PDA

View Full Version : Hey DABTL: Democrat Party Platform


Potshot
August 11, 2008, 21:53
"Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued 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 common-sense 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."


They want to take them. Yes, away from you too. Any questions?

bykerhd
August 11, 2008, 23:31
We all know that is just campaign talk.
The Democrats would NEVER do something like that to us.:rolleyes:
I'm sure DABTL will confirm that with his Liberal pals for us.

DABTL
August 12, 2008, 05:28
That is the proposal of a body. Wait till the convention.

Oh, and what pray tell have your beloved Republicans done for gun owners since Reagan banned machine guns, Bush agreed to sign an AWB bill and the NRA was going to set policy from the White House?

The answer is, of course, nothing.

maddawg308
August 12, 2008, 07:44
You know, he has a point.

In my mind, DABTL, we can all agree on something. Gun owners don't have good friends, whether it be in the Republican party or the Democrat party. The only difference is, would you prefer running towards disarmament and confiscation, or more of a slow jog? That's the only difference in my mind.

bykerhd
August 12, 2008, 08:02
Hellooooo???
DABTL, excuse me.
In your response I don't see anything refuting that the Democrats do indeed intend to bend us over and shove a new AWB, along with other "common-sense"?, anti-gun legislation up our collective Asses ?
What's that about ?

And yes, most of the Republicans haven't done much for us.
Neither have they done much TO us. Unlike your "pals".

ratas calientes
August 12, 2008, 10:35
Originally posted by DABTL
. . . Oh, and what pray tell have your beloved Republicans done for gun owners since Reagan banned machine guns, Bush agreed to sign an AWB bill and the NRA was going to set policy from the White House?

The answer is, of course, nothing. I agree with Bill on this one. Gun owners are taken for granted by the conservatives. Don't expect any proactive work on their part to keep us voting for them, because they know that we have no other choices. http://chilirat.com/emoticons/chilirat.gif

2barearms
August 12, 2008, 10:41
Originally posted by DABTL

Oh, and what pray tell have your beloved Republicans done for gun owners
The answer is, of course, nothing.

That is correct, they haven't done anything and that's fine with me. If we were
talking about your pals Kerry and "In Like Flynn" Edwards we would have no
guns by now.

Tsm002
August 12, 2008, 11:29
They haven't done anything and that's NOT fine with me.

I'm not gonna settle for taking what massa wants to give- be it Democrat or Republican.

Keep in mind issues that go along with the second amendment- fourth amendment issues come to mind.

Having all of the gun rights in the world does little good if you can be monitored, searched, have your stuff seized/"forfeited" whenever big brother feels like it.

Which party has done more for our rights as a whole?

I'm not so sure that either really give a damn anymore.

The Republicans gave us the patriot act, 86 ban, import ban, credit card monitoring out the yin yang, real id, gave a traitorous brief during the Heller Decision straight from the white house...

We all know what the dems did, I'm not saying that they're any better or worse. I a myself disgusted but he democratic party's official stance. But the republican one isn't any better and the republican record in the last few years has been abominable with regards to the constitution.

It's going to take a lot more change than a new president to fix things- congress, supreme court, more people getting out and voting.

I guess I'm just sort of disillusioned about the idea that any new president is going to make things better for us, rights wise.

jaykden
August 12, 2008, 11:45
remember TSM, it was a democrat named hughes who snuck in the amendment banning new machine guns. sure, regan signed it, but the REST of FOPA'86 is good for gun owners. also, hughes waited around till late at night when most everone else who woulda voted it down, had gone home. even so, they did a vote then and STILL didn't have enough votes. the democrat in charge then passed it anyway and thats how we ended up with the hughes amendment.

reagan should NOT have signed it on principle for 3 reasons.

1- banning any class of firearm is directly against the 2nd amendment

2- FOPA was a bill helping gun owners, the hughes amendment was like a severe slap in the face

3- "who polices the police?" its was illegal that it even made it onto the bill, as it HAD BEEN VOTED DOWN BY A SHOW OF HANDS!!!!! but the stupid democrat attached it anyway.




the more i read up on the hughes amendment, the more pissed off i get :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Heat
August 12, 2008, 13:37
Ya'll are smokin' some mighty fine herb if you think EITHER party gives a crap about your rights..I've been following politics since I was a young teenager and EVERY 2-4 yrs its the same-o, same-o..lots of talk, rhetoric from both parties about how they are going to look out for our rights, put a stop to the 'other' party trampling all over them then miraculously when either party is in office...its a slow, 'boil the frog' attack on your rights..wake up Mr/Mrs America!!
http://i34.tinypic.com/1445y6d.jpg

English Mike
August 12, 2008, 17:02
If it hadn't been for Republican nominations to the SC, then the recent ruling that the RKBA is an individual Right would have gone the other way.

There IS a problem with conservative governments taking gun owners for granted & this needs to be addressed but not NOW, when a far greater threat is evident.
The time to fight is immediately AFTER an election & NOT in the run up to one.

DABTL
August 12, 2008, 21:03
Originally posted by ENGLISH MIKE
If it hadn't been for Republican nominations to the SC, then the recent ruling that the RKBA is an individual Right would have gone the other way.

There IS a problem with conservative governments taking gun owners for granted & this needs to be addressed but not NOW, when a far greater threat is evident.
The time to fight is immediately AFTER an election & NOT in the run up to one.

That ruling did nothing. Just as I forecast. If you think it did something, tell us what.

Yo Quiero FAL
August 12, 2008, 21:17
we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.

yes, all those black people in Chicago simply cant be trusted with guns, especially the naughty AWs, so they need special laws that no one else needs, because hey they live in Chicago not the USA.

Sounds like Jim Crow gun laws to me.

granite
August 12, 2008, 21:43
Originally posted by Potshot
"Firearms
... what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne....


Rather, what DOESN'T work in Chicago, should be stuffed down the throat of as many communities as possible.

Heat
August 12, 2008, 22:15
Originally posted by DABTL


That ruling did nothing. Just as I forecast. If you think it did something, tell us what.
It did alot of damage actually..now it is pretty much affirmed that they can regulate the 2nd into oblivion..not what I would call a step in the right direction

Potshot
August 12, 2008, 23:33
Automatically you assume that I LOVE the Republicans. I don't and I hate that shit.

But, just for arguement's sake we'll say that the Republicans are beloved.

Repubs:
CCW laws - R (that includes TX where one Ann Richards was defeated by GWB due to this stance)

USSC appointments that allowed Heller - R (I'll freely admit there are some turds in there too though. First time USSC rules 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right, duh)

FOPA - R (despite poison pill D amendments)

Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - R

Tihart Amendment - R

Dems:
AWB - D

City lawsuits to bankrupt firearms industry - D

NFA - D

GCA68 - D

DC ban - D

"Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in!" - D

I certainly won't say it's black and white (I think there are some ok D's, but not their leadership), but the picture is pretty clear.

....and you come here and berate folks for being prejudiced b/c they don't like BHO. Coming here and exhorting people to vote for BHO is like telling chickens to vote for Col. Sanders!

You do seem to be a sincere shooter, so WTF over?

How could you support a platform like that?

mace2364
August 13, 2008, 04:26
Something to consider here. There is something we can do. Yeah, I know, picking candidate A vs candidate b is defineately less than ideal, but how many of you(us) actually contact your reps and tell them your stance. After all, they are supposed to be representing YOU. The anti-gun crowd sure does this, and that's why we have alot of the crap we have now. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. I'm as guilty as the next guy on this (even though its pretty difficult to get ahold of a congressman when you're in the middle east). If every single gun owner got ahold of his/her rep and urged them to vote pro 2nd amendment, we just might be able to reverse the anti gun trends in our land. And also, get your friends and family involved in shooting, and then get them to do the same. I mean think about it, if your rep got 5 phone calls from gun owners everday saying vote pro 2nd, if they want to keep their jobs, then they just might. If you have a better idea, lets have it!

And yeah, I know, the NRA isn't exactly ideal either, but the only way we are going to get these people to take us seriously is if we are in an organized group. And right now, the NRA is the largest group that reflects our veiws. Yeah, there have been some times where the stance they have taken has differed from mine, but have you got a better idea? If you do I'm all ears.

I just constantly see people complain about the state of things, and that's all they do. They never make a move to change things. Why don't we start? Just a thought....

ephv
August 13, 2008, 05:46
Bill posted--

Oh, and what pray tell have your beloved Republicans done for gun owners since Reagan banned machine guns, Bush agreed to sign an AWB bill and the NRA was going to set policy from the White House?

The answer is, of course, nothing.

Isn't that the object of a good central government : It leaves the people to determine, in their respective states, how they want to live. Wasn't that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to begin with?

DABTL
August 13, 2008, 06:52
Originally posted by ephv
Bill posted--

Oh, and what pray tell have your beloved Republicans done for gun owners since Reagan banned machine guns, Bush agreed to sign an AWB bill and the NRA was going to set policy from the White House?

The answer is, of course, nothing.

Isn't that the object of a good central government : It leaves the people to determine, in their respective states, how they want to live. Wasn't that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to begin with?

No.

indy_Muaddib
August 13, 2008, 09:46
Originally posted by DABTL
That is the proposal of a body. Wait till the convention.

Oh, and what pray tell have your beloved Republicans done for gun owners since Reagan banned machine guns, Bush agreed to sign an AWB bill and the NRA was going to set policy from the White House?

The answer is, of course, nothing.

again more lies and distortions from DABTL, par for the course for this barking moonbat.

Regan never banned machine guns, you can blame that squarely on William Hughes, the Democrat from NJ who tacked the ban onto the FOPA late at night when most sane people were home in bed.

You can also blame Charles Rangel, the Democrat from NY who was presiding over the house at the time and allowed it to pass on a dubious voice vote.

HughJass
August 13, 2008, 12:01
Originally posted by Potshot

You do seem to be a sincere shooter, so WTF over?

How could you support a platform like that?


That is the $64 question, my friend.

DABTL
August 13, 2008, 20:48
Originally posted by indy_Muaddib


again more lies and distortions from DABTL, par for the course for this barking moonbat.

Regan never banned machine guns, you can blame that squarely on William Hughes, the Democrat from NJ who tacked the ban onto the FOPA late at night when most sane people were home in bed.

You can also blame Charles Rangel, the Democrat from NY who was presiding over the house at the time and allowed it to pass on a dubious voice vote.

Thank God Reagan vetoed the bill just in time.:rolleyes:

Tsm002
August 13, 2008, 21:53
Ouch.

davedude
August 13, 2008, 22:56
That is the $64 question, my friend.


The answer is spelled........drum roll please........... R-E-T-A-R-D !

Dave Dude

1911guy
August 14, 2008, 20:29
We seem to have gotten a little off course here. The original post concerned the Dems and firearm policy. It had nothing to do with the Republicans. Deflection once again.
Doesn't make any difference who gets in in November. The Dems will eviscerate what is left of the Constitution. This is plain to anyone with more than one brain cell. Just listen to Comrade Obama and his program proposals. The only reason to vote for Obama is if one wants a democrat in the White HOuse at any cost. His policies are too destructive to this country.
I find no comfort in McCain and the Republicans either. McCain is trying to recast himself as a conservative and a friend of the Second Amendment. Face it the 2A has no allies in this election.

19k40ret
August 14, 2008, 22:51
you can never count on a democrat, on occasion you can count on a repubican, but you should always be able to count on yourself.

if a law is passed that is unconstitutional and you know it, then tell as many as you can and tell them that one of the checks on government that we the people have is Jury Nullification. it only takes one juror to refuse to convict and there is not a damn thing the courts can do about.

if enough people are informed of this to ensure a good likelihood that every jury has at least one inform member, we can stop these laws.

one of the major reasons that the 18th amendment (prohibition) was repealed, was that many juries refused to convict citizens caught with alcohol, to the point that it be came unenforceable.

if call for jury duty go, don't volunteer any information during selecting and if the the defendent is charged with an unconstutional or unjust law, Acquit!

DABTL
August 15, 2008, 05:52
Originally posted by 19k40ret
you can never count on a democrat, on occasion you can count on a repubican, but you should always be able to count on yourself.

if a law is passed that is unconstitutional and you know it, then tell as many as you can and tell them that one of the checks on government that we the people have is Jury Nullification. it only takes one juror to refuse to convict and there is not a damn thing the courts can do about.

if enough people are informed of this to ensure a good likelihood that every jury has at least one inform member, we can stop these laws.

one of the major reasons that the 18th amendment (prohibition) was repealed, was that many juries refused to convict citizens caught with alcohol, to the point that it be came unenforceable.

if call for jury duty go, don't volunteer any information during selecting and if the the defendent is charged with an unconstutional or unjust law, Acquit!

More juror nullification crack pot ideas.

19k40ret
August 15, 2008, 22:52
"DABTL "More juror nullification crack pot ideas."

Yea, damn them founding fathers!

Munster30
August 16, 2008, 11:00
Originally posted by DABTL


More juror nullification crack pot ideas. "For those with a serious interest in jury nullification, I highly recommend Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine (paperback) by Clay Conrad, which is the best work on the subject since Lysander Spooner's Trial by Jury (1852).

There is little question that, at the Founding, jurors were triers of both the law and the facts. In essence, this provided a popular check on an overreaching legislature and a supine judiciary, although a check that would only operate on a case-by-case basis. A jury could find that a statute was unjust generally, or only as applied in the particular case. This would affect the general enforceability of a statute only if many juries agreed. Although juries retain the power to refuse to apply an unjust law, beginning in the Nineteenth Century, judges started prohibiting lawyers from advocating this to a jury upon pain of contempt. The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is a non-profit organization aiming to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving as trial juror. Click on the link to learn more about jury nullification."
So much for "crackpot" ideas.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_10-2008_08_16.shtml#1218815216

1911guy
August 17, 2008, 17:38
I've always been a fan of jury nullification. I have no problem in applying the concept.

Potshot
August 23, 2008, 12:49
This thread has nothing to do with jury nullification. Start your own separate thread if you want to talk about that, please.

So, @$$hole Biden is #2.

Any doubt on what this political party wants to do with regards to your 2A rights?

So Bill, although you have done your typical best to deflect it and change the subject, the original question remains:

You do seem to be a sincere shooter, so WTF over?

How could you support a platform (and now ticket) like that?