I think the Tea Party has finally found the intellectual and inspirational successor to lead them after Dick Armey absconded with some of their corporate sponsored loot: radio talk show personality Alex Jones. Anyone watching Piers Morgan (you have better things to do with your time), or have seen the YouTube videos of the interview of Mr. Jones will probably react with a mixture of amusement and revulsion.
However, I saw all of the prerequisites of a Tea Party leader: paranoid delusions, extreme agitation, a breathtakingly ignorant understanding of history and unfocused hatred rooted in fear. At one point he voiced the belief that guns were necessary to fight the government (our government) seeking to take the guns away. I guess since the government possesses nuclear weapons, he would advocate the right of every American to own their own nuclear weapon to defend against the Government.
The bottom line to the resistance to attempts to minimize gun violence is the same paranoid delusions voiced by Mr. Jones, although they are rarely as honest as Mr. Jones. It is an irrational and illogical belief system (and they have the guns). This is one of the more convincing arguments in favor of gun control: gun nuts. You know who I mean… the same guys who claimed that Obama would take away all private guns during his first campaign. I guess that delusion has been resurrected, even though Obama has actually made it easier to purchase and carry guns!
On the other hand, the decision of AIG to sue us (i.e. the taxpayers) for bailing them out of bankruptcy could be enough to motivate a little violence of its own. It turns out that they feel that we taxpayers didn’t pay them enough to purchase the shares we did (we owned 80% of their stock at one point) to help prevent those shares from becoming totally worthless. It simply confirms our suspicion that many bankers possess greed unbounded by any sense of conscience. I would LOVE to be on that jury and send them a message they will remember…
Can’t agree with you more about gun control, Geoff. I, like you, believe the second amendment is not being interpreted correctly. I feel the second amendment states that post Revolutionary War, because there was no militia, people could bear arms, in this case, muskets.