I'm starting to believe that much of the gun debate is about something else than guns.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

78. No. Notwithstanding your animosity, I don't think that I'm clever. I think that I'm persistent.

You say, "the lack of links hardly proves him a liar or delusional or whatever." If YOU want to prove "him a liar or delusional or whatever," then you should post what you want to do so. I have no interest in doing so.

What I do see is anti-gun advocates who make up false statements and attribute them to DUers who do not agree with their positions. What I would like to see, if the author of the OP is sincere about representing himself as a middle-of-the-road type, is for the author of the OP to temper his words so that they more accurately represent reality.

When I looked at his post, I saw that he was holding himself out as a middle-of-the-road type but did not use vitriol or vulgarities.

Good for him. For others that want to use vitriol and vulgarities, I think that is a waste of time.

And no, you did not "see EXACTLY what the OP mentions here," without support:

"Others romanticize gun possession based on some sentimental idea about 'the founding fathers', or peddle crazy fantasies such that 'armed citizens would have stopped Hitler'."

Also you did not otherwise "see EXACTLY what" was mentioned elsewhere at #2 that

(a) "the insistance that the 2nd ammendment is an absolute".

That's never been the claim of DUers, except in someone's imagination. No DUer has ever claimed that the Second Amendment cannot be amended. I've read a great many DU posts over the years. I've never seen anyone claim that "the 2nd ammendment is an absolute" and that the ownership and possession of firearms cannot be subject to reasonable regulation. Maybe some right-wing troll will get around to that someday, but I've never seen that at DU. And you haven't either.