[tpaine]

Laz, in your efforts to appear clever, you only demonstrate your own ignorance:

I replied to Jsuati:
Thus, you support a man who says he will sign a bill prohibiting such weapons. -- You support [the] signing [of] the bill. ..

You are committing a retroductive fallacy of soundness (somewhat taking the form of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy).
To wit:
Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
George W. Bush supports the AW ban.
Therefore, Jsuati supports [the man in signing] the AW ban

Case closed. Both you & Jsuati have some serious problems with elementary logic & reasoning.

[Lazamataz]

Laz, in your efforts to appear clever, you only demonstrate your own ignorance

It appears as though you are projecting. Your ignorance in the field of logic is being quite clearly shown.

1. Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
2. George W. Bush supports the AW ban.
3. Therefore, Jsuati supports [the man in signing] the AW ban Case closed.

So, according to you:

1. Roosters crow in the morning.
2. In the morning, the sun comes up.
3. Therefore, roosters cause [in the morning] the sun to come up.

Hey, listen. I'm not above letting a person be ignorant and uneducated. My role is not to be a teacher. I'll get out of your way whilst you remain ignorant and become smug about it.