Is it time to talk about guns?

Glad you brought that up.

Here is the definition of an assault weapon as per the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 in regards to long guns:

Now if the bottom rifle has two or more of the above, then it is considered an assault weapon as per the noted law.
but all that is beside the point. Let's go back to my previous post and I'll modify it to fit your pictures..
The complete failure to recognize contradictions.
A perfect example is the statement that bottom weapon is no more dangerous than the top weapon.
Yet when I then suggest we get rid of the bottom weapon as the top weapon is just as dangerous and would therefore serve the same purpose and work just as well, and it would make the anti gun nuts happy yet still allow you to do the same thing, as you contend both guns are the same except for looks, you don't agree.

Why is that? I don't get it.

 

Never said that. I did hint that I am applying logic and a better thinking process, although I didn't come out and say it.

Why not tell me what is wrong with my thinking process and logic in post #1975 ?
Maybe I'm wrong.
Tell me where I erred.

 

I don't quite follow this.
Yes the Bill of Rights contains amendments.
Yes, I agree the Constitution can be changed.
Yes, I agree my opinions aren't always right or at least seen to be right by others.
The part I don't get is your claim that you think the Constitution can be changed. I had thought you considered the 2nd to be set in stone?
Am I wrong? You agree we can just throw the 2nd out if we want to?

Well that went over your head.

Allow me to explain. The idea that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to shoot him negates an entire spectrum of other ways to stop a bad guy with a gun. For instance don't let him get a gun in the first place.

No, the first thing you do is take away the stick and make sure he or she can't get it again. Then you go on to discipline and instruction.

Another one over your head.

 

Did I say everyone?
I think it is better than the people who are against reasonable gun laws and can't offer rational reasons for doing so.
Now, if they can come up with valid reasons, that would be good.

But this talk about assault weapons being the same as every other weapon, they just look scarier,
Knifes are just as dangerous as guns.
Why don't we outlaw cars?
Only criminals shoot people, not law abiding citizens (who then become criminals).
The idea that the 2nd can't be changed, reinterpreted, or thrown out all together.
Violence is the only solution to violence.

Stuff like that makes me question the thought process of many people.


And by the way, what are your thoughts about post #1975 ?

 

Which law are you referring to?

 

I was asking you about your opinion about my post concerning:
The belief that the Constitution is inviolate,
The belief that the Constitution is not open to interpretation,
The complete failure to recognize contradictions,
The lack of understanding of magnitude,
and
The reliance on force and violence to solve all problems.

But I'll respond to the picture you posted.
Let's look at the text:
The fact that the government would even consider repealing the Second Amendment is the very reason for which it was written.

So this goes back to my post about the belief that the Constitution is inviolate. It assumes there is no mechanism written into the Constitution that allows for change. Further it implies that a change to the Constitution is anti American and therefore a reason to overthrow the government by force of arms.
And it supposes that that's why the 2nd was written, so that if a change to the 2nd was ever even considered we should take up arms and shoot people in the government.
It's just too ridiculous to even consider to be rational.

Second it implies someone seriously wants to repeal the 2nd. Again ridiculous.
As you stated it's just a silly picture intended to stir up the rubes and make them fear that all their guns will be taken by some storm troopers in government garb.

Now onto militias.
There are two types of militias in the U.S., well organized government sanctioned such as the Idaho National Guard which is controlled by the state government and private civilian vigilante ones such as the Proud Boys. I suspect the Idaho Militia flag in the picture represents a private civilian vigilante militia although I can't find anything on them.
Perhaps they are the North Idaho Militia who seem to be some sort of religious militia as they place a god above the laws of the government.

And unlike well organized state militias which are formed to protect the state and national government they reserve the right to overthrow those very governments, if they see fit.

They believe in violent overthrow:

They don't believe the government has a right to "force" obedience to any law it may make, so much for police forces. In other words the government has no right to make laws.

And so on. Lots of contradictions and silly talk and rules.

So you are correct in your assessment of these private militias as far as I'm concerned.