A closer example would be calling a Toyota Prius an F1 racer. They’re both cars, but not even remotely the same thing or having the same purpose.
A bit late in replying, since I don’t hang around here every day, so the primary reason is the same as for ElvisL1ves:
Plus the not insignificant fact that at the range, it takes me about 30 seconds to check out the guy to learn whether or not he’s handling his gun in a safe manner (not everyone does, and those guys scare the shit out of me) and there’s a 3 to 1 chance I’ve met him (or her, albeit quite less often) quite a few times before and chatted a bit. So he’s normally not a random stranger carrying a gun for reasons unknown to me, and he has a very good reason for carrying a gun.
BTW, your quote comfortably omitted the first paragraph in my post, about the n00bs, whom I still mistrust less than a random armed stranger on the street (because even the n00b has a perfectly good reason for carrying: he’s at a shooting range).
Me, too. Probably because carrying in public is banned around here 
(even the police don’t carry). ~0 guns makes for fewer gun-related accidents than >0 guns does.
Hey, did you hear that the Super Bowl is completely legal? True fact! And yet, it makes the news every year.
Super Bowl? Never heard of it. My news is completely filled by 24-hour coverage of any number of reports about insignificantly small groups of idiots protesting some bit of nonsense or another.
Wait, it is?
Why won’t anyone think of the children?!
So let’s say the right to bear arms in America is NOT exercised, does NOT become “normalized” and is eventually lost.
What’s the worst case scenario? England tries to reclaim you?
Oh, noes! 
Not to mention, people didn’t get all apeshit about their guns 40-50 years ago, and yet we didn’t fall victim to totalitarianism. Except of course when Lyndon Johnson forced (“keep the government’s hands off my”) Medicare on us.
40 to 50 years ago is arguably exactly when people started to go apeshit about their guns.
Interesting… I wonder what happened to change that?
(Apologies if that answer is upthread)
There was an upsurge starting in, oh, 2008 or so, too. Wonder why?
Gotta admit, I missed it at the time.
I think it started with the Gun Control Act of 1968 and about ten years later, the Cincinnnati Revolution changed the nature of the NRA and they became much more focused on second amendment rights.
The Heller decision confirmed that the second amendment conferred an individual right in 2008.
If your point was that fear of the negro in the white house spurred more gun buying, that’s probably true (the South has a lot of guns and racism for historical reasons) but people are not more apeshit about their guns than they were before, they are the same level of apeshit just with more guns.
But all these “apeshit” people, racists or not, fearful of The “Kenyan” Taking Away Our Guns, are still Law-Abiding Citizens according to you, right? :rolleyes:
Have charges been filed?
That only happens *after *they pull the trigger.
Your turn: Are they threats to public safety?
First of all, the ‘Cincinnati Revolution’ was after the cited period.
Second, I don’t recall gun owners turning their guns into fetish objects in public back then.
It was 37 or so years ago. So I guess it is technically just outside of the window of 40-50 years go but its pretty close.
And the ten year period leading up to that revolt is when all this seemed to start. Sure its gotten marginally more and less extreme depending on how hostile the environment became for gun owners (i.e. the more hostile politicans became towards gun owners the more riled up they got).
Whatever you say. Did I ask when anything started? The oak was an acorn when it started. But the behavior of gun nuts back then, as best as I can remember, was nothing like now. They may have brandished their “cold dead hands” bumper stickers in public, but there wasn’t much going around in public with guns.
Yet the Commies didn’t conquer us.
And now a drunk guy can wander around Kalamazoo with a rifle on his shoulder, causing the usual tension: the police shut down the street and shoo everyone inside, because a drunk with a gun is dangerous - but he’s within his rights, so they can’t just shoot him if he refuses their orders to put the gun down.
So he’s got the right to shut down a city block and scare the shit out of people. Interesting.
Oddly enough, the police themselves seem to be somewhat in fear, based on the tone of their voices. I don’t know if Michigan’s a SYG state, but if it is, seems like they could have shot him on that account. And been within their rights as well.
Gun rights are a funny thing.