• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House to Push Gun Control

No, I'm afraid you continue to not understand how this works. I think it is because you so badly want something here that will not happen. :coffeepap

No you deny the evidence because you can not accept what Obama and Holder did. it is not one of Obama's dept. But at least 3. So you believe Obama was blind to what all 3 were doing.
 
I think the dispute over gun-control is one of the dumbest political issues around. However, we have much MUCH bigger fish to fry, so I wish Obama would leave this alone for now.


are you suggesting that in the future you would want Obama to try to ban guns?
 
No you deny the evidence because you can not accept what Obama and Holder did. it is not one of Obama's dept. But at least 3. So you believe Obama was blind to what all 3 were doing.

You have not shown they did anything. Seriously, you have not. Not even close. :coffeepap
 
banning guns. why do people still repeat this absurdity?

I realize you probably dont know the answer but in just about every congress a dem introduces a bill in both houses trying to ban some types of guns.

Clinton did for ten years.
 
I realize you probably dont know the answer but in just about every congress a dem introduces a bill in both houses trying to ban some types of guns.

Clinton did for ten years.

banning SOME types of guns, and banning all guns, is very different.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Time to chill, folks... some posts on the last few pages have been overly personal. Also, when a thread gets to the point where most posts are one-liners, we're usually getting into "is not, is too" territory.

Talk about the subject, not the poster... keep it civil... try to post something substantive, not just repetition and "is not/is too" stuff. If there's really nothing more to be said of substance... then maybe enough has been said? Mmmmmkay?
 
banning SOME types of guns, and banning all guns, is very different.

so if a government were to make Islam illegal that would not be a violation of the first amendment because there are plenty of christian and Jewish temples a Muslim could attend?

what if a government banned the GOP from running television ads criticizing Obama but they allowed the UAW and the NEA to run ads bashing Senator McConnell or Speaker Boehner?
 
You have not shown they did anything. Seriously, you have not. Not even close. :coffeepap

We have it has been shown Obama signed the stimulus bill with funding for it in it. Are you saying Obama did not know what was in it when he signed it. If Holder knew nothing about it how did he mention it in a speech?
 
so if a government were to make Islam illegal that would not be a violation of the first amendment because there are plenty of christian and Jewish temples a Muslim could attend?

what if a government banned the GOP from running television ads criticizing Obama but they allowed the UAW and the NEA to run ads bashing Senator McConnell or Speaker Boehner?

derail noted.

try asking me a question that has SOMETHING to do with gun-control.
 
are you suggesting that in the future you would want Obama to try to ban guns?
No. I just don't understand the fuss over most gun-control regulations.
 
Now, you can think, and address the points made, of you can be a mindless partisan and repeat your mantra.

that doesn't make any sense

either way, holder is responsible for the actions of his dept---the sale of up to 40,000 weapons to mexican drug cartels

any lack of knowledge on his part would only indicate incompetence

is THAT his excuse?

LOL!
 
You have not shown they did anything. Seriously, you have not. Not even close.

that's nice

why did melson testify on july 4 to house judiciary that doj tried to "limit his communication" with congress
 
We have it has been shown Obama signed the stimulus bill with funding for it in it. Are you saying Obama did not know what was in it when he signed it. If Holder knew nothing about it how did he mention it in a speech?

Yes, he signed the stimulus. That in no way means he knew anything specific about the program. one thing does not mean the other.

Read what Holder said. Please, actually read it, mentioning the name of the program, but decribing something different, as he did, suggests he did not have a working knowledge, but had been told something else. For pete's sake, think. Listen. Address the actual points as i have repeatedly doen with both of yours.
 
derail noted.

try asking me a question that has SOMETHING to do with gun-control.

I think everyone got the point-you argued-by implication-that banning some guns is really different than banning them all

so I asked if banning some religions was not a violation of the relevant amendment.

Banning one is a violation, banning them all is a violation
 
So you have no answers for the facts in it.

There is no real facts in it. Do you know people used the same reasoning to show the Brady bill worked? In both cases what we actual see is poor reasoning skills.
 
That in no way means he knew anything specific about the program.

he's still responsible, silly

you're rather suggesting he's responsible AND stupid

LOL!
 
Yes, he signed the stimulus. That in no way means he knew anything specific about the program. one thing does not mean the other.

Read what Holder said. Please, actually read it, mentioning the name of the program, but decribing something different, as he did, suggests he did not have a working knowledge, but had been told something else. For pete's sake, think. Listen. Address the actual points as i have repeatedly doen with both of yours.

So you are saying both Obama and Holder are incompetent? Obama signed a bill funding a program he knew nothing about? That show me these men have no business in the office they hold.
 
No. I just don't understand the fuss over most gun-control regulations.


Do you own a gun? I could say the same thing about gay marriage-I am not gay and gay marriage has absolutely no relevance to my life.

same with abortion-my wife is too old to have any more kids so its not an issue that affects us either
 
So you are saying both Obama and Holder are incompetent? Obama signed a bill funding a program he knew nothing about? That show me these men have no business in the office they hold.

No. They are not charged with being in on every operation. They are held accountable to properly deal with those who make mistakes. If they pull a Bush, and go good job Brownie, that would be incompetent. But you are mistaken that people at the very top know every operation in complete detail. It's an unreasonable expectation.
 
Back
Top Bottom