Good article, but the author starts to sound a bit unhinged by the end, talking of civil war, how the next one will be worse than the first (the bloodiest in all of US history). He warns people to stop with the anti-gun propaganda or there will be blood . . . I think he should've left that part out. While the gun debate can be very acrimonious, no one's talking about taking up arms against their fellow citizens or a revolution outside some extremist groups.
He makes great points, but when he starts talking about civil war and the blood that'll result from it, he starts sounding like those hard core preppers who think the Gov't is about to break down their door and run Red Dawn fantasies in their heads.
These are what I'm talking about - this kind of talk reeks of some of the crazed chatter you hear on survivalist boards (threads like "Is the time coming to revolt?" and "Where to hide your guns when they come for them?" - answers to these threads are usually along the lines of "Yes" and "In your foxhole, bring on the helicopters!!").
Author would've done better to end the article sooner, after pointing out the hypocrisy, just end the article with something like "Until you acknowledge there are two sides to this debate, and that pro-gun people aren't moronic rednecks, that we love this country and want to preserve and cherish our Second Am freedoms as much as you want to preserve your First Am, there can be no end to this controversy" - instead he breaks down and shows some ugly colors from the fringe of the pro-gun side