[justshutupandtakeit]

Of course, you are correct but don't expect this to sink into the rock heads here who are so anxious to support conservatives worst nightmare.

The AW ban is based upon fraudulent arguments and is of no value in stopping crime, of course. I never have supported it and never will. Like most, if not all, GC laws it only affects the law abiding.

[Lazamataz]

Your sentences are so packed with positive and negative meanings, that I have to parse them into sentence fragments and address each one. :o)

Of course, you are correct

Thank you, sir. I endeavor to be impartial and logical in my analysis and discussions.

but don't expect this to sink into the rock heads here

Do we really need to go straight to the personal jab? I think you'd do a lot better in getting your idea across if you used less highly-charged descriptions of people. And why describe people at all? Why not deconstruct their argument?

Obviously, I too am guilty of the Ad Hominem, but I try to avoid it whenever possible. I'd rather lay an argument to waste than call someone a choice, if witty, name.

who are so anxious to support conservatives worst nightmare.

I'm too lazy to look it up, and I need to get back to work, but now you are committing a logical fallacy by stating that a withdrawal of support from Bush is an 'anxiousness to support' his opponent.