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

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 07:43 PM

 

Please compare the Dem and GOP platforms re RKBA. Speculation welcome on how independent voters

might react to any differences they may perceive between the two parties relative to RKBA.

2012 Democratic National Platform
http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf

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.



REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2012
http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

The Second Amendment:
Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms
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 lawabiding 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 lawabiding 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. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the illconsidered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.

99 replies, 10927 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 99 replies Author Time Post
Reply Please compare the Dem and GOP platforms re RKBA. Speculation welcome on how independent voters (Original post)
jody Sep 2012 OP
ileus Sep 2012 #1
jody Sep 2012 #2
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #11
DWC Sep 2012 #96
gejohnston Sep 2012 #3
jody Sep 2012 #4
rDigital Sep 2012 #5
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #6
slackmaster Sep 2012 #8
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #12
LAGC Sep 2012 #7
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #46
ManiacJoe Sep 2012 #86
Common Sense Party Sep 2012 #9
slackmaster Sep 2012 #10
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #42
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #47
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #48
slackmaster Sep 2012 #63
Lurks Often Sep 2012 #66
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #69
Lurks Often Sep 2012 #13
rDigital Sep 2012 #14
ellisonz Sep 2012 #15
oneshooter Sep 2012 #16
gejohnston Sep 2012 #17
ellisonz Sep 2012 #18
gejohnston Sep 2012 #19
oneshooter Sep 2012 #20
ellisonz Sep 2012 #21
gejohnston Sep 2012 #22
ellisonz Sep 2012 #23
gejohnston Sep 2012 #26
ellisonz Sep 2012 #27
gejohnston Sep 2012 #29
ellisonz Sep 2012 #32
gejohnston Sep 2012 #35
ellisonz Sep 2012 #39
gejohnston Sep 2012 #44
gejohnston Sep 2012 #52
ellisonz Sep 2012 #53
gejohnston Sep 2012 #55
friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #87
oneshooter Sep 2012 #90
oneshooter Sep 2012 #89
oneshooter Sep 2012 #98
slackmaster Sep 2012 #24
ellisonz Sep 2012 #25
gejohnston Sep 2012 #28
oneshooter Sep 2012 #30
ellisonz Sep 2012 #33
gejohnston Sep 2012 #36
ellisonz Sep 2012 #38
gejohnston Sep 2012 #43
slackmaster Sep 2012 #62
slackmaster Sep 2012 #61
ellisonz Sep 2012 #70
gejohnston Sep 2012 #73
slackmaster Sep 2012 #79
rrneck Sep 2012 #31
jody Sep 2012 #34
ellisonz Sep 2012 #37
gejohnston Sep 2012 #41
jody Sep 2012 #51
ellisonz Sep 2012 #54
gejohnston Sep 2012 #56
ellisonz Sep 2012 #57
gejohnston Sep 2012 #58
ellisonz Sep 2012 #59
gejohnston Sep 2012 #60
jody Sep 2012 #65
ellisonz Sep 2012 #71
jody Sep 2012 #75
ellisonz Sep 2012 #76
jody Sep 2012 #77
slackmaster Sep 2012 #81
ellisonz Sep 2012 #82
slackmaster Sep 2012 #84
oneshooter Sep 2012 #99
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #94
oneshooter Sep 2012 #91
Euromutt Sep 2012 #40
ellisonz Sep 2012 #45
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #49
slackmaster Sep 2012 #64
eqfan592 Sep 2012 #67
X_Digger Sep 2012 #68
ellisonz Sep 2012 #72
slackmaster Sep 2012 #80
oneshooter Sep 2012 #92
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #95
friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #88
Berserker Sep 2012 #83
Euromutt Sep 2012 #85
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #50
gejohnston Sep 2012 #74
jody Sep 2012 #78
Trunk Monkey Sep 2012 #93
Berserker Sep 2012 #97

Response to jody (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 07:50 PM

1. Both parties need to be more progressive to all rights.

The 2A shouldn't be political, it should command the same respect as the 1st and 4th....of course one party doesn't give a flying fuck about the 1st or 4th....we shouldn't try and emulate them with our treatment of the Second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 07:55 PM

2. Agree, I'm drinking a martini, my favorite from Vietnam days. Wish you were here to join me. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 12:31 PM

11. Very true

 

some things shouldn't be political.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #1)


Response to jody (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 07:58 PM

3. depends on the individual voter

If I had to sell my guns, or take up poaching, to feed the family because Bain sent my job to China my mind would have already been made up even if the section was a Brady dream.

With wages dropping, while prices go up, people have less disposable income. If you can't afford the gas or ammo, you can't shoot. So while the Republican one might look like gunowner and Ruger's dream come true, but the rest of the platform will result in a defacto ban because of economics, like Somalia. Somalia's gun laws are stricter than some think, but since the average person, not to be confused with some warlord's retainers, can't afford a box of shells let alone the gun there is an economic ban. That was actually the point with the NFA transference tax. Before anyone says WTF GEJ? Remember, it didn't adjust for inflation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 08:08 PM

4. Makes sense. Bubba Carville said "It's the economy, stupid" and the more things change the more they

 

remain the same and times haven't changed except getting worst.

My friends who vote Independent know that the bottom line is their bottom line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:33 PM

5. Yep, adjusted for inflation the NFA tax today would be almost $3000 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:30 AM

6. I do not understand the assault weapons ban angle.

 

Unless this is just pandering to ignorant anti-gun people, I do not understand why they keep harping on the assault weapon angle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:01 AM

8. I think the platform authors feel stuck with it, like the GOP and their zygote personhood plank

 

It's an example of the unintended consequence of coalition-building through pandering to the irrational whims of an authoritarian special interest.

The party platform should embrace and whenever possible seek to expand liberty, not settle for a least common denominator with bits and pieces that cater to one small group that feel strongly about something. The only reason it hasn't been tossed out IMO is that the majority of convention delegates A) don't know enough and B) don't personally care about it enough to make a richly deserved stink about it.

I know more than a few Republicans who are pro-choice BTW. Just as reasonable Democrats respond to challenges to gun bans, they roll their eyes and hold their noses when the subject of their "personhood" plank comes up, then make shallow excuses like "The platform doesn't really matter" or "Nobody in Congress takes that stuff seriously."

The 2012 Democratic platform was approved by unanimous voice vote at the convention. That makes for a great dramatic show of unity, but I'd bet money that 90% of the delegates couldn't identify the source of the text snippet from the platform that mentions the AW ban if you presented it to them out of context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 12:31 PM

12. "this is just pandering to ignorant anti-gun people"

 

That's it. That's the entirety of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:56 AM

7. How disappointing this anti-gun language was retained in the current platform.

I was so optimistic when hearing some of the other changes regarding removing "God" and pro-Israel positions, I had hoped the party would get its head out of its ass and quit alienating rural voters.

Guess the party bosses think the urban areas can carry the country.

We could make the GOP a permanent minority in Congress if we just dropped the "feel-good" bullshit like the AWB which is more bark than bite, and only pisses off law-abiding gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:56 PM

46. The new AWB has plenty of bite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #46)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:53 PM

86. You have to admire the "logic" of paragraph L:

" firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:40 AM

9. The GOP platform mentions high-capacity "clips"!



Unfortunately, the Democratic platform calls for an AWB and closing a non-existent "gun show loophole."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 11:03 AM

10. I see "clips or magazines"

 

Both of which are technically valid terms for different items.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:12 PM

42. They are different things, yes.

 

The LOL part is that there is no such thing as a "high-capacity" clip. A clip holds ammunition by the base of the case so putting more than 10 rounds in a clip configuration would be very flexible and ungainly.

A magazine, on the other hand, completely encloses the round so the ammunition can be stacked very compactly.

What makes this an issue is that you have people whose only knowledge of weapons comes from watching movies (where accuracy isn't a factor) attempting to make policy about something they clearly know little of. It would be analogous to someone making regulations about automobiles who didn't know how to drive.

That is why the Assault Weapons Ban is such a contentious issue -- there is no practical difference between an AR-15 (labeled an Assault Weapon) and a Ruger Mini-14 (not an Assault Weapon). Both have the same capacity, use the same ammo, have the same muzzle velocity and, yes, both have been used in mass shootings.

But, because the AR-15 is black, and scary looking, while the Mini-14 is something that looks like my Dad carried in World War II, one is banned and the other isn't. This show just how ridiculous the debate become when you seen congress-persons and lobbyists debating a topic of which they have no knowledge -- all they have is emotional reactions and the overwhelming desire to "do something" that they think will appeal to their base.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:58 PM

47. The new AWB bans both and plenty of others too, such as the M-1 carbine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #47)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 11:04 PM

48. That's gonna with 'em some votes?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #47)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:28 AM

63. That is exactly why this nonsense must be nipped in the bud every time it comes back

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #47)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:14 AM

66. Umm, that's from 2003

not that those sponsors still in Congress wouldn't like to see it passed.


On edit: Thanks for the link, I saved it for the next "No one in government wants to take your guns" argument

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #66)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:56 AM

69. The same bill was reintroduced in 2008 by McCarthy.

It died with no cosponsors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 01:16 PM

13. Depends on how hard it is pushed in election ads

Sales of guns and related accessories are very high and I can see it being a factor in states like PA & WV and some other states that are going to be very close and among rank and file union members.

I seem to remember hearing that it was Gore's anti gun stance that cost him West Virginia & Tennessee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 01:28 PM

14. Being anti-gun will lose you PA. Guns are more popular than Jesus here. If you know how popular

 

Jesus is in PA, you'll understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:14 PM

15. "like reinstating the assault weapons ban"

I'm in agreement with the position of my party. Funny how so many here on a supposedly Democratic website are repulsed by the idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:28 PM

16. So you don't want democrats to win?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:36 PM

17. think about it

first, what is an "assault weapon?" Let's take an example from a neighboring country on why regulations should be written by people who know the technical aspects:

What is the difference between these two rifles:

http://entertainment.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/826365/
http://www.czub.cz/en/catalog/81-centerfire-rifles-cz/KM/CZ_858_TACTICAL.aspx

They both use the same round, same cycle rate, even looks mostly the same. The first one is illegal in Canada. As for the second one, anyone with a valid PAL can buy one in any Canadian gun store, and are quite popular from what I understand. They are not available in the US, and make specifically for the Canadian market.
This video explains Canada's magazine capacity laws in sections four and five.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm


You mistake being repulsed with being skeptical about the social value vs the probable blow back based on experience. When it was reintroduced in 2008, there were no Democratic co sponsors. I had a Republican sponsor and four Republican co sponsors. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:40 PM

18. Oh if only I understood the death spewers better...

I might not think making such weapons readily available to people like James Holmes was a bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:45 PM

19. that the best you can do?

At least you are not saying the NFA (National Firearms Association) conspired to weaken laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:47 PM

20. He wants Democrats to lose. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:47 PM

21. Some of us don't need to change the subject to make a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:57 PM

22. I was not changing the subject

I was partly pointing out a lesson to be learned from history, aka 1994 and if you are going to do something, it should be well thought out.
How is that changing the subject?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 09:00 PM

23. In post #17 there is no connection between the upper half of your post and your last paragraph.

It's wandering and poorly reasoned. If your point is that the gun nuts got uppity in 1994 I simply say: who gives a fuck about them, they vote Republican anyway. Suckers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 09:08 PM

26. no,

just that feel good theater is just that. I was pointing out an absurdity in our old law and Canadian current law.

The second part was if those Republicans could have suckered any Democrats to co sponsor it, they would have used it against Democrats in that election. That is my honest opinion on why it was introduced to begin with. The Dems saw through it and died in committee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #26)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 09:10 PM

27. Wow --- maybe we should just adopt all the Republican positions so they can't attack us?

I don't think even the DLC types believe that shit anymore. We need to stand up for what we believe in, and it isn't the NRA agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 09:28 PM

29. I'm not talking about the NRA

it is the other 76 million, many of them are independents, I'm concerned about. The first one was a DLC idea that a lot of right wingers were more than happy to vote for. Why do you think the NRA supported Bernie Sanders over Republican Peter Smith? The DLC sold out on economic issues. The two ideologies nothing to do with each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 09:42 PM

32. Anyone who wants to vote for the other guys because...

...we won't support an extremist take on gun control policy is free to do so. I don't believe we have to pander to win! There is no third way!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #32)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:00 PM

35. problem is, your take will be viewed as extremest by many independents

and that is what the OP is asking about. We are talking about independents, who are probably the majority of people. These are folks who are not overly concerned with abstract economic and social theories but are concerned about concrete issues that affects them personally. They don't give a rat's ass about ideology and they don't watch Fox or read Think Progress.

The part you miss is that, as sociologist James D. Wright observed, that the guy in Montana or rural Illinois will see themselves as being scapegoats by big city politicians who can't fix their own crime problems. I saw former Ohio Gov. Strickland give a kick assed speech at the convention. The NRA supported him over the asshole that beat him. Was Obama and DNC pandering then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:05 PM

39. Many independents aren't Democrats and will never be Democrats...

...if they love their ridiculous guns more than they love their country. Shame on them. Shame on the NRA. Shame on the Republican Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:17 PM

44. I'll give you

two out of three, as long as we are talking about post 1977 NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #32)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 11:49 PM

52. so you don't think this is extreme?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117269539#post13
check out the post and the ones below, and explain to me why the bill isn't extreme, or isn't written by an ignoramus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #52)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 12:00 AM

53. I think your friends there are distorting the meaning of those words.

How meh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #53)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 12:20 AM

55. how so?

would you care to explain how? Is there a place for vague laws?
Please explain how they are distorting the meaning of those words? You could say that is not the spirit of the law, but it is the letter of the law. Technically and historically, they are one hundred percent correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #55)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:24 PM

87. Your interlocutor seems to have found your questions inconvenient...

...as he hasn't bothered to answer them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #87)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:44 PM

90. He never has, and probably never will.

Scared, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #32)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:42 PM

89. He wants Democrats to lose. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #27)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 08:35 PM

98. He wants Democrats to lose. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 09:02 PM

24. Who are you to declare that a Democrat isn't allowed to disagree with one or two items...

 

...in a platform that addresses hundreds of issues?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 09:07 PM

25. "one or two items"

Wow way to diminish the effects of that position. Let me guess: you're anti-abortion and pro-tax cuts for the rich?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #25)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 09:16 PM

28. shrinking the tent

and being lock step on side show wedge issues does nothing. I'm more pragmatic. We should concentrate on the core values, mostly economic, and not screw ourselves with sideshow bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #28)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 09:31 PM

30. He wants Democrats to lose. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #28)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 09:43 PM

33. You think gun control policy is "sideshow bullshit"

Tell that to the people of Aurora, Colorado.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #33)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:02 PM

36. they blame the nut case

not the gun, that jammed because of the mall ninja magazine. More people were wounded and killed with a shotgun. One of those killed was wounded in the cross fire of two gangsters at a basketball game in Toronto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #36)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:03 PM

38. I'm sure you consulted with the people of Aurora on our failed gun control policy. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:14 PM

43. have you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #38)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:26 AM

62. The people of Aurora deserve exactly as much say on gun control policy as you and I do

 

They don't deserve any special power, any more than the unemployed deserve an elevated level of influence over economic policies.

ETA the state of Colorado happens to be in contention this Presential election, according to the New York Times:


Colorado

President Obama’s victory in Colorado was among his most prized accomplishments in 2008, after the state had voted reliably Republican in eight of the last nine presidential elections. A wariness of big government could test Mr. Obama in the Rocky Mountain West, but Mitt Romney faces his own challenge in appealing to independents and women, whose support was critical in a pair of Democratic wins in races for Senate and governor in Colorado in 2010.


http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #25)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:23 AM

61. You're very wrong but thank you for illustrating the Package Deal Fallacy

 

I'm strongly pro-choice on abortion, I'm for moderate taxes for all with progressive tax rates.

ETA I have a long history of consistent positions on these issues - Note the language I used in the title of reply #8 in this thread, for example.

Not once have I ever advocated for any restriction on reproductive choices, or for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #61)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:09 PM

70. But yet you argue for a so-called "Pro-RKBA" view...

...that is nothing but a front for the unregulated proliferation of an assortment of deadly weapons to no purposeful end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to ellisonz (Reply #70)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:29 PM

79. And now you have provided a perfect example of the Straw Man Fallacy

 

But yet you argue for a so-called "Pro-RKBA" view...

...that is nothing but a front for the unregulated proliferation of an assortment of deadly weapons to no purposeful end.


I believe I've stated my views on the subject of firearm law enough times in this group and previously in the Guns forum on DU2 that there is no excuse for another well-established user presenting such a grossly distorted representation of them, unless what you are really trying to do is "win" the discussion by pinning a manifestly unreasonable viewpoint on me.

You've presented a "view" of your own invention, given it a catchy name, then tried to attribute it to me.

You failed to tar me as an anti-choicer. You failed to hang "tax breaks for the wealthy" on me, and now you have failed to pin the straw man of "unregulated proliferation" on me.

Nice try. Maybe you could try ASKING me what I think about things first next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 09:40 PM

31. Democrats don't do lockstep.

You should know that Playa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 09:53 PM

34. What do you mean by " supposedly Democratic website"? Do you believe Democrats oppose the natural,

 

inherent, unalienable/inalienable rights that our Constitution requires that our government protect a minority against the tyranny of a simple majority?

Are you that kind of democrat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #34)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:02 PM

37. I'm the type of Democrat who doesn't have any tolerance of NRA rubbish.

I'm the type of Democrat who doesn't believe you ought to have an assault rifle with a 100 round drum magazine for no good reason of all. I'm that type of Democrat. What type of Democrat are you?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #37)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:12 PM

41. What kind am I?

rural
pro union
pro environment
pro medicare for all

and yeah pro gun, like these guys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_Strickland
From what I can find of Bernie Sanders' voting record, he deserves a higher NRA rating than what the assholes gave him.
and you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #37)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 11:23 PM

51. You seem to connect NRA with pro-RKBA Democrat. NRA has less than 5 million mbrs and perhaps 80m or

 

so voters own firearms and are pro-RKBA many of them Democrats.

Do you believe a presidential candidate can win without support of pro-RKBA Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #51)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 12:02 AM

54. I reject the intellectual construct of "pro-RKBA"

You either support responsible gun control policy or you oppose it: it's that simple.

Do you believe a presidential candidate can win without support of pro-RKBA Democrats?


Did you sleep through 2008? I can link you to a whole bunch of NRA ads if you have doubts about where President Obama is on this issue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #54)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 12:21 AM

56. who defines responsible, you?

how do you define responsible, and please be specific and technical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #56)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 12:26 AM

57. The arithmetic defines responsible...

...when we stop having a murder rate that dramatically exceeds the industrialized world combined, we'll be responsible. Until then, we suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #57)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 12:39 AM

58. perhaps it would be a better idea

to deal with the real issues involved rather than theater. As exceeding the industrial world combined, ummm how do you figure? and there has never been an explanation of how industrialization matters as much as disparity in wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.svg

To be quite honest, I think terms like "industrialized", "developed" etc. are out dated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #58)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 12:45 AM

59. "To be quite honest, I think terms like "industrialized", "developed" etc. are out dated."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #59)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 12:49 AM

60. once again, you missed the point

and that has more to do with concentration of wealth, than the lack of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #54)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:09 AM

65. In 2008 Obama said "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear

 

arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

Obama understood the importance of Bill Clinton's assessment that Gore's perceived opposition to RKBA cost him the election.

Obama promised he would not take away arms but this time voters may not believe him given the actions of Holder and others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #65)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:10 PM

71. Barack Obama supports the Assault Weapons Ban. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #71)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:32 PM

75. There is no legal definition in Federal law for "Assault Weapon". You claim Obama supports something

 

that is not defined, not unlike an empty chair.

Do you understand that simple fact?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #75)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:45 PM

76. What a silly argument!

I'm not debating that one, it would be pure Eastwooding! Obama doesn't support a ban on any type of gun because "there is no legal definition" in current Federal law






Someone pinch me.











The President doesn't agree with the gun cult, it's really simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #76)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:47 PM

77. Your reply reveals a lot about you. Have a great day and goodbye. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #76)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:47 PM

81. You guys have been on a real snit ever since Hoyt's banishment

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #81)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:52 PM

82. You're one to talk about "a real snit"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240129765

WTF was even going on in that thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #82)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:39 PM

84. LOL! You're one of the people who never figured out what it was about.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #76)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 08:37 PM

99. He wants Democrats to lose. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #71)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:38 AM

94. quote? link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #37)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:46 PM

91. He wants Democrats to lose. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:10 PM

40. Who died and appointed you forum politruk?

It perfectly possible to be in broad agreement with the party platform while disagreeing on one or more particulars. Hell, in a two-party system, it's practically impossible not to have some disagreements on details of policy; I speak from experience when I say it's difficult enough in a proportional-representation system, which has many more parties.

And I don't know about you, but my loyalty to the Democratic party is based on--and conditional upon--its policies being the closest match to my personal politics. The party has earned my support; however, I do not owe the party my loyalty, and I certainly have a number of other points to complain about in the platform, not least the complete lack of intent of ending the 40-year insanity that is called the "War on Drugs" (and directing at least part of the funding for it into effectively policing Wall Street). I also think it panders unnecessarily to religion and the religious. But for the most part, it is the Democratic party's policies that I most identify with, therefore I am a Democrat; not the other way round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Euromutt (Reply #40)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:32 PM

45. So you're going to support obstruction of the President on this issue? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 11:07 PM

49. Do I support obstruction of the President?

 

When he's wrong -- yea -- regardless of party.

Isn't that why we have a president and not a king?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #45)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:30 AM

64. The President has been silent on the issue. Nobody here is trying to obstruct him on anything.

 

Congress makes laws, and it's up to We The People to keep Congress informed on what we want them to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #45)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:27 AM

67. So you're saying that back when Pres. Clinton was in office...

...you thought people who didn't support DADT and DOMA were just "supposed" Democrats because they were trying to obstruct the President on those issues?

Wow, I didn't realize that being a part of the party required me to be in lock step with every single thing the party and president did or said.

Seriously, you've revealed a great deal about yourself in this thread, ellisonz, and none of it is pretty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #67)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:39 AM

68. How dare you bring logic to a perfectly emotional attempted shaming?












Keep it up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #67)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:12 PM

72. Comparing civil rights issues to "gun rights" nonsense is fallacious.

So tell me where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to own an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine?

Talk about ugly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #72)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:46 PM

80. Because the law does NOT say people aren't allowed to own such a weapon, we do have that right

 

Every right exists until it's restricted through due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #72)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:49 PM

92. He wants Democrats to lose. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #72)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:50 AM

95. Firearms ownership is a civil right

 

And is protected by the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't alter the reality that it exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #67)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:27 PM

88. The self-appointed zampolits do tend to end up contradicting themselves, don't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #45)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:14 PM

83. Nope I am going

 

to support this...
“I – like most Americans – believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.
President Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #45)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:23 PM

85. As far as I'm aware, the platform is written by the DNC, not the president

So insofar as I am supporting "obstruction" of anyone, it is "obstruction" of the DNC. That may or may not coincide with "obstruction" of the president, but neither the president nor the DNC are our elected legislators; that would be Congress. And may I remind you that when, three and a half years ago, A-G Holder brought up the topic of reinstating the ban on so-called "assault weapons" the first person to "obstruct" the administration was Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi remembered the effect the 1994 "AW"B had at the mid-terms and saw it would be her and her fellow Democratic members of Congress whose heads would be on the chopping block, not the DNC's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 11:14 PM

50. It will make only a minor difference against us.

It is almost a rule in politics that when an incumbent is up for reelection, the undecided voters who make up their minds close to the election day itself, will break strongly against the incumbent. That's just the way things are. Obama is the incumbent and is polling at below 50%, and seems to be stuck there. He is in trouble is he goes into the election like that.

Although it is a minor difference, in a close election a minor difference can be all it takes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:26 PM

74. So, to get back on track

how do you think independents will react, if at all, between the two. We are talking independents, party loyalty by fellow Democrats is not what the OP is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #74)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:09 PM

78. Exactly! About 60-70% of voters are pro-RKBA. IMO independents are 60-70% or greater pro-RKBA. That

 

suggests Obama will before election reiterate his promise "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

The unknown this time is will independents believe him again after he has failed to rein in Holder and Janet Napolitano's department push to declare veterans with PTSD mentally challenged and perhaps unqualified under 18 USC 922 (d) (4) to legally exercise their natural, inherent, unalienable/inalienable rights.

Wonder if veterans with PTSD can vote or does losing one of their civil rights RKBA mean they lose 100% of their civil rights including voting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 08:27 AM

93. I don't think you can speculate off one issue

 

I don't think there are any straight up single issue voters out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #93)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 06:44 PM

97. I think you

 

better google a bunch of gun forums and you will soon see who they are going to vote for and why. It's not Obama. There are shit loads of single issue voters and gun rights by far is the main issue in this country. They are so convinced that Obama is going to take away their guns they will vote for anyone other than a Democrat. This is why gun sales and ammunition sales are at and all time high. This voting block is huge and the democratic platform is playing right into there hands with the failed AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread