"You root for and praise the wrong side in our politics on this gun forum," you say. There's the nub of it, Mike. The wrong side? Think about it. A vote for Obama by your standard makes anti-gun of all the Republicans and Democrats who voted for him twice, as if guns were all that's on the country's mind in these parlous times.

I can't see the logic of how citing my posts concerning the Second would make me anti-gun unless you want to make me immortal for reporting accurately the wrong side as you see it of the liberal and conservative debate, which seems to be in liberal ascendancy from court findings. If you don't like it, don't blame me.

When the guys on the "right side" said Obama's election would be blue ruin for gun rights, I said accurately there may be cosmetic changes but he would keep his legislative gun in his holster to position the Democratic candidate in '16. Again not only prescient but accurate and not anti-gun.

All your assumptions without evidence is your right side whistling in the darkness of a presidential election. Members who use the board to promote their party fume against anyone who doesn't share their convictions. I don't have a dog in this fight. It's already over, and I said who would win.

That, again, doesn't make me anti-gun. It shouldn't require mention but new members may not be aware that this tiresome nonsense sprouts from ignorance. When Ed and I were musing above about precedence of rights generally, bills of rights, constitutional, inalienable etc another member said it was a racist statement of Canada's strict gun laws!

Consider comments about my Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters friends. I was with with them in London on the Sunday morning after the Friday Paris massacre as they wrote their analyses of its likely effect on markets the next day. doublegun members I correspond with privately about their polling and forecasting knew they were coming to visit.

Hate blinded him to that possibility. Now hoist on his own petard. I bear him no malice. He is to be pitied.