People in a group have a special language of their own. Gun Rights advocates know the Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right and power to stop a tyrant.
Donald Trump was being careless and extemporaneous when he spoke of the "Second Amendment people" but he wasn't talking about political organizing. He was talking in the language of gun right supporters. When he said it he was talking about citizens stopping a tyrant with a gun.
Everyone has experienced private language within a group. Professions have defined meanings to words. In my former work as a financial advisor there are special meanings for an open order, to close a position, to being stopped. These terms have specific legal meaning, known and understood by people within the group of investment advisors and experienced investors. Similar special language happens among lawyers, medical people, everyone.
People on the outside of the group often do not understand the special language or they consider it irritating jargon or they simply do not catch the meaning. Donald Trump's suggestion about what to do if Hillary Clinton won the election and attempted to appoint an anti-gun rights judge was ambiguous when heard by a listener who did not understand the internal language, but it was crystal clear when heard from inside the group: someone might have to shoot her, or the judges, or someone.
Second Amendment Remedies:
There is, within conservative, Republican, and gun rights people a special meaning for "Second Amendment remedies." It is the right of the people to stop tyranny by taking arms against a tyrant. It is the fundamental right of revolution carried out by the people who can take arms to stop a tyrant.
Sharon Angle, a candidate for Senate in Nevada, said it this way in a radio interview: "I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This [is] not for someone who's in the military. This [is] not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical."
Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, speaks of gun rights as a matter of individuals taking arms to protect freedom and stop tyrants. Speaking of a proposed Arms Trade Treaty he said: "Our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment so Americans would never have to live in tyranny. . . . Our Second Amendment is freedom's most valuable, most cherished, most irreplaceable idea."
The Conservative Daily website says, "Today, many politicians treat the Second Amendment as if it is synonymous with hunting. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting and even its association with self-defense has been diluted! The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms not so that you can grant the government consent, but so that, if necessary, you can act on your dissent!"
Watch what he said yourself.
Watch the reaction of the man in red, to the right of Trump on the screen. He knew exactly what Trump was saying.
It is entirely likely that some readers will watch the comments and believe it credible that Trump was talking about political organizing or generally that supporters of gun rights would vote for him instead of Hillary. That is the story being advanced now in order to "clean up" and repair the damage. The position is arguable and indeed credible when heard from the outside, by a person who misses the specific jargon and meanings from within the group. After all, an "open order" or a "stopped one" could mean a lot of things to the uninitiated while in fact it means something very specific and legally binding within the brokerage industry.
In the language of gun rights supporters, Donald Trump was not ambiguous: he was suggesting that someone would exercise the Second Amendment right of revolution and take action to stop a tyrant, presumably with a firearm the Amendment allows.
It was not ambiguous. It was an offhand, foolish comment suggesting that someone would shoot Hillary or the judges. I do not think that Trump was openly advocating assassinating Hillary Clinton or the judges. He was just making an offhand comment that someone just might decide to do it.
His offense was not that he actively solicited assassination. He did not. Trump's offense is that he is so careless that he normalizes assassination by so casually and in offhand manner suggests it is something that would make sense to a major party nominee as a way to effect policy change. It was not an attack on Hillary and the judges. It was an attack on Constitutional process.
The response of GOP leadership and Fox News is to pretend he did not say and mean what they heard him say and mean. Trump has deniability and he is employing it and at this moment it is working for him. But watch the man in red. He heard it.
His offense was not that he actively solicited assassination. He did not. Trump's offense is that he is so careless that he normalizes assassination by so casually and in offhand manner suggests it is something that would make sense to a major party nominee as a way to effect policy change. It was not an attack on Hillary and the judges. It was an attack on Constitutional process.
The response of GOP leadership and Fox News is to pretend he did not say and mean what they heard him say and mean. Trump has deniability and he is employing it and at this moment it is working for him. But watch the man in red. He heard it.
2 comments:
Thanks for writing this. Very enlightening. But if this assertion is true, then wouldn't Trump be inviting 'open season' on himself as well? I suppose it depends on who gets to define "tyranny".
Advice for Trump: Never Say “Nuclear Option”
Headlines like these are tough acts to follow: “Trump suborns Russian espionage in seeking Clinton’s deleted email!” “Psychologist suggests Trump is mentally ill! “Trump calls for Japan to get nuclear weapons!” And now “Trump incites assassination of Hillary Clinton!” They lack persuasive factual basis and fade quickly. Factually sound headlines have staying power, as the Clinton email scandal shows, so it never leaves the headlines.
The “Second Amendment people” as Trump calls them, consist of the NRA and its 5 million members, and its solid NRA-supporting Republican Senate and House. (See, “N.R.A. Victories in Congress Grow’, (NT Times, Jan. 16, 2016) http://goo.gl/3nSggn). Even if our hopes are realized with a Clinton win, the “Second Amendment people” will ensure that no openly anti-gun Supreme Court nominee will ever get confirmed in the Senate. Although it’s way more fun to take Trump’s words out of context, Time published a full transcript of Trump’s speech for those who want context. (See, Time, http://goo.gl/7kXYxq). Here’s the context:
“I guess it’s a scenario where this president could pick five Supreme Court Justices. *** Your Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association endorsed and they endorsed me early, a long time ago. And they’re great people, Wayne [LaPierre, NRA president] and Chris [Cox, NRA executive director] they are great people. *** If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. *** Now, speaking to the NRA folks – who are great – when you – when you — and I’ll tell you, they endorsed me.”
If Clinton wins, Trump is right that she gets to pick her judges, but all would not be lost to Trump’s “Second Amendment people”. Trump was right to quickly question his dark assessment that there would be “nothing [they] can do”. Indeed, it would have been an insult to the NRA had Trump not then and there qualified his pessimism. If Clinton wins, and even if Democrats gain a majority in the Senate, the NRA and its people will not do nothing. The will do something about any judge she nominates who has a weak record on Second Amendment rights. There will be no “nuclear option” against the NRA in blocking gun-unfriendly nominees.
“The nuclear option” is a reference to the rule change in the Senate on November 21, 2013, when on a 52-48 vote, Democrats eliminated Republican abuse of the filibuster against the confirmation of Obama’s 59 executive branch nominees, and17 judicial nominees. (See, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option). Henceforth, judges would be confirmed on a simple majority vote. But exempted from that “nuclear option” are Supreme Court nominees, which continue to require 60 votes. The “Second Amendment people” will not be left with “nothing [they] can do”. They will insure that President Clinton never musters those 60 votes. And that is the message that the NRA expects Trump to honor. And that is the message he gave.
There is a “pari materia” rule in logic, forensics and law that holds the relevant context for a spoken or written passage is presumed to come from the same speech or text in which the passage is found. Yet, not a word in Trump’s speech referenced violence, assassination, or illegality. Why then would commentators and the media ignore the explicit NRA and Supreme Court context of Trumps words, even after he promptly explained them? Because it sells, just like “espionage” and “mental illness”. There are indeed “dog whistles” involved in this Trump assassination meme. But it was the media blowing them, not Trump. And it was eager never-Trump listeners hearing those whistles, not NRA members, and not “Second Amendment people. Those people heard the context Trump's words were made in. (See, “Gun Owners React To Donald Trump's 'Second Amendment People' Comments”, Aug 10, 2016 http://n.pr/2aH3ktH).
Note to Trump—never say the words “nuclear option”, or we can imagine the headlines.
Post a Comment