I’ve never been around guns and have known more than one really terrible accident (let alone a couple of deaths that it was hard to call “accidental”) when guns were around the house. Nonetheless, I’ve come closer and closer to recognizing that those who ignore the 2nd amendment do not place a sufficient value on self-reliance, personal responsibility, and the lessons history can teach. Most of all, this attitude often goes hand in hand with one that distrusts not only Americans but America, values not only patriotism but appearances, and, of course, values convenient definitions of the Constitution more than the Constitution itself.

I also don’t give a damn whether people wear flag pins in their lapels or not. I didn’t wear such symbols around 9/11, don’t have bumper stickers on my car, and come from non-demonstrative people. I do, however, question Obama’s authenticity when at the debate he wears such a pin. I’ve heard what he said in the past, I see what he’s doing now: does he think we are so foolish as to think such a pin is important? Does he think we are so foolish as not to know that such a choice was more performance than felt?

Inauthenticity, like attitudes toward the 2nd amendment, are important gauges of much else.

And, in fairness, the GOA is a little crazy. They’ve used hyperbole a little too much. (I don’t even know why their press release talks about John McCain’s stance on non-gun issues.) They’re like PETA without naked chicks.

Yes, GOA thinks that McCain isn’t all that good on guns, but it thinks that Obama is significantly worse. And, when it comes to Palin vs Biden, it’s no contest.

In other words, it is fundamentally dishonest to take GOA’s McCain statement as a reason to trust Obama.

So of course I think your comment was brilliant.

One might shudder to imagine what life will be like should Obama win and be able to sic govt lawyers on those who say things he doesn’t like.

I’ll go beyond what Shannon said. Not only do you almost never address the topic on hand, but you almost always try to spike some point that you think invalidates the OP, regardless of its actual validity, relevance, or importance.

In this case, the OP said quite clearly that “Obama’s opponent has a spotty record on gun rights”, a comment which supported the rest of his argument: if Obama was even remotely pro-gun, McCain’s spotty record would be earning Obama some serious support. Yet you seem to think that, by bringing up McCain’s spotty gun-rights record, you can somehow invalidate the entire argument. I can’t comprehend what sort of confusion must be going on in your mind…

Do you realize that you almost never address the topic on hand but rather almost always try to deflect the conversation towards something you want to talk about. In my experience, this is a red flag for someone who realizes they can’t defend their point of view on the topic at hand.

So, pony up Fred, do you think that Obama really respects gun rights? Do you think it is really acceptable for him to suppress political speech critical of him?

Time to be a man, Fred.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS226564+06-Feb-2008+PRN20080206