Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War : Second Amendment : What Does "Bigly" Mean?

Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War

 

The long shadow of the Iraq War continues to color presidential politics.
In a forum focused on national security, Democrat Hillary Clinton was questioned about her Senate vote in favor of action against Iraq. She in turn noted that Donald Trump initially supported the war.
When it was Trump’s turn, the Republican nominee denied the charge.
"I was totally against the war in Iraq," Trump said during the NBC News event. "You can look at Esquire magazine from '04. You can look at before that."
Well, we have gone back further than the 2004 interview Trump mentioned, and the record tells a different story.
Trump has a hard time getting past a September 2002 interview with shock jock Howard Stern. Stern asked Trump if he supported the looming invasion.
Trump responded, "Yeah, I guess so."
Trump dialed that back a bit in another interview in January 2003, a few months before the invasion. Fox News’ Neil Cavuto asked Trump whether President George W. Bush should be more focused on Iraq or the economy.
"Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know," Trump said. "He's under a lot of pressure. I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned."
So Trump put the economy ahead of confronting Iraq, but he didn’t speak against going to war. At most he suggested waiting for the United Nations to do something.
A week after the United States invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, Trump gave different takes. At an Academy Awards after-party, Trump said that "the war’s a mess," according to the Washington Post. He told Fox News that because of the war, "The market’s going to go up like a rocket."
The earliest evidence of Trump’s outright opposition to the war came in that August 2004 article in Esquire:
"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way," Trump said.
Trump has been challenged many times in this election to explain his early acceptance of the war. In a February 2016 interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Trump said that he didn’t know what he meant during his 2002 conversation with Stern.
"That was a long time ago, and who knows what was in my head." Trump said.
Our ruling
Trump said he was "totally against the war in Iraq." While he came to that position when the war became difficult, earlier on he was more accepting of military action. In 2002, asked if America should go to war, he said, "I guess so." Less than three months before the invasion, Trump said the president should be more focused on the economy, but he didn’t speak against launching an attack.
Trump didn’t speak often about the Iraq War before it happened, but what he said did not add up to the sort of opposition he describes today.
We rate this claim False.

Second Amendment

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.
Recent case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold

• regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property);
• regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon.  US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);
•  regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)

What Does "Bigly" Mean? Trump Has Confused Everyone

The Republican candidate for White House appeared to use an unusual adverb in his debate against Hillary Clinton. Or did he? Jon Kelly investigates.

There was a moment in the first US presidential debate when lots of people asked themselves: "Did Trump just say 'bigly'?"
Followed quickly by: "Is that even a word?"
It came during a discussion on fiscal policy, when, Donald Trump told his opponent: "I'm going to cut taxes bigly, and you're going to raise taxes bigly." Or so many thought, anyway.

It's the question that will divide households, provoke barroom debates and split the nation. Is Donald Trump really saying "bigly" or is it "big league"?
After using the phrase in previous debates, he is back at it again.  On a question about immigration he described how Barack Obama had deported millions of people, continuing: "She doesn't want to say that, but that's what's happened... bigly..."

Or maybe he ended with the phrase "big league". Either way it is one of his favourite phrases and bigly rapidly became the top trending search on Google.

During the 2016 debates, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has had a few slips of the tongue, but none of them have confounded the American public more than his use of the word "bigly." So what does "bigly" mean, anyway? Is it a noun? An adjective? A verbal tick? Since it's the final debate of the election season, Americans may never know. It's really unclear. During the first debate, Trump said, "I'm going to cut taxes bigly," and referring to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, said, "and you're going to raise taxes bigly."
At first, it seemed like maybe everyone had misunderstood. Maybe it was a suppressed sniff. But the fact that he seemed to repeat the word made it all the more unlikely that it was just a random noise that came out of his mouth. With Trump, it's hard to tell what words are just sounds that come out of his mouth and what are actual, confirmed English words that he means.
During the final debate, Trump employed the word again in a discussion about immigration and social media freaked out. In any case, "bigly" doesn't mean anything to most human beings. According to Merriam Webster, though, "bigly" is a word. It means "in a big manner, with great scope," or "in a swelling blustering manner," which pretty much sums up what Trump is all about. A big, blustering swell.