The Original CZ Forum
GENERAL => Right to Keep and Bear Arms => Topic started by: JimThornTX on September 06, 2012, 06:26:07 PM
-
www. democrats .org/democratic-national-platform
Protecting Rights and Freedoms - 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."
-
The ultimate "reasonable regulation" for leftists, despite Heller and McDonald is nobody can own guns individually, but we all "own them" collectively at the National Guard Armory. The AWB, if reinstated, won't have a sunset clause this time, I guarantee that.
-
I wouldn?t know where to find the answer to this....Question;
Did crime go down during the last ban ?
Seems that the powers to be haven?t learned a thing from the past
Gun Bans, in no way, reduce Crime or Gun Related killings
-
It's unfortunate, but not really shocking. It's worth noting that the Democrat Party's platform in 2008 said essentially the same thing about firearms, but dropped the T word (terrorists :-p) as well. We didn't see a ban during the first 2 years when they had a double majority + president, and there's no way they'd get it through with republicans controlling the house and/or the senate.
Frankly, I wouldn't consider either candidate to be pro-firearms. Obama hasn't shown any real aggression towards the firearms community, but his party certainly talks the "anti" talk. On the other hand, Romney's record in MA was very anti-firearms. He tells a different story now, but I don't put much stock in it.
At the end of the day, we've got Obama talking tough but actually having a decent record (as president) when it comes to gun rights, while Romney's talk is pro-gun but his record tells a different story. Frankly, I don't trust either to take a strong pro-firearms position, but at the same time no one is going to be able to pass any radical legislation given the state of the house/senate.
-
I believe Diane Feinstein is championing this lost cause. That's okay, because she is one of the most irrelevant of all the irrelevant political morons from California. It does not have a prayer of making it through Congress unless the Ds manage to pull off the upset of the millennium and gain control of both Houses with a filibuster-proof majority.
-
Trotting out Gabrielle Giffords to do the national anthem was all about generating support for their anti gun agenda. I feel for the lady and hate to see them use her for political ends.
-
Admittingly, what little I do know about Paul Ryan, it seems he's pro 2nd Amendment. Perhaps that'll be enough to keep Mitt at bay.
-
Good point, I also think Gifford is being used by the anti gun group, they have no scruples.
-
Admittingly, what little I do know about Paul Ryan, it seems he's pro 2nd Amendment. Perhaps that'll be enough to keep Mitt at bay.
I live in Wisconsin and have watched Ryan for years - even spoke to him at a rally to support Governor Scott Walker. I've thought for some time(well before the VP nomination) that he has a good shot at president some day. I can't say that I completely trust him - cuz he is a politician - but he is about as good as politicians get. He is very conservative and is very pro 2nd Amendment. He fought for concealed carry in WI - which we just got last fall.
-
I think that's great news that the Dems want an assault weapons ban! :) :) :) ;D
After their display of sheer idiocy in denying God from the Democratic platform while middle America watched and listened, and their major screwup in insulting Israel and all their strong Democrat voting base of American Jews, saying that Jerusalem is not the capitol of Israel, plus dragging feet on Iran/Israel, this manages to do the impossible: driving the last nail in their own coffin!
That doesn't even mention the abortion & contraceptive problems, or Obama-Care, or the ECONOMY, or $16Trillion DEBT, or JOBS piled on top of that! It only gets better...
-
Admittingly, what little I do know about Paul Ryan, it seems he's pro 2nd Amendment. Perhaps that'll be enough to keep Mitt at bay.
I live in Wisconsin and have watched Ryan for years - even spoke to him at a rally to support Governor Scott Walker. I've thought for some time(well before the VP nomination) that he has a good shot at president some day. I can't say that I completely trust him - cuz he is a politician - but he is about as good as politicians get. He is very conservative and is very pro 2nd Amendment. He fought for concealed carry in WI - which we just got last fall.
I've liked Ryan for a few years now. I really like that he came out with an aggressive budget plan and stuck his neck out for what needs to be done. His plan isn't perfect, but so far he's the only elected national figure that's really putting a plan out there. Personally, I wish he wasn't as much of a social conservative, but hey, no one's perfect. I'll continue to root for Ryan, but I have a hard time getting behind Mitt and picking a VP I like only goes so far. It'll come down to picking the lesser of two evils for me yet again, and I'm still not 100% sure who that is. :P
-
Just what is this obsession with this silly Assault Weapons ban? It didn't do any good last time around which is why it was allowed to expire.
-
Ah, ah, ah two thirds of the yay's have it!!! That hilarious three time vote yesterday. I thought the nay's won the last time. The lesser of two evils is more like there is no option.
-
Admittingly, what little I do know about Paul Ryan, it seems he's pro 2nd Amendment. Perhaps that'll be enough to keep Mitt at bay.
I live in Wisconsin and have watched Ryan for years - even spoke to him at a rally to support Governor Scott Walker. I've thought for some time(well before the VP nomination) that he has a good shot at president some day. I can't say that I completely trust him - cuz he is a politician - but he is about as good as politicians get. He is very conservative and is very pro 2nd Amendment. He fought for concealed carry in WI - which we just got last fall.
I've liked Ryan for a few years now. I really like that he came out with an aggressive budget plan and stuck his neck out for what needs to be done. His plan isn't perfect, but so far he's the only elected national figure that's really putting a plan out there. Personally, I wish he wasn't as much of a social conservative, but hey, no one's perfect. I'll continue to root for Ryan, but I have a hard time getting behind Mitt and picking a VP I like only goes so far. It'll come down to picking the lesser of two evils for me yet again, and I'm still not 100% sure who that is. :P
So sad, but so true! I get so blasted tired of being manipulated by both sides at the same time! Like 2008, I saw a clear and known threat to America's future as a Constitutional Republic standing on the one side, and then out from behind the Republican curtain comes their grinning 'Answer' for all good Americans: JOHN McCAIN!???? My neighbors miles away must have heard me screaming at the top of my lungs, "ARE YOU KIDDING ME YOU IDIOTS!????"
Reminded me of a cross between Captain Kangaroo and Peewee Herman on his tricycle, popping out as the Republican Party's very best pick of their man chosen to represent all of America's greatest ideals before the world. FAIL!
At least this time they've chosen somebody that clearly understands business, running a business [and of course govt is just that now], and the complex inter-relations of every aspect of the economy, jobs, energy etc. and running at a profit instead of a loss while planning for a future. At least there's hope in that, but I hate that it's always 'at least' nowadays...
.
-
Ha! We had similar but slightly different reactions in 2008 Spirit - mine was more:
"SARAH PALIN!? My neighbors miles away must have heard me screaming at the top of my lungs, "ARE YOU KIDDING ME YOU IDIOTS!?"" ;D ;D
-
I thought it was interesting that Obama said that Biden was the best VP a President could ask for...lol I laughed and said that's setting the bar pretty low.
People need to go see the movie "2016 truth about Obama" the man is a communist ready to sell out to the Russians and turn his back on the US Allies we've had since WWII.
There's no choice in November, either you're for a socialist US or you are not. The path Romney wants to take is champion small business, pay the debt down, cut taxes and get off foreign oil dependence.
Obama says he wants to do all the same in the next 4 years, but during his time office our debt has risen 6 trillion dollars, let me put that in zeros for anyone reading this $6,000,000,000,000.00 that's 13.2 acres of 100 dollar bills stacked on top of each other 40" high.... or go here and see what that looks like to some common objects http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_debt/us_debt.html
The supreme court ruled that the affordable health care act is constitutional and called it a TAX! How can something be affordable if you are taxed by it?
The jobless rate has risen since his time in office and most professionals would tell you the that the 8.1 rate is not accurate, because these statistics don't tell you the number of people who have stopped looking for jobs. In fact the estimate is that we have a jobless rate of over 15%, again the president has had 4 years and the only thing done so far is raise the debt, talk about hope and change and we've seen the jobless rate increase! Where's the choice?
So even if Romney isn't the knight in shinning armor (you will never get that, because someone can't be all things to all people) he has experience in business the economy and running a government in a way that doesn't almost double the their debt! Obama was a senator for 2 years before taking control of a nation, he had no foreign policy experience, never has he worked in the private sector (all his "wealth" comes from tax payers and books) and was a community organizer.
That's like asking an accountant to rifle a barrel and expecting it to fire straight...The only change I've seen in the last 4 years is the cost of living going back up, my insurance premiums rising and gas pricing going up and up...I'm tired of change, I want what we had. STABILITY!
-
We're getting off topic, but my $0.02, you aren't going to convince many rational people slinging around words like communist and socialist when they don't really apply. Anyone who has studied Marxist theory in any detail would recognize that Obama is not a socialist, at least not based on any actions we've seen. Even though the right-wing commentators love to throw that word around, it's simply a misuse of the term. It's accurate to say he's in favor of a stronger (read: larger) federal government, but that does not make him a socialist.
You're absolutely right when it comes to debt though. Bush and the GOP legislature were horrible with our money as well, so I don't have any faith in Romney balancing the books, but Obama has been worse in that respect.
-
You're right - the ticket was backwards, should have been Palin/McCain. :)
skipper, did that "vote" remind you of the original AWB vote in the Senate in 1994, when the party in control illegally held the gavel for an extra 17 minutes past the deadline to "persuade" one last vote to switch sides?
-
Not that much of this entire discussion has anything to do with RKBA...
the only thing that differentiates the two tickets is the Repub VP candidate...
and I don't trust him either.
They are politicians and nothing more.
-
First off I am a rational person who has their eye's open to the world around me and Obama has said he want's to carry on his Fathers dreams (his father aligned himself with the communist party). 2nd, blaming a former a republican president is the answer for most Democrats since they don't like to take responsibility. It's been 4 years already, how much longer until Obama and the democratic party (majority party at this time and when he took office) own this current economy.
I've read books regarding Socialism, Communism and Marxism and it was never supposed to be a theory that was implemented, it was only a counter to pure capitalism theory. Karl Marx was a lazy, wife beating drop out that came from wealth and privilege until his father disowned him because of his failure and disappointment making him mad and angry at the world around him.
So what do you call redistribution of wealth through taxation?
Because someone has more they should pay more so others with less can have some of what they have? Um that's socialism and that's a watered down version of Communism as I read it.
Let me ask you this, if you are not happy with the amount of taxes you paid last year, did you get a return and keep it or send it back?
Do you feel the Government can spend you money better than you can?
Bigger Government = more money needed to run it
Bigger Government = more regulations
More regulations = less freedom
The more anyone depends on someone else to take care of them means the less free they are. If we don't use our freedoms then we lose them. Government was never set up to run this way. It was supposed to take care of the business of the states not nanny the people.
What I'm saying is not an argument, it's factual.
-
And there is truth to the assertion that the argument has wandered off RKBA to pure politics. Let's go find more RKBA topics.