The Bizarre Paranoia of Gun Owners

[mikeb302000]

Of course it's not average gun owners, and it certainly doesn't start with them, but whether from the NRA or the GOA, as in this case, the marching orders go out and they are to be afraid.

http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2011/08/03/can-our-gun-rights-survive-boehner-and-reids-new-super-congress/">Andrew Breitbart's Big Government published an article, opinion piece I suppose you could call it, although the dissemination of marching orders is never maligned with the title op-ed. It comes off more like an announcement.

No wonder Gun Owners of America (GOA) was sounding an alarm as the debt bill moved toward a final vote on Tuesday. They warned us that the “Super Congress” could pass gun control where there is neither filibuster nor Speaker of the House to intervene, and then “22 liberal Republicans can join the Congressional Democrats and the President in closing the gun show ‘loophole,’ banning semi-automatic weapons, creating a national handgun registration, or ordering state gun laws moot.” (Keep in mind there are plenty of John McCain’s out there in the Republican Party who’d cross the aisle in a heartbeat to shut down gun shows.)

Can you believe these guys? The U.S. economy is on the brink of imploding, we're engaged in four foreign wars, the oceans are dying and what are they concerned with? Congress COULD pass gun control.

It often seems the gun folks want to be persecuted. When persecution doesn't exist, they pretend it does. They say it COULD happen. I believe the gun manufacturers are behind all this, all the nonsense of stocking up on guns and ammo when Obama got elected, all the exaggerated claims about the UN small Arms Treaty, and now it's this, the Super Congress.

I figure it's the gun manufacturers even more than the gun rights organizations because the manufacturers have more to gain. It's simple.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[Orrex]

1. I like where this thread is going.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Many progressives are concerned about the Super Congress in many ways. That you are not says a lot

about you and your knowledge of how this nation works. Then again, considering where you live...

[mikeb302000]

9. actually I am concerned about that

and many other aspects of our government under Obama which has turned out to be more-or-less the same as under Bush.

My point with the post was that gun folks are the ones unconcerned except when it touches their sacred KBA.

But you got that, you just wanted to take a swipe at me, a personal attack, rather than contribute something.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Well, this IS the "Guns" forum. There are other forums for other issues. N/T

[SteveM]

29. we noted you rather sweeping "personal attack" in the OP subject line. nt

[SteveM]

31. Oh, and a correction: It's RKBA, not "KBA." Typo? Forget "Right?"

Perhaps because you don't think it is a right? Tell us.

[mikeb302000]

38. actually it was a typo

but you've given me a great idea to leave the "right" out. That WOULD make more sense. Maybe I could call it the DKBA, the "desire."

[SteveM]

58. So, you don't think the Second grants an individual right? Why?

[gejohnston]

33. I agree with the first line to some degree,

there is only so much the executive branch can do.
The second line is a mischaracterisation. An understandable one given where you are at. It is not that gun folks or anyone else is unconcerned, they are in the dark with 95 percent of the population. The same multinational corporations who stand to profit from a disaster also own the same news outlets. The problem has more to do with concentration of ownership and overpaid and under qualified infotainment personalities spending more time on some celebrity's personal problems than anything else.
On a more local level to me, Rick Scott got a slim plurality in a five way race. What helped him most? The media, even in the Tampa area, never mentioned Medicare fraud until a couple of days after the election.
I understand that is roughly how Berlusconi got elected.

[iverglas]

25. "..."

Then again, considering where you live...

I find myself unable to complete that sentence in my head, although you seem to be suggesting I should be able to.

Considering that the poster is a US citizen living in Italy ... yes? Can you help me out here?

Considering that the poster is a US citizen living in Italy ... you say that ..., the conclusion is that ..., we should think ..., ... what?

[gejohnston]

34. that he is out of touch with

what is going on, why including our dreadful infotainment that passes for news.

[mikeb302000]

39. on my last visit

I was fascinated by the American TV. Those commercials for so-called medicines. Incredible.

But, do you really think one need be in the U.S. most or all of the time in order to be in touch with the gun politics?

[gejohnston]

60. Judging from you knowledge of it

It might help. But it seems to me that you are more in the propaganda business than actually exploring the issue in any depth. It shows your use of loaded words and smear terms. You link to a blog entry that uses similar smear terms and writes factually incorrect information, and uses some blog as her source.
You have your view, fine. But you flog those views as facts without backing them up. You also tend to use loaded words and make accusations of a group of people you do not know, again based on little or nothing. After doing this, you claim to be an objective observer.

[gejohnston]

4. You are using Andrew Breibart as a source?

and you are taking this asshole seriously? And that is an insult to assholes. This guy makes Faux look like the BBC. He makes the National Enquirer look like the Times of London. Or to put it another way, I honestly think you jumped the shark on this one.
the "super congress" is all about economics.

edited to be less offensive and blunt.

[iverglas]

70. you are alleging that someone is using Andrew Breitbart as a source?

Abandon the cowardly question marks. The statement is yours. Own it.

It's a false statement, in that the only thing Breitbart is used as a "source" for is right-wingery of the first water: the SUBJECT of the post.

Breitbart is a "source" for what the right wing says. A primary source, one might say.

If the subject is what the right wing is saying ... what better source could there be than the right wing??


and you are taking this asshole seriously?

Does no one take him seriously? I tend to take someone seriously if my enemies take them seriously, myself.

And I fail to see how very different what this one said is from what gets said around here regularly.



edited to be less offensive and blunt.

I can think of a better reason to have edited, but it seems to have eluded you.




p.s. Having a bit of an open tab clear-out after a couple of days off following that eye procedure ... had wanted to say this at the time, and it still needs said.

[frebrd]

5. To the Ignore List eom

[Populist_Prole]

6. It does seem like paranoia

I'm pro-gun, but by no means is it a "litmus test" single issue for me, and I see too many in the pro-gun community being paranoid of the Obama administration for absolutely no reason. Just another ginned up reason for some to be anti-Obama for, I would surmise, mostly racial reasons. I mean really; Clinton was unabashedly anti-gun ( and I believe he was wrong about that issue ) and even more corporatatist than Obama has turned out to be, but Obama never ran on an anti-gun platform, has not even suggested the slightest scintilla of anti-gun rhetoric, yet I hear people, many who were more or less apolitical before his election, being strongly anti-Obama and right wing in general. It's bullshit. The same tea party rhetoric that calls him an anti-business socialist despite the exact opposite being true. I've lost friends over this whole dynamic...well we don't hate each other, but we've more or less drifted apart with nothing more to say to each other. In all but 1 case, they were all fairly apolotical ( and admittedly, fairly ignorant as well ) before the present administration. I blame the whole fox news bullshit machine.

[gejohnston]

7. Mind if I make a slight edit?

I blame the whole faux news bullshit machine.

Thank you.

[Populist_Prole]

8. Not in the least

I deliberately ( spitefully ) refused to refer to them with all due capitalization already, but "faux news" works just as well for me. Not that the typical ignoramus viewer of them would understand the word faux, being one of them "furrin" words.

I'll even go one better. I'll even rec this thread.

[pipoman]

15. Well, not completely..

"...paranoid of the Obama administration for absolutely no reason."

"..Obama never ran on an anti-gun platform, has not even suggested the slightest scintilla of anti-gun rhetoric,"..

Obama absolutely did and has both suggested and ran on a platform including a plank for gun control. Reauthorizing the failed 'assault weapons ban', putting limitations on magazine capacities are among his stated objectives. His past positions on gun control while involved in IL politics are another indicator which justifies at least some skepticism about his legislative intentions. Since he has been in office, I have been pleasantly surprised he has not made any real moves on this issue. To say concern was not justified is ridiculous and the two quotes above are simply erroneous.

[mikeb302000]

17. me too

Fox News gets lots of blame in the big picture. In the smaller sub-picture called gun culture, it's the NRA and the GOA and some big pro-gun bloggers.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. You wail about something you know nothing about to flog your blog

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Obama did run on an anti-gun platform.

His website wanted the AWB to be made permenant. At that time the AWB that was in congress was a far stricter one than the original.

Further he was against concealed carry, although it was as a Senator in 2006, but he has never recanted his statement He supported a national ban on concealed carry laws. Here is a video of Obama himself since you likely won't believe me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-4jqZSEo0Q

[mikeb302000]

40. that is total bullshit

Obama did no such thing. He was trumped up as the anti-christ by the gun people. They turned out to be wrong.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. Obama's own web site endorsed a renewed AWB.

Do you deny Obama's own words on Concealed Carry?

Obama voted AGAINST the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005.

Obama voted for the 2005 Kennedy amendment that would have outlawed most center-fire rifle ammunition.

A candidates record of votes, unless he recants the votes, is ALWAYS part of what he has to run on. You don't get to make up your own facts.

[mikeb302000]

67. in your desperate need

to continue being the persecuted victim, you're still repeating Obama's congressional record as proof that he's gonna take our guns away.

Get a grip, man. Look what's happened in the last three years.

Maybe you're just too embarrassed to admit you were duped by the NRA.

[Atypical Liberal]

45. This is provably false.

that is total bullshit Obama did no such thing. He was trumped up as the anti-christ by the gun people. They turned out to be wrong.

This is provably false.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

This was also on www.whitehouse.gov for the first couple of months of Obama's presidency.

In February after the election, Obama's appointed Attorney General, Eric Holder, floated the idea of re-instating the assault weapons ban. This was soundly shouted down by leading members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. Again you are clearly out of touch

[X_Digger]

54. nvm, I see Atypical addressed this.. n/t

[SteveM]

59. Here's a quote which should clear up a thing or two...

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."
-- A.G. Holder, Feb. 2009, as a member of Obama Administration.

Pay particular attention to the suggestion of multiple "changes:"

"...a few gun-related changes..." and "...among them would be..."

Do you have any information as to the other "changes?" If so, please let us know. That would be a good source for an ORIGINAL o.p.

[SteveM]

32. Please consider: Virtually all pro-2A folks in this forum voted Obama...

And likely will vote for him again. But consider also that Obama has a very strong track record advocating for severe gun-control laws, his A.G. has a similar record (including advocacy while holding his current post). Finally, consider there are likely well over 80,000,000 gun owners in this nation, and by the numbers they can't possibly have voted single-issue. The crux of the matter is there are several million single-issue "gun voters" out there the Democrats seem to have ignored -- at their own peril. They play a vital role in tilting elections to the GOPers in close races and in swing districts.

I hate to say it, but the GOP can run this single-issue for years to come, just "burning the fat" off the Democratic Party's entrenched history of gun-control advocacy; it doesn't help to have both Holder and Pelosi waving it in the face of on-the-fence "gun rights" voters. The issue of gun-control is only in dormancy within the Democratic establishment because they have been beaten bloody over it, time and again.

Would you feel assured if (the long late) Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, having somehow been elected president, said that blacks had no fear his administration would pass laws controlling and restricting them? I wouldn't feel so. That's because of his record.

[Atypical Liberal]

46. +1

Wish I could upvote here.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[villager]

11. well, their paranoia dictates their rote unreccing of this thread

all part & parcel, really...

[pipoman]

16. Not really..

the unrecing is mostly due to this posters insistence on flogging his blog in every thread started and not participating on DU much beyond his own blog spamming threads.

[mikeb302000]

18. thanks for saying that

and what about their over-the-top nastiness?

[villager]

27. There's that, too...

;-)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

52. I for one unrec for his blog flogging

The rest of his stuff is pretty juvenile but I do not normally unrec for content

[era veteran]

12. Bullets

I heard that muslin was going to tax our bullets at a $1.00 each.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

13. A relative keeps his bullets in his safe so's the admin cannot get his ammo. I went over

and asked him if I could stash my pellets for my pellet rifle in there cuz I was skeert too.. heh!!!!

[DWC]

49. Outstanding .gif

Where did you get it?

Are more available?


I know this queston is off topic but I am impressed.

Semper Fi,

[HysteryDiagnosis]

55. I'll have to backtrack to find where it came from.... give me some time, I'm not a cookie

monster, (Don't save anything)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

56. Don't know if this where I found it but here it is just the same.

http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/powersup.htm

[DWC]

63. Very close. Thanks! n/t

[ileus]

14. Go anywhere and look at the ammo and firearms on the shelves...then you'll know this story is BS

Any place I've went into the past 2 years had plenty of ammo and a abundance of firearms to choose from.

Even 380 SD ammo is even affordable and everywhere.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. The GOA is really extremist. They make the NRA look like moderates.

They are also a single-issue organization. They are guns and guns ONLY. So why are you surpised that they talk about guns in a bad economy or even in a good economy?

[spin]

22. One big difference between the NRA and the GOA is that the NRA does support some Democrats ...

while the GOA doesn't.

GOA Lacks Credibility on 2nd Amendment Bipartisanship
By Sebastian on Jul 15, 2010

n order for the Second Amendment to be truly preserved, it must have support of both of our major political parties. That's evidenced by the fact that in the most Democratic Conresss a generation, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has not only been preserved, but has been enhanced, and we owe much of that support from pro-gun Democrats, including Harry Reid.

Gun Owners of America has once again shown that it is unwilling to help make supporting the Second Amendment a bipartisan issue, and it is shameful. Shameful that Gun Owners of America, in the 2008 election cycle, spent less than 200 dollars supporting pro-gun Democrats. In contrast, National Rifle Association, which is a bipartisan Second Amendment advocacy group, spent almost 1300 times as much supporting pro-gun Democrats, despite still spending 78% of its PAC money supporting Republican candidates. In the 2010 election cycle so far, NRA has spent infinitely more money supporting pro-gun Democrats, spending close to 150,000 dollars compared with GOA's whopping $0.

But I don't just want to focus on Gun Owners of America's poor record of supporting a bipartisan Second Amendment. I'd also like to address their double standard when it comes to Republican pro-gun candidates versus Democratic pro-gun candidates. Their opposition to Senate Majority Leader Reid is a prime example of this.

***snip***

It's certainly true that conservatives have plenty of reasons to be upset about Harry Reid, but Gun Owners of America bills itself as a gun rights group, not a partisan conservative group. But you'd never know it from their actions. The fact is that Harry Reid is solid on the Second Amendment. We’ve gotten more out of the Senate under Reid than we got out of Republicans in the roughly 14 years they ran things. Harry Reid is not perfect, but there’s no politician that has a voting perfect record, and many that have records on guns comparable to Reid which GOA grades highly. I will leave it to you to determine whether GOA have any credibility at all when it comes to help making sure the Second Amendment is protected by both parties.To me the answer is clear, and it's been obvious for a while Gun Owners of America is more interested in tearing down others in order to promote itself, than it is about keeping this important right for future generations.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/goa-lacks-credibility-on-2nd-amendment-bipartisanship

[mikeb302000]

41. I'm not surprised

I just want to put their single-issue in perspective.

[rrneck]

23. The OP is a fine example of what the OP is talking about.

People like Breitbart on the right an Olberman on the left are in the business of profit from ideology. They make a good living flogging various ideologies for money. They are basically ideological distributors. Arianna Huffington successfully worked both sides of the ideological street and got rich doing it.

The ideologies they distribute come from an industry with producers like Heritage Foundation, Club for Growth, Joyce Foundation, and the Center for American Progress. These industry giants research, test, develop and distribute ideology through professional bloviators like those mentioned above to be installed in the political motivations of voters and politicians alike.

There are of course niche market providers like the GOA and VPC. As subsidiaries of the major ideological producers they are able to exploit hot button emotional markets and wedge issues for greater, yet more narrowly focused emotional profit.

And of course at the very bottom end of the ideology distribution food chain are the small independent distributors who cabbage onto whatever they can get from the refuse of the big players without regard for the quality of the product in an effort to wiggle their way into a competitive market. These "sandwich board distributors" use whatever ideological refuse they can get for free in the hope of leveraging it into a more profitable position with organizational backing for their bloviational aspirations. Unfortunately, with no original ideas of their own they will always be behind the cultural curve, dependent on whatever ideology they can get from the ideological "close out bin" in a sad effort to squeeze a few meager moments of attention from it before it becomes completely irrelevant.

Unrec for blog flogging.

[DWC]

50. Extremely well stated. Thank You! n/t

[iverglas]

24. "When persecution doesn't exist, they pretend it does."

THIS IS the song of the right wing in this decade. Every day, in every way, they are persecuted.

Able-bodied white men are discriminated against so many ways you can't count 'em.

The vicious outfits that meet with objection when try to invade university campuses with their giant billboards depicting lynched African-Americans and starved Holocaust victims in their crusade against women and meet with groundswells of opposition scream "free speech" ... and then sue.

Every ugly outgrowth of the right wing has its own persecution complex, carefully trumped up in order to use rights and freedoms AGAINST people whose rights and freedoms are actually in jeopardy.

The gun militant outgrowth is very expert at it.

It's the gun manufacturers? Not when you get to the bottom of it ... except to the extent that it's generally impossible to untangle the corporate interests from the political interests of the right wing.

[Atypical Liberal]

47. Ain't it funny?

Every ugly outgrowth of the right wing has its own persecution complex, carefully trumped up in order to use rights and freedoms AGAINST people whose rights and freedoms are actually in jeopardy.

Ain't it funny how rights and freedoms protect even people you don't like? Then they are just "trumped up persecution complex(es)".

[iverglas]

57. Ain't it funny

Ain't it funny how rights and freedoms protect even people you don't like?

how I didn't say anything about liking or not liking anybody?

If you think Horowitz and his fellow travellers in all outgrowths of the ugly right wing are persecuted, well, I guess you're one of the fellow travellers ... although you wouldn't actually think that any more than he does.

If you think that putting up billboards of lynched African-Americans and starved Jews and other victims of the Nazis and drawing a direct connection between their killers and women who terminate pregnancies is something to defend to the death, you feel free.

Don't let the fact that the deaths in question will be the deaths of women, not you, bother you.


Then they are just "trumped up persecution complex (es)".

Can you occasionally try to make sense?

How in the fuck can "rights and freedoms" BE "persecution complex (es)"?

Since I did not say anything remotely as moronic as that, why are you?

[Atypical Liberal]

65. Old obtuse iverglas.

I'm not in the mood the play semantic games with you tonight, sorry. I'm sure everyone understood what I said, even you.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

28. Noted your usual distortions:

SUBJECT LINE: "The Bizarre Paranoia of Gun Owners"

Then the text: "Of course it's not average gun owners..."

Covering your behind again, so you can't be characterized as stereotyping tens of millions of Americans? Try doing it in the subject line, esp. since your final focus is much smaller in scope: "I figure it's the gun manufacturers..." who are guilty of your latest listing of sins.

I would point out that most of the gun-control measures you listed have been pushed by the gun-control lobby, and some have been pushed by the president and numerous members of Congress. I find it "bizarre" that you seem unaware of this.

[mikeb302000]

42. Steve, you sound a little sensitive

Starting with the title of the post, I drew a picture of what I'm talking about. If it does not apply to you, if you are in the majority of responsible and mentally healthy gun owners, then what's your complaint?

[Hoopla Phil]

35. It is not paranoia to recognize that people do in fact want to take away gun rights from lawful

owners. Do these quotes sound familiar?

"So, you better stock up on guns and ammo while you can because once we destroy the second we may just decide to come for your guns after all."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x438276#438536


My ideal world would have the worst half of the present lawful gunowners disarmed for various reasons that make them unfit. The other half would be of such a high quality as a group, everyone would be happy. That's basically what I envision.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=443656&mesg_id=445151


They should sound familiar, YOU wrote them. Another gem of in site to a gun control advocate.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." from Dianne Feinstein.

It is not paranoia to acknowledge that there ARE in fact people that want to ban and confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens of the U.S. Who was it that said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance? Anyhow, the price of my gun rights is to be ever vigil against the slippery slope that leads to bans and/or confiscation.

edit for spelling

Oh and another edit: Did ya'll hear that AAC is now going to start producing their own rifles? The first ones off the line will be in 300 BLK. I've already put an order in for one with a 16" barrel. I may put another order in on a 10.5 inch barrel as well.

[mikeb302000]

43. you're wrong to characterize that as

"taking away rights." It's nothing of the kind. What I propose would weed out some (many) of the bad apples. The responsible and fit gun owners would be unaffected. You would lose no rights by being required to pass stricter background checks and get licensed and register your guns. You'd be fine, but many of the straw purchasers and "hidden criminals" among you would be out of business.

[Atypical Liberal]

48. Stricter how?

You would lose no rights by being required to pass stricter background checks...

How would you make them different from the current NICS check?

..and get licensed and register your guns.

What do you think this would accomplish?

Also?

Is it true that you live in Italy?

[Hoopla Phil]

51. When someone says that their goal is to ban and confiscate guns it IS a correct

characterization of loosing rights.

YOU said that you want to take guns away from HALF of LAW ABIDING gun owners - after of course saying that you want to destroy the 2A and possibly take up ALL firearms. Thank you by the way for seeing "reason". LOL

What you propose is to initiate a "pre-crime" type of system that would deny LAWFUL people their constitutionally recognized RIGHT to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights was put into place to protect people's rights from just your proposal. Thank the makers for that too!

The 2A IS in fact part of the Constitution. It is not to be ignored, or "interpreted" to mean anything other that what it was meant to do. Protect an individuals right to keep and bear arms. If you don't like it that's fine, you can lobby to have it repealed.

If you have a problem understanding my/our point of view perhaps you should consider your proposal as being applied to other civil rights - such as voting or posting on the internet. Perhaps then you may understand how draconian your proposal really is.

I am curious though on a number of things. What are these "hidden criminals" you speak of?

Also, please tell me how any of your proposals would stop criminal intent on breaking the law from . . . breaking the law?

Oh, I also note that you conveniently ignore Diane Finstien's wish to confiscate firearms as loosing rights. There ARE people that want to take away my rights, no matter how much you wish to ignore statements to that affect - either spoken by others or you yourself.

[benEzra]

36. Umm, "Gun Owners of America" != "gun owners".

GOA is considered "out there" by a lot within the gun rights movement, and their hysterics relating to the health care bill (completely unrelated to gun issues) didn't exactly enhance their credibility.

One might as well quote Earth First as representing everyone who cares about the environment, or quote Josh Sugarmann or LCAGV as representing all who support some degree of gun control. The fact that such people exist does not necessarily make them representative.

Having said that, you yourself have proposed to ban most of the guns in my gun safe on various occasions, if I remember correctly, so I don't think you can glibly dismiss all concerns about new bans on particular Title 1 guns as completely unfounded since you yourself support them.

[ileus]

37. What about the Bizarre Paranoia of non-gun owners?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. Congress should...

...concentrate on the economy, wars and oceans... and forget about guns for now.

The U.S. economy is on the brink of imploding, we're engaged in four foreign wars, the oceans are dying and what are they concerned with? Congress COULD pass gun control.

Since these things are obvious priorities maybe they should be the targets of congressional investigation and intervention.
Maybe the NRA and GOA should give up their firearm focus and deal with these bigger problems.

WAIT; the government has been dealing with the economy, wars and the oceans for years. What might really get some press?

I believe the gun manufacturers are behind all this, all the nonsense of stocking up on guns and ammo when Obama got elected, all the exaggerated claims about the UN small Arms Treaty...

Believe what you want. Oh, BTW, you sound... paranoid.

[RightNoMore]

62. Go to AR15.com if you want to see Schizoid thinking :)

That site is full of some very paranoid haters with there tinfoil on too tight.

[ileus]

64. gawd I hate that sight....My colt is #1 all others are junk.

I only go there to check the classifieds these days.

[tortoise1956]

66. Pure Crapola

First of all, any legislation from the "Super Congress" will still have to pass both houses of congress. That means that the filibuster law in the Senate is still in effect. Besides, it wouldn't get out of the House. Any legislation that includes gun control will be voted down.

Second, any attempt to use the committee to draft laws affecting any part of the bill of rights will face an immediate challenge, by members of both parties, straight to the Supreme Court.

Third, why would you believe anything that comes from the far RW? All they live for is to incite fear and loathing by any means possible.

I think we're safe for a while...

[jpak]

68. Paranoia Big Destryah

yup

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. Posted by "...a proud enemy of that part of the Constitution called the 2A."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x445998#446492

Project much?