Reply #59: what the *hell* are you talking about?

[iverglas]

And I think being a former Democratic President of the United States qualifies as being an expert in the field.

Are you actually claiming that something that Bill Clinton said constitutes "expert opinion" that the assault weapons ban is ineffective or some damned thing??

Here's what the article said:

When former President Bill Clinton sought to frame differences between Democrats and Republicans, he made a point of citing the soon-to-expire federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.

"Our policy was to put more police on the street and to take assault weapons off the street, and it gave you eight years of declining crime and eight years of declining violence," Clinton said in his prime-time speech at the Democratic National Convention last week. "Their policy is the reverse."

Clinton's comments demonstrated how some Democrats hope to use the assault weapons issue against President Bush and members of Congress in the campaign.

So what are YOU talking about??

Expert opinion is indeed "admissible evidence" -- and, more to the point, is generally regarded as a good basis for one's own opinion in an argument.

Now if you or anyone else would actually like to present the opinion of some actual expert in support of whatever you're saying, the rest of the world will be eager to hear about it.

If you're offering Clinton as an expert whose opinion should be conclusive or even persuasive in support of the assault weapons ban, you've done a fine job indeed.