HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Does not agreeing with th...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:04 AM

 

Does not agreeing with the DNC on gun control make me less of a Democrat?

Last edited Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:01 AM - Edit history (1)

One thing I seem to see popping up here from time to time is the concept that if a person doesn’t support the DNC party platform in every, single particular specifically:

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.


That person couldn’t possibly be a true progressive.
Are we really that close minded that we must be in absolute lockstep? Does disagreeing with the bolded part of the above statement make me “Less progressive than thou”


EDIT I realize we are in election season if, in the host's opinion this topic falls outside the TOS for this season I will completely understand if it is locked /EDIT

added text bolded

107 replies, 6141 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 107 replies Author Time Post
Reply Does not agreeing with the DNC on gun control make me less of a Democrat? (Original post)
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 OP
ileus Nov 2012 #1
Hells Liberal Nov 2012 #2
liberal N proud Nov 2012 #3
Callisto32 Nov 2012 #40
SecularMotion Nov 2012 #4
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 #5
SecularMotion Nov 2012 #7
LAGC Nov 2012 #8
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 #14
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #18
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 #11
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #29
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 #30
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #33
PavePusher Nov 2012 #36
safeinOhio Nov 2012 #6
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 #12
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #20
safeinOhio Nov 2012 #42
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 #45
discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #44
safeinOhio Nov 2012 #46
discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #47
geckosfeet Nov 2012 #9
pipoman Nov 2012 #48
geckosfeet Nov 2012 #51
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 #54
geckosfeet Nov 2012 #55
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 #57
geckosfeet Nov 2012 #62
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #69
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 #71
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #73
geckosfeet Nov 2012 #77
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #79
glacierbay Nov 2012 #80
geckosfeet Nov 2012 #89
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 #90
geckosfeet Nov 2012 #100
Trunk Monkey Nov 2012 #102
geckosfeet Nov 2012 #103
pipoman Nov 2012 #97
geckosfeet Nov 2012 #101
pipoman Nov 2012 #104
oneshooter Nov 2012 #105
pipoman Nov 2012 #106
DanTex Nov 2012 #10
LAGC Nov 2012 #13
DanTex Nov 2012 #16
gejohnston Nov 2012 #19
DanTex Nov 2012 #27
gejohnston Nov 2012 #32
pipoman Nov 2012 #49
former-republican Nov 2012 #22
DanTex Nov 2012 #24
former-republican Nov 2012 #26
beevul Nov 2012 #41
discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #50
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #15
krispos42 Nov 2012 #28
DanTex Nov 2012 #31
krispos42 Nov 2012 #35
gejohnston Nov 2012 #98
former-republican Nov 2012 #17
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #21
former-republican Nov 2012 #23
krispos42 Nov 2012 #25
discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #34
rrneck Nov 2012 #37
discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #38
spin Nov 2012 #39
oneshooter Nov 2012 #43
Simo 1939_1940 Nov 2012 #52
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #53
glacierbay Nov 2012 #56
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #58
glacierbay Nov 2012 #60
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #61
glacierbay Nov 2012 #63
Clames Nov 2012 #64
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #65
glacierbay Nov 2012 #66
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #92
glacierbay Nov 2012 #94
Clames Nov 2012 #75
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #91
glacierbay Nov 2012 #93
Clames Nov 2012 #95
rrneck Nov 2012 #96
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #59
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #68
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #70
glacierbay Nov 2012 #72
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #74
glacierbay Nov 2012 #76
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #78
glacierbay Nov 2012 #81
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #82
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #67
gejohnston Nov 2012 #83
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #84
glacierbay Nov 2012 #85
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #86
glacierbay Nov 2012 #87
gejohnston Nov 2012 #88
petronius Nov 2012 #99
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #107

Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:07 AM

1. Not at all, it actually makes you more of a progressive democrat.

You're willing to trust your fellow citizens with the devices necessary to combat crime in their everyday life. How can we claim to be progressives and leave out life liberty and pursuit of happiness?

You realize there's hard cases out there, those that wish to deal death to you and your family. As a pro-2Aer, you do what is necessary to assure your families safety while promoting a safer society with the best tools allowed by law. Let's keep it that way...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:11 AM

2. Nope

 

You and I are just as much Democrats as the DNC.

As a proud supporter of RKBA, I understand how you feel. Like you, I've voted for many candidates who were hostile to RKBA because I agree with them on other issues, like having a social safety net, the labor movement, a woman's right to choose, etc.

I also catch hell from some of my fellow gun owners because I won't vote repub or Libertarian. They don't understand that I'm not a single-issue voter and that I think such voters are idiots. I look at where a candidate stands on a variety of issues and go with the one that most mirrors my values.

Despite the DNC's views on guns, I tend to agree most with the Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:17 AM

3. NO!

BIG difference between Democrats and the other guys, we don't think that everyone has to agree on everything!

That too is why the republicans beat Democrats from time to time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 04:20 PM

40. You clearly don't run in Libertarian circles.



"Herding cats" comes to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:20 AM

4. The problem is not disagreeing with the DNC

The problem is rabid support of the Republican platform on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:26 AM

5. You seem to be the one that brings up the DNC stance on guns

 

more often than anyone else in here.

So how does my taking issue with the bolded statement above equate to support of the republican platform?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:57 AM

7. Here's the Republican platform

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen's God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/republican_party_gun_control.htm


Do you have any disagreement with the RNC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 08:10 AM

8. Only thing I disagree with is the "God-given" part.

Our rights exist because of our man-made Constitution. Period.

The Constitution can be amended, as it was in the case of the Bill of Rights in the first place, if a strong enough of a majority decides to change it. Those "natural rights" can just as easily be erased if a super-majority ever chooses to rescind them.

That being said, our Founding Fathers were very wise men, and the Bill of Rights in particular have really served us well.

But with the increase in population density in many of our urban centers, comes with it an increase in laws and thus crime, so understandably there are those who feel some of our rights should be restricted in a misguided effort to try to reign it in.

But I don't think the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights, should be modified on a whim. There are many things we can do to reign in crime by enhancing freedom (like legalizing and taxing drugs and opening treatment centers for the addicted) instead of taking other people's freedoms away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:11 AM

14. Re: Our rights exist because of our man-made Constitution. Period.

 

Your religious views are your own and I respect them. That said our rights , specifically the right to self defense, predate the Constitution.

I would agree that our rights are natural or come from the Universe but I disagree completely that the Constitution is the sole source of our rights. The Constitution itself acknowledges that it grants no rights

If the entire document was repealed tomorrow would you not still have those rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:50 AM

18. Can't disagree, except for the religious overtones.

Oddly, the DNC could merely state it's full support for the Second and nothing else on the subject and I would be happy with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:04 AM

11. Not really, if we would adopt the same stance (on this issue)

 

we'd take it right out of their hands.

Now ask me how I feel about their stance on single payer health care.

EDIT: BTW I asked you a fairly specific qustion and I notice you ducked it completely so, let me ask again specifically,

So how does my taking issue with the bolded statement above equate to support of the republican platform?
/EDIT

added text bolded

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 10:23 AM

29. ON THIS ISSUE I fully agree with the RNC and disagree with the Democratic platform.

 

The Republicans are correct on this issue, and the Democrats are not.

But it is not enough to get me to vote Republican for President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 10:49 AM

30. RE:The Republicans are correct on this issue, and the Democrats are not.

 

Minor correction The Republicans are correct on this issue, and the DNC isnot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 11:26 AM

33. True. I will be voting for lots of Democrats next week who have high NRA ratings. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 01:10 PM

36. Damn, the Republicans got one correct.

 

If they were to support single-payer health care, would you be against that simply because it was suddenly a "Republican" position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:26 AM

6. On the other hand, not agreeing with radical supporters of gun rights

and supporting things like back ground checks on all private sales, better training for CCWs and laws making gun owners responsible for their handguns make me any less progressive? Does agreeing with the bold letters in that statement make me “Less progressive than thou” ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:06 AM

12. Good question

 

it shouldn't. I always thought the whole point of being Progressive is that we accept diversity of opinion even if we don't agree on every particular.

That said I don't see the self appointed zampolits questioning your ideological purity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:55 AM

20. Ha! I don't get invited to any more parties. Waah!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 06:31 PM

42. Some of those views have been termed

racist, authoritarian and not a true liberal by some here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #42)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 06:52 AM

45. I think your view is a little authoritarian

 

Doesn't mean you're a Freeper

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 06:53 PM

44. I find that...

...there are two groups of pro-control folks. One group will occasionally note their displeasure or disapproval of your source but willingly discuss ideas and issues. There is another group that apparently will discuss nothing contrary to their own opinions and look for every reason to fault your sources or insult your logic.

This second group reminds me of some preachers who won't hear anything that doesn't start in the King James Bible. These pro-control folks act as if they have been brainwashed by a cult. They can take in and repeat "approved" information but can't think for themselves.

sad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #44)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:12 AM

46. I see a mirror image of what you are saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #46)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 08:23 AM

47. I thought you might...

Last edited Fri Nov 2, 2012, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)

...but maybe some with reason will bridge the gap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 08:46 AM

9. I am not so concerned about "assault weapons" as I am gun show and private sale loopholes.

My only other major concern is around the inconsistent regulation of firearms sales between states. I think the strict regulation in places like NYC and MA is undermined when criminals can get firearms in a southern state and "import" them.

I am also in complete disagreement about "lists" of permitted firearms (pistols in particular) in states like MA and CA. These kinds of mechanisms force manufacturers to pay ridiculous fees to have state employees test their product for an arbitrary set of safety features etc. Many manufacturers simply refuse to take part in the charade. This is a classic example of government intervention impeding commerce and employment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 08:51 AM

48. The whole private sale issue

must be handled at the state level. There are many progressive things which could be done to encourage states to participate, but alas, the people who seem to "care" most are unwilling to accept a creative approach in favor of railing in support of the impossible, unconstitutional idea of a federal law requiring private sale checks. If this issue went away, gun control advocacy groups would loose a major talking point used to rile the avid gun control advocates into donating money to their lost cause..the gun control groups wouldn't want that...so they choose to just continue barking at a treed cat.

As for the "criminals can get firearms in a southern state and "import" them". Criminals do criminal things. What you describe is already illegal, a federal crime, what more can be done. No, there isn't vigorous investigation or prosecution of existing laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #48)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 09:58 PM

51. "The whole private sale issue must be handled at the state level."

Well yes. In some states it's handled, in others it is not. Hence, criminals buy guns where they can get them with as little effort as possible. They can make straw man purchases in stores or buy them straight up at gun shows or through private sales.

The two issues are connected at the hip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #51)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 10:17 AM

54. According to the DoJ less than 2% of criminals get their guns from private sales of any kind NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #54)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 10:21 AM

55. Ahhhh. So buy them at gun stores.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #55)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 10:37 AM

57. I think the biggest percentage was friends/ family members

 

IOW straw sales

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #57)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 11:05 AM

62. My point being that criminals rarely obtain guns through legal means.

Straw sales are one avenue. Could be from a family member or a friend. Or it could be through someone who buys and sells to people who can't/won't buy legally. Whether you call that a "private" sale or not is a technicality. It is under the radar and as such will never show up in your 2% statistic.

My position is that every one, criminal or honest gun owner, who buys a gun from any source other than an entity with a ffl buys it through a private sale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #62)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:34 PM

69. YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT

....but it'll be ignored by the gun clutching crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #69)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 01:25 PM

71. Every marijuana sale in this country either goes through an MMJ clinic

 

or a private sale

What's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #71)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 01:39 PM

73. Huh?

can't respond to an unclear analogy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #71)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 01:58 PM

77. The point is, private gun sales are legal, even though criminals are buying and selling.

Have no idea what your pot point is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #77)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 02:04 PM

79. No one does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #77)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 02:17 PM

80. Right now

 

it is illegal for a private seller to utilize the NICS system, only FFL dealers can, I would support a law that opened the NICS for the private seller to determine if a buyer is a prohibited person or not, it should be. "is so and so legal to buy this weapon?", answer would be yes or no, if no, then LE should be notified that a prohibited person just tried to buy a firearm and an investigation should be initiated.
If the answer is yes, then no further info is required and the sale goes through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #80)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 03:41 PM

89. I would agree with that. Though it might be hard logisticlly and financially for many people

to access the system.

In MA the seller fills out a form with the buyers and sellers information on it (license # etc) and files it with the state. Used to be a paper form - now I think it is all online. At least serial #'s are tracked at the state level. I think that should be a mandatory minimum - although I am sure that some states don't even have the infrastructure to manage that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #77)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 03:48 PM

90. I think it got lost between my brain and my fingers

 

A sale can both be "private" and illegal.

So if one criminal sells a gun to another even if it's a private sale (no NiCS) it's still an illegal sale

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #90)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:11 AM

100. Well, yes. But if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound.

We basically have a chicken and the egg paradox baked into the law. I submit that this is no way to run a railroad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #100)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:32 AM

102. What do you suggest? NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #102)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:39 AM

103. Let me think about it....

But moving towards (more or less) standardized private sale requirements across states would be a good end point. This is of course, like herding cats.

But it goes on the list right under national reciprocity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #51)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 11:47 PM

97. Let's say I agree

(and I might), it is irrelevant. As long as the "commerce clause" is enforceable, there will be no "closing of the gun show loophole" at the federal level...if it could get out of the Judiciary Committee it would have done so years ago...it is a constitutional impossibility. Therefore, the states would have to be enticed to require it. This could happen with public service campaigns, and some other easy-to-pass regulatory changes...but as I said, all of the gun control groups would loose a fund raising sound bite..people give them money to push congress to pass a law that both congress and the gun controllers know can never happen....they really aren't looking for an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #97)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:23 AM

101. You keep trying to turn this issue into a PR punching bag.

Honestly, there is no shortage of fund raising soundbites when it comes to regulation, and constantly derailing the conversation smells of obstructionism.

I look at it more from the perspective of reducing the availability of firearms to criminals, and how do we accomplish that. This is good thing for both rtba and pro-regulation groups. And I have to believe that both groups really are looking for an answer. I know I will feel safer knowing I am probably better armed than the criminals. The general public WILL be safer when the availability of firearms to criminals is reduced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #101)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:31 AM

104. It isn't PR anything...it is the reality of the issue

Tell me why the gun control groups keep pounding the drum of "closing the gun show loophole" at the federal level? They know that to get it done would require a constitutional amendment. Why aren't they coming up with a solution to this impossible hurtle? Why are they not proposing creative ideas to reduce the chances of criminals being able to buy guns from private sellers? It is a pipe dream to believe, even if it were not impossible, that a federal law requiring background checks on private sales would really have any quantifiable effect on gun availability or on crimes committed with guns. That said, I don't disagree that it makes sense to find a solution. It's been a while since I have written my suggestion...others have ideas of their own too...after much thought, I believe something like this could actually happen, unlike the ideas to NICS everyone getting a drivers license, which would get no traction IMO.

My suggestion is to change FFL licensing requirements to require all FFLs to conduct NCIS checks for any private transfers in a timely manner for a low statutory fee...say $20...it is a 20 minute process in most cases.

Then, as has been done many, many times at the federal level, start a public service campaign to inform people of this availability. Participation would necessarily have to be voluntary. So the enticement would be that if a gun was transferred using this voluntary system, and the gun was later used in a crime, there would be immunity from prosecution, and civil liability. If a gun is transferred without using the system and was later used in the commission of a crime, no immunity. Part of the public awareness campaign would be booths at every gun show with information, local law enforcement, and free NICS transfers at the show. Most people who sell their guns at gun shows don't want to sell them to prohibited buyers. If there was a mechanism as I described, I believe participation would be fairly high. Once participation and awareness has risen, and the mechanism was in place, I believe, we would see states begin requiring people to participate. As it is know, I can't use the system to transfer a gun for me without being at the mercy of a FFL, who can take as long as he wants and charge what he wants to use the federally funded system which is free for him to use (or simply refuse, arbitrarily, to do the transfer at all). The FFL is not always happy about doing these, he would much rather sell a gun to the buyer than mess with my sale.

In lieu of railing for the impossible, election cycle after election cycle, why don't gun controllers get creative and come up with a plan to effect this problem they so avidly believe will reduce their perceived problem? Why don't they set up at gun shows and offer free NICS checks for private sales? The only answer I can think of, is that they really aren't interested in fixing or effecting the problem, just using it for a fear based fund raising opportunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #104)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:41 AM

105. You can also use that method to regulate the sale of automobiles.

After all the misuse of automobiles is responsible for more deaths
than firearms and are used to commit crimes of violence.

Equality for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #105)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 02:21 PM

106. I don't know why there would be opposition

from either side. Use of the free or cheap service would be voluntary..unless or until it passed into law at the state level..I would like to have the option of taking some guns to the gun show to sell to strangers if I knew I wasn't selling it to a prohibited buyer...What would change?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 08:51 AM

10. How do you feel about pro-life Democrats? Or anti-union Democrats?

How about Democrats that supported the war in Iraq? Or Democrats who want to deregulate Wall Street? Or cut taxes on the 1%?

As for me, I agree that holding one or two right-wing views doesn't disqualify a person from being a "true progressive". It just makes them a person who holds mostly progressive views but some conservative ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:08 AM

13. I don't see anywhere near as much disagreement over women's rights or unions as there is with guns.

Clearly, gun control is not as clear-cut of a liberal issue as other planks in our platform are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:22 AM

16. That's because you are on the pro-gun side.

I'm sure that pro-life Democrats would say that abortion is not a clear-cut liberal issue. And so on.

At one point I posted an OP asking for any examples of prominent liberal voices who support "gun rights" to the extreme extent that you find in the gungeon. There wasn't a single example. Maybe a few centrist Democrats from Red States, but that's about it. And the centrist Dems that support the NRA agenda are aften pro-life as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:55 AM

19. what makes Ted Strickland or Brian Schweitzer centrist?

I take you define anyone who disagrees with you one one issue a centrist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 10:15 AM

27. Schweitzer is a red state centrist.

Strickland is a purple state centrist.

I wouldn't consider either of those to be leading progressive voices. I would still support them, but my point is that there are very few if any prominent "pro-gun progressives". The prominent pro-gun advocates are almost 100% right-wingers, and prominent progressives are almost 100% supporters of gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 11:23 AM

32. what makes them centrist?

you didn't answer the question. The only thing that makes a state "red" "blue" "purple" is how they voted for president in the last election. While hacks and lazy pundits may find these superficial labels meaningful, but I think they are nonsense. They don't accurately describe how the politics of the place actually work. BTW, you didn't answer the question.
Since I don't subscribe to appeal to authority or bandwagon fallacies, what "prominent" anything thinks means nothing to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 09:06 AM

49. Harry Reid and a host of other Democrats

oppose most gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:59 AM

22. You either support all civil liberties or you are against them

 

The Democrats who are pro life pick and choose which civil liberties they support.

There is no ambiguity in civil liberties .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 10:05 AM

24. Except that guns have not much to do with civil liberties.

Reasonable restrictions on guns are a basic requirement for public safety.

People who take absolutist positions on the second amendment are almost all right-wing crazies like Glenn Beck and Grover Norquist. Kind of like the people who are states rights absolutists and think the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. Or the Ron Paul types who think that the Fed is unconstitutional. And so on.

There's nothing progressive about pounding childish interpretations of the constitution to push a right-wing agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 10:10 AM

26. I disagree whole heartedly on your view on civil liberties

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 04:46 PM

41. The problem is how you define "absolutist".

In your view, is anyone that holds the position ot "no more or new gun control", an absolutist?


Or do you actually define that term accurately and correctly, to mean people that support ZERO gun control?


Without an accurate and honest definition of that term, in practice, the term is just a deliberately used pejorative.

Whats childish about interpreting the bill of rights as as it was intended to be interpreted?

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 12:06 PM

50. I don't see...

...many prominent vocal pro-choice Republicans. This has to do with the party getting in the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:22 AM

15. I do you feel about Quakers?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 10:18 AM

28. Well, here's the difference.

Recognizing that women have historically been repressed due to their gender, and that they have not been able to exercise full control over their bodies throughout much of history, and fighting attempts by people to seek to reestablish that kind of control, is inherently liberal and progressive.

Recognizing that workers unionizing (organized labor) is the only effective way that organized capital (investors and their financial power) can be challenged on approximately equal grounds in inherently progressive.

Regulating Wall Street taxing the 1% is inherently progressive because it fights the natural and historic tendency of money (and thus, power) to float to the top, denying the bottom 99% the ability to have influence in government or in the market, or to live with human dignity, or to raise kids with opportunities that transcend their start in life.

Gun control I have struggled with as a progressive concept. While I understand and agree that part of being progressive is the use of violence as a last resort on a personal level, a law-enforcement level, and on the international stage, this does not sit well with me when people try very hard to put up barriers to gun ownership, or when people that do own them are treated as either potential sociopaths or potential criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #28)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 11:13 AM

31. The pro-gun position is comparable to things like global warming denial and militarism.

First, it glorifies violence. It also exploits paranoia and fear -- it's not a coincidence that the militia nuts are mostly far-righters. I've seen people on this board argue that using deadly force to protect property, even when there is no risk to life, is justified. Also, the dehumanizing of petty criminals ("thugs" as the gunners like to call them) is incompatible with a progressive view that, while holding people responsible for their actions, also understands that a teenager trying to steal a car stereo or a wallet is not some kind of sub-human animal whose life is worthless.

All this is all very similar to the attitudes of right-wingers towards war, and also towards things like torture. In addition to glorifying violence as a solution to problems, it also involves a simplistic "good guys versus bad guys" view of the world in order to avoid any kind of moral ambiguity.

The pro-gun ideology also puts public safety at risk for some phony concept of "freedom". The idea that lax gun laws make us safer because criminals will be deterred by armed citizens is an Ayn Randian fantasy. The idea that it's worth suffering higher levels of homicide and gun violence as a society in order to provide individuals the right to try to defend themselves is perhaps not quite so crazy, but it certainly has libertarian underpinnings. If you just look at what is in the best interest of society, it makes no sense to have gun laws so lax that even with a gun, you are more likely to be murdered than a person without a gun in a low-gun country.

And finally, there is the denial of reality. I've had many discussions with people here in the gungeon, all of whom seem convinced that every single gun violence researcher, that Harvard, Johns Hopkins, UCDavis, Duke, etc., and that the editorial boards of the peer reviewed journals are all somehow part of an anti-gun conspiracy. The refusal to to accept empirical reality, the silly cherry-picking of data to defend an ideological agenda, and the general distrust of science is pretty much identical to what I've seen from global warming deniers. In fact, right now there is an OP presenting a non-peer-reviewed article, published in a right-wing law review, written by two pro-gun advocates who have no evident background in science or statistics, and which contains serious factual errors. The article is masquerading as a "Harvard study" and is receiving rave reviews from the pro-gunners.

Progressives on the whole are more scientifically literate than that. It is not a coincidence that people who would put climate at risk to preserve the "right" to pump CO2 into the atmosphere are the same people who can justify enduring epidemic levels of gun violence to preserve the "right" to virtually unfettered gun access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #31)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 12:24 PM

35. Both sides exploit fear and paranoia

The amount of hand-wringing and fear-mongering on both sides impressive.

but you ignore the fact that, while progressive ideas are best applied to society as a whole, there are places and times where it is not appropriate... such as when facing down a home invader or a mugger or a carjacker or a rapist or a wifebeater. There is a reason the police are armed with guns and tasers and pepper spray and not flowers and candy and hugs. When it's reached this point, it's come down to a basic physical conflict. And since the attacker, the predator, is very likely to be a strong male with a history of violence and probably fairly young, this puts large swaths of peaceful people at a disadvantage. Women, the very young, the very old, the physically unfit, the mentally or physically handicapped.

And when things are reduced to this physical, primitive, violent state, for however few seconds or many minutes it will last, advanced things like empathy and kindness and fairness must fall by the wayside if the intended victim is going to have a chance to resist or triumph. It dissolves in a rush of adrenaline and fear. It dissolves in the crisis-appropriate mentality of "MY life and the lives of MY family are worth more than my ATTACKERS life".

People that have the latter view all the time... they're psychopaths. But not those that have that mentality in a violent attack.

Progressive policies can and do reduce the likelihood of incidents happening. Good education, good jobs, loving families, universal health insurance, the creation of a strong single-income middle class, liberal drug laws... all this stuff reduces the odds of a person turning to violent crime. But it doesn't make the crime less violent when it does occur. Guns are not the solution to reducing overall violence, but they are the solution when you are about to be the victim of violence.

Rapes and beatings and murder in Canada are not less violent than here. They are less common, but they are not less violent. Pick a picture of a beaten spouse from anywhere in the world... can you tell if it was performed in America by the level of bruises and broken bones? I can't.

Lax or strict gun laws seem to have little direct effect on violence. I'm not saying they don't have an effect, but I'm saying that since guns are a tool and not a motive for committing violence, trying to restrict them will not help much. First of all, you'd need to make impossibly huge changes in the manner and quantities of guns owned in order do noticeably effect the tiny percentage of the population that are career violent criminals at some point down the road. Cities and states have tried this, and it hasn't worked. Legalizing abortion in 1973 lowered the crime rate far more than California's ban on assault weapons or New York City's gun registry or Illinois' FOID cards.

Thinking that concealed-carry might deter overall levels of crime is also probably a faint hope... but so is the theory that people will get gunned down over parking spaces and dogs pooping on neighbors' lawns and cutting in line at Starbucks and Black Friday sales at Wal-Mart.


As to rejecting reality, well, that's what we have a discussion board for. If the debate is reduce crime and violence, then focusing solely on guns may not be the best, most efficacious way to do that. If you can spend an election's worth of political capital, what is the best way to spend that capital?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 12:03 AM

98. how I feel about

at least they are consistent by opposing the death penalty, and for social justice.
Supported the war in Iraq, you mean Diane Feinstien?
deregulate Wall Street like Carolyn McCarthy, who was still a registered Republican for six years after being elected as a Democrat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

anti union or tax cuts for the one percent? No, that goes to the party's core values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:31 AM

17. No, it makes you more of a Democrat

 

We are the party who stands for civil liberties.

The Democrats in office and the people who support more restrictions on legal gun owners have it wrong.

They always have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:58 AM

21. There' nothing liberal about gun control.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #21)


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 10:06 AM

25. Hosts don't do ToS

That's the consensus of the other Group and Forum Hosts.

That's solely an Admin issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 11:56 AM

34. IMHO...

...both parties have aspects of their platforms developed specifically crafted in opposition to the other party. BOTH parties act as if the RKBA is only a bargaining point. The RKBA is the least understood by the general public of all basic rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 01:45 PM

37. Will Rogers...

"I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Progressivism implies progress. Progress demands we be nimble. To be nimble is to be flexible. We can't be flexible unless we consider new ideas.

Frequently those who most seek to profit from ideas are reluctant to change them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 02:01 PM

38. No, absolutely not.

It may make you less likely to receive party endorsement as a candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 03:52 PM

39. Liberal Democrats in many gun unfriendly areas of our nation support strong gun control ...

but liberal Democrats in many gun friendly areas do not.

Much depends on how common firearm ownership is in a certain area. If you live in a city with gun control laws that make owning a firearm difficult or expensive (Chicago for example) you may have a far different view of gun owners than if you live in a city like Tampa Florida where I lived for 37 years.

In Chicago it is far rarer to find examples of people who own handguns and use them responsibly for target shooting, hunting or self defense than other urban areas such as Tampa. Firearm ownership is common in the criminal element in cities like Chicago and since criminals misuse firearms it is easy to understand why they are often viewed as evil. Gun owners are often looked down on as illiterate rednecks who suffer from paranoia or are vigilantes looking for an opportunity to kill. This stereotyping is encouraged by much of the media who appear to have an intense dislike of the Second Amendment and are willing to distort facts and even to flat our lie to support their view. Of course often the most important voices in the media come from gun unfriendly areas.

In Tampa your next door neighbor, your co-workers, your boss, your attorney, your professor or your pastor may own firearms and even have a concealed weapons permit. In Hillsborough county where Tampa is located 49,121 residents have carry permits. (source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_active.pdf) In Florida over 800,000 residents hold such permits and probably well over 50% of all residents own at least one firearm. You may well have a far different view of firearm owners than in you live in Chicago.

I talk to a lot of gun owners in Florida and admittedly they are mostly Republican as they fear the liberal Democrats from the large urban gun unfriendly areas of our nation pose a threat to their hobby in which they have a considerable amount of money and time invested. When I discuss other political issues with them I often find they agree with many of the views of the Democratic party. Still they refuse to vote for any Democrat who does not have a high rating from the NRA. They do show up at the polls to vote and in close elections their ballots may make the difference between a Republican or a Democrat winning.

Remember that Florida is an important state and has 29 electoral votes while Illinois has 20. This election is predicted to be very close by many experts but most agree that Romney has to win Florida to have a chance. The last election was not nearly as close and McCain was not loved by gun owners. Hopefully most gun owners will realize that Romney also has a mixed record but I fear that conservative propaganda may have successfully portrayed Obama as a "gun grabber" which he is not. If anything Obama has been very friendly to gun owners during his first term and even received an "F" rating from the Brady Campaign.

Unfortunately the gun control issue came up during the debates and it is my opinion that Obama made an attempt to solidify the liberal base of the Democratic party by mentioning the possibility of another assault weapons ban. Fortunately Romney also gave what gun owners may view as a less than satisfactory reply on the issue.

Obama and Romney Both Failed the Gun Control Question
Oct 17, 2012 2:13 PM EDT
Neither President Obama nor Governor Romney gave satisfactory answers about gun control or even seemed to know what they were talking about in Tuesday’s debate writes Adam Winkler.

***snip***

Although the candidates differed on their proposals, they were united in one way. They both seemed to share a common misunderstanding about guns. Obama said that part of the solution is to “get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.” He appeared to be referring to the assault weapons the audience member asked about. But assault weapons subject to the ban are not automatic guns. They do not fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger.

Romney also flubbed this, saying that it is “already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons.” While it is true that the sale of newly manufactured machine guns is against the law, there are hundreds of thousands of older machine guns that are lawfully owned by Americans. Indeed, the first thing a visitor to Las Vegas sees are signs advertising gun ranges where you can shoot machine guns.

Is it any wonder then that the candidates offered little in the way of effective solutions? Neither seems to know much about what they are—finally—talking about.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/17/obama-and-romney-both-failed-the-gun-control-question.html


It has been and will remain my view that some in our party need to stop suggesting draconian gun laws but instead to work on improving existing laws such as the NICS background check or laws against the straw purchase of firearms and strongly enforcing them. Many gun owners would support this view as they realize that the misuse of firearms by the criminal element and people with serious mental issues are the greatest danger to their hobby, investment and enjoyment of the shooting sports. I feel that our party would win many close elections in the future if we simply stopped pushing for items like another assault weapons ban or the federal registration of all firearms.

Of course many Democrats will disagree with me and that is understandable as our party is a LARGE tent.

Gun violence in our nation is indeed a serious problem however despite the fact that we have witnessed the skyrocketing sale of such weapons and the spread of "shall issue" concealed carry, castle doctrine and "stand your ground" laws across our nation we have also returned to a level of gun violence last seen in the late 60s.

So yes, I believe that you can be a good Democrat and not support the DNC on gun control.












Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #39)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 06:38 PM

43. However some apparently do not. And he yells a lot about it.

fightthegoodfightnow (5,663 posts)
81. NO- THAT'S YOUR JOB

View profile
I support the President's position on guns.

You don't.

You undermine his election by doing so.

THAT is my truth about YOU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117279713#post81

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #39)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 10:49 PM

52. Then too, there are a some liberal dems in gun unfriendly states that support the RKBA.



That would include me, and many more than the gun restriction supporters in my state would like to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 09:51 AM

53. Quite literally yes it makes you less of a Democrat.

As measured by your support for the official platform of the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #53)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 10:24 AM

56. I get it

 

this is another purity test, right? If we aren't in lockstep with our Party Platform, we're less of a Democrat. Whew, I'm glad you cleared that up for us.



Fact is that we can disagree with certain parts of the platform and still be solid Democrats, that's what makes us Democrats.

We're not rigid ideologues like the Repubs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #56)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 10:41 AM

58. Purity test? No. The Democratic Party is a political party with an official platform.

The op asked if he was less of a democrat for not supporting part of the platform, and the answer is, objectively, yes. The same objective measure can be applied to all of us. If a person fully supports the platform that person is more of a Democrat than a person who does not fully support the platform. One could go further and assign weighted values to each issue in the platform and come up with a numerical value to measure "Democratness".

I have no idea what "solid democrat" really means. That is not a concrete measurable term. The op did not ask about that, he asked a question that actually has a straightforward measurable objective answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #58)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 10:46 AM

60. You're said that if we don't support

 

the AWB on the platform, then that makes us less of a democrat, did you not?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117283593#post53

Those are your words, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #60)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 10:50 AM

61. I said that not supporting any part of the platform makes you

Objectively and measurably less of a Democrat than a person who supports all of the official platform. Yes. You seem to find that objectionable. Sorry. It is a simple non subjective fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #61)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 11:10 AM

63. What I see is you saying that we're less of Dems.

 

because we don't support a plank in the platform. That is what you're saying. That would be a purity test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #61)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 11:26 AM

64. Laughable.

 

That is every bit a subjective measure. Especially considering that DU's own rules make a case that a rather broad spectrum is accepted with no mention of how exacting they adhere to the party platform. Your are applying a purity test plain and simple. Maybe that makes you less of a Democrat by that measure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #64)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:20 PM

65. It is not subjective. It is the official party platform.

if you support the platform 100% you are more of a Democrat than a person who supports only 99% of the platform. I probably don't support all of the platform. This is not a one issue purity test. There is a platform. It is the official set of party positions. Your alignment with those positions is a valid way to measure what the OP asked. You all cannot see past your one utterly stupid issue.

The question asked was not about DU's rules, nor some binary Democrat/not-a-Democrat purity test. The op asked specifically if not supporting an official position of the party makes one "less of a Democrat". The answer is obviously yes it does. That doesn't mean you are not a Democrat, it means you do not agree with the party on some positions, and to that extent you are less of a Democrat than somebody who does agree with all of those positions.

You all are some very odd people. There really are more issues of far more importance than your stupid ass guns. Get over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #65)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:29 PM

66. Just because I and many others here don't support the AWB plank

 

of the Party Platform doesn't make us any less than any other Dems. that support the platform wholeheartedly, that is a purity test plain and simple. That's what the repubs demand, not our party, and it saddens me to know that you seem to endorse this lockstep nonsense.
BTW, I won't get over the fact that the AWB is in the platform, I reject your purity test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #66)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 04:04 PM

92. Purity tests are binary.

One is either pure or tainted. I'm saying that one can measure the relative "Democratness" of an individual based on that individual's support for the official platform of the party compared to other individuals. While at the extremes there are 'pure' Democrats and non-Democrats, the rest of us are in-between. This is not a complicated concept. For each policy you don't support, you drop down the scale of Democratness.

You seem to think I am saying if you dont support the AWB you are not a Democrat. I haven't said that.

Political parties absolutely should demand some level of adherence to their platform, otherwise they are not political parties. If you didn't support any of the policies in the platform in what sense would your claim to be a Democrat be legitimate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #92)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 04:17 PM

94. No that's not what I'm saying

 

You're saying that because I don't support the AWB plank, that makes me less of a Dem than someone who supports the whole plank without question, that smacks of a purity test.
I am no less than someone who supports the whole plank.
I am not one level below the total supporter.
That's what the repukes demand, not us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #65)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 01:52 PM

75. Get over yourself.

 

The Democratic platform is not absolute and it does not take into account every single issue that a Democrat may believe in. The platform has changed vastly in the last several decades which alone is a testament that rigid adherence does not make one more Democratic than another Democrat. That reeks of superiority complex. That reeks of baseless purity tests that undermine what being progressive is about. It is subjective, intolerant, ignorant, and demonstrates the type of narrow minded thinking that is common with the worst of conservative dogma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #75)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 03:54 PM

91. get over myself? project much?

It isn't my platform. And yes as a political party with specific policy positions, those positions are the definition of what it means to be a Democrat. This is not a social club, or a gun club, it is a political organization that advocates specific policy positions. Those policy positions define the Democratic Party. The extent that each of us supports those policies is a measure of how much of a Democrat each of us is. The OP asked if not supporting a clear position of the Democratic Party makes the OP less of a Democrat, and the answer is "yes". That in itself is no big deal to me. As I said, I'm pretty sure I don't support every policy in the platform either. It seems to be heart-attack worthy to you all. "OMFG by not supporting the party on this position I might be less of a Democrat than some other person." Yeah, pretty much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #91)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 04:08 PM

93. So we're back to the purity test again?

 

Just because I don't support one plank makes me less of a Dem than you?
That's pure crap and I soundly reject your definition of what makes a pure Dem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #91)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 06:42 PM

95. Not your platform?

 

That's funny, because according to you, it is your platform if you want to be 100% Democratic. Does the 2012 Democratic Platform cover 100% of all Democratic policies? 90%? Strict adherence to the platform is a pretty piss poor barometer to measure against and a very uneducated position to take given the breadth of the Democratic party as a whole. I'm sure extreme RW's do that kind of thing to each other except the Bible is involved too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #91)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 06:47 PM

96. Do I have a book for you!

Don't worry, it's free. And short.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 10:44 AM

59. Whomever wrote that plank of the platform installed a rotten board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #59)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:33 PM

68. APPROVED BY THE DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES ASSEMBLED

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #68)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:44 PM

70. because, in the end, we must come together to elect Democrats.

One rotten plank does not necessarily crash the platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #68)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 01:39 PM

72. So?

 

Does that mean we are less of a Dem. because we disagree with a plank in the platform? Are we supposed to be in lockstep? Are we not allowed to disagree with the delegates?
I still plan to vote all Dem., but I can still disagree with a plank in my party's platform and still be just as good a Dem and those that agree wholeheartedly with platform.
This purity test bullshit demanded by certain people here, not saying you, is something the repukes demand, not us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #72)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 01:50 PM

74. Purity?

No to the first
No to the second.
Yes to the third.

There is no 'purity' test.

You want to insist on the right to an assault weapon in the Democratic Party.....no problem to advocate that position but don't equate it to anything other than being a Log Cabin Republican or a card carrying NAACP Black Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #74)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 01:56 PM

76. Then why do some here, once again not you,

 

say that if we disagree with certain parts of the platform, then we are less of a Dem. than those that fully agree with the platform?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #76)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 02:01 PM

78. I Think Because

....some 'on your side of the issue' say or imply those on 'my side of the issue' are in the minority regarding guns. We are not and I'm all for having different points of view in the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #78)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 02:21 PM

81. I'm glad to hear that.

 

Unfortunately there are those who think that if you're pro gun/pro 2A, you're not a true progressive Dem. Glad to see you're not like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #81)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 02:29 PM

82. Thanks

In fact, the Party platform affirms the Second Amendment. I agree with that support.

We just disagree on how to integrate that support with the complicated issues that we face in this country that involve guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:31 PM

67. No- Just Means You Are a Minority

.....not unlike a Log Cabin Republican...LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #67)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 02:31 PM

83. not the same thing,

the Log Cabins want their tax cuts for the rich more than marriage equality. The GOP only sucks up to fundies to get their votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #83)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 02:38 PM

84. Perhaps

...but using that analogy, there are other things more important to you than guns just like there are other things more important to Log Cabin Republicans than gay rights.

If so, nothing wrong with that, but let's call their views about gays in the GOP what they are ... a minority view....just like your gun views are in the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #84)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 03:03 PM

85. I wouldn't say a large majority of the Dem. Party

 

Maybe here, but in the whole country, I believe support for the 2A among Dems is around 40%, give or take a % point. A minority view yes, but a small difference between pro and con.
Most Dems in MO support the RKBA and support concealed carry. I guess it just depends on where you live, but it's safe to say that a large % of Dems do support the 2A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #85)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 03:07 PM

86. Agree

It depends on where you live. Different guns, different places, different problems and/or issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #86)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 03:10 PM

87. Agreed. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #84)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 03:14 PM

88. I actually don't think it is a minority view

In the primary, they suck up to the fundies, but they don't actually believe any of that shit. For many outside of the fundies, it is likely a case of pluralistic ignorance. Just look at how fast Guillani changed is view of guns when he decided to run outside of NYC. He didn't actually change is opinion, he wanted to get elected. I doubt any DC Republican would want your gun laws to be like Vermont's. He and his cronies will steal the treasury blind, but he won't mess with the gun laws.

I think it is really more urban/rural than right/left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 01:24 AM

99. Whenever I see this topic I'm reminded of one of my favorite authors, Patrick O'Brian, who

has a character say:

"But you know as well as I, patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile.”

Substitute "party" for "country" and you'll see my answer to your question: when you truly believe that your chosen party is mistaken on a point, is it a greater loyalty to speak up and argue the case, or to toe the line simply because it's the line?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:09 PM

107. Nnnnnope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread