It seems to me (correct me if I am wrong) that you do believe in the second amendment, and your anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that guns are useful tools, both to hunt with and to defend oneself, against varmints of both two- and four-legged variety. However, you seem (again, my take from what you wrote) to advocate that gun enthusiasm or gun-mania has gotten out of control, and you have numerous concerns about why that has occurred.

Here is what I read: “What is the nature of this perceived threat to American citizens that warrants the right for anyone to buy any kind of gun?”

The first part of this question is fallacy–a loaded statement designed to put gun-rights advocates off-stance. the premise suggests that in order for Americans to have a right to gun purchases, there must be a single, credible threat to the American citizenry. Frankly, sir, the right to buy, keep, maintain, practice with, assemble with, modify, and even manufacture is a fundamental (and, might I say, inalienable) right handed down by our forefathers and is fundamental and necessary to the maintenance of a responsible government and safe citizenry.

However, that argument, I sense, is insufficient for you. I do believe there are threats. According to the FBI, in 2013, a home was broken into (“invaded”) every 12 seconds, adding up to 6,646 invasions PER DAY. One robbery happens every minute. Rape, assault, mugging–Violent crime happens everywhere, and while it is statistically unlikely I will face one in my lifetime, I feel it is my right to be prepared to defend myself (or my family) in the event I find myself in an escalated violent confrontation.

And here: “Who or what is it that has brought about this demand for easy access to the kinds of automated weaponry that can mow down a classroom full of little kids or citizens at a theater, all in mere seconds?”. This is a clear red-herring argument, hoping to tie recent school shootings to automatic weapons. Let’s break this one down.

1) The school shootings mentioned above all took place using SEMI-automatic weapons, all of which have been legal, regulated, and used by thousands (perhaps millions) for a variety of purposes both before and after those shootings.
2) Psychopaths who want to kill children have always existed, will continue to exist, and the regulation or deregulation of certain tools they use to commit atrocities will not affect them in the slightest. We wouldn’t ban chainsaws if the Sandy Hook Massacre had taken a page from Friday the 13th, rather than, say Rambo or The Matrix (though I suspect your article would have not lacked similar analogies).

Finally, there is this little gem: “I try to imagine what it is those advocates of absolute gun rights fear. Is it our own government? Is it Obama himself, who might order up an army of Chicago Blacks, or worse, Muslims in red coats to attack their towns and take over their property? Or is it boatloads of Chinese who will land on the beaches of California while the Mexicans advance from the South?”

This is the sort of disgusting halfway between straw-man absurdity and frothy-mouthed ad hominem I normally expect from Ultraconservatives, anti-immigrant Tea Party members, and Fox News. By quoting (often directly, I admit) certain members of certain political circles of the Birther, New Right, Tea Party, Manifest-Destiny, America-for-the-Americans Neoconservative Republicans, you succeed in conjuring up the older, paranoid, slightly racist, xenophobic, conservative-Christian right-winger that nobody (least of all republicans) want to be seen as or associated with.

Unfortunately, you fail to actually address the issue (whether guns are useful and to what degree they should be regulated) and instead touch off a flame war between those who see themselves unjustly portrayed, and those who agree with you and wish to use this portrayal to their advantage. You muddy the waters for all involved, and the rhetoric, ironically enough, resembles a movie script itself–not an action movie, but a political tragedy.

Again, I thought you were excellent, and I mean no disrespect. I do hope, however, that the debate surround this and many other issues like it, will more fully involve the facts, and less use of negative stereotyping and logical fallacy.