Let me see...if I want to know what a candidate proposes, I'm NOT supposed to read their website to find out? I shouldn't go to the source, I should go to......where? I now know, though, to take certain aspects of your criticism with a grain of salt.

 

I've made a very dedicated effort to find many sources to investigate what the candidates say they'll do, and what they've done. If I only base my opinions on what each has done in the past, I'll have to throw McCain out with no further regard. He voted for the Iraq War. End of discussion. Thanks for making it so easy for me!:thumb:

The best indication of what a candidate will do if elected is to study what kind of decisions that he or she has made in the past. Regardless of who you vote for, I encourage you to print some of those plans before they are purged and compare them to the ones laid out in the State of the Union addresses and to the legislation that is actually enacted over the next four years.

 

I find arguing over whose campaign promises are better akin to debating how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. You will find nothing in a candidate's own website that will give you any insight into his or her character, wisdom, or judgment. No source of information is more biased and less useful than a candidate's own campaign website.

He hasn't proposed a gun ban.

He went on record in support of the District of Columbia's handgun ban, so what difference does it make whether he has proposed such a ban on his website? How stupid would a candidate have to be to propose a ban that has already been stricken down by the Supreme Court? :lol:

Let me see...if I want to know what a candidate proposes, I'm NOT supposed to read their website to find out? I shouldn't go to the source, I should go to......where? I now know, though, to take certain aspects of your criticism with a grain of salt.

 

I've made a very dedicated effort to find many sources to investigate what the candidates say they'll do, and what they've done. If I only base my opinions on what each has done in the past, I'll have to throw McCain out with no further regard. He voted for the Iraq War. End of discussion. Thanks for making it so easy for me!:thumb:

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

Nice debate!

He hasn't proposed a gun ban.

 

He went on record in support of the District of Columbia's handgun ban, so what difference does it make whether he has proposed such a ban on his website? How stupid would a candidate have to be to propose a ban that has already been stricken down by the Supreme Court? :lol:

He also said he like to see the return of the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban. Sounds like he's proposed gun bans to me. Oh, he also said he doesn't think anyone needs a semi-auto pistol. Hmmm, not sounding to gun friendly.

He also said he like to see the return of the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban. Sounds like he's proposed gun bans to me. Oh, he also said he doesn't think anyone needs a semi-auto pistol. Hmmm, not sounding to gun friendly.

 

I happen to agree with him. Where does an assault weapon ban equate to a total gun ban?

 

It doesn't. Again, exaggeration.

I've listened to you, and I still don't agree. Does that count? :lol:

 

 

Obama is no threat to your 2nd ammendment rights.

:lol: You probably didn't listen too well, I can imagine while I was talking there was a lot of la la la la la la going on in your head.

 

He's a huge threat, people need to start realizing that.

:lol: You probably didn't listen too well, I can imagine while I was talking there was a lot of la la la la la la going on in your head.

 

He's a huge threat, people need to start realizing that.

 

 

No, he's not a huge threat.

 

I listened to what you said, but I'm not about to be "scared" into agreeing with you....even if you have a gun.

:lol: You probably didn't listen too well, I can imagine while I was talking there was a lot of la la la la la la going on in your head.

 

He's a huge threat, people need to start realizing that.

 

RTS, I've listened too...and I am not convinced in any way that Obama is a danger to the 2nd amendment.

I happen to agree with him. Where does an assault weapon ban equate to a total gun ban?

 

It doesn't. Again, exaggeration.

First off, the problem is what they are calling an assault weapon. The idiot that penned the ban (Joe Biden) had no clue, it was obvious from what was being included in the ban. Problem number two is, that ban is nothing but the tip of the iceberg, as I stated, Obama feels people don't need semi-auto pistols.

RTS, I've listened too...and I am not convinced in any way that Obama is a danger to the 2nd amendment.

What part of bringing back a senseless ban from the Clinton administration and saying people don't need to own semi-autos sounds like it isn't a threat to the 2nd amendment? Please inform me.

First off, the problem is what they are calling an assault weapon. The idiot that penned the the ban (Joe Biden) had no clue, it was obvious from what was being included in the ban. Problem number two is, that ban is nothing but the tip of the iceberg, as I stated, Obama feels people don't need semi-auto pistols.

 

What is that definition (as included in the ban proposed by Biden)?

 

What do you think that the definition should be?

First off, the problem is what they are calling an assault weapon. The idiot that penned the ban (Joe Biden) had no clue, it was obvious from what was being included in the ban. Problem number two is, that ban is nothing but the tip of the iceberg, as I stated, Obama feels people don't need semi-auto pistols.

 

I honstly can't figure out why one would need a semi-automatic pistol. No clue.

What is that definition (as included in the ban proposed by Biden)?

 

What do you think that the definition should be?

An "assault" weapon isn't a semi-auto rifle, believe me, most of the weapons in the ban were semi-auto. An assault weapon is what the military uses, otherwise know as machine guns. You need a Class 3 license to obtain one, not an easy or cheap task. I could never afford one. So, really, none of the weapons in the ban should have been baned in the first place. It's do nothing legislation to get the ball rolling.

I happen to agree with him. Where does an assault weapon ban equate to a total gun ban?

 

It doesn't. Again, exaggeration.

If Obama proposes a ban on all weapons except single shot .22 rifles, would you consider that to be adequate protection of our Second Amendment rights?