NEVER — go unarmed. That’s not even up for debate. So on that basis alone, this argument becomes hypothetical, right?
Now that it’s an idea and not a ‘threat’ it can be weighed on its own merit, instead of tangled up in hysterical emotion.
Why is Hillary’s security detail armed? Simple: it’s because guns make good people better equipped to stand against a threat. But the BLM movement SHE has adopted is calling for — among other things — the disarming of police and both she and Obama are on the march throwing as many obstacles as they can in front of lawful gun owners.
Also what the don’t realize, is that Trump just put the conversation right back to one of the strongest winning issues for the Republican party: Second Amendment Rights. It also raises the problem of Chicago’s gun violence.
Maybe if NYT dealt with Ideas instead of just emotions, they’d be able to figure this out.
But then again, ideas won’t get their candidate elected … will they?