So for the last half hour I've been talking politics with one of my more liberal co-workers. He engages me in conversation, so I can't help but indulge him. I brought up Obama's naivety regarding foreign policy, Iran, and his plans to deescalate our ICBM program & nuclear arsenal. Somehow our political discussion dropped to a micro level analysis and came around to a discussion of guns. He knows I'm pro-gun and still engages me in discussion so I'm pretty sure I haven't scared him off......yet.
He believes Obama can change the thinking of someone like Ahmadinejad just by sitting down with him. I see this as naive, since I don't think you can change the mind of someone who hates you and actively advocates for your destruction and the destruction of your allies (Israel) He believes that by talking to Iran rather than projecting force we'll be able to make their government not hate us. This is the same at both micro & macro levels. Some people only understand force / threat of force and opening up a "hopeity, changity" dialogue only projects weakness. We got into a micro discussion on the use / projection of force via personal sidearms and hell, even open carry in Delaware. He's pretty level-headed for a liberal, so again I'm pretty sure I didn't scare him.
I brought up Kennedy & Kruschev but his contention was "that was a long time ago, it's not the same." This same basic sentiment was brought up several times on different issues, for example regarding the windfall profit taxes imposed by Carter on the oil companies. His response "that was a long time ago, the economy is different now." I suppose we should learn from history only when it suits our preconceived notion of how the world should be?
I'm still well liked by everyone in the office, and I'm not known as a "gun nut" so I guess that's a good thing. It's a shame, but you really don't want to be the office "gun nut" since you never know how people are going to respond. Hell, look what happened to Joe Huffman at his old job.