Trump Fallacy?

In this tweet by Mr. Trump on September 16, 2016 he tweeted:

Crooked Hillary wants to take your 2nd Amendment rights away. Will guns be taken from her heavily armed Secret Service detail? Maybe not!

I am trying to identify the fallacy in this tweet. I feel he could be using it to point out as an inconsistency ad hominem against Hillary but also I'm leaning towards red herring for Trump. Or I could be completely off the wall completely. Any insight would be appreciated.

Two issues:

1. “Crooked Hillary wants to take your 2nd Amendment rights away.” While not empowered as President to vacate the 2nd Amendment, Sec. Clinton COULD as President (IMOP, largely thru appointment of like-minded SC Justices) conceivably alter what is presently in place, i.e., as status quo gun-owner ‘rights’ under this Amendment. These ‘Rights’ are effectively dependent on SC interpretation. In a Clinton Administration firearms owners might find themselves on a government master list, semi-automatic rifles may become prohibited, people having a prior mental illness or appearing on a no-fly watch list may be denied the ‘right’ to own firearms, etc., etc. Democrats have argued for each of these measures.
The point is, none of these so called ‘rights’ are specifically enumerated within the 2nd Amendment and are basically subject to the whims of the SC. While many people believe that the latitude for gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment needs to be greatly reined in, Trump’s voter base believes the incumbent interpretation for ownership needs to be preserved. While the charge of “Take away your….rights” may be rhetorically excessive, the prospect for radically altering America’s gun-ownership status quo under a Clinton Administration is very real; thus, I have no problem with Trump’s remark in this context.

2. Trump makes the argument that Clinton is being inconsistent in (advocating for) making it much more difficult for average citizens to own guns for self protection, while maintaining a round-the-clock armed presence of Secret Service agents protecting her & family.
While this is arguably a non sequitur, it is an effective emotional argument roughly similar to yesteryear’s “Not old enough to drink, not old enough to fight” i.e., being drafted into the military. (The fact that eighteen-year olds were considered most pliable to ‘take that hill’ does not compensate for their alleged emotional immaturity to, e.g., drink & drive responsibly.) In both cases, emotions are stirred to the desired end of dissuading votes for the opponent. While I get the fallacy of this, in a political context I consider it arguably de minimis when compared to the plethora of blatant misrepresentations and fabrications of fact uttered by both candidates, i.e., politics as usual.

It's like a bad meme. As long as you don't think about it, it has an emotional appeal. The moment you do think about (for those who think), it falls apart. Non sequitur is the most apt fallacy in this case, mostly because the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the secret service carrying guns—they are the part of the government. So logically, it's the same as Trump saying

Crooked Hillary wants to take your 2nd Amendment rights away. Will donuts melt in the back seat of a yellow dump truck? Maybe not!