I wonder why it wasn't that obvious to me? After all, it IS "simply a description of what's there" that an obsession with firearms and their efficacy in solving social problems is not identical to conservative politics, but is nonetheless highly correlated with it. Your charges never require proof, and mine never have enough. That's why I don't do research here any more. It's like trying to reason with the Jehovah's Witnesses. After the obligatory initial polite acknowledgment, that kind of persistent and strident anomalism and fundamentalist nonsense only deserves sarcasm.

I'm well aware neither side can claim innocence in the tone of political debate. But I and people I respect have been too often called socialists, buttmonkeys, Nazis, statists, cowards, traitors, useful idiots, and any of a number of other schoolyard insults mass-produced by the Right to cavalierly dismiss anyone who has the audacity to even roll an eyebrow at their verbal smegma.

Those who insist on continuously interrupting this board for use as their own private and exclusive soapbox to propagate ideological pornography should not be too surprised that not only do the other participants no longer take them seriously, but are under no obligation to dignify their screed by genteely presenting their collective rump for abuse.

In short, you can say anything you want, but don't presume you have any say in dictating how I am permitted to respond. If my remarks are indeed inappropriate, then the community will arrive at that conclusion without any help from either of us. If the Right on this board really wants to discuss issues, as opposed to demonstrating their moral and intellectual superiority, they are going to have get it through their pointed little heads that reasonable skepticism and disagreement, or even just fatigue, do not necessarily imply a conspiracy of dunces or a communist plot. You may just find that a less confrontational style might not only yield a more genuine response, it might even provoke some occasional agreement.