Donald Trump was talking about guns, the Supreme Court and what might happen if Hillary Clinton became president.
Then he delivered a sentence that immediately ignited another controversy.
Speaking at a campaign rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, Trump warned his supporters that Clinton would appoint judges hostile to gun rights.
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.”
Then he added:
“Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.”
The reaction was immediate.
Critics heard a possible suggestion that gun owners could use violence against Clinton or those she appointed.
Trump's campaign said that wasn't what he meant at all.
According to the campaign, Trump was talking about something much more conventional:
Voting.
The Supreme Court Raises the Stakes
The remark came during an unusually important moment in the fight over the Supreme Court.
Justice Antonin Scalia had died in February 2016, leaving a vacancy on the Court.
President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him, but the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold confirmation hearings or a vote.
That meant the presidential election could determine who filled Scalia's seat.
And potentially much more.
Trump made the Supreme Court a major part of his campaign, particularly when speaking to conservative and gun-rights voters.
During the Wilmington rally, he warned that Clinton's judicial appointments could threaten the Second Amendment.
Trump said Clinton wanted to “essentially abolish the Second Amendment.”
That overstated Clinton's position.
Clinton supported additional gun restrictions, including expanded background checks, but she had not proposed repealing the Second Amendment.
Trump nevertheless presented the election as an existential battle over gun rights.
Then came the sentence that changed the story.
“Nothing You Can Do, Folks”
Trump told the crowd:
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.”
He paused.
Then:
“Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.”
It was an ambiguous statement.
And because the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, the ambiguity mattered.
What exactly could “Second Amendment people” do after Clinton had already been elected and was selecting judges?
Trump didn't explain in that sentence.
Within minutes, two dramatically different interpretations were competing with each other.
The Clinton Campaign Hears a Threat
Hillary Clinton's campaign treated the remark as dangerous.
Campaign manager Robby Mook responded:
“This is simple — what Trump is saying is dangerous.”
He continued:
“A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way.”
Others interpreted Trump's words even more explicitly, suggesting that he had alluded to violence against Clinton.
But Trump's actual words never explicitly told anyone to shoot, attack or assassinate Clinton.
That distinction is important.
The controversy centered on what Trump's unfinished suggestion appeared to imply.
Trump's Campaign Says He Meant Voting
Trump's campaign quickly rejected the violent interpretation.
Senior communications adviser Jason Miller issued a statement explaining that Trump was talking about the political strength of gun-rights supporters.
“It's called the power of unification,” Miller said.
Second Amendment supporters, he argued, were highly organized and politically powerful.
The campaign said those voters could stop Clinton by turning out in large numbers and electing Trump instead.
Trump himself subsequently offered essentially the same explanation.
He described Second Amendment supporters as a political movement and argued that their votes could defeat Clinton.
Under that interpretation, Trump's point was straightforward:
Gun-rights supporters could prevent Clinton from appointing judges by preventing her from becoming president.
But There Was a Problem With That Explanation
The wording created a complication.
Trump had said:
“If she gets to pick her judges...”
That sounds like a scenario in which Clinton has already won the election.
Then Trump said there would be “nothing you can do.”
Only after that did he add:
“Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.”
That sequence was why critics questioned the campaign's explanation that Trump was simply talking about defeating Clinton at the ballot box.
If the hypothetical began after Clinton was already choosing judges, the election would already be over.
Supporters countered that Trump was speaking loosely and referring more broadly to the political power of gun owners.
The sentence was imprecise enough to sustain both arguments.
Trump Blames the Media
As the controversy grew, Trump accused the news media of deliberately misrepresenting what he had said.
His campaign characterized the coverage as another example of reporters twisting his words.
Trump also pointed to the political strength of the gun-rights movement and continued arguing that Clinton posed a threat to the Second Amendment.
His allies made the same case.
Senator Jeff Sessions, one of Trump's prominent supporters, said presidential candidates shouldn't suggest violence but that he didn't believe Trump had done so.
Sessions interpreted the statement as a reference to voters who cared deeply about protecting gun rights.
Clinton: “Words Matter”
Clinton responded the following day.
She argued that presidential candidates had a responsibility to consider how their statements could be understood.
“Words matter, my friends,” she said.
She described Trump's comment as part of a pattern of statements she believed crossed acceptable boundaries.
Trump rejected that characterization.
The argument became another example of a recurring feature of the 2016 campaign.
Trump would make an unscripted or provocative remark.
Critics would interpret it in the most alarming way.
Trump and his campaign would respond that his words had been distorted or taken out of context.
Then the argument over what Trump meant would become almost as large as the original statement.
What Trump Actually Said Matters
There is a temptation to simplify this incident by saying Trump directly called for Hillary Clinton to be shot.
That isn't what he explicitly said.
There is also a temptation to dismiss the entire controversy by saying he plainly meant voters.
His actual wording makes that conclusion less certain as well.
What Trump unquestionably said was:
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.”
The Clinton campaign interpreted the remark as suggesting violence.
The Trump campaign said it referred to political organization and voting.
Trump never explicitly called for Clinton to be harmed.
But he chose language involving “Second Amendment people” while discussing what could be done about Clinton and her judicial appointments.
That ambiguity was the controversy.
Another Remark Dominates the Campaign
By August 2016, this pattern was becoming familiar.
The Republican nominee had only recently emerged from his public confrontation with Gold Star parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan.
Less than two weeks earlier, he had stood before reporters and declared:
“Russia, if you're listening...”
Now another Trump remark was dominating national political coverage.
And once again, Americans weren't simply debating Trump's policy.
They were debating Trump's words.
What did he mean?
Was he joking?
Was he being deliberately provocative?
Was the media exaggerating an off-the-cuff comment?
Or had a presidential nominee used language that carried implications he should have recognized before saying it?
Those questions produced different answers depending on who was listening.
But there was no dispute about the words themselves.
“Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.”
Trump left the sentence unfinished.
The country spent the next several days arguing about how to finish it.