DNC platform is anti-2A

[aray]

Sorry if this has been posted before but if so I missed it.

The Democrat National Platform this year, while trying to have it both ways, is anti-2A - or at least it begins to encroach upon that right in part, ref:

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform


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.

Bye bye ARs, folding stocks, accessory racks, magazines with greater than 10 rounds, face to face sales, etc.

(Aside: I think this posting is consistent with John's admonition to stay away from politics unless it is RKBA related or anti-2A politicians.)

[Chief Joseph]

And yet, too many dem gun owners will still look you in the eye and say it's NOT the dems trying to take our guns.

[LorenzoB]

Even the first part is very skillfully worded to erode 2A. Look at the words carefully and think of their meanings/ definitions /connotations as you read it and you will see their bigger picture (long term goal) agenda...

Such as linking the 2A to being just part of a "tradition". The 2A was always way more than any American tradition. And how they say "own" and "use" guns instead of "keep" and "bear". They have very different meanings, and they know it. "Keep" and "own" may be similar enough, but "use" and "bear" are NOT the same. Can you see where they want to go with that?

They also use the term "common sense" near the end. They are going to try to drill that into everyone that will listen... It is a statement that the opposite is senseless and no one wants to be senseless, right? Why would any one need a gun with high capacity magazines unless they were out to do harm? Why would any one need a gun with a collapsible stock? Why would any one need a rifle that has a pistol grip? Once the majority thinks these features are senseless, they will get rid of them by legislation. It already happened in California, and then there was a loophole that won't take long for them to close (they already tried and will try again). And it will spread to the federal level some day soon. Especially if some nut job shoots up a movie theater or school. I believe that if this weren't an election year, they would have implemented a federal assault weapons ban shortly after that last shooting.

[LorenzoB]

I also think the majority of the country just reads that and says "that sounds good" and don't read any deeper meaning in it.

I'm not talking tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff. I'm saying they have very bright people carefully wording these written statements in "political speak" to make it sound good to all (even some gun owners) (don't upset any voter) and also steer people in the direction they would like to ultimately go.

[tv_racin_fan]

How do you have honest conversation with someone who will lie to you to get what they want?

For instance they claim to want to close the gun show loophole, yet when it was suggested that the govt allow the citizen access to the background check which would close that loophole they wanted no part of it. They want the transfers to go thru an FFL, even if that transfer is to your son or wife. They claim to want to close the loophole because they believe it will prevent criminals from getting firearms. UUMM HELLO they are criminals, they have broken the law in order to aquire the very firearms you say they aquired at the gun show. They have decieved someone in order to purchase these firearms either by neglecting to inform the seller that they are in fact a criminal and not elligible to purchase that firearm or by finding someone else to purchase that firearm for them in a straw purchase. Another law or strengthening a law wont stop the criminal from breaking the law, HE IS A CRIMINAL, he is breaking the law by definition. Does the law against speeding prevent speeding? Does the law against murder prevent murder? NO!! The law can simply define what is a crime and in some cases define what the penalty will be for committing that crime.

Then they talk about common sense improvements. Common sense? The very people claiming they want common sense improvements can not explain to you why an AR 15 with more than a certain number of features is an assault weapon yet that same AR 15 with less of those features is simply a semi auto rifle. Those very people can not explain to you why an SKS from one country is deemed to be an assault weapon but an SKS from any other nation on Earth is simply a semi auto rifle. Doesn't it require common sene to recognize a common sense improvement? Seriously.. Doesn't one need to know what a heat shield is before they pass a law banning it?

"We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation." UMM not according to the very document which stands as the basis for this republic. The founding fathers knew of no resonable regulation and they knew full well what the govt would eventually consider a resonable regulation. The founding fathers had just fought a war with a govt over that govts reasonable regulations concerning the keeping and bearing of arms, among other things.

[CrabbyAzz]

How do you have honest conversation with someone who will lie to you to get what they want?

For instance they claim to want to close the gun show loophole, yet when it was suggested that the govt allow the citizen access to the background check which would close that loophole they wanted no part of it. They want the transfers to go thru an FFL, even if that transfer is to your son or wife. They claim to want to close the loophole because they believe it will prevent criminals from getting firearms. UUMM HELLO they are criminals, they have broken the law in order to aquire the very firearms you say they aquired at the gun show. They have decieved someone in order to purchase these firearms either by neglecting to inform the seller that they are in fact a criminal and not elligible to purchase that firearm or by finding someone else to purchase that firearm for them in a straw purchase. Another law or strengthening a law wont stop the criminal from breaking the law, HE IS A CRIMINAL, he is breaking the law by definition. Does the law against speeding prevent speeding? Does the law against murder prevent murder? NO!! The law can simply define what is a crime and in some cases define what the penalty will be for committing that crime.

Then they talk about common sense improvements. Common sense? The very people claiming they want common sense improvements can not explain to you why an AR 15 with more than a certain number of features is an assault weapon yet that same AR 15 with less of those features is simply a semi auto rifle. Those very people can not explain to you why an SKS from one country is deemed to be an assault weapon but an SKS from any other nation on Earth is simply a semi auto rifle. Doesn't it require common sene to recognize a common sense improvement? Seriously.. Doesn't one need to know what a heat shield is before they pass a law banning it?

"We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation." UMM not according to the very document which stands as the basis for this republic. The founding fathers knew of no resonable regulation and they knew full well what the govt would eventually consider a resonable regulation. The founding fathers had just fought a war with a govt over that govts reasonable regulations concerning the keeping and bearing of arms, among other things.

We all have our opinions but when it come down to it, Your not a constitutional scholar. Your 2nd amendment rights are not unlimited. I think this conservative knows a little more about the issue than us.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided

[JohnR]

We all have our opinions but when it come down to it, Your not a constitutional scholar. Your 2nd amendment rights are not unlimited. I think this conservative knows a little more about the issue than us.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided
Insulting the poster ("Your'e not a Constitutional Scholar") is not a debate tactic. I.e., "you're not qualified to talk about the 2nd Amendment." BS. We are all qualified to talk about it. It's our document, it's up to us to defend and/or amend it. We do not abdicate our responsibilities to ivory tower elites in DC, like liberals do.

Plus, Scalia is just one guy, and all he said was he thought there could be limits, but no one has set them. No court has made a definitive ruling.

"I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear.' So, it doesn't apply to cannons." Really? Where in the framers' extensive writings does it say that?

[CrabbyAzz]

Insulting the poster ("Your'e not a Constitutional Scholar") is not a debate tactic. I.e., "you're not qualified to talk about the 2nd Amendment." BS. We are all qualified to talk about it. It's our document, it's up to us to defend and/or amend it. We do not abdicate our responsibilities to ivory tower elites in DC, like liberals do.

Plus, Scalia is just one guy, and all he said was he thought there could be limits, but no one has set them. No court has made a definitive ruling.

"I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear.' So, it doesn't apply to cannons." Really? Where in the framers' extensive writings does it say that?

The 2nd amendment is not like the bible where the great unwashed pull things out of context and ascribe their personal opinions. The supreme court is composed of constitutional scholars to properly interpret the intent of the document.

And what do you mean insulting the poster? Hardly an insult.. don't stir up trouble.

[Bawanna]

http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n538/hopke5/Policecargif-1.gif

[Chief Joseph]

The 2nd amendment is not like the bible where the great unwashed pull things out of context and ascribe their personal opinions. The supreme court is composed of constitutional scholars to properly interpret the intent of the document.

And what do you mean insulting the poster? Hardly an insult.. don't stir up trouble.

That's right, to properly interpret without their own personal beliefs like ginsberg who admits using foreign law in her decisions and recommends foreign governments NOT use our Constitution as their model. If that's the "proper" way, the founders are turning in their graves.

[tv_racin_fan]

The 2nd amendment is not like the bible where the great unwashed pull things out of context and ascribe their personal opinions. The supreme court is composed of constitutional scholars to properly interpret the intent of the document.

And what do you mean insulting the poster? Hardly an insult.. don't stir up trouble.

Constitutional scholars you call them?

Did they not just declare that the ACA was Constitutional based on the PENALTY being considered a TAX? Do they understand that in order to get to the PENALTY PHASE the rest of the act including the MANDATE must first pass Constitutional muster. Funny how that worked don't you think? History has shown again and again the SCOTUS is a political body unlike any other. Have you actually studied their rulings?

In the considered opinion of this poster I would say that they are far less scholarly on the Constitution than people I know who have less than a high school education.

Care to explain why they do not seem to understand the simple phrase "shall NOT be infringed"?

People point to your not being allowed to yell fire in a theater to show that the right to free speech is not all encompasing. They seem to think that some restrictions on that right are the same as infringments on the right to keep and bear arms. And yet they can not show a single restriction on free speech that does not envolve harm to another person or the very likely possibility of such. You do in fact have the right to yell fire in a theater.

Now care to show me where the simple act of me keeping and bearing a firearm does or is very likely to do harm to another? IF you can in fact not show such then YOU have proven my point. I wont hold my breath...

[tv_racin_fan]

"I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear.' So, it doesn't apply to cannons." Really? Where in the framers' extensive writings does it say that?

Sir, I would argue that in fact the founding fathers would want the citizen to own even cannon and mortar. The US govt did in fact employ or at least sanction ship captains who would have in fact had cannon on their ship to harass enemy shipping. They employed them to run blockades as well as having naval ships for those tasks. In fact many govts did the same. It would seem that Mr Scalia did not study his history or has ignored it in favor of what he wishes it to have been.

[QuercusMax]

Back to the original subject: I've got my SCAR, so "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" as they say.

I don't have a boat, either.

[JohnR]

Sir, I would argue that in fact the founding fathers would want the citizen to own even cannon and mortar. The US govt did in fact employ or at least sanction ship captains who would have in fact had cannon on their ship to harass enemy shipping. They employed them to run blockades as well as having naval ships for those tasks. In fact many govts did the same. It would seem that Mr Scalia did not study his history or has ignored it in favor of what he wishes it to have been.

Good example. I'm quite positive the framers' intent was not to have private citizens be forced to be less armed than the government most likely to oppress them. We wouldn't have beaten the Redcoats otherwise.

[yqtszhj]

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Let's see, what is this militia thing???

militia: The term militia, or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[2] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[3]
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.

Looks to me like any civilian that may be willing to respond or required when called up in time of emergency needs to have any tools necessary to provide such protection or security in a time of national threat or disaster. This could include light weapons that the military currently use. I can tell you that volunteer militias have been of great benefit in my part of the country at least twice since 2005 to protect their communities after natural disasters when there were not enough police available protect the population.

A bunch of guy's with single shot bolt action .22's may not be much in the way of security.

Oh, I need to add that I don't care about Republicans or Democrats when it comes to the 2A. Both parties can be stinkers at times.:rolleyes:

[JFootin]

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

...

Well said, yqtszhj. :yo: People try to use the Militia thing to disqualify us ordinary citizens' RKBA. But a careful reading of the entire sentence is crystal clear. Let me paraphrase: Seeing as how it is necessary to have a well regulated Militia in order to secure a free State (i.e., to prevent an overbearing slavemaster State), no infringment to the right of (all) "the people" to keep and bear arms shall be allowed. No matter how you define 'Militia', the right is not specified only to those who 'qualify' as Militia. The right is specified for everyone who qualifies as "the people."

[QuercusMax]

I keep thinking of crazy things someone in the government might come up with (this is very easy), but what if the gun control advocates came up with something like this:

"Due to the 2nd Amendment, every American has the right own guns. But since the 2A doesn't mention ammunition, we will now put a $5/round tax on all ammo (to start)."

In other words, treat ammo like tobacco and liquor. It boggles the mind what "they" could come up with.

[les strat]

It doesn't take a scholar to read the 2A and with the quotes of ALL, every darn one, of our forefathers, know they meant the 2A to keep the govt under control. Not just for hunting. Not just for SD. They set it up where the government would NEVER have a one-up on the people. THAT IS FACT, not my opinion. BTW, most of those SC justices are fools handed a lifetime seat with special interests in mind.




I keep thinking of crazy things someone in the government might come up with (this is very easy), but what if the gun control advocates came up with something like this:

"Due to the 2nd Amendment, every American has the right own guns. But since the 2A doesn't mention ammunition, we will now put a $5/round tax on all ammo (to start)."

In other words, treat ammo like tobacco and liquor. It boggles the mind what "they" could come up with.

You'd see bootlegging just like you saw back then. Reloading, people manufacturing their own stuff, bartering, etc. The stupid feds couldn't keep up with it it would be so prevalent.

[tv_racin_fan]

Whatever I truely want I will get, regardless of the law. Someone out there will see that there is money to be made providing that which someone wants regardless of the law.

Prostitution is a prime example. Drugs.

[chrish]

The 2nd amendment is not like the bible where the great unwashed pull things out of context and ascribe their personal opinions. The supreme court is composed of constitutional scholars to properly interpret the intent of the document.

And what do you mean insulting the poster? Hardly an insult.. don't stir up trouble.

So the Bible (you should capitalize it) and the Constitution have to be interpreted by educated, holy, high-and-mighty folk? You sound like one of the Gnostic Christians of old that thought they had a corner on understanding the Bible and only THEY could interpret it for the masses because the masses were too stupid. So all us dumb folk can't understand the Constitution too? And we need some government employee to interpret the document for us? Then why have the document in the first place? If the government gets to decide everything and tell us how it should be, then just burn it and be done w/ it.

Got news for you. The Constitution wasn't written by Supreme Court justices and the Supreme Court was NOT setup to interpret the Constitution, it was setup to interpret laws made subsequently and to measure them against the Constitution to determine if they were legit. Not the other way around which is what we have today...taking the Constitution and twisting it's very explicit language to create laws that voilate just about every tenant of the document.

You really need to go read some Madison and Hamilton, which were the basis for the Consitution and then decide whether you are on the mark. So should the SCOTUS, they tend to lean on prior SCOTUS decisions and case law from the past, which could have very well be WRONGLY decided in the first place, based on the Constitution.

The document was near perfect to begin with. Doesn't need further interpretation by the SCOTUS, they should do their job as set forth in that document and stop rewriting it from the bench!

[chrish]

Your 2nd amendment rights are not unlimited.

Can you clarify. And don't use that article. Please be specific.

Then, when you are done, please clarify what the limits are on the remainder of the Bill of Rights. Other than the extremely poor example of yelling fire in a crowded building. What limits are there on my religion? What limits are there on quartering soldiers in my house? Tuesday only, do I get weekends free w/ my family w/o a soldier at breakfast or not? What about the 5th amendement, when can I choose to testify against myself or not?

Why were more specifics put into some of those amendments? Why were the 1A and 2A so specific and explicit? 'shall make no law' and 'shall not be infringed'?

Does requiring a tax stamp 'infringe', yes.

Does banning mag sizes or types of guns 'infringe'. yes.

Does the Brady Bill 'infringe'. yes.

Would an ammo tax 'infringe'. yes.

Name one single law made with regard to the 2A at any level of government (federal, state, local) that does NOT 'infringe'. You cannot.

[tv_racin_fan]

"Name one single law made with regard to the 2A at any level of government (federal, state, local) that does NOT 'infringe'. You cannot."

UUMM actually sir I believe I can name two.

Kennesw GA:

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][18]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Virgin Utah passed a similar ordinance in 2000.

They are strictly symbolic because if you object to the ownership of a firearm you are exempt.

[chrish]

"Name one single law made with regard to the 2A at any level of government (federal, state, local) that does NOT 'infringe'. You cannot."

UUMM actually sir I believe I can name two.


Technically, I suppose you are correct on those two. But those gun people are just NUTS!

;)

So name three!

[muggsy]

We all have our opinions but when it come down to it, Your not a constitutional scholar. Your 2nd amendment rights are not unlimited. I think this conservative knows a little more about the issue than us.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." don't you understand, CrabbyAzz?

[muggsy]

So the Bible (you should capitalize it) and the Constitution have to be interpreted by educated, holy, high-and-mighty folk? You sound like one of the Gnostic Christians of old that thought they had a corner on understanding the Bible and only THEY could interpret it for the masses because the masses were too stupid. So all us dumb folk can't understand the Constitution too? And we need some government employee to interpret the document for us? Then why have the document in the first place? If the government gets to decide everything and tell us how it should be, then just burn it and be done w/ it.

Got news for you. The Constitution wasn't written by Supreme Court justices and the Supreme Court was NOT setup to interpret the Constitution, it was setup to interpret laws made subsequently and to measure them against the Constitution to determine if they were legit. Not the other way around which is what we have today...taking the Constitution and twisting it's very explicit language to create laws that voilate just about every tenant of the document.

You really need to go read some Madison and Hamilton, which were the basis for the Consitution and then decide whether you are on the mark. So should the SCOTUS, they tend to lean on prior SCOTUS decisions and case law from the past, which could have very well be WRONGLY decided in the first place, based on the Constitution.

The document was near perfect to begin with. Doesn't need further interpretation by the SCOTUS, they should do their job as set forth in that document and stop rewriting it from the bench!

+1+ Couldn't have said it better myself. Or, as CrabbyAzz would say, "Right on."

[Chief Joseph]

So the Bible (you should capitalize it) and the Constitution have to be interpreted by educated, holy, high-and-mighty folk? You sound like one of the Gnostic Christians of old that thought they had a corner on understanding the Bible and only THEY could interpret it for the masses because the masses were too stupid. So all us dumb folk can't understand the Constitution too? And we need some government employee to interpret the document for us? Then why have the document in the first place? If the government gets to decide everything and tell us how it should be, then just burn it and be done w/ it.

Got news for you. The Constitution wasn't written by Supreme Court justices and the Supreme Court was NOT setup to interpret the Constitution, it was setup to interpret laws made subsequently and to measure them against the Constitution to determine if they were legit. Not the other way around which is what we have today...taking the Constitution and twisting it's very explicit language to create laws that voilate just about every tenant of the document.

You really need to go read some Madison and Hamilton, which were the basis for the Consitution and then decide whether you are on the mark. So should the SCOTUS, they tend to lean on prior SCOTUS decisions and case law from the past, which could have very well be WRONGLY decided in the first place, based on the Constitution.

The document was near perfect to begin with. Doesn't need further interpretation by the SCOTUS, they should do their job as set forth in that document and stop rewriting it from the bench!

The problem is, the democrats believe the Constitution is evil because it was written by rich old white men, those are the 4 things they despise.

[chrish]

To actually be even more 'to-the-letter' correct, the Constitution doesn't include ANY language for judicial review. It's nowhere in there. It was debated outside, but the language was curiously left out for some reason. Interesting? Genius! Too bad politicians and lawyers have screwed it up.

[tv_racin_fan]

Technically, I suppose you are correct on those two. But those gun people are just NUTS!

;)

So name three!

They in fact may well be nuts BUT the crime rate seems to have gone down in Kennesaw and I believe it is lower than the other cities in that size range in the area surrounding Atlanta. So since the term nuts is usually to denote "crazy" it would seem these people are "crazy" like a fox so to speak.

[chrish]

They in fact may well be nuts BUT the crime rate seems to have gone down in Kennesaw and I believe it is lower than the other cities in that size range in the area surrounding Atlanta. So since the term nuts is usually to denote "crazy" it would seem these people are "crazy" like a fox so to speak.

Yea, I do hope you realized I was being sarcastic...as I assume you were w/ your original response to my 'name one' comment. There are great places left in this country that respect the 2A and understand it's original intent, Kennesaw is one of them.

[muggsy]

The problem is, the democrats believe the Constitution is evil because it was written by rich old white men, those are the 4 things they despise.

Being an old rich white guy myself, I consider it an honor to be despised by liberals. :)

[muggsy]

In a USA Today poll 97% of the respondents said that the second amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court ruled likewise in the Heller Case. Ouch, that really hurts, doesn't it, CrabbyAzz.

[CrabbyAzz]

In a USA Today poll 97% of the respondents said that the second amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court ruled likewise in the Heller Case. Ouch, that really hurts, doesn't it, CrabbyAzz.


No it doesn't hurt. All I said is your 2nd amendment rights are not unlimited. The supreme court will demonstrate that in the next year or two as Scalia stated.

[downtownv]

God help us if Obama wins....

[ltxi]

God help us if Obama wins....

Unfortunately, he is gonna win this. No question. Only possible hope Romney has is an overwhelming presence in this week's, Wednesday, debate. Unlikely and if not after that Romney's toast.