DNC 2012 Platform

[timac]

[h=3] Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation [/h] 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. Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

Read More

 

[nwdrifter]

Reasonable meaning bolt action hunting rifles and pump action shotguns, nothing else is reasonable.

 

[dmancornell]

Translation: hunting is legal in the US. Whoop-dee-doo.

 

[Chee-to]

The Democrat party has been known to be hostile towards guns and the Second Amendment. Now their party platform, among other things, calls for even stricter gun control laws, including the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.

While GOP nominee Mitt Romney supports the assault weapons ban and supported the gun laws of Massachusetts, the GOP itself did not make that a part of their platform. The DNC platform has done that very thing.

The section under “Protecting Rights and Freedoms,” regarding “Firearms” states:

"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."

Surprise! DNC Platform Demands More Gun Control Laws : Freedom Outpost

 

[Dan-Dee Sales Inc]

Is Mitt any better? not.

 

[fd15k]

[h=3] Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation [/h]

That's the same thing that SCOTUS said. As for "Assault Weapons", that is yet to be decided in California, DC and couple of other places (likely it will be just one that will escalate all the way back to SCOTUS). That's in theory. In practice DNC platform means absolutely nothing.

When Barack Obama was running for office, his campaign website had under Urban policy that he was supporting reinstatement of the expired Assault Weapons Ban. Once he got elected, that same page became official page of the White House, in the .gov tld. Some time later that message about Assault Weapons got removed... and never came back in his 4 years of office

 

[Bacchus]

I don’t know about Mitt, at least his Supreme Court nominations are much more likely to be pro-gun than Obama’s, but the Republican Party has certainly become much more pro-gun the last few decades than the Democrats.

I did some research and found this site

<broken link removed>

from the Republican Convention in Tampa a couple weeks ago, with statements like

Republicans have strengthened the pro-gun-rights portion of their party platform, including a new call for unlimited bullet capacities in guns

also endorses "stand your ground" rights for gun owners

Gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens

We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines

I also found some data on one of the other gun sites that lists the Senate voting record on three of the most recent major gun bills:

Republicans and Democrats: Senate Votes

Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00295
H.R. 3355. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. August 25, 1994

Passed by a vote of 61-38

Republicans vote for/against: 7/36; 16% FOR
Democrats vote for/against: 54/2; 96% FOR

89% of the FOR votes were cast by the Democrats.


Brady Bill
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00394
H.R. 1025. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993. November 20, 1993

Passed by a vote of 63-36

Republicans vote for/against: 16/28; 36% FOR
Democrats vote for/against: 47/8; 85% FOR

75% of the FOR votes were cast by the Democrats.


Commerce in Arms
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00206
S.397. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. July 26, 2005

Passed by a vote of 66-32

Republicans vote for/against: 53/1; 98% FOR
Democrats vote for/against: 13/30; 30% FOR

97% of the AGAINST votes were cast by the Democrats.

 

[Kurly]

[h=3] Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation [/h] 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. Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

What is reasonable regulation? And who decides reason? Hopefully not the Liberral machine that would enjoy seeing all our rights as Americans obolished.

What exactly is the gun show loophole? And why does the DNC deem it nessecary to close?

What exactly is a assualt weapon and why do you want to ban them? Have you ever shot a gun? Pistol, Rifle, or a shotgun?

The DNC can make all the laws you want but it's the criminals that break them, Not the law abiding folk.

 

[Bigfoot]

Is Mitt any better? not.

I wouldn't want to go hunting with Obama, Biden, or Romney. Ryan on the other hand...his Secret Service codename is Bowhunter.

One party Plank promises to be pro 2nd A the other promises semi-auto bans.

Who here wants to gamble on which Plank promises they keep to make their supporters happy and which ones they pass on. I like my semi-autos.

IBTL

 

[fd15k]

What is reasonable regulation? And who decides reason? Hopefully not the Liberral machine that would enjoy seeing all our rights as Americans obolished.

Right, even the Patriot Act was secretly invented by the representatives of the Liberal machine

 

[DMax]

Any reasonable regulation is just a line in the sand that libs use as an door opener to move the line in the sand toward there anti gun agenda. They are never satisfied with what they get it is always a moving target. The libs agenda is always about the loss of liberty. Which nobody seems to think about anymore.

They always talk about equality but never talk about Freedom.

The big line in the sand is the supreme court at this point in time as it relates to 2A

 

[SonicBlue03]

Scalia agrees with reasonable regulation, and he was GOP-nominated.

 

[fd15k]

Scalia agrees with reasonable regulation, and he was GOP-nominated.

That's because entire SCOTUS is just a part of the Liberal machine. Read the footprint

 

[DMax]

An example of moving the line in the sand.

How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare | Alternet

 

[SonicBlue03]

It's just moderately funny to me that people are making a huge issue of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts and Scalia have taken positions that would normally be described as counter to the parties that nominated them, and the one people expected to support Health Care (Kennedy) didn't. That's good, because I don't want party-line SCOTUS; I want judges that take serious their responsibility to interpret how the Law of the Land is supposed to apply to us in our time. Whether or not I agree with their decisions nonwithstanding, I want there at least to be a perception that the effort is there to interpret it fairly.

That Democratic position on guns is exactly the neutral pacifying statement to the base as I'd expect. For those saying nothing changed under Obama, you're partially right - and you'll be able to say the same thing about your gun rights (if he's elected) at the end of his second term.

 

[DMax]

It's just moderately funny to me that people are making a huge issue of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts and Scalia have taken positions that would normally be described as counter to the parties that nominated them, and the one people expected to support Health Care (Kennedy) didn't. That's good, because I don't want party-line SCOTUS; I want judges that take serious their responsibility to interpret how the Law of the Land is supposed to apply to us in our time. Whether or not I agree with their decisions nonwithstanding, I want there at least to be a perception that the effort is there to interpret it fairly.

That Democratic position on guns is exactly the neutral pacifying statement to the base as I'd expect. For those saying nothing changed under Obama, you're partially right - and you'll be able to say the same thing about your gun rights (if he's elected) at the end of his second term.

Thats great then we have nothing to worry about Scalia talking smack is not the same as voting to change the law. All talk and no action just like bho I get your point and its a good one. Great no worries carry on

 

[hermannr]

Scalia agrees with reasonable regulation, and he was GOP-nominated.

There is quite a difference between what "reasonable regulation" might mean to Scalia and what "reasonable regulation might mean to Ginsberg. (Clinton nom)

I would be very careful about what you may thnk Scalia might think is "reasonable"...it could be as simple as inside jails and court houses, but nothing else.

 

[Bacchus]

Scalia agrees with reasonable regulation, and he was GOP-nominated

He also voted for Heller and McDonald, far more important.

 

[fd15k]

There is quite a difference between what "reasonable regulation" might mean to Scalia and what "reasonable regulation might mean to Ginsberg. (Clinton nom)

I would be very careful about what you may thnk Scalia might think is "reasonable"...it could be as simple as inside jails and court houses, but nothing else.

You actually don't have to speculate. The three cases that shape the 2A right now are Miller, Heller and McDonald. There are plenty of examples of permissible regulation in all three way beyond what you've mentioned, and the best part Scalia himself participated in the last two.

 

[bunkerguy]

The Democrat party has been known to be hostile towards guns and the Second Amendment. Now their party platform, among other things, calls for even stricter gun control laws, including the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.

While GOP nominee Mitt Romney supports the assault weapons ban and supported the gun laws of Massachusetts, the GOP itself did not make that a part of their platform. The DNC platform has done that very thing.

The section under "Protecting Rights and Freedoms," regarding "Firearms" states:

"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&#8212;so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few."

Surprise! DNC Platform Demands More Gun Control Laws : Freedom Outpost

It never ends....we need to get rid of these people...I hate them all, i truely do, they never stop, they never compromise, they just destory freedom,liberty,and wealth, thats all they do, please push us too far, that way in the eyes of the commen people of this nation we are the victims and do what we please to this group of tyrants, when he wins, "and he will because honest,hard working,industorius,liberty loving patriots are out numbered 1 to 100 by the parasites of the welfare state either homegrown or "imported" from the 3rd world" we must take action,

need saying you should do anything illegal, but that being said, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...

if not dont do anything,dont cry,dont do anything,kind of like how we did nothing for the last 80 years while the statiest have raped out freedoms, pay time, and its winner take all. are you in the game?