When Hillary wants to “essentially abolish the Second Amendment”, you can bet that Trump and his loyal supporters have some things to say. At a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina on August 9th, Trump cited Hillary’s impending choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy with a judge that undoubtedly would assist her intentions to create major legislation with regards to gun control rights in the country. Amidst a clearly controversial election that has flooded media every which way for months, the so-called “surprises” out of Trump and Clinton’s mouths aren’t even surprises anymore.
Trump’s outstanding record of mouthing jaw-dropping, “can-you-believe-he-said-that” remarks continues with this saga related to gun control. He not-so-subtly noted that, “Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is [something you could do]”. So, now people think that Presidential candidate Donald Trump is suggesting that citizens use *gun violence against candidate Hillary Clinton. Not really holding up the “positive vibes only” side of the deal.
There likely isn’t much that Trump regrets about this remark. We know from an exemplary record that these comments are rarely followed without a disregard for apologetics and retraction. Rhetorically, we know this is right up his alley. Through the initial response to the citizen masses, it is reasonable to think that the intention can even be to target these strong right-wingers, particularly the heavy gun rights supporters. If we assume that nothing is voiced from a candidate that is not intentional to some degree of audience, there could be *some* understanding to the process behind the remarks. There also is some credit given to the simplicity and straightforwardness of such a statement. With the short mention, Trump successfully paints his stance on gun control, the focus on the Supreme Court nomination, as well as his super unknown opinion of Hillary Clinton.
On the other, far more significant side, this comment has the real potential to make citizens question his actual level of sanity. The harsh suggestion is blows far past painting an enemy picture of an opposing candidate and instead begins to approach a real question about Donald Trump’s fitness for an office of such respect, stature, and responsibility. I would doubt few listeners could believe he is telling gun activists to really attack Hillary Clinton, but you can bet that there are debates circulating around this man’s position to even run for this office, let alone win it. Former Democratic House Representative from Arizona, and victim of a 2011 shooting rampage, Gabrielle Giffords, summed up an accurate description of the comment’s implications when she says, “We must draw a bright red line between political speech and suggestions of violence…Responsible, stable individuals won’t take Trump’s rhetoric to its literal end, but his words may provide a magnet for those seeking infamy.”
Others, including the Former Head to National Security, Anti-Trump groups, a former GOP Senator, the President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and many more have responded furiously calling out the inappropriate, offensive, and even illegal aspects of Trump’s statement. Ultimately, the disastrous and terrible negative effects from this statement outweigh any possible advantages it could have been intended to accomplish. Instead of a picture as a strong, authoritative, relatable conservative figure, Trump can really just find himself facing a new title: dangerous.
If there were any hope whatsoever that he could dispel some of the instability association so widely painted by Democrats and perceived by voters, it is continually obliterated by these type of comments from the Republican candidate. It seems as though this possible attempt at a joke to rally support and elicit some strong emotions from those opposing Clinton’s plans to affect gun rights has merely steered in a terrible dark and unforgiving territory. And that, I can’t imagine is a rhetorical objective in a campaign.
I believe that Trump’s use of aggressive rhetoric is actually a militant tactic. I’m not saying militant in the sense he wants Clinton to be shot, but in a rhetorical movement. Trump wants his followers to feel empowered and against Clinton. To create this sense of power he uses vague but aggressive language. His statement regarding second amendment supporters is a prime example of this. He states “maybe there is something they can do”. This is giving all the power to them(Trump supporters) to create resistance against Clinton.