My thread got axed. Was about the debate and why no talk of gun control.

So I will ask again in a different way Joe Biden has said he would make Beto O'Rourke his gun zar. Beto said heck yes we will take your ar15's and your al 57's. Yet no questions in the debate about the gun control issue. Why no?

Not sure why the last one was axed but I would guess the responses got off topic.

I don’t think there’s any confusion for anyone who bases their vote on the 2nd amendment. Probably best to not bring it up and try to snag a few extra votes from other topics.

Because someone said something less than glowing about Trump's actual stance on the 2A.

Trump is way better for us than Biden on not losing 2A ground but he hasn't done zip to gain ground.

Judges, blah blah blah.

Getting another conservative in the supreme court is the BEST thing Trump can do to preserve our guns rights for decades to come.

It didnt get brought up because record amounts of liberals are buying guns and ammo with all the civil unrest. The liberal media can't have Biden making any comments on gun control. If he keeps his normal stance he'll lose the moderate left.

WRONG - it got axed because it didn't say with gun control. It went into Trump for 2020 and replies like that.

I don't disagree that another Justice on the Supreme Court that says she will follow the Constitution is potentially helpful in holding off the attacks on the 2A. She can say all of the right things and we can assume she is going to uphold the 2A but it is still a gamble.

Regardless, there are three branches of government. In the last almost four years, the Executive Branch hasn't done zip except take away 2A rights. The legislative branch hasn't done zip and for the first two years of Trump's presidency, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

NO ground has been gained.

Fair enough. I'm sticking to the 2A.

I feel it would be smart for Trump to bring up the issue of gun control at their next debate.

There was so much bickering, that the main points of some subjects were completely lost. If Biden were allowed to stammer on, which clearly showed stress for him in continued exertion of thought process, he would have shown clearly in multiple subjects just how terrible his "administration's" plans are...and how he disagreed with them in some things, that would make a rift between himself and the squad, much more apparent to the public...and the more he would slur his words and disjointed sentences would surface. When interrupted, it only gave him the time to regroup his thoughts and give his mind a break.

That, and with such little time to explain anything of depth , the subject of the 2nd would have ended the same way....terrible. I was glad that wasn't mentioned.

Trump made great points on many things, the existence of ANTIFA, and Hunter Biden's millions, how law enforcement backs him totally, which Biden denied as being fact...and in pinning him focused on his disagreeing with the squad's Green New Deal....which was great...understood he was very frustrated and tired by the time the first debate ....but needs to let Biden talk on, letting him get stuck more and more as he goes.

Wallace was awful, prefacing some of his questions with old stabs at things the media had used out of context to put an immediate hostile flavour to the answers...all of which Trump had to overcome as well. I would not have wanted Wallace to even bring up the 2nd A.

It began well, and can be a learning point of how to best proceed from there.

If the 2nd is discussed later, hopefully it will stick to the points in facts, not got off subject, and make the points with no waste of generalized words, all which eat up the few minutes allotted ...very difficult to do, even with very disciplined control. And with no Wallace character as moderator.

I'm not fact checking to see if this is correct, but say its true, can you imagine what may have been lost if Hillary had won and continued the down hill slide Obama started?

So that's our standard? Talk about low expectations. If that's the case, a bum off the streets could have done as much for me on the 2A.

This started well before Obama. I would say Reagan (who I like on many other things) really got us going down the slippery slope. Now our choices are to stay on the slippery slope with the GOP or choose to go off the cliff with Dems.

It started in the 1960's when the Black Panthers started showing up on television toting weapons.

Actually, it probably started in the 1930's. I'll let Danny jump in on that. He is much better on that topic.

Those are our ONLY choices, like it or not. Republican or Democrat. There is not a case to made to say voting Democrat will help the 2A, in fact just the opposite, they say it right out they seek to destroy the 2A.

Doesn't the Senate need 60 votes to pass a law?

Yup and it was Governor Reagan that started it when the Panthers showed up in Sacramento.

bla, bla, bla... we're splitting hairs, I should of said if Hillary continued down the slope Obama was on, no matter when it started.

Because "we" allow it.

60 votes in the Senate yes or no?