Pro-gun control advocates wasted no time blasting Donald Trump for an off-hand comment he made about Hillary Clinton’s crusade against gun owners. Speaking at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, Trump said it would be a “horrible day” if Clinton were elected because she likely would appoint an anti-second amendment judge. “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
Liberal publications such as the New York Times and the Guardian quickly wrote scathing articles critical of the statement: The Guardian’s headline read, “ Trump hints at the assassination of Hillary Clinton by gun rights supporters.” Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and National Security Agency, a critic of Trump, said: “Well, let me say, if someone had have said that outside the hall he’d be in the back of a police wagon now with the secret service questioning him.”
Clinton backers, including Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California, said that the Secret Service should investigate Trump for making a death threat against Mrs. Clinton: “Donald Trump suggested someone kill Sec. Clinton. We must take people at their word”, according to the Times.
It was clear to any reasonable person that Trump was implying that Clinton could be stopped, and second amendment rights secured, by voting against her, and that second amendment supporters should do just that. The notion that he was suggesting that she be assassinated is ludicrous. It is more than alarming to read about the disingenuous comments made by a former CIA Director and sitting U.S. Representative: Hayden’s dislike for Trump has caused him to do and say some goofy things lately. His suggestion that an American citizen could or should be “questioned in the back of a police wagon” by secret service agents for saying what Trump said is also beyond chilling. One would think that the New York Times would provide some balanced reporting where the First Amendment is directly impacted, but apparently, their Clinton agenda is more important.
On the other hand, we expect such condemnations from Democrats and liberal publications – they are backing Clinton, and it is their right to write things that are positive about her – they are preaching to their inbuilt choir. But one has to wonder what the former head of the CIA’s agenda is. He should chill out and not be so angry. He doesn’t make much sense when he gets riled up over the Trump camp’s decision not to seek his involvement in their campaign.