That’s [not?] what he said: Logic and Trump’s “Second Amendment people”

            Another day, another news cycle dominated by The Donald. This time it’s hemming and hawing over what he did or did not say about “Second Amendment people” doing something about Hillary “if she gets to pick her judges.” And we’re off: Trump goes off the cuff (and off the rails) and then gets to enjoy millions in free publicity while he and his surrogates equivocate and his opponents exacerbate.

            I realize it’s a fool’s errand to apply logic to virtually anything DJT says, but I still believe in the rules of language and reason, so let’s try.

            Set aside the lowest-common-denominator divisiveness. (The US is divided by which amendment(s) we like most?)

            Never mind that Hillary has no interest in “abolish[ing] the Second Amendment.” (She is an advocate for the right to bear arms in balance with concerns for public safety and health.)

            And let’s not quibble over “whose” judges they are. (The Supreme Court belongs to The People, not the President who nominated them or the Senate who confirmed them.)

            Let’s just focus on the sentences that have everyone up in arms:

“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.”

His opponents claim he was inciting violence: Tacitly (coyly) encouraging his supporters to think about assassination if Hillary were elected. That would, indeed, be egregious. (To be fair, I’ve heard more than one person romanticize about killing Hitler before 1933 in direct relation to the current campaign. But Clinton has never even hinted at such a scenario, which is a yuuuge difference.)

Trump and his surrogates are claiming he was misinterpreted: He was actually talking about the voting power of gun rights advocates: “Donald Trump is absolutely correct,” said Jennifer Baker, a strategist for the National Rifle Association. “If Hillary Clinton is elected, there is nothing we can do to stop her from nominating an anti-gun Supreme Court justice who will vote to overturn the individual right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun in their home for protection.”

That’s their argument: He’s not talking about taking up arms; he’s talking about the voting power of gun enthusiasts.

But let’s parse what he actually said: If she gets to pick her judges, then there’s nothing anyone can do, except “maybe” the Second Amendment folks...

Of course, DJT’s acquaintance with the US Constitution is vague at best, but here’s a refresher: You don’t get to pick judges until after you are elected. You know, after the people (Second Amendment people and Fourteenth Amendment people and other people) have already voted.

In which case (i.e., after the election), according to Trump, there’s nothing anyone can do. Except… (wink) maybe the Second Amendment people… I don’t know…

(I disagree with Trump: The NRA has tons of influence after the polls have closed to influence legislation, confirmation hearings, etc. But that’s not what he said. Not at first. At first he was talking about voting. You know, the thing that happens before Clinton gets to pick “her” judges. After which, it’s only the Second Amendment people who can…maybe… do “something.”)

Considering the Second Amendment deals with guns, and only guns (and a well-regulated militia… but what’s that?), it is not a reach to argue that Trump may have been coyly encouraging violence against Hillary after the election to prevent her from picking “her” judges. If, in fact, he was actually aware of what he was saying when he was saying it (a yuuuge assumption). At the very least, it’s not a stretch to say he was tacitly planting that seed in the minds of some of his most fervent supporters.

(Of course, you’d have to take out Kaine, too… but then Paul Ryan gets to be President, and Ryan scores a 93% from the NRA.)

Did he say that? Clearly not. Could he have meant something else? Sure – but any other deduction is just as speculative, since his equivocations have confused the issue. No one knows what he was actually trying to say (least of all him, it seems), so we just have to speculate from what he actually said, and then try and find our way through the spin cycle afterward.

Nevertheless, this kind of ambiguous coded language is clearly meant to incite fear, and it wouldn’t be the first time Trump has incited violence. It just happens to be both more explicitly dangerous (guns) and more vague (“I don’t know…”) than wanting to punch Michael Bloomberg in the face or recalling the “good old days” when you could “beat the crap out of” protestors with impunity.

Either way, it is not true that his words are being misinterpreted. The words themselves were describing an after the election scenario, at which point voting for the person who gets to pick judges is moot for four more years. To say he was encouraging violence is not the only plausible interpretation, but it is well within reasonable parameters.

If, as he claims, he was talking about voting, then he “misspoke.” But to say that would mean admitting that sometimes The Donald just runs off at the mouth without knowing the implications of what he’s saying (like inviting Putin to spy on Clinton). That happens daily with DJT. But he wants folks to believe that the “mainstream media” and those who don’t already love him just doesn’t “get” what he does. We just don’t understand him.

But we do. We hear what he’s saying. Sometimes folks draw conclusions that go a bridge too far. But actually listening to what DJT says is enough to be fearful for the fate of language and reason, not to mention the whole world, if he is elected. This is just the most recent, albeit not even the most dangerous, example.