Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
CodyDawg

Republican and Democratic platform on firearms

218 posts in this topic

Here is the republican platform:

We uphold the right of

individual Americans to own

firearms, a right which antedated

the Constitution and

was solemnly confirmed by

the Second Amendment. We

applaud the Supreme Court’s

decision in Heller affirming

that right, and we assert the

individual responsibility to

safely use and store firearms.

We call on the next president

to appoint judges who will similarly respect the

Constitution. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship,

enabling Americans to defend themselves, their

property, and communities.

We call for education in constitutional rights in

schools, and we support the option of firearms training

in federal programs serving senior citizens and

women. We urge immediate action to review the

automatic denial of gun ownership to returning

members of the Armed Forces who have suffered

trauma during service to their country. We condemn

frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers,

which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of

their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding

gun owners and national gun registration as violations

of the Second Amendment. We recognize that

gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding

citizens, and that such proposals are ineffective at

reducing violent crime.

And here is the Democrat platform:

We recognize that the 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, but we know that what works in

Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense

laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background

check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of

terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we

can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children

safe.

I think it is pretty obvious who is on the gun owners side.

Links:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/2008...8%20%282%29.pdf

http://www.gopplatform2008.com/2008Platform.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dems will come get your guns just as soon as the reps outlaw abortion. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.

How many years has this stupid debate been going on? And how has it affected your abilities to purchase, own, or sell your guns? Seriously, how much? Did you have to wait a week to get your brand new 45? Did you have to pass a background check? Did you have to find a pre-ban 50 round magazine? Did you have to buy the stock with the little cotter pin that supposedly changes it from folding to fixed?

If you can't handle a "cool down period" or a background check you probably shouldn't be owning a gun.

The dems pander to the gun-control crowd for the same reason the reps pander to the prolifers. THEY WANT VOTES. They will pass a little law here and there to keep those voters happy. But they have no interest in violating the second amendment rights. It hasn't changed through countless Dem presidents and Dem controlled congresses. Just like how the right of woman to get an abortion hasn't changed through Rep presidents or Rep controlled congresses.

Don't buy into the pandering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isnt pandering, this is THEIR PLATFORM. Just read it and see for yourself who you think is looking out for gun owners and who is not. I never said the Dems are gonna take you guns. Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly CodyDog. I believe your point was look who has a direct spelled out platform on the subject and who has a let's see how things go and will figure it out as we go along platform. That's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isnt pandering, this is THEIR PLATFORM. Just read it and see for yourself who you think is looking out for gun owners and who is not. I never said the Dems are gonna take you guns. Sheesh.

Any post on this HSOforum regarding the 2nd amendment turns into a Dem's want to take your guns post - Just thought I would get started defending against that mentality before it even started.

Of course it is on their platform - How can you pander without it on the platform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a big difference that I see is that the Democrats are leaving an opening to support future restrictions. The Rebublican platform doesn't seem to do that. The difference here being that the Democratic party could effectively increase restrictions to the point of leaving us with the ability to own one gun, one caliber,limited number of rounds, trigger locks, special safes or perhaps government run storage depots, etc. and still save face because they have not totally denied us citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

We might not be able to keep them on our property or out in the open in our home but we would be able to keep them.

We might not be able to bear our arms at will because we have to get past the other restrictions but we can bear them eventually.

I'm describing the situation as it was described to me when I visited Germany. Citizens are allowed to own firearms but they can't keep them in their home. They are required to store them and their ammo at a government facility and it costs them mucho bucks to do so. Basically, the government has made it so expensive to own and/or use a firearm, hunting has become a "rich man's sport only." I'm not generalizing here, this is a direct quote from a German citizen. Those that I talked to were totally fascinated by our ability to own arms and ammo the way we do. It all started with a statement, "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" - Adolf Hitler, 1936.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over time, restrictions on guns increase in any developed country.

When a country is being opened up, guns are needed for hunting to feed ourselves and for defense against the lawless. We still use them for those things today.

But Europe has been settled and developed far, far longer than the United States, and it's not surprising those restrictions are in place. In general, unless there are unusual circumstances, the more developed and urban and "sophisticated" a society becomes, the less room there is for the weapons in the hands of the citizenry that allowed civilization to flourish in the first place.

I'm not advocating increases in gun restrictions in our country. While I personally do not need an assault rifle, I can see why others want them. They are fun to shoot, and if a band of eight marauders swept into your yard bent on doing you harm, you'd need that kind of capability to defend yourself. wink

I am all for personal liberty and personal responsibility. So while I think it's inevitable over time, a very long time, that gun restrictions increase as our country continues to urbanize and the values that opened up this fine country grow dimmer and dimmer to succeeding generations, I am mighty glad I won't live to see it.

I was born in the wrong century as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is "civilized" the right word or "conforming" more accurate?

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is "civilized" the right word or "conforming" more accurate?

Bob

Your call, Bob. We all pick our own words. Even the most independent of free spirits conform in some ways, regardless of how civilized or uncivilized our society is labeled. smilesmile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree a bit with your assessment of the difference between Europe and the U.S. vis a vis gun ownership Steve. You point to "civilization" as being a determining factor in the attitudes towards an armed citizenry, but I beg to differ.

I have always thought that it stemmed more from the historical role of the people as being "subjects" of the state (mostly monarchies) in Europe. In other words, the rights of the people (such as they are) were granted by the state.

By way of contrast, we view ourselves as citizens - and our rights are inherent, while the power of State is only that which we grant it.

I believe it is an important distinction all to often lost in comparative analysis by those who point to the generic "Europe" as being something for us to emulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent point Jackpine.

Oh and how can you guys still stick your head in the sand and say that gun rights won't be affected by a Dem Pres? Slick Willy appointed Janet Reno at Justice who publicly advocated the official govt position of the time that the 2nd amendment was not gauranteeing an individual right. If you can't see that, I won't even try to explain the possible side effects of appointing an anti gun judiciary because its obviously "far above your pay grade".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree a bit with your assessment of the difference between Europe and the U.S. vis a vis gun ownership Steve. You point to "civilization" as being a determining factor in the attitudes towards an armed citizenry, but I beg to differ.

I have always thought that it stemmed more from the historical role of the people as being "subjects" of the state (mostly monarchies) in Europe. In other words, the rights of the people (such as they are) were granted by the state.

By way of contrast, we view ourselves as citizens - and our rights are inherent, while the power of State is only that which we grant it.

I believe it is an important distinction all to often lost in comparative analysis by those who point to the generic "Europe" as being something for us to emulate.

Good points, Rob. Good things to think about. For the record, I was not suggesting we emulate Europe (not sure you were even addressing that point to me, anyway), simply the the forces of time and an aging society tend to move toward more restrictions against the weapons that allowed them to form and progress in the first place. And that, as much older societies, those countries have naturally gotten there before us.

I think both our perspectives have some truth to them and are not at all mutually exclusive, but perhaps complementary pieces of the same puzzle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for the sloppiness of my composition Steve.

The "emulate" portion was not directed at you, but rather at the crowd who often point to the European mindset regarding weapons as being a superior point of view. As a classical liberal, I look with pity upon those who accept their governance as a fait accompli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, we're starting talk like buddies who respect each other. This has got to stop! Let's get back into the name calling! gringringrin

Seriously though, tell me your view on what a classical liberal is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nooo, nooo, no dont VOTE for a DEM they will take allll your Guns

away! and you wont EVER be able to go Hutin again!

What do I DO....?? WHAT do I DO? ??

All of my Friends that are Dems HATE Guns..and all of my Friends

that are Rep's own 1,000 guns each...those bad bad Dems!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nooo, nooo, no dont VOTE for a DEM they will take allll your Guns

away! and you wont EVER be able to go Hutin again!

What do I DO....?? WHAT do I DO? ??

All of my Friends that are Dems HATE Guns..and all of my Friends

that are Rep's own 1,000 guns each...those bad bad Dems!

??????????????????????????????????????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's being ironic IMO, NAPFISH, in vastly overstating the positions of both sides on the 2nd Amendment issue. As such, it's a joking post that nevertheless contains a lot of truth.

How'd I do, MM1011?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously though, tell me your view on what a classical liberal is.

Glad to. I have to laugh at myself sometimes when I use the term "liberal" in its current context, given the historical meaning of the term in western civilization.

The founding fathers of this country weren't operating in a total vacuum when they came up with the Declaration and the Constitution. In fact, if you read the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings of the time, you will see that they were heavily influenced by a movement that was known as Liberal.

These political liberals valued individual rights and liberties over the State, which at the time was quite a radical notion. Keep in mind that these folks were largely the products of the European system, where Sovereign (King or Queen) granted rights to the people. The Liberal movement stood that notion on its head, by insisting that the only legitimate government was that which got its power from the people.

One of the most widely quoted and respected philosophers of the Liberal movement was a guy named John Stuart Mill. His treatise "On Liberty" should be required reading in all high school civics courses. For maximum effect, it would be read prior to Marx.

Just as many terms come to mean something else over time (see "gay") the term "Liberal" has come to mean something far removed from its original use in American life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Rob. Now I see what you're talking about.

In one sense, the meaning of liberal has not flip-flopped. The liberals you refer to wanted change. The status-quo advocates of the time were conservative. Today, to be a liberal is still to want change, while to resist change is still a conservative linch pin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent point Jackpine.

Oh and how can you guys still stick your head in the sand and say that gun rights won't be affected by a Dem Pres? Slick Willy appointed Janet Reno at Justice who publicly advocated the official govt position of the time that the 2nd amendment was not gauranteeing an individual right. If you can't see that, I won't even try to explain the possible side effects of appointing an anti gun judiciary because its obviously "far above your pay grade".

IF Obama wins and gets to appoint judges, he could appoint judges that interpret the 2nd amendment differently. I could see this happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent point Jackpine.

Oh and how can you guys still stick your head in the sand and say that gun rights won't be affected by a Dem Pres? Slick Willy appointed Janet Reno at Justice who publicly advocated the official govt position of the time that the 2nd amendment was not gauranteeing an individual right. If you can't see that, I won't even try to explain the possible side effects of appointing an anti gun judiciary because its obviously "far above your pay grade".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the Dems will try and take our guns away per se. But infringe on the edges a little? Heck yeah. A little here, a little there. They know they cant go too far, as was stated, many of them are gun owners. But inch by inch....

And that is the point. If that doesnt bother you, good for you. If it does...

Take the lead shot issue. I can see that really affecting me if it is banned. I can see the Dems leading the charge to ban it....without a shred of scientific evidence.

Sooner or later, the legislation will add up and have an affect on us. If you read the Dem platform, they use the term "common sense". Well, pray tell, who gets to define that? Talk about wishy washy. Gives them a lot of latitude as "common sense" in Washington DC or Chicago may differ quite a bit from that in Wyoming, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Think we should change the topic to "Trump for Trees."
    • Had to go all the way back to Missouri to hunt in the snow this year! Beautiful morning but not much movement. Did see some late rut activity Friday.
    • Dotch, you guys over there are almost famous....   Almost because it is Waseca, but whatever.    Mark Seeley's weather blog... http://blog-weathertalk.extension.umn.edu/   .... Waseca now reports 54.13 inches of precipitation for 2016 and this is a new statewide annual precipitation record, surpassing the old one of 53.52" at St Francis (Anoka County) in 1991.
      ....   And an interesting thought...(from Mark, not me) Commentary on Winter TIME: No question will be answered this week, but I want to take TIME to make a comment about Winter TIME. Managing the TIME in the Winter Season in Minnesota is a different ball game than other seasons of the year, because everything takes longer. No question winter will be felt more frequently soon in the daily weather, and snowfalls will become more frequent this month. The rash of bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular accidents reported during the snow storms towards the end of November reminded me about adjusting for Winter TIME. Our concept of time needs to be adjusted. Lengthen the time intervals that you have intuitively built-into your everyday habits and tasks. It takes longer to walk places, longer to drive places, longer to dress and undress, longer to warm up the car, longer to degomble (shed snow) when you come into the house. You need to make time to shovel snow, scrape the windshield, clean the furnace filters, When you walk take shorter steps and not too fast...put the boots, gloves and hat on when you go outside....check on the neighbor if their place hasn't been shoveled...everything should slow down..except for the long Minnesota goodbye..that is better shortened...just say goodbye, open the door, leave and close the door behind you....no need to stand in an open doorway for minutes conversing about last minute stuff. Winter TIME is an adjustment that may save you anxiety, regret, or even injury.
    • Would you use a bobber on your rattle reel with these? I would think a lively minnow would pull the line out of the contacts.
    • My my, how the mighty have fallen...  I went back to the thread on the cook subsidy, and what did I find in the second post from you, on the second page....     Gee, you were ok with the 66 million because it wasn't a stadium or something, but now all butt hurt over 7 million of Indiana money?    Now that there is a funny joke.  
    • Thanks to everyone who replied. Lots of good advice. I'll start with an electrician and go from there.
    • Is there some type of frame or carriage that bolt to machine?  Or do the extra wheels just "float" back there?
    • Who has it for that price? Is the transducer included? I have a 5" version. They are good units but if you ever need out of warranty service they will not repair your unit. They give you credit towards a refurbished unit of the same type or let you upgrade to a different model for a certain price which is something to be aware of. I found that out when my elite 5 wouldn't turn on.
    • Your post is demonstrative of the point I am trying to make. Rural areas have been sold a bunch of talk, and you believe that talk and vote against your own interests. The metro area is taking nothing away from the rural areas in terms of taxes, tax dollars flow the other way. It flows that way through employers that exploit you. A particular quote from "What's the Matter with Kansas?" really nails the point home.      
  • Our Sponsors