Susan said:

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?


That is because you haven't really read for comprehension what I am saying. And as to successfully prosecuting an agenda, I would tell you that I have made a career of it. If you would like me to teach a class for you sometime on the elements of successfully prosecuting an agenda, give me a call. My rates are reasonable. You ever heard of "on the square"? Your para reminded me of someone trying to say, "you are really screwed up, but I really like you, honest".

Go back and read what I am saying. My point is that folks use this whole debate to avoid the real problem. They toss around terms like "assault weapon" without ever really giving any thought to what the term means. They hear about a campus shooting, or a drive by, and whip out phrases like "we need to ban assault weapons" or "we need to ban all handguns" as if that would stop a mentally ill kid, or a young person from very tough circumstances who gets caught up in gang activity. And the biggest phony predicate of all is the hope of my buddy Bill. That is the one that says if we passed a law banning weapons that the violent crime rate would go down. This in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of empiric evidence to support that thesis. The only way that could happen is if you could make weapons disappear from the face of the earth. In the abstract, you get folks like Steve here who seem to think that the whole of the experiment that is the society created as the United States of America revolves around the issue of whether the Second Amendment is still valid in the 21st century. They have voted for candidates based on this single issue (if this doesn't apply to you, Steve, I apologize, but you started the thread so you are the metaphor) even though to do so was to economic disadvantage, as they have discovered over the last month or so.

But the real issue, before we all got sidetracked is whether there is a gun ban coming. I, for one, have read President Elect Obama's stance and don't find it troubling. I feel as though, either by intent or lack of knowledge, Steve's initial post was misleading. It seemed to imply, given the timing of it, that as a result of our choice on November 4 the slide towards a gun ban has begun. With all that is on his plate, and given his stance on the matter, my guess is you won't see anything significant coming anytime soon, if at all.

Mick