DNC 2012 Platform

[DMax]

Lets not forget that the UN Arms treaty was put off until after the election by bho Hummmmmmm why would that be, Lame duck ???? Na that could not be it. Silly just silly thats just fear mongering.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Lets not forget that the UN Arms treaty was put off until after the election by bho Hummmmmmm why would that be, Lame duck ???? Na that could not be it. Silly just silly thats just fear mongering.

Thankfully ou answered the question yourself so we really don't have to.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Lets not forget that the UN Arms treaty was put off until after the election by bho Hummmmmmm why would that be, Lame duck ???? Na that could not be it. Silly just silly thats just fear mongering.

Thankfully ou answered the question yourself so we really don't have to.

Unless of course you are doing it for "political expedience." I believe that to be the case.
But as long as plouffe and axelrod are in charge of the dem campaign, we'll never know the truth.
Until it's too late!

The DNC has made it plain as day in their party platform.
That's good enough for me.

Any pro-liberty/gun ownership argument the lefties put up at this point is against their own party, not the Republicans.
The Democrat party thinks the AWB, mag limits and greater gun restriction is a selling point for them, or it wouldn't be a plank in their platform.

If you want to vote for a government with that mindset, with that as a goal, go ahead. That is certainly your right.
But don't come in here and try to justify it.

That's the silliest part of all!

 

[SonicBlue03]

Unless of course you are doing it for "political expedience." I believe that to be the case.
But as long as plouffe and axelrod are in charge of the dem campaign, we'll never know the truth.
Until it's too late!

The DNC has made it plain as day in their party platform.
That's good enough for me.

Any pro-liberty/gun ownership argument the lefties put up at this point is against their own party, not the Republicans.
The Democrat party thinks the AWB, mag limits and greater gun restriction is a selling point for them, or it wouldn't be a plank in their platform.

If you want to vote for a government with that mindset, with that as a goal, go ahead. That is certainly your right.
But don't come in here and try to justify it.

That's the silliest part of all!

I'm not really particularly worried about justifying anything to anyone - especially here. That said, what will the stress/fear level do in many of you if the President is re-elected? What actions will that drive you folks to if that happens?

 

[slingshot1943]

Fast and furious should disqualify this administration from a gun owners point of view.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I would like very much for the our gun rights to be implemeted as the republicans have said - do I beleive it will happen and in order for it to happen the federal government would have to supersede state rights. Do you really think that CA, IL, or MA will accept universal reciprocity? Oregon as a state doesnt accept any others states CW permits as it is. To me that is a pipe dream. To me what the republican party wants will never happen - <snip>

I find this a curious position JG.
On one hand, you have accused GOVERNOR Romney of taking a pro-gun-control stance, when he signed a MA state gun control bill, that was written by a dem controlled legislature into law. Exercising their state's right to do so.
And in the quoted post above, you sound like you are against the feds super-ceding a state's rights to deny reciprocity.
So, do you believe states should be able to regulate firearms separately and/or to a greater extent than the feds, or not?
Please note, I am not asking you if they should, merely whether or not you believe they should have, under the 10th amendment, the right to do so.

 

[JGRuby]

It is my beleif that the states do control firearms at higher level than the feds do - the reason we dont have reciprocity now is because there are certain states that have enacted more stringent requirements than the federal government has. The feds put the boiler plat down and next smaller set of government either accepts or adds onto that boiler plate. I do not think the federal government has the right to tell a state or even a city how to manage that state or city. If the past is any indication of the furture then I do not expect this to change.

I am all for reciprocity - just like vehicles but even states and cities have different rules for driving.

Jamie - I hope i answered your question.

James Ruby

 

[Jamie6.5]

It is my beleif that the states do control firearms at higher level than the feds do - the reason we dont have reciprocity now is because there are certain states that have enacted more stringent requirements than the federal government has. The feds put the boiler plat down and next smaller set of government either accepts or adds onto that boiler plate. I do not think the federal government has the right to tell a state or even a city how to manage that state or city. If the past is any indication of the furture then I do not expect this to change.

I am all for reciprocity - just like vehicles but even states and cities have different rules for driving.

Jamie - I hope i answered your question.

James Ruby

Oh you have JG, thanks.

I just find it odd that you would hold the well expressed belief above, and then decry Romney's signing of the AWB law in MA.
One must remember that Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the union. Their General Court, AKA legislature, is controlled in both houses by Democrat supermajorities, SINCE their AWB was written and passed.
I am actually rather surprised that Romney was even elected there.
This is the same state that sent Ted Kennedy (the champion of gun control and single-payer healthcare) to the Senate 9 times over the course of 42+ years.
Sent John Kerry to the Senate 5 times over 27+ years and he is still there currently.

Is it any wonder that he signed that bill, in that state, and in that political climate?
It certainly doesn't surprise me. He had numerous vetoes (Many of them partial/section/pocket vetoes) over-ridden as Governor.
Just like it doesn't surprise me that he was a one-term guy in that position.

 

[JGRuby]

Instead of opening gun laws up in MA he signed into law permanent restrictions preventing ownership of semi automatic pistols and magazine capacities - I feel that this is gun restriction and is a model example of gun control. This guy that did this to his own state now preaches gun ownership and is the touted messiah of the conservative right. He was govenor of MA and could not do his job right as I see it. He will tell you guys anything he wants you to hear until he is elected.

Jamie - you are always pretty clear and though I dont necesarily like your postion you have many valid points supporting your postion - however I dont see how what Romeny did can be construed as anything but control in MA.

James Ruby

 

[Misterbill]

So hey, we'll give Romney a break because he was in an anti-gun state. But Barack Obama is the devil because he championed? Oh, that's right, nothing.

This is about power politics. If you believe anything else you're a tool of people far smarter and far more sophisticated than you.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Neither wrote their platforms Misterbill.
That was done by their national committees.

It is officially democrat policy to push for an AWB.
It is official republican policy to push against that and other restrictions, and to push for reciprocity.
No breaks required, we have in writing!

 

[JGRuby]

Neither wrote their platforms Misterbill.
That was done by their national committees.

It is officially democrat policy to push for an AWB.
It is official republican policy to push against that and other restrictions, and to push for reciprocity.
No breaks required, we have in writing!

Can you please priovide concrete evidence of that - that is one thing I dont completely beleive, that Romney and Ryan have nothing to do with thier polciy's that they are pushing for. I think the same thing could be said about Obama's positions. Just because the party wants one thing doesnt mean they do or will even move in that direction once elcted.

James Ruby

 

[Jamie6.5]

Not all issues are, or can be part of a political platform JG. But in this case, the candidates, and the planks in platforms they are campaigning on (stance on gun issues) is startlingly clear.
The difference is a stark contrast.

The (R or D) National Committee (RNC/DNC) writes the platform (plan) based on current affairs/issues, and the candidates endorse them as issues they would like to run their campaign on.
It's been that way forever. I agree that more than one candidate has abandoned their party platform after gaining office.
Take for instance, the transparency issue, the closing of Gitmo, the increase in American deaths in Afghanistan since 2008, the unemployment picture and the national debt/deficit.
Meanwhile, millions have been left hoping for change.

Lets just continue to hope (and vote for) the changes in gun laws remain positive ones, instead of the negatives the Dem platform represents.
When it comes to liberty and guns, ammo etc., the Dems have become the party of "NO."

 

[JGRuby]

So basically the candidates picks and chooses what part of the party agenda they will support or if any. So in actuality the party lie ( I mean line - typo ) may not mean a thing. That sure builds a lot of confidence regardless of what party you vote for. Wonder what parts Romney / Ryan actually support and just dont give lip service to until they are elected.

Just ask yourself - if Republicans are such good people why is it you dont Seen any of the Bushes and or Cheny at the convention or on the road suppoting the next presidential candidate. it must be because they did thier jobs so well.

James Ruby

 

[deadeye]

done