The implied threat comes from the gun-nut ranting about 'doing something' about the Libbies and the series of school shootings. If this was purely a debate between responsible gun owners and gun control advocates there would be no implied threat. However the echo-chambers of conspiracy theorists on the internet has changed civil discourse.There is no threat implied with the first one. 2nd amendment is about guns. It shows the number target of the latest round of anti-gun hysteria...the AR platform. IE protected your gun rights...even the scary looking ones.
This is not a statement that appears in any translation of any of Freud's works, as you sort of get at. So its an 'argument from authority' fallacy based on a misquote (also based on a very scientifically questionable authority, but that is another thread entirely.IF it evokes fear in some people, that is their problem as they have an underlying pathology: as Siggy Frued is attributed (rightly or wrongly): "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity".
"Beware of misquotes on the Internet." —Abraham Lincoln
Except as any muslim apologist will tell you , Jihad can (who freakin knows, should?) be taken as an internal struggle and therefore is not explicitly supporting violence. Nor is explicitly supporting violence strictly illegal as any good IRA apologist will tell you (completely different, their music is like way better). Do think the Mormons and the Rasta's have a better point than the Sikhs do.Jihad is not covered by freedom of religion. Its a criminal act and no different than say Rasta's saying smoking weed is protected, or mormons having a dozen wives.
No argument here. But sadly that has more to do with the concentration of media and its new economics than anything else.The states are on their way to a 'The Tyranny of the Least and the Dumbest'....and Canada is about 20years behind them...but RUNNING to catch up.