Who Do you Agree with?

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by jamber97

I agree with Obama on the economy, Iraq, terrorism, middle east, taxes and spending, trade and globalization, labor and business regulations, social security, abortion, Gun policy and crime, Gay rights, Poverty, the courts, government reform and his choice of team members.

The People's Cube is calling you.

[Penn]

1. Iraq: he was wrong at the beginning, middle, and now at the end; when he tried to delay the agreement to draw down the troops for the political benefit of his image and the cost of American lives. On this point alone he does not deserve to be in a position to be the CIC!!! Which by the way equals his staff member’s misstep with Canada’s on the NAFTA, playing global politics before he’s elected. A dangerous ego in my book, and quite possibly a glimmer of his treasonous attitude

[Penn]

2. terrorism, where do you live. I'll bet it's not NYC or any place where there is a population of rag heads. BHO will not fight the war, no different then Clinton.
If you take the time to read a thread here (I'll find it for you after this post) it contains all the dims comments through the clinton Presidency on the support to invade Iraq. And this was before the towers came down up the street from me. You are not aware enough, but I help take you to that dark abyss called reality.

[Penn]

This supports #2
By Abe Greenwald

Making it through the past seven years without a terrorist attack in the Unites States constitutes a miracle even if Democrats pretend it does not. Such a national security achievement is the result of smart initiatives and the judicious employment of military force, even if President Bush's critics treat it as sheer good luck. That such luck has selectively eluded Great Britain, Spain, Russia, China, Indonesia, and Turkey (to name but a few) during the same period of time is habitually ignored by those making the case against "the worst president in U.S. history."

While al Qaeda has managed to explode buses, trains and buildings in other world capitals, the United States--the terrorists' number-one enemy--has thwarted at least 19 terrorist plots and killed or captured thousands upon thousands of Islamist terrorists. Yet, we are supposed to lament the great squandering of world sympathy and national resources foolishly overseen by our President in his misguided War on Terror.

If by "world sympathy" critics are referring to the 24-hour cycle of weeping international headlines that followed the attacks of September 11 or to the cc's of Yasser Arafat's donated (and almost certainly infected) blood, then they're right: George W. Bush failed to put such valuable assets to work for America. And if by "resources" they mean American aid, then they are right there, too: Though Bush did increase international aid by an unprecedented 50 percent in three years, he failed to transform the U.S. - already the largest benefactor in world history - into a pure patron-state devoted to the health and well-being of its enemies. We will just have to live with the legacy of these missed opportunities.

But if by "world sympathy" one means the ethical self-interest of free countries in seeing that America remains the most powerful player on the globe, then President Bush has certainly made the most of a dwindling supply. At the time of the September 11 attacks, some key European countries were under the leadership of uniquely anti-American opportunists. To be sure, French President Jaques Chirac was more interested in the price of oil than the price of freedom, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was adept at exploiting anti-American sentiment in order to consolidate popular support and cozy up to Russia. Even so, France, Germany and other NATO allies contributed to the coalition effort against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bush even got Russia to provide the hospital in Kabul, used to treat coalition forces and Afghan civilians.

If Afghanistan is supposedly the "good war" and Iraq a disastrous war of choice, then Bush's critics need to explain why our coalition for the former was so similar to our coalition for the latter. The main difference is that the two most cynical partners in Afghanistan--Chirac's France and Schroeder's Germany--bailed out on Iraq for the most cynical reason: financial partnership with autocrats. Happily for everyone, we are prevailing in Iraq without the help of France and Germany, and those two nations can now boast of dynamically pro-American leaders who, for the most part, share our level of commitment to the War on Terror.

In terms of resources, there is no doubt that America has paid a heavy price in blood and treasure to ensure that our homeland has remained safe these seven years. It is this very sacrifice on the part of so many men and women that demands an honest accounting of America's progress against her enemies. For, even though Democrats use careful language in discussing our troops and they throw around terms like honor and duty, they imply in their every snicker and denouncement that American lives have also been squandered in Iraq. That brand of dishonest sanctimony is conveyed perfectly in something Nancy Pelosi said to Wolf Blitzer in February:

There haven't been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure. The troops have succeeded, God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for their sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage and to their families as well. But they deserve better than the policy of a war without end, a war that could be 20 years or longer.

In other words: The troops have succeeded wonderfully in their failure, and by the way God bless them. And if you don't yet grasp the pointlessness of the Iraq War, let me throw out an imaginary figure of 20 years and see if that does the trick.

The troops deserve better.

After September 11, it became clear that the forces of clerical barbarism in the Muslim world had to be destroyed to the best of our ability. Draining the swamp of theocrats would give Muslims a chance to improve their lot in this lifeand decrease the sick desire to atomize themselves into the next. The troops deployed in Iraq have not only succeeded in deposing Saddam's Ba'athist regime, but also in defeating jihadists whose ideology poses a singular threat to American existence. Over the course of the war that Nancy Pelosi calls a failure, support for jihad has plummeted all over the Muslim world. Every major poll indicates popular Muslim disillusionment with Osama bin Laden and his nihilistic tactics. As soldiers and Marines, the men and women fighting in Iraq have done nothing less than ensure the continued existence of the free world. As civilians, we're obligated to let them know we owe them everything.

Every criticism of President Bush's national security record begins rightly with the charge that Osama bin Laden has not been captured or confirmed dead. Any honest defense of Bush must reckon with this fact. The story goes that in 2003 U.S. forces abandoned the hunt for bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan and shifted their focus onto Iraq, giving the al Qaeda leader a free pass so that we could take up arms against a regime unconnected to the attacks of September 11. Let's put aside the fact that this is a false choice. And let's put aside questions about the claim's legitimacy regarding timelines, intelligence agencies, roaming fighters, Iraq's terrorist ties, and the dynamics of force deployment, and simply accept the accusation at its most damning. To wit: Bush lost bin Laden by going into Iraq. Okay: If I were offered the choice of taking out one al Qaeda mastermind who had recently been reduced to the status of cave-dwelling spoken-word artist or more than a thousand senior al Qaeda operatives and tens of thousands of armed Islamist soldiers, I would choose the latter a thousand out of a thousand times.

And the proof is in the pudding. Consider the decimated state of al Qaeda and related organizations since they've come up against overwhelming American force in Iraq. As CIA director Michael Hayden recently put it, we've seen "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally." Would the hunt for one man in the caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan have yielded better results? In answering, don't forget the debilitating caution employed by the U.S. inside Pakistani territory (at least until recently) so as not to upset Islamabad.

Again, it's not a real choice, but if the Democrats want to peddle the bin Laden or Iraq line, they should be prepared to say why Bush chose wrong. No, it's not acceptable that Osama bin Laden hasn't been killed or captured, but his evasion of American forces has not occurred in a vacuum. What the U.S. has accomplished apart from the failure to get one man has undoubtedly saved countless American lives, freed millions in the Muslim world, and mobilized anti-radical sentiment throughout global Islam.

The truth is something vital has been squandered in the years since we were attacked. It's not the world's sympathy or money or American lives. I fear we've squandered the chance to remember and relearn what it means to be a part of the longest-running and most honorable revolution in world history. To appreciate not just the fruits of American democracy, but the frustrations and sacrifices that were endured in creating and defending it. Instead of excoriating our president for his blunders and setbacks, we should have been rallying, as a nation, recalling in our history the many times we triumphed in the face of determined and evil adversaries. We're told we've forgotten about the principles of our Constitution, but as Americans sit around and freely describe our elected leaders as fascists and our soldiers as indiscriminate killers, it's clear we've forgotten what it takes to keep those principles alive.

Seven years ago, we all went out and bought American flags and covered everything in red, white, and blue, knowing perfectly well we were heading into years of war. Today, our Democratic nominee for president is at pains to admit to an American victory. Something has indeed been wasted in seven years. But luckily, much as been saved. This is George W. Bush's last September 11 in the White House, and I'd like to take the opportunity to say, "Thank you, Mr. President."

[Pete]

Originally Posted by jamber97

...I agree with Obama on ..... Gun policy and crime, ....

Jamber;

I'll only pick one of your agreements with the Obama/Biden ticket. What is the Obama policy on guns and crime? How does Biden support that position as the VP pick? How in line with that policy is the Democrat platform? Do the Democrats of his party support that position by their votes in the House and Senate?

Pete

[Penn]

middle east

Ok Jamber, before we go down this road; please explain in details your knowledge of the Middle East. Before you do, google Professor William Evans, if you intend on discussing this issue with me. He has spent the last fifty plus years on the issue and is a friend and teacher on this diverse AO.I agree with much of his impartial prespective.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by Penn

1. Iraq: he was wrong at the beginning, middle, and now at the end; when he tried to delay the agreement to draw down the troops for the political benefit of his image and the cost of American lives. On this point alone he does not deserve to be in a position to be the CIC!!! Which by the way equals his staff member’s misstep with Canada’s on the NAFTA, playing global politics before he’s elected. A dangerous ego in my book, and quite possibly a glimmer of his treasonous attitude

He was correct in wanting to focus on Afghanistan and not invade Iraq. He admitted he was off on his approach on the surge but some of his ideas were used in its application. He was correct about implementing a time table on withdraw. That story about him trying to delay the withdraw of troops is bunk in my opinion and denied by him. You can't believe everything you read especially when you check the source.

If you take the same skeptical view of McCain’s candidacy you can drudge up quite a bit of contradictions and reasons why he shouldn’t be president.

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by jamber97

Is there a perfect candidate for president? No, McCain/ Palin has just as many if not more draw backs than Obama/Biden but you wouldn't know that from reading here or in listening to conservative talk radio. Talk radio is propaganda on both sides. Conservative talk radio hated McCain and talked about him like he was the anti Christ, until he became the nominee.

Focusing on the issues, Obama and a Democratic congress is in a better position to accomplish his plans than would be a McCain and a Democratic congress. The Republican philosophy has been tested and has its flaws. Privatization and deregulating things has proven to be disastrous. Allowing lobbyist to create your policy on such a large scale doesn't put the interest of the country first; it puts the interest of the organizations who are lobbying first. Hence the big mess we're in now.

I find that both party's and their followers tend to go to the extreme in their philosophy. It seems that as humans we tend to do this. Obama seems more willing to move to the center and has proven to be more right than wrong in his public stance on the issues in comparison to other candidates.

I vote based upon the issues and the candidates general philosophy. I don't label the candidate or put them into a category. I voted for 2 terms of Bush because I believed in his philosophy and approach. I felt we could see if it would work, given 8 years for it to be put into practice. The result wasn't what I expected hence the approach needs to be changed. I feel that Obama is that change and McCain represents a failed philosophy.

I don't agree with either candidate on all the issues but I don't see McCain giving us the best chance to improve where our countries at.

I agree with Obama on the economy, Iraq, terrorism, middle east, taxes and spending, trade and globalization, labor and business regulations, social security, abortion, Gun policy and crime, Gay rights, Poverty, the courts, government reform and his choice of team members.

I agree with McCain on Diplomacy, healthcare, Energy, education


They both have a similar approach on the environment and immigration.

Based upon my areas of agreement, I see Obama and a democratic congress being able to accomplish a great deal more than McCain and a democratic congress.

Jamber, I'm sorry to have to call you on a technicality right off the bat, but in order to have a meaningful conversation I am forced...

You stated that you could demonstrate the long term benefits of an Obama presidency, but instead you have just listed off the things you agree with him on.

Concerning the economic comments you made, you offered zero evidence to support your claims. Merely analysis passed off as fact.

Free market economies have out performed centrally planned or heavily regulated ones in just about every category of measurement that we track.

You claim that deregulation and privatization have proven disastrous...how so? In the midst of our own economic down turn our economy has outperformed the socialized economies of Europe.

Furthermore, the downturns in our own economy can hardly be blamed on a lack of government interference. the mortgage crisis was in many ways a direct result of federal interference at the federal level. Every thing from the lowering of interest rates, to a presidential and congressional push towards coercing banKs to give loans to people un-qualified under the guise of "fairness".

What republican philosophy has its flaws?

Would that be the philosophy of free enterprise? Capitalism has been the foundation of our economic growth for the last 232 years. How can you possibly say that privatization has failed? What evidence do you bring to bear? And you beg the question, if privatization has failed, where exactly has nationalization succeeded?

So maybe we should take this one step at a time. One issue at a time.

we can start where you like but I suggest we begin with economic policy.

I will argue from the side of the free market and you will presumably argue from the side of the centrally planned, or at least heavily regulated economy.

I believe that the free market economy works best because it is based on voluntary cooperation as opposed to centrally planned / and or heavily regulated economies which are based off of coercion.

Capitalism due to its competitive nature rewards innovation, efficiency and cooperation. It is color and gender blind. It is concerned only with positive results; positive results being defined as that method which delivers the proper product at the proper price to the consumer.

Centrally planned, or heavily regulated economies assume that a third party has greater insight into the wants and needs of the people directly involved in the transaction. The Soviet Union at its height was attempting to set prices for over 20 million products, which even the smartest economists could not possibly hope to achieve.

your suggestion that privatization and deregulation has produced disastrous results comes without any definition of what a "disastrous result" is.

Are you insinuating that there is some economic system where by we can definitively circumvent human fallibility? And if you are suggesting such a system, who do you propose administer it? Certainly not humans.

You blame free markets for human fallibility. I may make a unwise economic decision, for which i alone can or should be blamed. your suggestion that privatization is the problem is nothing more than a suggestion that a central planner would have not made the same mistake and therefore is capable of conducting my affairs better than I am. While this may work for specific individuals or isolated incidents, can you honestly say that such an arrangement is capable of answering all of life's questions for me or 280 million other Americans on a day to day basis? Are you not suggesting that freedom is therefore to complicated an arrangement and should therefore be discarded?

On a separate but related note, how does one maintain meaningful political freedom without meaningful economic freedom? How much more fundamentally out of touch with our founding principles is my vote if I am merely determining which central planner should run my life?

I might also add, that you began your statement lamenting the failed policies of politicians in general; then just as quickly suggested that we entrust to these politicians one of the most fundamental means by which we exercise our freedom.

If the American revolution was not fought to secure greater self determination for how I earn my living, which takes up the majority of my life, then what exactly was its purpose?

All and all the flaws which you speak of, have little to do with capitalism or free markets, and a great deal more to do with the human condition.

But despite our flaws, capitalism has produced the greatest economic results for the largest amount of people than any other system yet devised by man.

So there is my philosophical defense of free enterprise against centrally or heavily regulated economies.

I await your response.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by Pete

Jamber;

I'll only pick one of your agreements with the Obama/Biden ticket. What is the Obama policy on guns and crime? How does Biden support that position as the VP pick? How in line with that policy is the Democrat platform? Do the Democrats of his party support that position by their votes in the House and Senate?

Pete

Some restrictions on certain types of guns

Supports death penalty in more limited circumstances

Ease some drug sentencing requirements

Undecided on medical marijuana

I haven't reviewed his votes as it relates to guns but he's open to making it more difficult to introduce certain weapons into our market where as McCain wants no restrictions. I also feel that he might be open to making certain drugs legal or moved down on the priority list.

[Penn]

The thread is: Why Iraq was Inevitable. You can locate it in the Middle East section of the forum. You will find a ton of quotes between 1991 and 1998, by Dems to invade from the congressional record and quote from the "news". Review at the sake of losing your naiveté...

[morolen]

Originally Posted by USANick7

I would argue that the "abortion" issue is fundamental. We actually had a very thorough discussion on this topic on another thread.

To say that the "abortion" issue stems from the Christian side of the party is to pay a compliment; since the argument against abortion is based on science, legality, logic, morality, etc. where as the pro-choice argument is based on subterfuge.

I am willing to bet (although I admittedly don't know yet) that you don't truly support abortion as it is logically defined; but rather support it by its false presentation as a defense of individual liberty.

Not to mention, that opposing something because it comes from the "Christian" side doesn't tell us much except that you possess a prejudice against the "Christian" side. In which case it begs the question, is a policy position "bad" because it derives its grounding or support from the Christian world view?

As far as the 2 parties argument...can you demonstrate how a multi party system would work better practically? I am forever hearing about the vices of a two party system, yet seldom if ever do I observe a practical application of a multi party system that I would prefer. I might also add that we ARE a multi party system. People have DEMOCRATICALLY chosen to throw their support behind 2 parties, so how can you claim that our system "undermines" the democratic process, when it is the democratic process which has chosen it?

Unless of course you are arguing against the "winner take all" system is the problem, and would instead prefer we assign seats in congress or respective legislatures according to proportion of votes. In which case you would not so much vote for an individual candidate but a party. Of course now you are no longer voting for the individual as much as you are the party, and you have taken the regional consideration out of the process and are now merely voting for a representative at large, there by somewhat undermining Federalist principles.

Well stated, as are several of your other posts on the matter, particularly the ones Here, I admire your reasoning and rhetoric. However, I know the audience here and I have a rough ideal of the prevailing morals that dominate this forum. With that in mind I have no desire to offend you or anyone else here and I am aware that my opinions will be viewed as morally questionable at best and inflammatory at worst, so I would quietly ask to agree to disagree and sit quietly in disagreement while acknowledging your points as valid. Subsequently I have no desire to debate, and little skill at argument as well, rather you (and TR) asked and I answered, although I imagine the preceding post was somewhat unsatisfactory, ahem, my bad.

[ZonieDiver]

For me, one of the best examples of the negative effect of the national government's interference in matters that should not directly concern it is in the field of education. As the years have passed, the "Feds" have intruded more, and more, and more. Ask yourself, "Is education at almost any level today as good as it was when YOU were in that level of education?" Has all this "free money" and "government wisdom" turned out better or worse students?

I deal with the results of their "well-intended" legislation daily. Trust me, 95% of the time it doesn't help, but severely hinders a students academic performance, a teacher's ability to actually teach SOMEthing, and an administrator's ability to do his or her job. Keep your money! Leave me the heck alone!

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by jamber97

Focusing on the issues, Obama and a Democratic congress is in a better position to accomplish his plans than would be a McCain and a Democratic congress.

So?
Does that mean his plans are better?

Originally Posted by jamber97

The Republican philosophy has been tested and has its flaws. Privatization and deregulating things has proven to be disastrous.

Compared to what?

Originally Posted by jamber97

Allowing lobbyist to create your policy on such a large scale doesn't put the interest of the country first; it puts the interest of the organizations who are lobbying first. Hence the big mess we're in now.

In other words:
Lobbyists are self-interested.
What party in congress have they been lobbying for the last 2 years?

Originally Posted by jamber97

Obama seems more willing to move to the center and has proven to be more right than wrong in his public stance on the issues in comparison to other candidates.

This is a bald-faced assertion.
What evidence is there to support this statement?

Originally Posted by jamber97

I vote based upon the issues and the candidates general philosophy.
I feel that Obama is that change and McCain represents a failed philosophy.

I agree with Obama on the economy, Iraq, terrorism, middle east, taxes and spending, trade and globalization, labor and business regulations, social security, abortion, Gun policy and crime, Gay rights, Poverty, the courts, government reform and his choice of team members.

-You don't need too see his identification.
-We don't need to see his identification.
-These aren't the droids you're looking for.
-These aren't the droids we're looking for.

Originally Posted by jamber97

I agree with McCain on Diplomacy, healthcare, Energy, education

So how do you divorce the diplomacy of one from the Iraq/terrorism/middle east policy of the other?

-Or- taxes and spending, trade and globalization, labor and business regulations of one from the energy policy of the other?

-Or- education from all of the above?
(civilian national security force...)

Originally Posted by jamber97

They both have a similar approach on the environment and immigration.

Similarly to the left.

Originally Posted by jamber97

Based upon my areas of agreement, I see Obama and a democratic congress being able to accomplish a great deal more than McCain and a democratic congress.

Name one significant democratic party plank where disagreement is tolerated.


All of the specific issues aside, Obama has demonstrates one character weakness which in itself I find disqualifying:

He is afraid to make the hard decision which may cost him dearly in the political arena.

That sort of indecisiveness is fine in the legislative branch.
It is entirely unacceptable as the leader of the free world.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by USANick7

Jamber, I'm sorry to have to call you on a technicality right off the bat, but in order to have a meaningful conversation I am forced...

You stated that you could demonstrate the long term benefits of an Obama presidency, but instead you have just listed off the things you agree with him on.

Concerning the economic comments you made, you offered zero evidence to support your claims. Merely analysis passed off as fact.

Free market economies have out performed centrally planned or heavily regulated ones in just about every category of measurement that we track.

You claim that deregulation and privatization have proven disastrous...how so? In the midst of our own economic down turn our economy has outperformed the socialized economies of Europe.

Furthermore, the downturns in our own economy can hardly be blamed on a lack of government interference. the mortgage crisis was in many ways a direct result of federal interference at the federal level. Every thing from the lowering of interest rates, to a presidential and congressional push towards coercing banKs to give loans to people un-qualified under the guise of "fairness".

What republican philosophy has its flaws?

Would that be the philosophy of free enterprise? Capitalism has been the foundation of our economic growth for the last 232 years. How can you possibly say that privatization has failed? What evidence do you bring to bear? And you beg the question, if privatization has failed, where exactly has nationalization succeeded?

So maybe we should take this one step at a time. One issue at a time.

we can start where you like but I suggest we begin with economic policy.

I will argue from the side of the free market and you will presumably argue from the side of the centrally planned, or at least heavily regulated economy.

I believe that the free market economy works best because it is based on voluntary cooperation as opposed to centrally planned / and or heavily regulated economies which are based off of coercion.

Capitalism due to its competitive nature rewards innovation, efficiency and cooperation. It is color and gender blind. It is concerned only with positive results; positive results being defined as that method which delivers the proper product at the proper price to the consumer.

Centrally planned, or heavily regulated economies assume that a third party has greater insight into the wants and needs of the people directly involved in the transaction. The Soviet Union at its height was attempting to set prices for over 20 million products, which even the smartest economists could not possibly hope to achieve.

your suggestion that privatization and deregulation has produced disastrous results comes without any definition of what a "disastrous result" is.

Are you insinuating that there is some economic system where by we can definitively circumvent human fallibility? And if you are suggesting such a system, who do you propose administer it? Certainly not humans.

You blame free markets for human fallibility. I may make a unwise economic decision, for which i alone can or should be blamed. your suggestion that privatization is the problem is nothing more than a suggestion that a central planner would have not made the same mistake and therefore is capable of conducting my affairs better than I am. While this may work for specific individuals or isolated incidents, can you honestly say that such an arrangement is capable of answering all of life's questions for me or 280 million other Americans on a day to day basis? Are you not suggesting that freedom is therefore to complicated an arrangement and should therefore be discarded?

On a separate but related note, how does one maintain meaningful political freedom without meaningful economic freedom? How much more fundamentally out of touch with our founding principles is my vote if I am merely determining which central planner should run my life?

I might also add, that you began your statement lamenting the failed policies of politicians in general; then just as quickly suggested that we entrust to these politicians one of the most fundamental means by which we exercise our freedom.

If the American revolution was not fought to secure greater self determination for how I earn my living, which takes up the majority of my life, then what exactly was its purpose?

All and all the flaws which you speak of, have little to do with capitalism or free markets, and a great deal more to do with the human condition.

But despite our flaws, capitalism has produced the greatest economic results for the largest amount of people than any other system yet devised by man.

So there is my philosophical defense of free enterprise against centrally or heavily regulated economies.

I await your response.

I was trying to imply that a move away from the current approach would improve things in the long run. I’m not recommending a move away from a free market society but as I stated, going to an extreme and leaving things unchecked and unregulated isn’t the way to go.

In the long run you have to protect men from themselves; they'll only do the right thing if there's incentive.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by jamber97

Some restrictions on certain types of guns

Supports death penalty in more limited circumstances

Ease some drug sentencing requirements

Undecided on medical marijuana

I haven't reviewed his votes as it relates to guns but he's open to making it more difficult to introduce certain weapons into our market where as McCain wants no restrictions. I also feel that he might be open to making certain drugs legal or moved down on the priority list.

Details please

What "certain types of guns"?

Like weapons designed for non-hunting uses? Weapons that fire "cop killer" bullets able to go through a "bullet proof" vest? Weapons of a certain length? Weapons with a pistol grip or bayonet lug? Semi automatic weapons? Weapons with detachable maginzines? Weapons with En Bloc clips?

Which weapons and ammunition does he think we can do without?

Details on what he thinks are bad guns.

FWIIW - the company that holds the micro stamping patent is donating real big sums of money to Democrats.