Francis Di Domizio wrote:There is no evidence that the majority of gun owners have any intention of staging an armed revolt
I don't think that was ever mentioned.
Then I think Fisticuffs needs to clarify who "these people" he was referring to when he made this statement are.
Fisticuffs wrote:Whatever it is these people are delusional and well-armed which makes them dangerous.
Francis Di Domizio wrote:If one were to apply your thinking here to race, rather than possession of firearms, would you be OK with that?
That's stupid and you know it. False equivalency.
Agreed, I failed to make my point clearly with that statement. The point I was attempting to make was that judging the guys putting up the Citadel (and I think there is plenty of valid reasons to judge them) based on the actions of several other groups who have some similar beliefs is stupid. The groups in Michigan and Tennessee are/were definitely dangerous. That doesn't automatically make the group putting up the Citadel dangerous.
Francis Di Domizio wrote:Ah, I missed where we went from discussing the Citadel to judging all heavily armed nut cases by the actions of a few.
No. The argument came from this comment and I fully agree. Are you aware of who he is speaking of?
fisticuffs wrote:As demonstrated by this guy in TN who thinks Obama is going to unilaterally take their guns and destroy the second amendment is clearly not in touch with reality. And telling his "students" to prep for civil war qualifies as dangerous all by itself.
My Google abilities are failing me, so no. Anyone have a link? That said, having a stupid opinion about what Obama's 2nd Amendment plans isn't inherently dangerous. On the other hand prepping and instructing others to prepare to respond violently to said imagined plans clearly is dangerous.