Just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean that you aren't wrong.
11 guns? That isn't a lot really. I'd call it more of a medium amount. I know people with a WHOLE lot more than that. In fact I think most shooters I know have more than that, but we are all competitive shooters, so specialization creeps in.
Okay, 11 isn't an arsenal, but it is plenty for a guy who wants all members of Congress to be shot.
As we have repeatedly seen, one gun in the hands of a crazy person can be more than enough.
No, the guy makes threatening noises, you treat him like a threat. However, he's not a threat because he owns 11 guns.
Well, maybe he is a bag of hot air and maybe he is a budding homegrown assassin/terrorist. The authorities are going to have to sort that out.
I think a guy who mouths off about wanting every member of Congress to be shot, and that guy owns 11 guns, is more than enough for the FBI to visit the guy and try to determine if he has bad intentions.
To me, this isn't political. In my time both Democrats and Republicans have been shot while in office (one president from each party, too) and it is just as horrible and traumatic, at least for me, when a person I would never vote for gets shot as it is when it is someone I like. I just don't like seeing the people we elect to serve us get shot down in the street, as we saw in Arizona recently, just as we have so many times in the past.
It makes sense to take steps to prevent it from happening again.
What's ironic is that many police departments are very hesitant to go into some inner city areas like Chicago and Detroit, LA, Philly, St Louis etc at night due to the gunfire and rampant gang warfare and murder are so prevalent however this guy from the suburbs who says something about congressman is visited. What does that suggest to you? The mayor of Chicago wants the militia to help patrol Chicago as the police are outnumbered and outgunned .. it's like carnage in a Robocop movie or something .. without the robots .. yet. Citizens .. who cares in the inner city and suburbs .. but a threat against some one in office ... very strange
Threats against elected officials in our government are terrorism. Maybe that is why the authorities are worried about them.
And if you think the cops aren't up to the task at hand in dealing with well armed thugs in our cities, just wait until the Tea Party succeeds in stripping the cities and States of most of their funding.
When they reduce the size of government, one of the natural consequences is that there will be no one to fight crime, to check on people's citizenship, makes sure that wildlife isn't being poached, that the air is breathable, the water drinkable, and so on, but the taxes will be lower. I'll be GREAT!
Gramps .. the folks that overspent are the ones who caused the problem, not the folks who are trying to stop the debt .. we're broke Gramps .. face it flounder .. our generation(s) have screwed up and let the fat cats walk away with gazillions, the and unions to earn more than they should have and could be sustained. There has not been fiscal responsibility for decades, more like a century (See Federal Reserve - 1913, Off Gold Standard 1971). The democrats and republicans have been buying votes for years and years just to get re-elected .... well it's getting near time to pay the bill ... your credit card is maxed out and the wallet is empty. What are you going to do .. ah .. you're going to blindly ignore the problem and let your kids pay for it, blame the 'new party' on this problem - well, I think our generation has done enough of that already. Tax more and keep spending more than you bring in??? This administration increased the debt 3 Trillion dollars .. does it really matter what crappy politicians got us into this problem .. who's going to get us out of it?
You ask a good question; "who is going to get us out of it?"
The president's plan seems to be to grow the US economy to the point where the debt is manageable. I would call that a conservative approach, if you excuse the term. If you don't see that as realistic (and I'm not sure I do) then who else is there?
Palin and Bachman are the political equivalent of circus barkers, yelling "STEP RIGHT UP, FOLKS" They yammer on and on about nothing, but get a lot of attention for themselves.
The ex-Gov of Mass just won a straw poll and has some credible business experience, but he will have a hard time getting through the GOP primary, being a Mormon, and having initiated many of the ideas that are now part of the dreaded (to GOP voters) "Obamacare".
The New Speaker has some presidential aspirations but he is as owned and operated by Lobbyists as any politician around. And I wonder if people in the great Heartland of America where the GOP gets a lot of its votes are going to go for a weeping man with an orange tan.
So if the answer to your question isn't Obama, then who?
steamed
Ah another one down. We are working hard to pass a bill that says that the dictator in power can seize, at will, any (large, or small, cache) of self defense weapons from anyone who opposes the dictator in power (like Mr. Gramps who opposes conservatives for instance) and is therefore, positively identified as mentally unstable. This will give us the end to 2nd Amendment when we can confiscate pocket knives, pee shooters, slingshots and bows and arrows from anyone we consider to be a threat to the dictator or his cabinet. The dictator will consider a "large cache" two be one pocket knife plus a pea shooter for example. Mentally unstable can refer to anything the dictator opposes, such as free press, ant-slavery measures, etc.