Why are gun nuts still so paranoid?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In the two years the Democrats have controlled Congress, they have not even attempted to pass any gun control. Not even renewing the Assault Weapons Ban, something that Bush wouldn't have stood in the way of. It's quite obvious the AWB is beyond dead.

Obama ran an ad featuring his endorsement by a lifetime NRA member openly saying he supported the 2nd Amendment. And basically endorsed DC vs. Heller.

It's quite obvious the Democrats have no intention of pushing for any gun control for the foreseeable future, yet for some reason the gun nuts are still terrified of this (see the surge in gun sales in light of Obama's elections) and more delusional folks on message boards raving about how the AWB is sure to come back despite what was said above. It's as if they must always live in a perpetual state of fear and paranoia against a non-existant threat. At least the voters seem to be waking up and rejecting the NRA's scare campaigns and meaningless boogeymen.

[dead0man]

Some gun nuts are freaking out, but not most and certainly not all.  There are a lot of very pro gun people on this message board and you don't see us freaking out do you?  From the looks of it, the good guys have won the gun debate in this country.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Society is based on pitting people against any number of real or imagined bogeymen. For some people, that happens to be the possibility of them losing their right to own firearms. In reality though, the side of less government control has won out.

[© tweed]

because the gun issue tends to be an emotional rather than an intellectual issue, so people respond with their hearts, not their minds.

[Person Man]

If they weren't freaking out about their guns being taken away by someone who doesn't want to take away their guns, what would they do?

[Nym90]

because the gun issue tends to be an emotional rather than an intellectual issue, so people respond with their hearts, not their minds.

True.

Also, the NRA, being that it represents business interests, has an active interest in promoting the party of business.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Some gun nuts are freaking out, but not most and certainly not all.  There are a lot of very pro gun people on this message board and you don't see us freaking out do you?  From the looks of it, the good guys have won the gun debate in this country.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=87917.0

I'm not sure how you voted on your own poll, but over a quarter of the forum voted over 60%.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'm proud to say that I voted 0-20%, that being the only reasonable answer.

[dead0man]

I went 20-40.

[Lunar]

I think gun nuts are paranoid because people who are paranoid about their self defense are paranoid (and non-hunting handguns are the most likely guns to be taken away).

I mean, normal people don't feel the need to get a gun to defend themselves unless they live in the ghetto and I don't think inner city people count as "gun nuts" usually.  In many rural and suburban places you can leave your garage door open and your door unlocked...

[CARLHAYDEN]

I think gun nuts are paranoid because people who are paranoid about their self defense are paranoid (and non-hunting handguns are the most likely guns to be taken away).

I mean, normal people don't feel the need to get a gun to defend themselves unless they live in the ghetto and I don't think inner city people count as "gun nuts" usually.  In many rural and suburban places you can leave your garage door open and your door unlocked...

I must once again disagree with the extreme left wing lunatic.

First, I have yet to see any evidence that the lunatic "thinks."

Second, I have seen considerable evidence that the lunatic engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of thought.  Those who disagree with his are "nuts" and "paranoid."

Third, he asserts that non-hunting handguns are those most likely to be taken away (thereby acknowledging that there is a real chance of such firearms being prohibited).

Fourth, he asserts that unless you live in a ghetto you don't need a firearms to defend yourself.  Hmm, wonder where he gets that idea?

Now, leaving the lunatic aside, Congress is unlikely to enact legislation attacking the right to keep and bear arms, but, sociopaths like Holder are likely to attack firearm ownership.

[Lunar]

I support gun rights, I gave up on your post mid-way and put you on ignore again though CARL for being such an insane creep.  Once you shake your obsession again I might unignore you again.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I went 20-40.

Which is still far too high.

[dead0man]

I went 20-40.

Which is still far too high.

Yeah, you're probably right.  Obama is sane. 

Congress though....

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I went 20-40.

Which is still far too high.

Yeah, you're probably right.  Obama is sane. 

Congress though....

...has made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to pass it in the past two years and has a Democratic majority largely hinging on the large number of pro-gun Democrats.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think Obama is playing everybody on this issue. He will still appoint judges who would have upheld the DC gun ban.

[Bono]

because the gun issue tends to be an emotional rather than an intellectual issue, so people respond with their hearts, not their minds.

True.

Also, the NRA, being that it represents business interests, has an active interest in promoting the party of business.

Most of NRA money comes from grassroots donations, not "business interests". You've made that claim in the forum several times, and when asked to substantiate it you've repeatedly responded with silence.

The NRA has no vested interest in electing republicans, and they have endorsed many democrats in the past, such as John Dingell, which probably is one of the reasons why the democratic leadership wasted no time in lynching him politically the moment this congress started, and even Howard Dean--not to mention many other democrats who are genuinely opposed to gun control.

What they won't do is support someone like Obama who supported extreme gun control measures and now claims he doesn't because he knows he could never have gotten elected President with those stances.

As for the OP, Obama's transition website clearly stated his intention to work for the assault weapon ban passage. Even if it weren't for that, his nominations of anti-gun extremists for the DOJ provide a way to silently choke off the firearms trade without passing a single law. Janet Reno tried to do this in the first years of the Clinton administration by refusing to renew FFL licensed or issue new ones, creating a bottleneck in distribution that even today means some law enforcement agencies have trouble getting adequate supplies--that until Clinton put the kibosh on it prior to the 1996 election because he knew it was going to get him into trouble.

EDIT: Just now read the post above. Obama is also extremely likely to appoint Justices who would take the dissent view on Heller, which is extremely dangerous given how it was decided by one vote.

[Franzl]

I think gun nuts are paranoid because people who are paranoid about their self defense are paranoid (and non-hunting handguns are the most likely guns to be taken away).

I mean, normal people don't feel the need to get a gun to defend themselves unless they live in the ghetto and I don't think inner city people count as "gun nuts" usually.  In many rural and suburban places you can leave your garage door open and your door unlocked...

I must once again disagree with the extreme left wing lunatic.

First, I have yet to see any evidence that the lunatic "thinks."

Second, I have seen considerable evidence that the lunatic engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of thought.  Those who disagree with his are "nuts" and "paranoid."

Third, he asserts that non-hunting handguns are those most likely to be taken away (thereby acknowledging that there is a real chance of such firearms being prohibited).

Fourth, he asserts that unless you live in a ghetto you don't need a firearms to defend yourself.  Hmm, wonder where he gets that idea?

Now, leaving the lunatic aside, Congress is unlikely to enact legislation attacking the right to keep and bear arms, but, sociopaths like Holder are likely to attack firearm ownership.

First, you have an extremely strange and inaccurate definition of "left-wing lunatic".

Second, what does stating one's opinion of whether owning a gun is necessary under certain conditions have to do with actively supporting gun control legislation?

Third, why do you type so many of your posts using this format?

[CARLHAYDEN]

I think gun nuts are paranoid because people who are paranoid about their self defense are paranoid (and non-hunting handguns are the most likely guns to be taken away).

I mean, normal people don't feel the need to get a gun to defend themselves unless they live in the ghetto and I don't think inner city people count as "gun nuts" usually.  In many rural and suburban places you can leave your garage door open and your door unlocked...

I must once again disagree with the extreme left wing lunatic.

First, I have yet to see any evidence that the lunatic "thinks."

Second, I have seen considerable evidence that the lunatic engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of thought.  Those who disagree with his are "nuts" and "paranoid."

Third, he asserts that non-hunting handguns are those most likely to be taken away (thereby acknowledging that there is a real chance of such firearms being prohibited).

Fourth, he asserts that unless you live in a ghetto you don't need a firearms to defend yourself.  Hmm, wonder where he gets that idea?

Now, leaving the lunatic aside, Congress is unlikely to enact legislation attacking the right to keep and bear arms, but, sociopaths like Holder are likely to attack firearm ownership.

First, you have an extremely strange and inaccurate definition of "left-wing lunatic".

Second, what does stating one's opinion of whether owning a gun is necessary under certain conditions have to do with actively supporting gun control legislation?

Third, why do you type so many of your posts using this format?

First, let me note that I was describing Lunar as a left-wing lunatic.  I did not provide a definition, but rather merely cited him as an example.  As such, my example was accurate, and that you find it "extremely strange" reflects you viewpoint.

Second, Lunar is a very dishonest poster who tries to have things both ways.  He attacks those who support libertarian positions (reread his posts and tell me how many different names he calls those who disagree with him), and when called on it, tries to say he really didn't mean what he plainly said.

Third, if you follow the long argument on the right to keep and bear arms, you will find that the advocates of denying that right frequently start out by alleging there is no "need" for firearms for self-defense.  In addition, persons in rural areas find that law enforcement response time is frequently lengthy (due largely to distances).  As such, they require firearms for self-defense (something which apparently did not occur to the lunatic).

Fourth, there are several posters on this forum who provide long, rambling (and often incoherent) posts.  I try to make mine clear, and find the format I employ useful for that purpose.

[Smash255]

I think gun nuts are paranoid because people who are paranoid about their self defense are paranoid (and non-hunting handguns are the most likely guns to be taken away).

I mean, normal people don't feel the need to get a gun to defend themselves unless they live in the ghetto and I don't think inner city people count as "gun nuts" usually.  In many rural and suburban places you can leave your garage door open and your door unlocked...

I must once again disagree with the extreme left wing lunatic.

First, I have yet to see any evidence that the lunatic "thinks."

Second, I have seen considerable evidence that the lunatic engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of thought.  Those who disagree with his are "nuts" and "paranoid."

Third, he asserts that non-hunting handguns are those most likely to be taken away (thereby acknowledging that there is a real chance of such firearms being prohibited).

Fourth, he asserts that unless you live in a ghetto you don't need a firearms to defend yourself.  Hmm, wonder where he gets that idea?

Now, leaving the lunatic aside, Congress is unlikely to enact legislation attacking the right to keep and bear arms, but, sociopaths like Holder are likely to attack firearm ownership.

First, you have an extremely strange and inaccurate definition of "left-wing lunatic".

Second, what does stating one's opinion of whether owning a gun is necessary under certain conditions have to do with actively supporting gun control legislation?

Third, why do you type so many of your posts using this format?

First, let me note that I was describing Lunar as a left-wing lunatic.  I did not provide a definition, but rather merely cited him as an example.  As such, my example was accurate, and that you find it "extremely strange" reflects you viewpoint.

Second, Lunar is a very dishonest poster who tries to have things both ways.  He attacks those who support libertarian positions (reread his posts and tell me how many different names he calls those who disagree with him), and when called on it, tries to say he really didn't mean what he plainly said.

Third, if you follow the long argument on the right to keep and bear arms, you will find that the advocates of denying that right frequently start out by alleging there is no "need" for firearms for self-defense.  In addition, persons in rural areas find that law enforcement response time is frequently lengthy (due largely to distances).  As such, they require firearms for self-defense (something which apparently did not occur to the lunatic).

Fourth, there are several posters on this forum who provide long, rambling (and often incoherent) posts.  I try to make mine clear, and find the format I employ useful for that purpose.

Of course your lying your full head off, but nothing else should be expected.  Those who favor gun-control rarely if ever make the suggestion that we should take all guns away, or guns for self-defense shouldn't be needed.  The argument is about, having stringent background checks, registration, or not in order to make sure psychopaths are less likely to get their hands on guns.  The argument is about keeping certain guns, which really have no self-defense value off the streets.

[Bono]

I have a dream that one day people who want to make the second amendment dead letter will be treated with the same disgust as those who would do the same to the first--not that the two groups don't overlap.

[Smash255]

I have a dream that one day people who want to make the second amendment dead letter will be treated with the same disgust as those who would do the same to the first--not that the two groups don't overlap.

Do you suggest we allow people to yell fire in a crowded place again even if no fire exists?

[Bono]

I have a dream that one day people who want to make the second amendment dead letter will be treated with the same disgust as those who would do the same to the first--not that the two groups don't overlap.

Do you suggest we allow people to yell fire in a crowded place again even if no fire exists?

Depends. If they have good reason to believe there might be a fire, I think they should be allowed to do so, otherwise there is a chilling effect that might lead people not to yell fire when there is a fire for fear they may be wrong.

But I'll answer what you're really asking. Just as yelling fire in a crowded place when one knows there is no fire is already covered under tort law, and possibly fraud as well, just like criminals already can't get guns legally. All of those other things you mention would never survive the same scrutiny that is applied to the first amendment, because of the burdens they place on the exercise of a right.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I have a dream that one day people who want to make the second amendment dead letter will be treated with the same disgust as those who would do the same to the first--not that the two groups don't overlap.

Uh, here's the results from a Quinnipiac poll from July, 2008:

"Would you support or oppose amending the United States Constitution to ban individual gun ownership?"
 
                      Support         Oppose       Unsure    
                          %                   %               %    
 7/8-13/08        17                  78                6

[Smash255]

I have a dream that one day people who want to make the second amendment dead letter will be treated with the same disgust as those who would do the same to the first--not that the two groups don't overlap.

Uh, here's the results from a Quinnipiac poll from July, 2008:

"Would you support or oppose amending the United States Constitution to ban individual gun ownership?"
 
                      Support         Oppose       Unsure    
                          %                   %               %    
 7/8-13/08        17                  78                6

Of course you leave out the other portion of that poll.....


"Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?"
               
   
                  Support      Oppose    Unsure         
7/8-13/08     54%       40%       5%