> But the fact that some delusions become socially
>accepted does not mean that they cease to be delusions.
er, it does, you know. If they cannot be conclusively falsified, then they're just as valid as any other belief.
>>Doubtless some individual NRA members are paranoid, but
>
>It is not about them being paranoid, but acting out their paranoid beliefs
>and using deadly weapons to that end.
I think it might be overstating the case to use NRA membership as evidence of paranoia, tho. It's not clear to me that there's a higher %age of diagnosable people among NRA members than among any other group. There may well be, but evidence is yet to be presented, I believe.
>
>>it's not clear to me that all people are wrong, who
>>suspect the motives of the folk in power. Goddess
>>help the members of this list if that were so! :-)
>>
>
>Something tells me that assorted campaigns to protect "the right to bear
>arms" are not really about making our government more responsive and
>democratic, but about the right to poseess manly toys that project a macho
>image. Do you think I am wrong?
I don't have enough information. My personal reason for supporting the Second is because the powerful have given me (and, i hope, all of us!) plenty reason to distrust their motives. Stanley Milgram's (in)famous series of experiments testing obedience to authority should be all any thinking person needs to get the wind well up! But are there folk who are kidding someone about their reasons for supporting the Second? Doubtless! Are they in the majority? I hope not!