Letters from people who feel the need to point out that they are gun owners are often unsettling.
"To the best of my Internet research, that kind of attack on Obama's "Second Amendment" position is too extreme for even the National Rifle Association." Well, I'd almost have to agree with you there, given the ratings they like to dole out like candy to undeserving politicians.
"The NRA has, admittedly, created its scary profile of Obama's position from the people who support him (guilt by association) and his voting record." And they were supposed to use his empty promises, instead? If there are two ways to predict a politician's moves, it's to look at what he might do to pander to his supporters and look at what he's done in the past. And, when those two intersect, you find that it's not difficult to make predictions.
"It has extrapolated, from any indication contrary to their wishes, that Obama wishes gun owners total harm." Well, if you're looking to ban "assault weapons," make it harder to purchase guns, or keep people from selling their privately owned guns, you DO wish us total harm. Every step is a step toward total disarmament. We have far too many gun laws now.
"But, then, their 'official' articles qualify (as I paraphrase): 'Well, he must believe that, because some of those damn liberals we fear most believe that.'" Again, it's more like this: "He's forced to believe that, since his support base wants him to." Also, you seem to have stopped talking about his voting record, which shows that he's more than willing to vote against gun owners.
"The NRA doesn't like Obama's voting record." Oh, you brought that back up. Yeah, it's too bad they seem to forget McCain's record, but of course they don't like Obama's record.
"The NRA has set their first line of defense so far forward of any noticeable effect on law-abiding gun owners, that their hair trigger goes of at any mention of 'law' and 'gun.'" Actually, if you've been keeping score at home, you should know that the NRA is often stepping forward to promote laws contrary to their purpose. We've seen them push for stricter mental health guidelines (which would disqualify many a vet, or caused them to avoid psychiatric treatment they would need). We've heard them promote victim-disarmament school zones. They are not nearly as hard-line as, say, the JPFO. Or myself.
"It's classic paranoia." Hmm...every time a gun law's passed, it adds another restriction against the right to bear arms. Therefore, we should embrace them? This is like saying that it's paranoid to avoid sticking your hand in a fire. It might not burn this time, right?
"According to the candidate, himself, 'Barack Obama ... recognizes the great conservation legacy of America's hunters and anglers and has great respect for the passion that hunters and anglers have for their sport.'" What about self-defense, homeland defense, target shooting, or home defense? What about resisting tyranny? Oh, yeah, and whatever happened to judging someone not by their words, but by their actions? Tell you what, I'll punch you several times, then tell you that I'm a peaceful and non-aggressive man. Then I'll draw my fist back again. If I did this, would you expect another punch, or my newfound peaceful self?
"Will the NRA believe Obama's moderation on the issue?" I hope not. Also, I believe that your "moderation" is still in direct violation of the Constitution. Both in the President's scope of powers and in the right to keep and bear arms. This brand of "moderation" means taking away my rights.
"Paranoiacs don't believe anything that doesn't fit their dark fantasies." And optimists don't believe anything that fits their bright ones. Obama's record, his party, his running mate, and his voters all seem to line up with my "dark fantasies," though, so I think the sun in your mind's eye has a blinding effect.
"So, they inflame rather than inform." First, the NRA is hardly expected to provide a simple, objective look at the facts. Like your letter, they editorialize. Secondly, in this case, the information is enough to inflame. Finally, it is sometimes better to inflame. An unmotivated man is apathetic, while a motivated man will work for his cause. You sometimes need to motivate. In this case, too much gushing talk is heard about Obama, and we need to let the people see the reality to motivate them to disbelieve his lies.
"No one is coming to rural Oregon to take away your gun." No, not yet. They'll expect you to come turn it in. They want you to beg them to take it. After all, they'll only have your best interests in mind, right? When they come to take your gun, they'll want more than that. After all, you will have been a disobedient little servant, and you might be telling others, too.
"I'm a gun owner." You might be the guy with a shotgun OR a rifle, but certainly not both, since that's only for us crazies. Or you might be one of the folks who pretends to be a gun owner to attempt to gain trust. In any case, you are, at best, a gun owner that has not yet felt freedom slipping away.
"I once enjoyed shooting up many rounds of free government ammunition as part of an NRA program." The civilian marksmanship program, huh? And it's funny how this seems almost like it was eons ago when you last shot. The point of the program, which you missed, was to keep the armed citizenry prepared, not for hunting, but for the possibility of defending against tyranny from home or abroad.
"American Rifleman comes to our family post office box." Yeah, it's hard to get the NRA to quit sending stuff, huh?
"And, you can tell, I'm not afraid of reasonable gun laws." By this, you of course mean the ones that don't yet affect you. You probably don't own handguns, "assault weapons," or more than one or two guns. You probably don't realize that a hunting rifle could be considered a "high-powered sniper rifle," or that the shotgun might be banned due to the inability to do ballistics matching. Yeah, they can come up with justification for anything, but they'll wait until they've almost completely disarmed the public before they attempt a full-on ban on firearms.
"I am afraid that polarizing nonsense like this 'ten-point' fabrication will let the ballistophobes paint legitimate gun owners as lunatics." Ah, the old "we'll look like lunatics" tactic. Except that no one's advocating rebellion (well, no one writing for the NRA, at least, no matter how much it might be necessary in the not-too-distant future). All they did was tell their members what Obama might mean for gun owners, based on his past actions and his present supporters (many of whom expect favors in exchange for their support). That's not a lunatic move, and it is almost impossible to pretend it might be.
"Then you could have really oppressive legislation." That's always the scare tactic: don't stand up to the inch-by-inch assault, or they might try for yards at a time (which, you might note, is the exact opposite of the old addage "give an inch and he'll take a mile"). You realize, though, that consistent inches make for consistent yards. If those who try to write these laws try something big, then maybe the gun owners will finally see that they can't just worry about the guns they like. Giving inches is worse than defending yards. Hell, we should be retaking some of those inches, feet, and yards we've already let them take.