Donald Trump: ‘I don’t know why anyone needs an AR-15’
(www.emilypostnews.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
Have you not seen this video?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yxgybgEKHHI
I don't care who is the source for this, a man who said "take the guns first then due process after" is no friend of the second amendment.
Your claim isn't that he's not a friend to the Second Amendment, though. You claimed he said "I don't know why anyone needs an AR-15."
I didn't believe any of the other media lies, why would I believe this bullshit? This is "those familiar with his thinking" levels of sourcing.
It's dishonest bullshit.
A man who says takes the guns first is not capable of saying I don't know why anyone needs an Ar-15?
This is a shitty defense.
Trump was a NY Democrat for decades. Is it so far-fetched that he would be for gun-control?
Not what I said. I've never said he didn't say it, and I can't...for the exact same reasons I can't say that he did; terrible sources and biased reporting. There's nothing here saying anything either way, so it's bullshit until proven otherwise.
You could write the exact same article, but substitute the AR-15 quote for Trump saying "I love raping" or something equally offensive and outrageous. Can I prove he didn't say that? No...but I'm certainly not going to believe he did! Because the media loves to smear him, and there's no evidence of their claims.
Again, completely irrelevant. You made a specific claim, but it's backed up by the exact same style of reporting that did nothing but lie about him for years. Why would I start believing this crap now?
Is it possible he said it? Of course; it's possible he said anything. Is it any more possible or believable now that the Washington Post said anonymous sources said it happened? Nope, in fact I'm less likely to believe it now.
You don't seem to be getting my argument. There's nothing saying he said this, there's a history of lies about him, and none of his past statements (including very bad ones like you've linked) make it any more or less believable. The core evidence is lacking, so any 'well he did this so' falls flat because, again, it's all just imaginary until proven otherwise.