I'm sure you know as we have gone over this ad infinitum. In the U.S. "assault weapon" is a legal term based on the design and function of the weapon. Not all guns are considered assault weapons nor have all guns been designed for a military assault. An assault with small arms relies on speed of the advance and the rate and accuracy of fire. There are probably thousands of types of small arms not suited for this. For example I have a single shot .22 target pistol, not very effective for an assault.
Yeah, the South used to to be Democrat. If fact they called it the "Solid South" because it voted solidly Democrat. Then came Truman, integrating the armed forces, Kennedy calling for a Civil Rights Act, and Johnson pushing for and enacting the same. On the other side, there was Nixon's Southern Strategy to entice them to switch sides. That was a "law and order" campaign of '68, full of dog whistles about the criminal black menace that Trump is pulling out of the attic war chest. So when clowns like Six-eyed Shaman try to confuse things by reminding us of the bad old days when Democrats wore sheets and the Republicans were the "Party of Lincoln"--that was long ago and far away. This is now!
How does the fact that many Democrats supported the klan in 1860's explain the roots of gun control which could be said to have started in 1934 by Franklin Roosevelt’s National Firearms Act which was enacted to combat gangsters such as "Machine Gun Kelly"? I'm interested.
1) The Klan is and always was about white men owning guns. 2) They were all about terrorizing colored people. 3) I've told you several times about the political party shift of 1972 ... when all the racist bigots went to Nixon and the Republican Party. 4) Have you ever heard of the NAACP? Do you know what NAACP stands for? How far did you get in high school?
It’s a specious argument and 6 knows it. The democratic party of yesterday is the republican party of today.
Yep, the Republican party was the progressive party until 1909, when it moved to the right and the Democratic party became the progressive party.
Do you notice again the right wingers are nitpicking about history and not denying the argument? They seem to be just accepting that these armed right wingers would support a right wing authoritarian regime if it happened (or even help to bring it about) But they don’t seem to be against that either Which begs the question do the vocal right wingers, the ones that post on forums actually support democracy and freedom or would they let that slide in favour of their ideology been in power?
Probably they would support an actual democracy, that is rule by majority, not law, as they tend to have herd mentality. What they will oppose is a democratic republic if that republic recognizes injustice by the majority and they are part of that majority. The majority in this sense doesn't have to a per capita majority, it could be a minority that possesses the majority of power.
Excellent post. The gun person is not answering any external issue with the purchase of a weapon; the firearm answers an internal need or perception, it forms a part of the self identity of the gun person. and No a firearm will not save you from suppression. Firearms did not seem to help those people in St.Louis who stood on their property displaying guns while activists walked past. The DA had the guns confiscated. Rural people seem disconnected to what is going on in urban areas. its a Pleasant Valley Sunday syndrome. like that 1967 Monkees song, they go about their own little lives.