If Trump is a racist dictator?

He's not a dictator. He's an ignorant lout and a con artist, emotionally unstable.

Granted, saying SNL should be investigated sounds like a dictator and if you're paranoid enough it might seem like that. I'm sure everybody at NBC had a good laugh at that. He's like a little kid that has to draw attention to himself all the time. He's a joke that's getting old.

He sounds like it them dang right wing nut jobs are scary af.

Dude a dictator? really? if he was a dictator what he says would be done, he wouldnt have to fight for it because it gets done when he says. Him being racist was already explained by other users, so i wont go into that, but the short answer is NO

Think about everything you asked. shows how much libs are brainwashed. yall dont really know. you just take whats told and run with it

Obviously Trump is the one who wants to disarm the public....pay attention, Bubba.

The "dictator" who arms his citizens, loves his citizens. The only ones disarming black people are democrats.

What kind of racist dictator fights so hard for lower taxes, and lowers regulations in order to pull millions of black people out of poverty?

He has never said or did anything racist.

if he was a dictator Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer would be under house arrest and the country would be under martial law.

In general they don't.

Lawmakers may outlaw certain types of weapons, but they may not disarm the citizenry. The "right to bear arms" is not a right to nullify any government measure a resident may find objectionable.

The Second Amendment Is Not Absolute

Constitutional rights are not absolute. They never have been and, practically, never can be. In our constitutional democracy, we have always recognized that we can, and must, have our constitutional cake and regulate it too.

The Second Amendment, of course, is no exception. In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court told us that we have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense, at least within our homes. But the opinion never suggested that this right was unconditional or immune from all regulation. In fact, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said just the opposite. In Heller, he specifically said that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

Protecting the right to keep and bear arms is not the same as forbidding all regulations on that right. We can protect that right and still require background checks, permits, and training. We can still regulate when, where, and what kinds of guns are allowed. In some cases, we can regulate who can obtain guns, imposing restrictions on, for instance, felons, the mentally ill, and known terrorists. We can ban firearms such as military-style assault weapons that (like child pornography) plainly cause far more harm than they add in value. We can require those who are negligent with their weapons (as we do those who are negligent with their words in defamation cases) to be held liable for the harm they inflict on others. We can do all of these things; we just don’t. There might be policy reasons to debate the pros and cons of specific regulations, but there’s no reason to assume that there is a constitutional problem.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ju...

Liberals aren't rational.

Have you signed up for brain surgery John?

Because they plan to seize power ASAP