HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Democratic 2012 Platform ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 06:26 AM

Democratic 2012 Platform Calls for Reinstating Federal Assault Weapons Ban

A week after Republicans adopted the "strongest pro-gun rights platform" in GOP history, Democrats endorsed a 2012 party platform that calls for enacting "commonsense improvements" such as reinstating the assault weapons ban, closing the gun show "loophole" and strengthening the background check system.

Delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., approved the 70-page 2012 party platform on Sept. 4. It addresses the Second Amendment and gun ownership on page 53, stating the party's focus is "on effective enforcement of existing laws" with an emphasis on enacting "commonsense improvements -- like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole."

The Republican 2012 party platform adopted on Aug. 28 by GOP Convention delegates in Tampa endorses national concealed carry reciprocity, gun owner privacy and “stand your ground” rights while opposing reinstatement of the assault weapons ban and restrictions on magazine capacities.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2012/09/democratic-2012-platform-calls-reinstating-federal-assault-weapons-ban

25 replies, 4895 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 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply Democratic 2012 Platform Calls for Reinstating Federal Assault Weapons Ban (Original post)
SecularMotion Sep 2012 OP
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #1
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #2
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #3
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #4
glacierbay Sep 2012 #5
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #6
glacierbay Sep 2012 #8
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #9
glacierbay Sep 2012 #10
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #12
glacierbay Sep 2012 #13
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #14
glacierbay Sep 2012 #18
rrneck Sep 2012 #19
slackmaster Sep 2012 #7
DWC Sep 2012 #11
alabama_for_obama Sep 2012 #24
aikoaiko Sep 2012 #15
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #16
aikoaiko Sep 2012 #17
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #20
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #21
aikoaiko Sep 2012 #22
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #23
alabama_for_obama Sep 2012 #25

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 08:42 AM

1. this is old news. Jody posted it earlier - still on our first page, too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=69301

good citizens please check for duplicate threads

perhaps Krispos will consider locking ~ unless you would prefer to self-delete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 09:00 AM

2. This is not the same article

and does a much better job of contrasting the difference between our platform and the Republican positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 09:05 AM

3. I can read and contrast for myself but, if others want to discuss and you want

to reply then carry on.

A Broad Platform
I thought the phrase should have been left out of our platform. I think a platform should be broad enough to attract as many voters as possible - to be inclusive rather than exclusive. this is just my opinion on how a platform should be constructed - obviously the republicans (to my mind) went Way Too Far in the other direction. There was no need for all that. A simple concise sentence should be all that is needed, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 09:33 AM

4. Not "reinstate" but enact a new, tough AWB.

In 2003 the so-called renewal legislation was numbered H.R. 2038, had 111 cosponsors, and died in committee. Rep. Mark Kirk reintroduced it in 2008 as HR 6257 where it died with only four cosponsors. It appears that all of congress ran away from the bill.

Text of bill here:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6257/text

This AWB is not the old AWB, this one has teeth. and covers many more guns. In fact, the language can be construed to cover just about all guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 09:50 AM

5. As far as I'm concerned

 

this is just a bone to throw to at people like you. It has virtually no chance of getting through the congress and making it to Pres. Obama's desk for his signature, if he would even sign something like that which I have my doubts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 10:04 AM

6. "People like you"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 10:18 AM

8. Let me clarify

 

anti Second Amendment people like you seem to be. I should have been more clear although I think you know what I meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 10:24 AM

9. That's a bigoted statement and wrong

I support the Democratic 2012 platform as quoted -

"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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #9)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 10:39 AM

10. Well,

 

that's your interpretation and you're welcome to it, however, all you EVER post is anti Second Amendment, anti NRA, anti gun articles and then don't comment on them for the most part so, I think you've earned the title and I'm not going to get into a shouting match with you over this.
I also like the Party Platform for the most part except the call for a permanent renewal of the AWB which will do nothing to reduce crime, and drive Independent voters, who might have otherwise voted D, to either sit out the election or vote R.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. (Hint: 1994.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 10:59 AM

12. I support the "well-regulated" interpretation of the 2nd amendment

not the "robust" interpretation of the 2nd amendment that is promoted by the NRA.

The story that Democrats lost congress in 1994 as a result of the Assault Weapons Ban is a myth promoted by the NRA.

The notion that gun control was responsible for the Democrats’ debacle 15 years ago was floated by Richard Gephardt, the former Democratic House leader, and other pols and commentators after the ’94 election. But it was Bill Clinton who gave it current credence. “The N.R.A. could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House speaker,” Mr. Clinton wrote in his 2004 autobiography, pumping up the gun lobby and, not incidentally, himself by attributing the body blow to his party to his principled leadership on guns.

It is hard to make a case that the assault weapons ban was decisive in 1994.

The law certainly enraged many N.R.A. members and might explain the loss of certain Democratic seats. However, there were other major factors in the Democrats’ 1994 loss, starting with perceived Democratic arrogance and corruption (overdrafts at the House bank came to symbolize that).

Add to that voter unhappiness with Mr. Clinton’s budget, his health care fiasco, the Republican Party’s success in recruiting appealing candidates, and that ingenious Republican vehicle for nationalizing the elections known as the “Contract With America.” The contract, by the way, did not mention guns.

Mr. Clinton’s successful 1996 re-election campaign actually stressed his gun control achievements. James and Sarah Brady spoke in prime time at the ’96 Democratic convention, and Clinton campaign ads trumpeted his role in enacting the assault weapons ban and the ’93 Brady law requiring background checks for gun buyers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/opinion/09sat4.html?_r=1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #12)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 11:04 AM

13. Actually

 

Mr. Clinton himself admits that the NRA was responsible for the D's defeat, it's right their in his book, My Life. I think I'll believe him over the NYT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 11:15 AM

14. Yes, that point is addressed in the link I provided

Did you even bother to read it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #14)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 11:31 AM

18. Yes I bothered to read it

 

and the point still stands. If Pres. Clinton hadn't pushed for the AWB, then we probably would have retained control of the congress.
The AWB was an ill advised piece of legislation then and it's an ill advised piece of legislation now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #14)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 11:34 AM

19. Al Gore lost a lot ov votes in Tennessee

over gun control. I was there. I watched it happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 10:15 AM

7. That plank is our albatross, the equivalent of the GOP's "personhood" plank for fertilized eggs.

 

Having such a failure of an idea as a persistent part of the platform is the result of giving too much power to a vociferous extremist authoritarian fringe faction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 10:51 AM

11. +1 n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 12:43 AM

24. Well said.

The only way to change this is to teach your fellow liberal/progressives how to shoot. Expose them to sane gun owners do that they can form an opinion that goes a little deeper than thinking all of us are right wing whackos.

That or we learn the hard way. I wonder how much bigger democratic majorities could be, if we would finally cut this albatross loose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 11:19 AM

15. If you read carefully the AWB was only offered as an example.


The more I think about the nuances of these seemingly AWB supportive statements, I am very impressed with how the president and the party play the gun-control expansionists for fools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 11:27 AM

16. "Gun-control expansionists"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 11:31 AM

17. Yup!

That is what you are when you want to expand gun control laws.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #15)


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 11:39 AM

21. that is One Interpretation but, they left room to interpret the other way, too.

Playing us all for fools, if you ask me. Would have been better not to mention AWB at all.

including the word "like . . ." left us a lot of wiggle room --
kind of like Clinton's :define "is"

it was a cheap shot especially since the word "assault" is virtually meaningless in this context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #21)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 12:27 PM

22. I agree. I would rather it say "no new federal gun bans".


I think the language was chosen carefully to be noncommittal, I've been please with the way the Obama administration has abandoned gun control expansion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #22)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 12:31 PM

23. I can "live" with the platform but, I would have been happier if they would have

finished the sentence:
"on effective enforcement of existing laws".

and totally ommited this virtually menaningless (feel good) gobbledygook:
with an emphasis on enacting "commonsense improvements -- like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 12:45 AM

25. This cartoon reference to obama's handling of the issue

Regarding gun restrictionists is so damned funny. Still chuckling at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread