My reply to Rachel Maddow and her guest.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It seems Rachel is completely oblivious to how Barack Obama has been and will be bad for gun owners.

First and foremost, Fast and Furious is the elephant in the room. It is the Obama/Holder/Emanuel gun doctrine in action. It is literally creating the serious crisis that won't go to waste. It is his administration's attempt at working under the radar as he promised his friends in the gun control/ban movement. The Obama administration is passing new laws while not only not enforcing the ones on the books, but intentionally breaking them by faciliating the illegal trafficking of firearms to Mexican drug cartels. That is a reason why Barack Obama cannot be given a second term.

Second, the Supreme Court. We've seen which direction one of President Obama's Supreme Court appointees leans when it comes to the Second Amendment. And it's not on the side of gun owners. I strongly suspect his second appointee is no different. And his third and possibly fourth appointees will be no better than the first. If gun owners wish to keep a Supreme Court that is friendly towards the Second Amendment, that is another reason why Barack Obama cannot be given a second term.

As for her guest, he seems to be completely off the rails, but i'll address him as well.

He says that Mitt Romney is calling a certain segment of the population to arms. I don't think Mitt did that. At least not in the literal sense. In the metaphorical sense? Perhaps. The notion that Mitt Romney is calling for gun owners to buy more guns and ammo is malarkey. We were going to do that anyway. A large number of us are simply looking at President Obama's record and beliefs, taking him for his word, and acting accordingly.

These guns and ammunition will not cause death in the streets. Millions upon millions of guns have been sold each year since the election of President Obama and the number of gun related homicides in the country has been relatively unchanged from it's 15-17k'ish number. If Mr. Burgess's claims were true, we'd have millions of gun related homicides per year. But we do not. In country with 80 million gun owners owning over 300 million firearms, the fact that only 0.0333% of those firearms cause injury or death is proof positive that our current laws (including Stand Your Ground work. To be incredibly blunt, trying to reduce that number falls into the realm of anal retentiveness.

And Ricky Burgess's rant on assault rifles is just standard anti-gun loonery. According to the FBI, you're twice as likely to be beaten to death with hands and feet than be murdered by anyone with a rifle of any kind, assault or not.

Mitt Romney is not the ideal Second Amendment supporter. He's really only a few check boxes away from having the same views on guns as Barack Obama. But a first term Mitt Romney is a lot less dangerous to gun owners than a second term Barack Obama.