(Do they say “yes” and then have people say “d00d assault weapons = semiautos u sux!” or do they say “no” and then have people say “d00d assault weapons = machine guns u sux!”?

I’d have preferred them to say “This question is stupid and here’s why, and here’s what I think about semi-auto and machine-gun regulations…”, but I won’t require it from a politician, especially since the vast majority of the electorate simply doesn’t give a rat’s ass about those distinctions.

It’s gun-policy wonkery, in practical terms, and politicians know that public wonkery in the wrong place is death.)

They both get complete passes from me.

A Yes answer from either candidate would likely cost them a great deal of support in Nashville and especially Memphis. Contrary to popular belief, there actually are sizeable cities in Tennessee, populated with the same sorts of “hoplophobes” that live in other cities.

I think such an answer re: the wording of the 2nd Amendment and ALL THE REST of the Bill of Rights would be readily received by the great majority of the American electorate as a breath of fresh air. The managers and handlers of these “empty suits” evidently counsel them otherwise.

Tgirsch – it’s freaking Tennesse. “Yes” might have earned the damn Republican votes. It’s not Texas or a completely free state, but it’s just as equally not Taxachusetts or New Jersey.

Come to think of it, Corker may be able to do it also with the same effect.

Incorrect assumption.

When was the last time you heard anyone try it? Reagan gave some pretty straight-up answers, and he won twice, and rather handily. Here’s my fantasy answer, for all you candidates in the Uncle audience:

“Well, I actually read the Second Amendment, and then I took an Oath to uphold the entire Constitution, not just your favorite pieces of it. I also am quite aware of the thinking behind the Second Amendment– that its primary purpose is to stand as a guarantee against government tyranny. The Second Amendment refers to our citizen militia and to the security of a free state, and it does so without any qualifiers. Therefore I would be in violation of my solemn Oath to say anything other than “Yes, of course.” Anyone who doesn’t like that is free to push for another Amendment. Until then I will, as my Oath demands, strive to enforce the full Bill of Rights as it stands.

Hmmm, “political suicide” for the empty suit establishment candidates who can’t or won’t address a basic right issue–that sounds great! All the more reason I will not “waste my vote” on either.

However, since they each said that they don’t think we need any new laws, and the guns you own are currently legal, then it can be inferred that they don’t want to make your guns (or any other currently available guns, whether they be “assault weapons” or whatever) illegal.

Definitely a cop-out on their part, but the real answer would have to have a definition incorporated into it and when you do that you tick off everyone. Some people will say that the definition doesn’t go far enough while others will say it goes too far. Those opposed to guns will say he’s being too lax on what people can buy while some of us gunnies will say that he wants to outlaw some guns.

It’s not an easy question to answer. Perhaps a good follow-up question would have been “Since you say that you don’t think we need any new gun laws, does that mean that you would vote against any bills that would add further restrictions on gun ownership?”.

Get an answer to that question in writing for use later on.

Re; the so-called “assault weapons ban”, IF a candidate is going to uphold the WORDING of the 2nd Amendment according to the basic rules of English grammar, then they would not support it. Well, maybe that’s part of the confusion.

No politician is going to answer that question because of the confusion among the public about what an assault weapon is.

I don’t think it’s just the public that’s confused. The candidates probably are as well.

Then why don’t they answer intelligently and correctly “yes or no”, on whether they would or would not support the renewal of the 1994 “semi-auto weapons” ban. I have two self-defense weapons which would be included under that ban–so it’s a question I want answered. Those who will not or cannot answer with an explanation of correct terminology, if necessary, are unfit for the office.

Think you posted that to the wrong post. Will move.

Since Corker wasn’t there to vote, that would give him an chance to figure out how he would have or would vote in the future. Seems I read in this blog a while back that someone quizzed Cirker on this and he said he would “have to study the issue”.

More reasons to VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE for the U.S. Senate besides these two sorry excuses to represent the interests of our State.