... to point out to folks that take the "assault weapon" approach is that they a) don't even know what constitutes an "assault weapon", and b) really have the agenda of removing weapons (without regard to what their legal use is) from the hands of responsible folks who own them....

Sorry my mind doesn't fit your agenda, Mick, but I do not have an aghenda of "removing weapons (without regard to what their legal use is) from the hands of responsible folks who own them."

Since you asked, what I do not want people IN MY AREA (I know my area's culture you don't) to have easy access to is:

A gun they can spray indiscriminately (with their brain turned off), across a crowded area full of people, as opposed to one they would have to purposely aim at an individual, taking enough care in the shot that time may well allow their thinking brain to modify their actions.

Also, to me, the "Assault" in Assault Rifle means one designed for assaulting others-- to initiate a violent action against another. That's different from defending self, family, property, country. I recall all too well when such has occurred, and I know many good gun-owning people hereabouts who live alongside people training to do just that, BTW. And I know that they would agree with my post that an assault rifle is not necessary HERE in one's personal arsenal.

I think you are on a bit of a hair-trigger of looking for a post that will fit YOUR agenda. In my experience, successfully prosecuting an agenda starts from positive values, actions, and communication. I do not have a sense of your positive values here-- if I did I would probably agree with them. There lie alliances. If you must first divide the pool of potential allies, how do you expect to have enough credibility or relationship to educate anyone in that pool? You assume a hidden agenda-- well, you don't know me well enough to read MY mind, I can tell you that. What-- fight first and THEN sort out who you knocked out that was actually on your side?

Puzzled,

~Susan