Why are gun nuts still so paranoid?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

Yes, but how many of those people support restrictions that would never be acceptable if the same scrutiny that is applied to the first amendment was applied to the second?
Besides, many of those 17% are in positions of power to shape public opinion, and thus what is acceptable or not. That is why it's still politically and socially acceptable to attack this one fundamental constitutional right.

[Bono]

Here it is, straight from El Presidenté's mouth:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bono]

Obama must be the only politician whose supporters hope will break his promises.

[Bono]

Looks like we'll have a pro-gun senator from New York. Carolyn McCarthy is threatening to primary her! Hilarious.

[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.

True, they have supported Democrats who support their positions. I should've said the ideology of business, not necessarily the party of business. My main point was that I think gun control has been transformed in the media into a social and cultural issue when it is in actuality (in terms of the reality of how it is handed politically) an economic issue.

The fact that the primary source of their donations is from the grassroots doesn't necessarily say anything about where their sympathies lie, or whose interests they primarily serve; it speaks more to the effectiveness of their organization and PR efforts (in transforming the public's view of the issue from an economic one to a social/cultural one, as per above) than anything else. I certainly would never deny that they have been an extremely effective group in that regard.

I do believe the NRA deserves commendation for their many gun safety programs and such, and I certainly agree with the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. I think they go way too far in a lot of respects (plastic guns, cop-killer bullets, "jack booted thugs", etc.). The first two would be the best examples of serving business interests ahead of all else, in my view.

Really? Did you poll NRA members and found that their views on those issues were opposed to the official NRA positions?

Let me ask this in another way. What would could as evidence that the NRA represents their constituency and aren't just a proxy for business interests? I have a feeling the answer will be supporting policies you yourself support.

BTW, I'm deligted to hear Howard Dean is really a believer in the "ideology of business"....

[Bono]

I had totally forgotten about this, but contrary to what the OP states, the democratic congress not only tried to pass, but actually pass the Brady Bill expansion which puts thousands of new people into the prohibited person list for background check purposes.