HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Opinions on The Democrati...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:18 AM

Opinions on The Democratic Party Platform, 2012?

(or the snip that pertains to this group in particular, anyway)

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021263271
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

On the whole, I like it, even though it seems a bit milquetoast.

59 replies, 5345 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply Opinions on The Democratic Party Platform, 2012? (Original post)
Electric Monk Sep 2012 OP
rrneck Sep 2012 #1
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #7
appal_jack Sep 2012 #22
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #29
sarisataka Sep 2012 #31
glacierbay Sep 2012 #35
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #36
glacierbay Sep 2012 #37
sarisataka Sep 2012 #46
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #2
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #3
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #5
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #4
safeinOhio Sep 2012 #11
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #12
safeinOhio Sep 2012 #13
gejohnston Sep 2012 #15
DanTex Sep 2012 #14
Missycim Sep 2012 #17
DanTex Sep 2012 #18
Missycim Sep 2012 #20
DanTex Sep 2012 #23
Missycim Sep 2012 #24
DanTex Sep 2012 #25
Missycim Sep 2012 #27
DanTex Sep 2012 #30
Missycim Sep 2012 #32
X_Digger Sep 2012 #33
Missycim Sep 2012 #34
X_Digger Sep 2012 #38
DanTex Sep 2012 #40
Missycim Sep 2012 #48
DanTex Sep 2012 #50
gejohnston Sep 2012 #52
gejohnston Sep 2012 #41
DanTex Sep 2012 #44
gejohnston Sep 2012 #47
DanTex Sep 2012 #49
gejohnston Sep 2012 #51
DanTex Sep 2012 #53
gejohnston Sep 2012 #55
Missycim Sep 2012 #21
dmallind Sep 2012 #28
rDigital Sep 2012 #6
spin Sep 2012 #8
bad sofa king Sep 2012 #9
ileus Sep 2012 #10
Paladin Sep 2012 #19
DanTex Sep 2012 #26
Paladin Sep 2012 #39
gejohnston Sep 2012 #42
DanTex Sep 2012 #43
gejohnston Sep 2012 #45
Paladin Sep 2012 #56
gejohnston Sep 2012 #57
slackmaster Sep 2012 #16
jody Sep 2012 #54
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #58
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #59

Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:25 AM

1. The AWB and the "gun show loophole" are useless.

They will cost more votes than they gain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:24 AM

7. Useless for more reasons than that.

 

The AWB was based on appearances, not functionality.

There IS no "gun show loophole". Private owners, whether at a gun show or not, may legally transfer firearms without background checks.


They're both complete non-issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:50 AM

22. Plus, so called 'assault weapons' are what people want

AR's and AK's are some of the most popular centerfire rifles on the market today. It's not 'commonsense' to restrict rifles based upon cosmetic features or magazine capacity, nor should Democrats try to pretend that these rifles are only in the hands of maniacs.

I like the platform up until the mention of the AWB and closing the erroneously-named gun show loophole. Pushing either of these failed policies will only lose rural votes.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:34 AM

29. Agreed. My problem with including that language is...

 

...that I don't think Dems really plan to do either one. They're just trying to appease the anti-gun people.

However, it will be used by at least some gun rights supporters as proof that Democrats are moving toward taking their guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #29)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:19 PM

31. According to the toilet paper the NRA sends

me every month:
Are these Democrats fearful that the documents the Obama administration is withholding would reveal the true motivation behind "Fast and Furious?" Was it a plan to flood Mexico with firearms that could readily be traced back to the U.S., lending credence to the "90 percent" sound-bite Obama's office manufactured as a reason to reinstate the "assault weapons" ban, or to enact new restrictions such as the administrations' current rifle sales reporting scheme?

First Freedom, September 2012, p.38

The NRA is happy to take any lead and run with it to prove Obama is 'just waiting until his second term' to grab the guns. I am sure next month I will be treated to the 'proof' of that by the statement in the party platform.

It would have been fine w/o calling for the AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:49 PM

35. I have never believed that RW shit that Obama is going to take our guns in his second term

 

Pres. Obama cannot enact laws, only the Congress can and how many here think that's going to happen?
Not a snowball's chance in hell that's going to happen, and as far as 1 poster who suggested that Pres Obama issue an executive order, that's just insane thinking that a politician as smart as Pres. Obama would do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:05 PM

36. Neither have I, but many do.

 

Why get them agitated by talking about AWBs and closing gun show "loopholes" when we're not going to do it anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:11 PM

37. I agree

 

why get the opposition fired up with proposing feel good, do nothing laws?
The AWB was a complete flop in as it did nothing to lower the crime rate, didn't actually ban any rifle, didn't ban existing mags that were >10 rounds and ended up costing us the House and Senate.

The only reason I can fathom that the renewal of the AWB is in the platform is to throw the gun control people a bone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:06 PM

46. I and the majority of gun owners I know don't buy it either.

It would be political suicide for the party to make a hard push.

The trouble is some will believe it and help move that center a bit to the right rather than left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:36 AM

3. What does that have to do with gun control? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:49 AM

5. Didn't notice it was in RKBA

SorRy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:43 AM

4. We will get beat over the head as being gun-grabbers again.

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. All guns sold at a gun show have to follow the same laws as they would anywhere else in that state.

The AWB accomplished absolutely nothing. It banned some cosmetic features on guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 07:52 AM

11. They do need to make the loop hole more accurate and

call it the private, no background checks, sales loop hole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 08:12 AM

12. That can't be done on a federal level.

It is a state issue. The commerce clause of the Constitution stands in your way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #12)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 08:54 AM

13. Has not stood in the way full autos sales are regulated

by the Federal government. All that needs to be proven is that an unregulated sale ended up in another state with laws on back ground checks on private sales.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #13)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:16 AM

15. no one ever challenged the NFA

and no one has any interest or standing to do so. Machine gun ownership was rare even before then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #12)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:03 AM

14. Of course it can be done at the federal level. Another NRA talking point...

Private sales of guns affect interstate commerce, which is all that is necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:04 AM

17. How so?

 

I bought a gun from a friend one town over and it hasn't left the area. How does that affect interstate commerce?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:14 AM

18. Umm... but yours isn't the only private gun sale that took place in America.

For example, guns sold in the secondary market are trafficked across state lines and used to commit crimes in other states.

The commerce clause has been interpreted pretty broadly. For example, SCOTUS ruled that the federal government can make it illegal for a person to grow their own marijuana for personal use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #18)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:43 AM

20. It is already illegal to

 

use guns to commit crimes. You are suggesting using it for law enforcement not commerce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #20)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:53 AM

23. Black market commerce is still commerce.

From the point of view of constitutionality, the fact that private gun sales affect illicit gun trafficking is enough for the commerce clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #23)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:03 AM

24. Well adding more laws isn't going to

 

change that.


I love how gun grabbers will warp any law any Constitution (state/national) just to get their way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #24)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:09 AM

25. You're getting your NRA talking points mixed up.

You have morphed the "Commerce Clause NRA talking point" into the "Gun control doesn't work NRA talking point".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:24 AM

27. I see what you did just there

 

its called "I failed trying to make a point so I am just going to him/her a NRA spokesperson", its not a good strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #27)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:48 AM

30. In that case you should try and make an argument rather than repeating NRA talking points.

Do you have anything to add about the commerce clause? Because if not, then we can consider this issue settled: requiring background checks for private sales does not violate the commerce clause. Another NRA talking point bites the dust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #30)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:44 PM

32. Yes but doesn't the Commerce clause

 

pertain to interstate commerce and not intrastate trade? You just can't use the commerce clause to do whatever you want to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #32)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:03 PM

33. The commerce clause is the new 'necessary and proper' or 'promote the general welfare' stick.

Funny I see these same people gnashing their teeth at it when it's used to close down medical marijuana clinics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #33)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:44 PM

34. Would they feel the same way if some repuke

 

used the Commerce clause to close Planed parenthood or abortion clinics? Somehow I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:26 PM

38. No, only when convenient.

The cognitive dissonance never even registers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #32)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:37 PM

40. Are you even paying attention?

Black market commerce is still commerce.

From the point of view of constitutionality, the fact that private gun sales affect illicit gun trafficking is enough for the commerce clause.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117268830#post23

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #40)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:19 PM

48. Just because you say something doesn't make it true lol

 

nt

Again I ask doesn't the commerce clause already effect interstate guns sales?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #48)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:48 PM

50. "doesn't the commerce clause already effect interstate guns sales?" = WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #50)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:00 PM

52. simple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
there is no legal interstate commerce of firearms without an FFL being involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #30)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:39 PM

41. as one of the Gungeon's house lawyers once explained

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #41)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:00 PM

44. Oooh! The house lawyer!

The only barriers to closing the private sales loophole are political. There's no question that private gun sales affect interstate commerce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #44)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:16 PM

47. and are you a constitutional scholar?

didn't think so. He gave a very substantive, as far as I can tell, explanation. You didn't answer him and you gave me gibberish. It is not really a loophole since private persons are prohibited from carrying out a NICS check. Why wasn't that part of the origianl Brady Bill? It was one of the rare times Brady and the NRA half way worked together on something. I have a pretty good idea what each side will speculate but I doubt any actually knows the reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #47)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:46 PM

49. Neither is your buddy.

Of course you like his argument, and it sounds familiar to you because it's been bounced around the NRA echo chamber over and over. But if you poke your head out of the bubble and read about how the Commerce Clause has been interpreted, you'll see that a clear effect on interstate commerce is sufficient to pass constitutional muster. Do you really doubt that private gun sales affect gun trafficking across state lines?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #49)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:56 PM

51. I don't have the slightest idea if it has ever been "bounced around the NRA echo chamber"

and I doubt you can show an example of it. That said, you are projecting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #51)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:00 PM

53. You accuse people of "projecting" a lot, but I really don't think you understand what it means.

Kind of like the Commerce Clause...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #53)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:29 PM

55. I actually do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
It is my honest opinion that you do.
I deferred to a lawyer, and I'm guessing you are not. But a good question still remains, why didn't they think of it in 1993? I'm not opposed to the idea of requiring private sales being brokered by FFLs for the background checks. There might have to be changes in ATF record keeping regulations to make it less of a hassle for FFLs to do it. Some states do. The easiest thing is blackmail the states to pass similar laws like it did with the current drinking age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #18)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:49 AM

21. I am not sure about this

 

but if you buy a gun and take it across the border of a state don't you need to get a background check?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:34 AM

28. Not normally

Most states don't register handguns or gun owners. If you move into one that does, like IL for example, then yes. But moving into most states with handguns, bought privately or otherwise, requires nothing at all.

Now if I already live in state X I cannot legally buy a gun in state Y, but it is the purchase that is illegal not the return home. If I live and buy in state X then move to (non-registered) state Y all is well. I just have to buy all future guns in state Y while I live there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:56 AM

6. AWB = Fruitless way to push more Democrats out of office. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:50 AM

8. If the "liberal" Democrats had wished to pass another assault weapons ban ...

they would have done it in the first two years of Obama's presidency when they controlled both houses of Congress.

Another assault weapons ban is very important to some in our party most of whom live in large gun unfriendly urban areas of our nation and are largely unfamiliar with gun owners and the gun culture in our nation. A new assault weapons ban also enjoys strong support from the national media that, of course, is also largely centered in cities that have strong gun control and consequently have little or knowledge about firearms and their owners. That's probably why it is in the Democratic platform. Leaving it out would cause consternation and criticism among "liberal" Democrats.

Actually passing another assault weapons ban is probably politically impossible which is why it was never tried during the first two years Obama was in office.

Any attempt to pass such a law will lead to skyrocketing sales of these weapons which are already selling like hotcakes. The gun industry would love the profit and the NRA would have ammunition to continue their attack on Democrats who strongly support gun control. Many good Democrats could lose their seats to Tea Bag Republicans in close elections in the future.

I might even finally break down and buy a black rifle for my gun collection. Such semi-auto modern rifles are extremely accurate and adaptable and could come in handy for hunting feral hog on my property if I move to a more rural area of Florida. Currently I live in a small town in northern Florida and do not hunt. I prefer a handgun or a shotgun for self defense in such an environment and I personally enjoy target shooting with handguns rather than rifles as it is more challenging to me. I currently own no firearms, either pistols or rifles, that would qualify as an assault weapon.

We do need to have an open honest discussion about firearms in our nation. Such a discussion would require not calling assault weapons machine guns which they are not and involve the use of statistics that show that such weapons are rarely used to commit violent crime. This would probably be impossible since the media is prone to distort the facts about firearms and many politicians who support gun control lack knowledge on the subject or simply love to use hyperbole as a tactic. "Honest" is the important term and is defined as "Characterized by truth; not false"

It is also important in such a discussion for those who support stronger gun control to avoid calling facts and statistics "NRA talking points." Facts and statistics on the gun control issue often support the NRA's view but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong.

I do support this statement in the platform: (Notice that I eliminated the part about the assault weapons ban.)


We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements, .... closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.


The "gun show loophole" is a catchy phrase used by organizations such as the Brady Campaign. The statement should actually be "requiring an NICS background check for all sales of firearms in our nation including private sales." The NRA and many gun owners in our nation would oppose such an idea but I feel it could be accomplished if the cost was reasonable. Simply requiring private sales to have a background check at gun shows is an incremental step and would do little good.

"Working together to act commonsense improvements" should require that both sides stop throwing insults at each other while the negotiations are ongoing and might also involve compromise which currently is a lost art in our nation. Also what is commonsense to one side of the gun control issue is ridiculous to the other.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:37 AM

9. It will make the choice between two evils a lot more clear for many folks

 

folks on both sides of this issue I suppose. It isn't a large group of Americans that feels strongly one way or the other but, of that group, the pro-second amendment crowd has proved to be a highly motivated and effective voting block and lobbying force. I'm sure there were plenty within that group that voted for Obama the first time too as a referendum on Bush and Iraq. I think they'll probably not vote for him this time and this plank just confirms what they already knew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 07:06 AM

10. Our party needs a more progressive stance on the 2A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #10)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:20 AM

19. "More Progressive Stance"


What---like the stance of Dick Cheney, Ted Nugent, Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachmann, Wayne LaPierre, Condi Rice, Paul Ryan, Todd Akin, Sarah Palin, Antonin Scalia? The same "progressivism" reflected in the Republican Platform? That's the sort of "progressive" stance you're advocating, here: rigid adherence to the beliefs of the most radical right wingers in this country. No thank you....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:17 AM

26. You left out Grover Norquist, Rick Santorum, Allen West, Rick Perry, Rick Scott, Sharron Angle,

Larry "wide stance" Craig, Louie "terror babies" Gohmert, Darrell Issa...

It funny. It's not just that gun nuts are overwhelmingly Republican, it's that they tend to be the looniest of far-right-wing teabagger Republicans. Is there any right-wing teabagger who isn't a second amendent nutjob?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #26)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:33 PM

39. It's A Very Long List.


The gun militancy movement is directed by hyper-conservative, Democrat-hating political vermin. And our resident Gun Enthusiasts are well aware of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #26)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:43 PM

42. are you homophobic?

So Craig thinks he has to stay in the closet. Other than being from Idaho and staying in the closet, what has he said that put him in the same category as the other clowns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #42)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:57 PM

43. No, but Larry Craig is. When did you become a Larry Craig apologist?

Are you suggesting that being a closeted homosexual excuses his homophobia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #43)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:05 PM

45. I view him as a tragic figure

as a self loathing gay person, he lashes out to look straight and maybe even "cure himself". Unfortunately, he is not that unusual. Does it excuse it? No.
But then, it doesn't excuse over generalization and patronizing rants that anyone doesn't think exactly as you do are ideologues or morons either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #45)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:31 PM

56. Is That The Best You've Got? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #56)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 06:31 PM

57. it is my honest opinion,

so, yeah it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:58 AM

16. Support for the "AW" ban is as misguided as the GOP platform's plank on personhood for zygotes

 

It's one of our collective albatrosses, and it should have been eliminated years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:01 PM

54. "we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms" is either true or a

 

false.

Since this is the platform Obama is running on as Democratic candidate he needs to rein in his staff, Holder. et al, or they will cause voters to question whether Democrats are committed to the party's platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 06:55 PM

58. this phrase:

like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole --- meh.

the platform should be broad and deliberately vague, imo.

that phrase narrows the scope and is not necessary at this level of politics.

badly stated turn of phrase, I wonder who was responsible for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 07:03 PM

59. I guess it's ok, except for the AWB and gun show loophole

 

Kind of average for a political statement though.

We support X, but not so little as to scare independents and not so much as to energize our opposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread