Many share your concern and perhaps perceive additional enemies. What tops your list will certainly be well below the list of those who see an immediate threat to God given rights and our constitutional republic and to the means our Founding Fathers provided for their maintenance.
Soundbytes sound good on the TV, but are of no value when determing policies which relate to ideological imperatives.
I prefer the mentality of the following "gun idolatars" to anything the current GOP is coming up with.
James Madison:
"the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation," would enable the people to resist the tyrannical "enterprises of ambition" that many feared the new federal government would pursue. This was in contrast to the "kingdoms of Europe" where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Alexander Hamilton :
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense, which is paramount to all positive forms of government." Federalist No. 28.
Noah Webster:
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed . . . A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
Tench Coxe:
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people, duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which shall be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Abraham Lincoln :
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their 'constitutional' right of amending it or their 'revolutionary' right to dismember or overthrow it."
Senator Russell Feingold :
The purposes of the Second Amendment "include self-defense, hunting, sport, and some certainly would say, as would I, the protection of individual rights against a potentially despotic central government."
Does it not disturb you that you consider the current President a conservative, when compared to the Democrats of the Sixties, he would have been considered a left wing radical?
Hubert Humphrey :
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
In case you haven't figured it out, my idiot child, it is the Second Amendment which make all the others possible. If you are willing to risk it for the sake of immediate political gain, then you are definitely a threat to this country. If Bush, you, and those who think like you are the only hope of conservatism in the USA then we are most certainly doomed.
No one will convince the idolators.
This perfectly sums up your POV in regards to possession of arms by free men.
The essence of the RKBA's is that all men have an inherent right to own and use adequate tools for self-defense in all situations. You have reduced that inalienable right, of the sovereign individual to protect and preserve life, into a perverted caricature of idol worship. If life, in your opinion, isn't valuable enough to defend then just what do you consider worthy of worship? SCOTUS decisions? Party politics?