[Mike M.]

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

The link you posted contains much of the info I referenced from Snopes, but it was presented by a biased source. ontheissues.org leans way right.

Peter,

I agree, the link I posted did contain a lot of the same information you referenced from 'snopes.' I wasn't challenging the legitimacy of snopes, I was just posting a source that did not have a title "Urban Legends Reference Pages."

I would disagree that ontheissues.org is leaning way right, if you go to the main page you'll see ALL of the candidates listed with links to quotes.

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

I believe most people would recognize, and respect, Snopes for being non-biased.

That is a very broad generalization.

I picked a site that referenced every position. The majority of the page you linked is about an Obama myth.

If you believe something is bias you can check out youtube. There is a very high probability that you will be able to pull up the clip from the debate that is being referenced.

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

Can you cite a reference to your accusation that Obama sponsored legislation as a state rep that would have banned all guns?

Modifying the 2nd amendment is a slippery slope.

I had no intentions of debating McCain or Obama's position on guns. I was simply putting up two links that would present some information on the subject.

Here is a link to the debate on April 16th that both of our sources are referencing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_LXb0ZPws

At :30 Obama states:

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country.

There's the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that's passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply.

But you also have the reality of what's happening here in Philadelphia and what's happening in Chicago."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Democ...4670271&page=4

He is comparing gun rights to zoning laws. Zoning laws are in place to protect the property rights of individuals. They protect residential neighborhoods from having a skyscraper built next door. How would the government restricting my neighbor from purchasing a gun protect my rights in the same way zoning laws protect my property?

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. At the time the constitution was constructed hunting was a must for most people that wanted to eat. The 2nd amendment is not entirely about protecting your property or your family. At that specific time period it is assumed you would protect both if they were threatened. The issue that almost all presidential candidates do not address is the fact the 2nd amendment is really protection from an oppressive government. The constitution does not grant us rights, it restrains the government from infringing on our inalienable rights as human beings. The 2nd amendment guarantees the people the ability to protect themselves, when you remove that protection all of our other rights are then in jeopardy. It is a check and balance.

The reality is gun laws only disarm law abiding citizens. People who use guns for violent crimes would not be stopped by the toughest gun laws.

At 1:35 Obama states "No, My writing was not on that particular questionnaire." According to the article from snopes you posted, it links to an AP story that Obama did in fact say he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/...223News017.asp

"That 1996 questionnaire asked whether he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. The campaign’s answer was straightforward: "Yes." Eight years later, he said on another questionnaire that "a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable," but reasonable restrictions should be imposed."

The article goes on to say:

“IVI-IPO officials said it’s inconceivable Obama would have let a staffer turn in a questionnaire with incorrect answers. The group interviewed Obama in person about his answers before endorsing him in that 1996 legislative race, and he didn’t suggest then, or anytime since, that the questionnaire needed to be corrected, they said.”

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I just want to bring up something that transcends party lines. Why did the third party candidates for president come together and agree on 4 critical problems we need to address as Americans?

Foreign Policy, Privacy, The National Debt, The Federal Reserve

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=457

Both McCain and Obama fundamentally agree on all four of these subjects:

Foreign policy - Both support preemptive strikes. Both want to keep our troops stationed all around the world. With either candidate we will have our troops fighting in some foreign country we have not declared war on.
Privacy - Both support the patriot act.
National Debt - Both are going to increase it with their policies (some more than others)
The Federal Reserve - Both support the federal reserve system.

At the most pivotal moment in recent history the candidate for 'change' will not address four issues that four respected politicians have raised. Why?