Der Trihs, I just gotta love you. You remind me of one of those grizzled old coots living out in the Superstition Mountains somewhere, so fed up with people that he allows only a trusty hound to share his bed. So removed from civilization that people think he’s loony.
I always expect you to say something about fluoride or UFOs, but then you come out on your sagging wooden front porch, spit on the sand, squint at the sky and say something really crazy! 
This story barely made the news here, or at least I missed it, despite having followed the last several elections fairly closely.
The idea does feel wrong to me, though.
I just finished The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right, by Arthur Goldwag (Jew). A fascinating study that covers the whole history of paranoid irrationality in American politics and culture, mostly RW, but not sparing black separatism, etc. Despite the title, his point is that the New Hate is not all that “new” after all. He sees a lot of common memes and themes in all past forms of it, mostly the ones Richard Hosftadter identified, regardless of whether the demonized all-powerful Other is the Jews, Freemasons, Catholics, Illuminati, atheists/secularists, intellectuals, Communists, capitalists, bankers, whites, nonwhites, or (as is not seldom the case) some combination of the foregoing.
He concludes with what I think is The Answer to the OP:
At least you can sort of consider both sides of the issue, to an extent. It’s very trying to discuss arms or the 2nd Amendment on these boards, because, much like abortion, the majority of vocal proponents/detractors won’t entertain any opposing opinions. Pro-lifers see a fertilized egg as a special baby with a soul, and gun-fearfuls see all guns as evil (unless carried by cops, soldiers, politicians or bodyguards). Since the greater part of either side won’t budge, and since, especially with gun debates, the gun-fearful are willing to resort to ad hominems like Gun Owners are ignorant, bigoted, paranoid, deluded, or insecure, the debate deteriorates into name calling and hate.
It’s too bad that there seem to be agendas that are well served by dividing and conquering (white vs black, rich vs poor, armed vs gun-fearful, life vs sensible birth control, secular vs spiritual). If we’d stop letting politicians and propagandists pull our strings, we might settle some differences without kowtowing to powerful fearmongers who gain wealth and influence as we fight among ourselves.
I’ll add that, since a gun debate is fruitless hereabouts, I believe a debate on the subject of fear (and perhaps paranoia) is reasonable. I’m glad the OP brought up the subject.
It seems to me that Gun Owners and Gun-fearful actually are both afraid of the same things, albeit with minor differences in details. The anti-gun crowd seem to fear being perforated by bullets, of having their loved ones or peers so punctured. That’s reasonable. Similarly, Gun Owners also fear being the target of antagonistic firepower. In the case of Gun-grabbers, they visualize psychopaths, criminals and ignorant irresponsible gun owners doing the shooting … solution: remove all unauthorized guns … problem solved. That argument has some merit
Gun Owners may imagine not only criminals and the criminally insane, but also agents of tyrannical governments as possible aggressors. In all, their fears are remarkably similar. Both groups, pro and anti gun, basically fear being shot, or that their fellow citizens may be targets.
The striking difference, to put a fine point on it, is that Gun Owners wish to be able to shoot back. That’s really the only meaningful difference. Fear is a common denominator. Tighty-righty is paranoid of big government/Nato perhaps, and limpy-lefty is scared of Joe Redneck getting drunk and shooting up the mall parking lot, or selling his guns to the next Charles Manson wanna-be.
They’re both fearful. Addressing solutions to the actual problem of unwanted bullet holes is, I think, more productive that claiming one side is paranoid and the other is well adjusted.
False equivalence fallacy there. Wanting there to be fewer bullet holes in fewer people comes from wanting a better society to live in. That’s being hopeful and working toward a goal, not being fearful.
I’m fearful of being shot. I want a better world. These things are related, but separate. I’m in no way convinced that a gun-free world is necessarily better, but a world where I’m not shot is certainly better for me. That said, both progressive gun grabber and staunch-if-stubborn gun lover fear crime and mayhem. I’m not seeing one or the other being unduly paranoid in general. The solutions to the threats are different, but the threats are the same. The gun debate is a political debate. That’s not good.
The claim that both sides are just as bad is right wing propaganda. They’ve resorted to it because at this point they just don’t have anything in their favor. The Right has no good points they can use to promote themselves, there is nothing admirable about it whatsoever; so they are limited to bashing everyone else as being just as worthless, insane, amoral and cruel as they are. Exactly what you are doing, in other words; rather than trying to claim the Republicans aren’t crazy and evil - a losing proposition - you try to claim that the Democrats are just as bad when in fact they are neither as insane as the Republicans, nor are they even left wing.
I’ve never seen a politician mimic my views.
A false comparison, since the whacko right wingers are the ones in charge in the Republicans, while the whacko left is powerless and barely exists. The moderates barely exist in this country; we have the Right, and the Insane Right.
The gun debate is not between gun lovers and gun grabbers, since many on the anti-NRA side (I won’t say anti-gun side) want reasonable controls and background checks. Sure some want to ban guns altogether, but not as many as the pro-NRA side says. It seems that side considers not being allowed to bring guns to bars, schools and churches tantamount to having their guns confiscated.
That is where the paranoia comes in - the view that there are only extremes, and unless someone gets what he wants he will lose everything because of “them.”
It isn’t only the right. There were plenty on the extreme left in the '60s and early '70s who thought we were only steps from fascism.
And in the W years too, I know.
Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
More comletely:
Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.
Never assume stupidity when ignorance will suffice.
Never assume ignorance when forgivable error will suffice
Never assume error when information you hadn’t adequately accounted for will suffice.
Lack of humor. Life is concealed weapons and serious shit for these people. Some get their jollies from it too.
http://teroreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/conspiracy-nut-convention-canceled.html
Stating is one thing and believing is another. Don’t confuse paranoia with pandering.
As I said, since the OP wants to debate paranoia rather than guns, let’s talk fear.
You’re a 30-something woman, a single mother working two jobs. Your late shift gets off at 11pm. You’re waiting at the bus stop; the traffic is sparse. Two men approach you, salty looking guys in their twenties. You reach in your purse for your phone, you manage to get it out and dial 911, but before you can speak, one of them grabs you and takes the phone, covers your mouth as you try to scream, and the other man picks up your legs. They carry you between some parked cars in a lot.
You own a couple of hundred acres, for a few head of cattle, some horses and a little alfalfa. It’s way off the main road, there’s no cell reception. Your checking the fences near some woods at dusk, when three men come out of the trees. They’re carrying rifles … you presume they’re hunters who didn’t see your private property sign. As they approach, you put your jeep between you and them, but they’re holding their guns in a way that makes you nervous. You say “Howdy, you boys lost?” They don’t answer.
3.Your best friend from college is flying in late … he has a meeting in the morning, so you plan to meet for a drink near his hotel. The sign says “Parking in Rear”, so you pull into the alley and park under a sodium light. As you walk to the street, a guy blocks the mouth of the alley, smiling he asks, “Got a light?” This doesn’t feel right, so you turn around … there’s another guy leaning on your car.
All of these things have happened to me or a relative of mine. Would you be paranoid to feel fearful of a similar circumstance happening to you?
For which we all should thank God on our knees.
Regards,
Shodan
The RW paranoia under discussion has nothing to do with fear of getting raped or mugged. And not much in common with it.
The popular concept is that right wing wackos fear a big powerful government that might violate our privacy, arrest us for political reasons, hunt us with drones, or disarm us. Most of the conservatives I know that own guns acquired them initially for protection from criminals … the subject of gun confiscation is generated and implemented by progressives and progressive factions in government.
If you fear crime and aren’t allowed to defend yourself, because the authorities want you disarmed, I suppose that could figure into a paranoid response. As a liberal, I get a lot of suspicion from conservatives because they reasonably presume that I’m anti-gun. It seems to be the one really illogical stance of most liberals … ironic really, you’d think the left would be in favor of the weaker defending themselves from the stronger aggressor.