2008 Democratic national platform demands re-instatement of AWB


PDA






jlbraun
August 8, 2008, 01:20 PM
http://www.workinglife.org/storage/users/4/4/images/111/2008%20democratic%20platform%20080808.pdf

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.

If you are a Democrat, this needs to go. If you are active in a local chapter of the Democratic Party or are a delegate to state or national convention, you have influence in removing the bolded words.

Here's what... someone... wrote for Daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/8/122221/2900/784/564662

Janet Napolitano is the chair of the DNCC committee that wrote this, and she's also the AZ governor.

Here's her address.

DNCC Chair
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Telephone (602) 542-4331
Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883
Fax (602) 542-1381


Write a letter or call.

If you enjoyed reading about "2008 Democratic national platform demands re-instatement of AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
August 8, 2008, 01:59 PM
How do we go about getting this removed? Who do we contact? What should we be saying?

ArfinGreebly
August 8, 2008, 04:14 PM
Realizing that there is a chance (where P > 0) that the Democrat Party could win in the General Election, it is not enough to simply ignore this and pretend that there is no threat.

I don't expect to change spots on any anti-gunner leopards, but it needs to come home to the party that messing with gun rights is a non-starter.

The question posted by hso above is valid.

How do we go about getting them to think twice about this?

Hawk
August 8, 2008, 04:32 PM
The only "instructions" I could find on getting the platform revised were on a page talking about the 2004 platform.

4 years out of date and looks like it hurts:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php

Kinda interesting though - and I note that proxies aren't permitted in the standing committees.

LAR-15
August 8, 2008, 05:35 PM
Make sure your state party platform does not have it either

gp911
August 8, 2008, 06:03 PM
Actually it isn't code for not voting for Democrats. Here in Ohio we have a pro-2A Governor who is a Dem as well as people like Rep. Zach Space who are also pro-2A and Democrat. The party platform is anti but not all the members are.

The reverse is also true here, as we have/had several Republicans who were left-leaning. For being such a bellwether state our politics looks like bizarro world.

One could seek out the pro 2-A Dems and appeal to them to try to change the party platform. Letters, emails, best bet is to speak to them in person I think.

gp911

Marcus84
August 8, 2008, 06:49 PM
Didn't SCOTUS say in Heller that common weapons could not be banned? I know that is yet to be defined but I would there be a good case to challenge an AWB in court?

camslam
August 8, 2008, 06:58 PM
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.

This is exactly why I discussed the upcoming problems and the queasiness all gun owners should have, in this thread.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=381706

We are in trouble. The Dems aren't going to come straight on after every gun, but with Obama, Pelosi, Schumer (Reid is a puppet), and 2 new radically liberal appointments to the Supreme Court, we are going to be in trouble.

How do you fix it? I don't know, I have often asked myself and others that same question. A few suggestions:

1. Convert someone to the sport or idea of owing and shooting guns. The more people we have on our side, the better.

2. Contact your elected officials on a regular basis and let them know your views on the 2nd amendment and why you have them.

3. Refuse to support any politician if they are not completely 100% pro-second amendment.


It is an uphill battle we face, given what will probably happen this fall. I know guns and the 2nd amendment aren't the top priority for a lot of people that post here on THR, but really, if you are a gun owner and you are voting for Obama, there is something wrong with that picture. Still your choice though. Please choose wisely.

ArfinGreebly
August 8, 2008, 07:19 PM
When you're addressing someone who doesn't see "what's the big deal" with regard to crushing infringements of the Second Amendment, it is well to remind them that once the basic precedent of nullifying one amendment in the Bill of Rights has been established, that greases the slope for nullification of the others.

And, with the Second Amendment effectively gone, and the Executive and Congress change hands again -- which they, of course, will -- the bulwark that would keep the other guys from oppressing them will be gone as well.

For some reason, people who desire power and control -- all in the name of Democracy, of course -- and who have this grand vision of how it will be "once WE'RE in control" -- tend to forget that they will not ALWAYS be in power. Unless, of course, they plan to eliminate the democratic structure and process once they're "in charge."

Which would explain why it's so urgent to eliminate effective tools of resistance.

"So, Dude, when you give ALL the power to the government, what happens when the government changes hands, and the OTHER guys are in charge? You think your rights are compromised NOW? Vote for the guys you think will do the best job, but keep the power where it belongs: with the PEOPLE."

You won't change the minds of the guys at the top, but if you can reach the folks down a few tiers and remind them that power corrupts, perhaps they can rein in the leadership a bit. The leadership will still want bans, but when it starts looking like it will hurt their broad popularity, it may give them pause.

SCKimberFan
August 8, 2008, 07:22 PM
Where are you getting 2 justices? At best, 1 liberal will retire, the other is a swing voye quite frequently. Unless they all retire, TEOTWAWKI is not coming yet.

mgregg85
August 8, 2008, 07:27 PM
I wish the democrats would go pro RKBA and 2A. I really dislike the republican party and their infringements on our liberty and privacy(think PATRIOT act), but I don't like the idea of an AWB any better.

jlbraun
August 8, 2008, 07:36 PM
Here's what... someone... wrote for Daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/8/122221/2900/784/564662

2008 Dem platform demands reinstatement of Assault Weapons Ban, Dem election losses ahead? Hotlist

Yes, you read that right. In this diary, I will lay out the history of this dubious policy, why it needs to be dropped from our Dem platform permanently, and what you can do about it.

This diary is not going to provide a case for or against assault weapons bans on said ban's social utility or harm, nor is this diary meant as a discussion of the right to arms per se. Comments about such things do not belong here.

What this diary is about (and what we should be discussing) is that regardless of your feelings on the assault weapons ban, it affects our election chances for the worse in close elections.

Yes, you read that right. In this diary, I will lay out the history of this dubious policy, why it needs to be dropped from our Dem platform permanently, and what you can do about it. <strong>This diary is not going to provide a case for or against assault weapons bans on said ban's social utility or harm, nor is this diary meant as a discussion of the right to arms <em>per se</em>. Comments about such things do not belong here. </strong> <strong>What this diary is about (and what we should be discussing) is that regardless of your feelings on the assault weapons ban, it affects our election chances for the worse in close elections.</strong>

First, here's the draft policy.

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.

So, let's begin.

What is an assault weapon? Why are we even talking about them?

The term "assault weapon" did not exist in either the common American lexicon or appear in any federal-level position paper before about 1992. Though the term existed previous to this, its usage was confined to individual states. Its first recorded national usage in 1992 was in a Republican position paper authored with the help of the Brady Campaign, then known as Handgun Control, Inc. This paper identified several characteristics of the newly-coined "assault weapon" definition, and pointed the finger at "assault weapons" and the features that made them especially useful in crime.

The list of features that make a weapon an "assault weapon" change based on jurisdiction, political agenda, and wording. A gun may be an "assault weapon" if it has one or more of the following:

*Ability to accept a detachable magazine
*Ability to hold 10 or more rounds
*Semi-automatic operation
*A pistol grip
*A folding stock
*and many others including "military appearance", flash hiders, etc.

This diary is not meant to be an exhaustive exploration of the "assault weapon" issue, and neither should the comments be. That information is easily available elsewhere.

The federal assault weapons ban of 1994 and the 2000 defeat of Gore

The original ban passed the House on 13 September 1994 and was signed into law the same day. It had several immediate effects. The first was a jump in prices of all magazines over ten rounds.

The second was a galvanization of all gun owners under the umbrella of the NRA. Indeed, it can be said that the 1994 assault weapons ban finalized the transition of the NRA from a fairly politically bipartisan gun safety and marksmanship organization into a mostly Republican-controlled political machine (the NRA did not even endorse a candidate in the 1992 or 1996 presidential election). The NRA in its current right-tilted orientation could not exist without the 1994 law.

The third was a small eruption of immediate losses in both the House and Senate in the 1994 and 1996 congressional elections, counting a total of 39 members of Congress from both parties. Here's a paperdescribing these races.
An effort to repeal the 1994 law was stalled in the 1996 Congress after a repeal bill had passed the House, but was never allowed to come to the Senate floor for a vote.

(I am aware that Clinton won the 1996 election despite his support and signing of the Assault Weapons Ban. It wasn't a close race, and there was no NRA endorsement of Dole. This diary refers to close races with NRA endorsements.)

The last, of course, was the defeat of Gore in the close 2000 election. Gore failed to win even his home state of Tennessee (uncommon in Presidential elections), as well as the swing states of Arkansas, Florida and West Virginia. Polling indicated that Gore's support of the assault weapons ban contributed to these key losses (USA Today), and even Clinton acknowledged the NRA's role in hurting Gore (CBS interview). Yes, I know they cheated in Florida. You know they cheated in Florida. But did we have to make it so damn easy? Florida has the epithet "Gunshine State" in some circles. Think Gore's support of the assault weapons ban helped or hurt him in FL?

Again, it doesn't matter what you think about the NRA. What matters is that even Clinton acknowledged that they successfully hurt Gore's chances in a very organized effort.

And ask yourself - would we be in Iraq right now under a Gore presidency? Don't answer that yet.

The 2004 sunset of the original ban and the defeat of Kerry

On 13 September 2004, the 1994 law sunset. Efforts for a renewal were fierce. Our nominee, John Kerry, was extraordinarily vocal in his support of the renewal, and even pointedly came off the campaign trail to vote for the renewal and issued a press release giving his reasons. The NRA kicked into high gear, throwing off press releases and member notifications weekly. They called him "the most anti-gun Presidential nominee in United States history." Mostly wrong, but with a kernel of truth.

He lost. Again, gun-owning swing states like OH, TN, FL, WV, and IN were the deciding factors, and FL and OH were very close. Could not the election results have been different?

And ask yourself - would we have been on a better track towards leaving Iraq if Kerry was in office? Or some other Dem that wasn't so dead set on renewing the Assault Weapons Ban? Don't answer that yet.

The 2007 attempt at reinstatement and its complete failure

In 2007, the bill was again introduced (don't we learn?) by Carolyn McCarthy - and this time without any expiration date. She famously appeared on CNN to tout the bill, but when questioned on even the most basic parts of the law "what is a barrel shroud?" she had no idea what the terms in her own bill meant, thus adding "shoulder thing that goes up" to the national lexicon. It could hardly be easier to make us Dems look like complete morons.

Despite gathering 66 cosponsors (mostly Dems - WHY?) the bill died before being brought to the floor. 66 cosponsors is more than enough to usually get a bill out there for a floor vote. Why didn't this one get out?

Massive grassroots opposition, headed by the NRA.

There is currently a 2008 version of this bill, but it (thankfully) isn't going anywhere.

Conclusion

There is at least some correlation between Democratic support for federal level gun control and Democratic election losses, and the NRA has an effect. What the exact degree of this correlation is I will not venture to explore, but it is enough to say that it exists and that it is not insignificant. What the exact degree of the NRA's effect is I will not venture a guess either, but it is enough to say that it exists and it is not insignificant.

So, now some talking points for my fellow Dems, explaining why not supporting a federal assault weapons ban won't hurt us and might help

First, there is a non-zero correlation between Democratic gun control and Democratic losses at the federal level. I've shown this above.

Second, the US cultural environment regarding guns has changed towards liberalizing gun laws. Since 1994, more and more states have signed legislation liberalizing concealed carry, affirming the right to defend your home, and making the confiscation of firearms in natural disasters illegal. Moreover, a lot of these bills have been introduced, sponsored, and voted for by Dems.

Third, the judicial environment regarding guns has changed. Does Heller vs. DC ring a bell? Simply put, an assault weapons ban might have flown before this case, but with Heller recognizing that there is at least some right to have a gun for defense in your home, a federal ban now has much shakier ground (some would say no ground at all) to stand on.

Fourth, gun ownership is election-deciding for pro-gun people and a non-priority for everyone else. Polls right now have Obama and McCain in a statistical dead heat. If we Dems stay neutral on guns with a plank like "we will support Americans' 2nd Amendment right to own firearms" and end there, it only costs the votes of a tiny splinter our party while ensuring more stay with us. Sure, some people might want more regulations of some kind, but they've repeatedly shown that they're not going to vote based on it. For those that want more liberal gun laws, they have shown that they will vote on it. And voting issues are what matter. If we go negative on guns, all 25 million Dem gun owners (yes, 25 million. 39% of gun owners are Dems) have reason to start putting Dem candidates under a microscope. And all gun owners are already skittish because of our party's "ban semi-autos, ban concealed carry, ban assault weapons, register all guns" past. Not all gun owners are Republicans, some are Dems - and we desperately need to keep them.

Last, and most importantly, it's self-contradicting policy. The plank says: "we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." But a federal assault weapons ban is in fact saying that what Chicago wants dern well better work in Cheyenne. How's that for talking out of both sides of your mouth? Let's just drop it.


How can you help remove this election-losing plank from the platform?

First, if you're a local party member, resolutions need to work themselves up from the ground level. Use these talking points at your local meetings. Propose resolutions and try to get them implemented locally - and pass them up the chain.

Second, write letters to your Congresscritters asking them not to support further bans, as it might cost them their jobs and as a Dem you want to see them stay in Congress.

Third, write Janet Napolitano, the author of the DNCC platform and AZ governor.

Her address is:

DNCC Chair
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Telephone (602) 542-4331
Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883
Fax (602) 542-1381

Write real letters. Emails, online polls, all mean squat. Goes the old saw:

1 email means that 1 person out there feels the same way.
1 fax means that 10 people out there feel the same way.
1 telephone call means that 100 people out there feel the same way.
1 snail mail letter means that 1000 people out there feel the same way!

Again. This diary is not about gun rights, and comments about gun rights aren't on topic. It doesn't matter what you think about gun rights, what matters is if you want to see us Dems win the Presidency. What is on topic is discussing the seeming correlation between Dem support of assault weapons bans and Dem losses - and what we should do about it.

jlbraun
August 8, 2008, 10:15 PM
Vote up at reddit.com

http://www.reddit.com/comments/6vjdu/daily_kos_2008_dem_platform_demands_reinstatement/

Prince Yamato
August 9, 2008, 03:07 AM
So, Dude, when you give ALL the power to the government, what happens when the government changes hands, and the OTHER guys are in charge?

You know, this is a good point. One of my colleagues is a socialist. I mean, truly, the guy is trying to move to Norway because he likes government controlled everything. Anyhow, he said he wishes the US was the same way. I said, what you're saying is you want left-wing socialism. What happens if after a decade or so the government changes to a right-wing socialist government? He left the room in a huff. Anyway, it's always a possibility.

I remember during the Clinton years, people were advocating for the AWB on the basis that, "we didn't need military weapons, because we're not really at the risk for foreign invasion, nor will we likely have a dictatorial and corrupt president..." Of course, low and behold, turn to 2004-present and the left won't shut the hell up about Bush being a dictator. Also, for a group so damn afraid of the military, they seem very willing to give up their own guns and thus be possibly subjugated.

Anyway, my point is, according to their logic, we still do need these weapons to defend ourselves against domestic enemies.

S&Wfan
August 9, 2008, 06:24 PM
It has been political death for democratic politicians to espouse any form of gun control for the past few years.

The liberal think tanks have advised that anti-gun democrats run saying, "I support the Second Admendment and the ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens, IN CONJUNCTION WITH SENSIBLE GUN LAWS . . .

In other words, they "support" the second admendment to avoid losing votes, while pushing new SENSIBLE gun laws.

Who the hell do you imagine will define what is meant by SENSIBLE gun laws onces these anti's get in power? "Sensible" to who? Not to me or you.

By then it will be too late, and soon you can expect them to state that it is "sensible" to ban virtually all your guns!

Sensible my azzzz . . .

There's a foul wind a'blowin.'

T.

taprackbang
August 12, 2008, 04:02 PM
"...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...."

What is 'common sense' about infringing upon the rights of Americans to arm themselves against tyranny?
These dems think they are 'common sense.' (Common sense Communists)
And if I remember correctly, McCain supported the ridiculous 'gun show loophole' bullcrap too.

It's like, "Democrat or Republican?" OR "Coke or Pepsi?" Pick your poison!

Write in Ron Paul

Old Guy
August 13, 2008, 05:14 AM
reinstating the assault weapons
ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals

Did not the wording of the Second amendment victory state that a citizen conscript of yester year with a muzzle loader now translates to a modern equivalent, IE a AR15? Therefore making a ban on hi cap magazines, or semi auto weapons a non starter?

Maybe in reading those many legal tomes bent my perception?

yourang?
August 13, 2008, 09:01 AM
a few weeks ago, the local branch of the democratic county committee
had a platform meeting, where it was requested that planks for the
platform be discussed and offered to the national committee "from the
ground up", as if they really wanted to know what were the issues
that concern the "feet on the ground" local democrat

they wanted to have us offer the top three concerns

i went and tried to get 2A/gun control discussed as a plank on the
upcomping national convention

well, i was basically blown off, being told "this is not an issue"

so the basic issues of national security, econony and fuel were
the issues that "won"

it was very frustrating, but i tried, with no success

this is the true political "third rail"

if the democrats dont want to deal with that, they will have to
accept the results of losing the election over a simple three
letter phrase that is hidden in their national platform: AWB

ps....i am a lifelong democrat and involved in politics on the local level

elChupacabra!
August 13, 2008, 10:46 AM
Here's the letter I've written, and am mailing out today:

DNCC Chair
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ
Dear Governor Napolitano:
I am writing to you in regard to the Democratic National Committee platform’s insistence on reinstating the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. As a proud, free American citizen, I deeply value the right defended by the Second Amendment to possess efficient, effective arms for the lawful defense of my home, my family and my country. I believe that any attempt to ban the most efficient and effective arms currently available to civilians, rifles classified as so-called “assault weapons,” is a direct infringement of this right, and must be opposed at all opportunities.

As a currently registered Democrat who voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic Primary election, I, just as you, wish to see a change in the Executive office of this country away from global expansionism, disregard for international relations, and favor to the most privileged few at the expense of the rest of the American citizenry. I would gladly support any Democratic candidate who could restore an element of honor to the Office of the President.

Be this as it may, I cannot, in good conscience, cast my vote for any candidate or party who advocates or intends to strip the most precious of American freedoms from their constituents – namely, the bearing of arms. I believe that, in truth, bearing effective arms – such as were borne by our forefathers who defeated the tyrannical British government with military rifles – is the final line of defense the American people possess against tyranny and oppression, and is, ultimately, the defender of all our cherished liberties.

Therefore, I urge you and the Democratic National Committee to reconsider your stance on what you allege, dishonestly, to be “reasonable” and “common-sense” restrictions against a right the Constitution specifically states “shall not be infringed.”

I assure you, I am but one of many voters who has no love for Republican politics, but will most certainly vote against any Democratic nominee to any office of this Land who would endeavor to strip any Constitutionally guaranteed civil right – especially the bearing of arms – from my Countrymen and myself.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.





Now I don't necessarily like BHO even if it wasn't for guns... but for the most part it's true, and maybe it'll get someone's attention ;)

elChupacabra!
August 13, 2008, 11:27 AM
Also, I got my wife to sign this letter I drafted on her behalf (she's not pro-gun but she's not an anti either... shes relatively ambivalent on the issue, but I'm working on her - she used to be VERY anti!)

DNCC Chair
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ
Dear Governor Napolitano:
I want to write you today in reference to the Democratic National Committee’s recently released draft of the 2008 Platform – specifically, the statement that the Democratic party intends to reinstate the “Assault Weapons Ban.” As a lifelong voting Democrat, I believe that pressing this issue will seriously impede the Democratic Party’s efforts for a successful November election.

Historically, pushing for increased gun control legislation has not drawn any additional votes for the Democratic party who would have, otherwise, not voted, yet the inverse is certainly true – those who OPPOSE gun control legislation come out of the woodworks to vote against any party or candidate who would advocate these laws. Pushing for additional gun control legislation is suicidal for a Democratic party which desperately needs every vote it can get in this political dead heat.

My husband is an excellent example. He voted with me for Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic Primary election and sincerely desires to see change in this Nation’s government – but he will staunchly refuse to vote into the Office of the President ANY candidate who advocates any gun control measures, especially an assault weapons ban. In the swing state of Tennessee, you can be certain that he isn’t the only one, and his vote may well be the one that costs the DNC the Presidency.

Please, in the interest of our country, I urge you and the Democratic Party to remove any language from the platform that advocates a reinstatement of an unpopular and ineffective law that cost the Democratic party control of both the Senate and the House in the 1990s, as well as the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections. Do not let 2008 be the third Republican Presidential victory over an issue that is marginal to Democratic interests and central to Republican ones.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this critical issue.


Just some more food for thought to any of you who are considering writing in and don't know what to say, though please don't copy and paste it directly, as I worked hard to make these letters original and thought provoking... anyway, FWIW :)

hso
August 13, 2008, 12:41 PM
Good letter, but I wouldn't use "the most precious of American freedoms" to describe the 2nd. That type of hyperbole reduces the effectiveness of our argument when freedom of religion, speech, assembly, undue search, etc. are equally precious and are what the 2nd is to help guarantee.

Otherwise, an excellent letter.

elChupacabra!
August 13, 2008, 12:50 PM
hso,

Good point, thanks for the tip. I don't have any stamps here with me at work so I haven't mailed it yet, so there's time to make edits still... I appreciate the constructive criticism :)

I suppose where I was coming from with that statement is the fact that 2a gives us the means to ensure we retain all our other rights. I love being able to speak freely and worship as I choose, but I also truly do believe that, at the last, the 2a is the freedom that ensures I retain all the others. That's why I call it my most precious freedom, being the protector of all others, and I tried to make that point in the letter... but I see how that could be misunderstood.

Thanks again :)

IllHunter
August 13, 2008, 02:33 PM
describe the "reasonable gun laws" that you propose will work to end violence and provide safety to all citizens? I live in Cook County, Illinois and have Chicago just 20 miles away, with the most restrictive gun laws in the country. They have been in place for over twenty years and have made no perceptable reduction in violent crime. There is no such thing as a "reasonable" restriction on the rights of law abiding citizens. What doesn't work in Chicago, will not work in Casper, Corpus Christi, Compton or Columbus.:banghead:
I challenge you, tell me what is "reasonable"

elChupacabra!
August 13, 2008, 05:31 PM
hmmm i really hope this thread isn't about to get locked :(

I know everyone is happy / unhappy with every party. I think we need to focus on what we can DO to improve RKBA. If that action is here addressed to the Democratic party, then I think it's ok to post about that - tell us what YOU'RE DOING, or how we can do something, but don't just complain about the woes of the American political structure...

Thanks :)

Catherine
August 13, 2008, 06:19 PM
One of the people got it straight here... a few of them in fact.

It is all about CONTROL. PEOPLE control!

One side (The Democrats.) wants gun control and even more bs gun laws. (Heck, even one of the so called R candidates was for GUN and people control!)

The other side wants CONTROL in other areas of your life but says they are pro gun. Ha ha!

People have to figure out that those Pat Acts, new laws, new rules, new bs control in ANY area of your life is just as bad as MORE gun laws!

I think that both sides stink. The moderators keep on asking what YOU will do. Some of us tried to tell Rs and Ds about all of this 'coming down' and how bad the past and present administrations have been for this country and for more PEOPLE control.

Some of us did all kinds of things but the sheeple along with some so called 'professed well informed people' still do NOT get it and they ALL continue to vote for lesser of the evils.

Lesser of the evils is still EVIL.

GUN CONTROL and all of those other control factors is still control.

Control = people control.

You don't have to be a tin foil hatter as some of you like to call some people to see the TRUTH and how we continue to have our liberties flushed down the TOILET of NO return with a great big swoosh.

If you are a DEM - get the truth out about this GUN stuff.

If you are a REP - get the truth out about the RECORD of your candidate in GUN ISSUES along with what he/she intends to do in the next 4 years in ALL issues especially LIBERTY - FREEDOM issues including the gun laws.

Say, "NO!", to the NWO D and NWO R globalist scheme of things which includes MORE CONTROL including MORE GUN CONTROL laws and garbage from BOTH parties!

God help us all... we need it for sure.

Catherine - PRO GUN, PRO LIBERTY and not for either one of the 2 front runners.

Marcus84
August 14, 2008, 12:20 AM
Anyone have any stats as to how many "assault weapons" are sold yearly?

Charles Cotton
August 14, 2008, 01:07 PM
Here is a copy of a post on TexasCHLforum.com discussing a new group of Texas Democrats. Mr. Barnett offers additional advice on contacting the Chairman of the Platform Committee.

Chas.

There is a group of Texas Democrats that have formed the Gun Owners Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party, with Mr. Daniel Barnett serving as Provisional Chairman. This group was formed to bring the Texas Democratic Party in line with traditional Texas values regarding firearms ownership and use. I applaud their efforts.

Attached is a message from Mr. Barnett and the content is both urgent and disturbing. Everyone needs to head his call to action and email the platform committee immediately. As noted in the message, the Platform calls for "renewal" of the assault weapons ban and it also calls for closing the so-called "gun show loophole."

Time is of the essence! We need to help Mr. Barnett's organization change this absurd plank in the National Democratic Party Platform. It would be far better to change the official position of the Democratic Party, than to shrug or shoulders and passively let these anti-rights provisions remain in the Platform. If those efforts fail, we need to work even harder to defeat every Democratic candidate that doesn't have a good voting record on guns, as evidenced by the NRA and TSRA rating for that candidate.

Sadly, this plank in the National Democratic Party Platform confirms what I have been predicting for the 2008 elections and the 2009 Texas Legislative Session. Our enemies are back, they have enough power within the Democratic Party to get this garbage in the Platform, and they will work hard to get their voters to the polls in November.

This is the hour for the Democratic Party to tell us where they stand on the true Second Amendment, not their watered down version. This is the hour for the Democratic Party to show us who runs the Party -- the anti-rights liberals, or those Democrats that share traditional Texas values including the right of self-defense and the tools to exercise that right.

Let's answer Mr. Barnett's call to action and email the Platform Committee and let them know of our displeasure and our resolve to defeat them in November, if the anti-gun provisions are retained.

Chas.


Okay, folks, we're in for a fight. Here's a link to the 8/7 draft of the Democratic platform for 2008:

http://www.workinglife.org/storage/users/4/4/images/111/2008%20democratic%20platform%20080808.pdf

As you can see on page 43, the call for a ban on "assault weapons" has been included yet again. I understand that the draft has been revised since 8/7, but as far as I know, the ban has not been removed from the platform.

I encourage everyone to e-mail the Platform Committee at platform@dnc.org and make your feelings known on this matter.

Good luck!

Daniel Barnett
Provisional Chair, Gun Owners Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party

elChupacabra!
August 14, 2008, 03:16 PM
Again, I'd urge everyone who wishes to write in to actually type out a letter, print it, put a stamp on it and MAIL it to Governor Napolitano at

DNCC Chair
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Telephone (602) 542-4331
Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883
Fax (602) 542-1381

Emailing is fine but letters and phone calls carry more weight. I wrote a letter, and my wife signed another one (that I drafted for her - hey every letter counts! ;)) - get your opinions out there!

For those of you who aren't hard-core Democrats (I'm not), or even those of you who aren't hard-core Republicans - write the DNCC chair indicating to them that this is a BIG issue that keeps you voting Republican / Libertarian / Green / etc. If they knew exactly how many votes they were losing, that might have an impact. You don't have to promise to vote for them if they change it - just let them know there are PLENTY of voters out there who NOTICE things like this and vote accordingly.

Every letter counts!

If you don't want to go to the trouble to write it out, PM me and I'll draft a letter for you. All you have to do is print it, sign it and drop it in the mail. I'll GLADLY draft a letter for ANYONE who would like!

Let's get this done guys!

Megistopoda
August 18, 2008, 01:17 PM
Anyone have any stats as to how many "assault weapons" are sold yearly?

I am sorry, but I do not. I read somewhere that the selling-est gun model in the US were the AR-15 platform firearms. Marketing as hunting rifles sure hasn't hurt that. And generally, I think that the number of gun owners that really do comprehend the intent and purpose of the 2A are growing. In part, I think the Parker/Heller case has been responsible for this 2A resurgence.

But if "in common use" is going to stick as a test of constitutional protection, then I think AR-15 type firearms are quite protected from infringment.

hso
August 18, 2008, 03:10 PM
Folks,

Lets stay focused on the issue of changing this and not rabbit down every little side trail commenting on the silliness of it. We need good ideas on how this can get changed more than jeering at the DNC.

Someone else has to have the imagination to come up with some more ways of teaching them this is a third rail issue.

hso
August 18, 2008, 03:22 PM
Ok, I'm deleting all the useless OT chatter so it's a little easier to read. Remember the sticky at the top of Activism says no tearing down of any idea to make a change for the better.

Come up with some more ideas to reach the DNC or the local Dem politicians to convince them to drop the AWB silliness from the DNC platform.

Byron Quick
August 18, 2008, 03:33 PM
hso,

Any member who can't follow directions after being warned to do so could be banned. This is not a forum to pile on the Democratic Party, folks.

There's plenty of fora available for that purpose. Please access them and whale awy.

ilbob
August 18, 2008, 03:54 PM
Come up with some more ideas to reach the DNC or the local Dem politicians to convince them to drop the AWB silliness from the DNC platform.Does anyone know just what the process would be at this stage of the game to actually get the platform changed?

I always sort of figured that it was pretty much set in stone by the guys in the smoky back rooms trying to figure out how to get the most votes, and when it got to the floor it was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

Is there any history of platform statements being modified on the floor of the convention (of either party)? If so how they managed it might give us some ideas.

only1asterisk
August 18, 2008, 03:58 PM
How does changing the wording of the 2008 Democratic platform help us?

David

ArfinGreebly
August 18, 2008, 04:10 PM
Both parties need to be reminded that messing with gun rights is a losing strategy.

If the party that wins the general election has a platform plank in place that reads "take away all the guns in this list" then they have a plausible (if false) claim to a "mandate" to go after the guns.

The party needs to be reminded well in advance of the election that gun grabbing is not only unpopular, but unpopular to the point where they could spend another dozen years in political Coventry if they try it again.

It doesn't do any good to point that out after the election, because their assumption at that point will be "anything we had in the platform will now sell easily to the masses." They made that mistake years ago, it cost them dearly, it caused gun owners all kinds of heartburn.

If it's still in their platform come the election, and they happen to win, their victory dance will include legislation based on the idea that a critical mass of the population is now in favor of being disarmed.

So, with that in mind, there is certainly merit to ripping out that plank regardless of which party logo you wear.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
August 18, 2008, 11:33 PM
2008 Democratic national platform demands re-instatement of AWB

And yet they wonder why they don't get as much of the swing vote as they'd like.

rmb721
August 19, 2008, 10:48 AM
The first thing a gun owning Democrat should do is re-register as non/affiliated. I have been N/A for years (never a Dem again)

Next is to vote against any gun grabbers, especially ones that say they will protect your gun rights but have always voted otherwise in the past.

A voting record is much more of an indicator than a campaign promise.

bogie
August 19, 2008, 12:32 PM
Either that, or start to infiltrate the party from the grass roots level. Run as a democrat locally, or for state legislature, and keep going...

I know a fellow who tried doing that, however, and the NRA backed a Republican against him, and the republican had a moderately dismal record...

hnk45acp
August 20, 2008, 01:17 PM
DNCC Chair
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ

Dear Governor Napolitano,

I’m writing because I am concerned about the inclusion of a new “Assault Weapons” Ban in the DNC platform of the upcoming election. I am a life long (37 years) New Yorker and has voted Democrat in every election from my 18th year up until recently. Why the shift? The answer is I became a gun owner.
I am the son of Chinese immigrants, went to a public high school, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-Iraq war and in many areas the typical New York Liberal. However, I am seriously considering not voting the Democratic line this year because of the party’s insistance on trampling on my Constitution right and passing laws that often only affect the law abiding and make millions of law abiding citizens into felons by banning a class of weapons that have been used in less than .05% of crimes during the last 20 years.
Please consider removing any AWB or any future gun control legislation from the platform. Gun control laws rarely affect criminals since they, by definition don’t follow laws.
Having suffered thru 8 years of the Bush presidency I would like nothing more than to see Mr. Obama installed as our next president, however I cannot in good conscience vote for him until he respects my HUMAN right to defend myself as I see fit and respect the CONSTITUTIONAL right of all Americans to so.
Thank you so much for your time in this matter.

elChupacabra!
August 20, 2008, 02:42 PM
hnk45acp,

Nice letter - I know writing isn't the only thing we can do, but it's certainly a start. I know there is a lot of discussion here about "what should we do about this" but to me, writing letters seems like a very logical first step. If we can't think of anything ELSE to do, we at least all need to do this.

I know many readers here would never consider voting Democrat for a whole series of reasons... but I don't think that should stop anyone from writing Governor Napolitano. The only important point that needs to be made is that this position is unacceptable and will result directly in the loss of a vote for the DNC. You don't have to continue on that you wouldn't have voted for them anyways. Just bring this issue to light and end there. If everyone who has posted to just this thread did that, I believe it would at least be noticed.

Let's take this first step while we're trying to come up with something more direct to do about it!

hnk45acp
August 20, 2008, 03:30 PM
I fowarded my letter to a bunch of friends that are members of my range. Being in NYC most of them are/were Democrats like me and I think that a bunch of letters from "liberal new yorkers" may make her think twice about putting the AWB on the platform.

I agree that letters from potential Democratic voters would have the most impact, but the more letters the better no matter the source

Phil DeGraves
August 20, 2008, 03:36 PM
Even if you guys are successful in getting them to remove the wording, you'll never remove it from their goals.

elChupacabra!
August 20, 2008, 04:02 PM
Phil -

If we can convince them they will lose enough votes, they may well forego seeking to fulfill those goals. We can't control what anyone else wishes to do, but we can attempt to influence what they are allowed to do.

You lock your doors and arm yourself to keep burglars out of your home. It doesn't matter if they still want to get in once you have prevented them from doing so.

only1asterisk
August 20, 2008, 04:02 PM
Even if you guys are successful in getting them to remove the wording, you'll never remove it from their goals.

That's what I'm thinking too. I think it would be better to insist they leave it in. It let's people know what they are really voting for when they vote Democrat.

David

hill billy
August 20, 2008, 04:57 PM
Remember that the idea for the current AWB was floated by a Republican. So no one should be just attacking the Dems on this.

I'm drafting to a letter to Mizz Napolitano now. :cuss:

misANTHrope
August 20, 2008, 05:18 PM
Even if you guys are successful in getting them to remove the wording, you'll never remove it from their goals.

Maybe not. But maybe we can ensure going forward that a party that embraces gun control embraces itself right out of the running for any and every office in the land. I want to see gun control become a non-partisan issue.

I want the Democratic Party to face a choice: either stop plugging for anti-gun stuff, or else render itself irrelevant. May not happen in my lifetime, but I can hope.

As gunnies, far too many of us are so busy fixating on the gun issue that we'll embrace anything that's not a Democrat, with little regard as to whether they're overall better or worse than a Dem candidate.

elChupacabra!
August 20, 2008, 05:28 PM
misANTHrope,

That's a great point - my wife hates that I'm a one-issue voter for this election, and to be honest, I don't like being a one-issue voter, either. Unfortunately, to me, this is the MOST important issue currently being debated, so it is the one that MUST be focused on EXCLUSIVELY by those who love their country.

If we can band together to do that effectively enough, hopefully in time, we won't have to fight with every opportunity, vote and breath one day. Hopefully, one day, neither side will want to pursue it any more - and we can turn our attentions (and votes) to other matters that are also very important, but have been sidelined in the past.

Look back at what issues had to be fought tooth-and-nail for 40 or 50 years ago - segregation comes to mind. Today, voters no longer have to worry about that. They can focus on new concerns. I hope that one day, the same is true of gun control - and I'll try to make that happen by focusing ALL my efforts on defeating it ONCE and FOR ALL now, so it never returns and we can all spend our precious votes on other important matters.

The point - WRITE LETTERS! :)

hnk45acp
August 21, 2008, 12:32 PM
Even if you guys are successful in getting them to remove the wording, you'll never remove it from their goals.
At least it will be a success, and that's how you build a winning campaign on successes, it may work it may not but I think it gives a sense of empowerment to people who take this into their hands.

At least it will show them that there are people out there willing to speak up about it, not saying anything is like quiet acceptance and they'll use that to build upon their agenda.

scottgun
August 22, 2008, 02:43 PM
Too bad the DNC has banned the topic of firearms from their discussions.

http://www.demconvention.com/townhall-rules

America's Town Hall - Terms and ConditionsSubmissions may be video or text. Submissions must not: (i) include trademarks, logos, or copyrighted material not owned by entrant or used without permission (such as company names, music, photographs, works of art, or images published on or in websites, television, movies, or other media);
(ii) use individuals’ names, in whole or in part (including the entrant’s last name) without permission;
(iii) contain profanity, pornographic, or sexual content, content promoting alcohol, illegal drugs, tobacco, firearms, or weapons, hateful content of any kind (including racism, sexism, etc.), content that promotes violence or harm to another living creature, or any other offensive, obscene, or inappropriate content;



As if there was a slight glimmer of hope for change.

elChupacabra!
August 22, 2008, 08:12 PM
Hmmm... I'm not sure, but in that context, I doubt they are ruling out a discussion of 2a - more like promoting Remington ammunition for the community, or discussing using a shotgun to shoot a home intruder.

I don't think discussing the merits of 2a is ruled out there - but I've been wrong before.

Duke Junior
August 23, 2008, 12:36 AM
I think Ohio Governor Ted Strickland can be a driving force in getting this language changed.There is no more active pro-gun Democratic politician in high office than this Gov,TMK,and very few Republicans.
This man really gets it ,is no phony and is a staunch 2A supporter from the most important swing along with Florida.No GOP Presidential candidate has ever won the White House without taking Ohio ,going back to 1856.
I'm amazed Obama has not given Ted S.at at least some recognition as Veep material.He'd be my pick.
Calls,emails and letters to Gov.Strickland about altering or removing this offensive plank can't hurt.I sent him one last week.His website for contact:

http://governor.ohio.gov/

Gunsby_Blazen
August 23, 2008, 01:51 AM
I wasn't worried about an AWB until just a few moments ago but Obama picked Biden to be his VP. What should we do???? I dont think there is any way to get through to Biden as he has expressed how he feels about gun owners... "crazies". so now I am worried. Is there any way to get out the message that the Constitution is something to be upheld?????

nwilliams
August 23, 2008, 02:06 AM
I have a sinking feeling in my chest right now:(

When I heard that Obama is going to choose Biden the feeling of complete dread came over me and I feel like we may be in trouble.

SLR
August 23, 2008, 02:24 AM
:barf:
:uhoh:

Duke Junior
August 23, 2008, 03:04 AM
When I heard that Obama is going to choose Biden for the feeling of complete dread came over me and I feel like we may be in trouble.

The good news is Biden is cartoon material.He's stuck his foot in his mouth and made more mental blunders on national TV and in the MSM than any other Senator in the last 16 years.Think Daffy Duck.
Don't expect his gaffes to stop if he is the Dem Veep.
I think this is a great choice for us and a disaster for Obama and the Dems.Look for many chuckles and goofs from Biden.And the man can't shut up.Once he starts rolling ,it's downhill all the way.
Enjoy.:D

hso
August 23, 2008, 08:36 AM
I know it's difficult to keep the two separated, but we've drifted into politics instead of Activism to get the DNC to change this plank in their platform. With Biden as a choice for VP there's no chance that the DNC will remove it's call for a new AWB and background checks for private sales between individuals at gun shows. If you can think of any practical way to change the DNC platform that hasn't been discussed, please continue with the thread. If all you can think of is to lament the situation and complain about it, take it to APS. Perhaps we need a new thread on working on the local/state level.

Gunsby_Blazen
August 23, 2008, 02:52 PM
What we need to do, is get out the message of preserving the constitution to everyone. I don't think we can get through to the DMC at its core (especially now), but perhaps you can get through to the voters. One of the only ways to get a political party feel a certain way about an issue is to make it feel the voice of the people.

Well there is another way too....
contributors and lobbyists. We need to get some lobbyists in the party who can help fund them. They will listen to money.
Anyway, that is all i got.....

Anti-Gunners are very passionate about how they feel towards issues. They run the show based on emotion. Also, keep in mind that these fellows are politicians who need to run their campaign. So money talks. But, is there anything unethical about that?

hnk45acp
August 27, 2008, 12:46 PM
I noticed that in the draft after the one in the OP , this one dated 8-13 the AWB language has been removed and the only thing on firearms was closing the "gun show loophole"

elChupacabra!
August 27, 2008, 01:20 PM
hnk45acp -

This one?

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/2008%20Democratic%20Platform%20by%20Cmte%2008-13-08%20%282%29.pdf

This one is dated 08/13 and still has the AWB portion. Can you post a link to what you see?

hnk45acp
August 27, 2008, 03:51 PM
Damn! I swear the version I saw only had the gunshow part.
My computer crashed and now I can't find the link I had, and all the versions I find still have the AWB language on it.:banghead:

KBintheSLC
August 27, 2008, 06:17 PM
Sadly, I doubt that the 2A is safe in the hands of either of the 2 major parties anymore. McCain doesn't exactly have a great track-record of voting pro-2A every single time. I guess he is still a little better than these socialist Utopian nut-cases in the Dem party. The donkey (ass) is a great logo for them.

When will we finally ditch these two failing parties?

OOPS... back to activism. Maybe we can show them how it feels by waging some attacks on the 1A which they seem to believe is the only amendment. I bet a good attorney could come up with some good "damages" caused by the liberals in the media.

Unfortunately, the 1A is our right too... might just end up self defeating.

Master Blaster
August 27, 2008, 07:13 PM
Biden HHHACKPTOO is my Senator.
About 15 years ago I was at the Kosczuczko day Parade in Wilmington DE. (Thaddeus Kosczuczko General and Hero of the Revolutionary war). I lived in the Polish neighborhood Browntown then. I was out in front of my house watching the Parade and there was Joe walking down the sidewalk pressing the flesh. Apprporiately he was following the Shriners in their little clown cars. So I decided to ask him why he was so opposed to the Second Amendment as he was shaking my hand. He said:

"why do you care about guns they are only for killing people and we are not at war"

I said target shooting is my hobby.

He looked me in the eye and said:

"GET A DIFFERENT HOBBY"

And then he walked away smiling and shaking hands.

There is no more anti gun politician than Biden Period. Now I have heard the story about him owning a shotgun and shooting trap/ skeet and duck hunting. Its a load of crap, I know his daughter Ashley having met her recently at work. I aksed her about the story, and if she went trap shooting with her dad. She told me that He has never owned a gun and doesn't hunt or trap shoot (after I explained to her what trap shooting is). She is a very nice young lady and I take her word for it.

Neo-Luddite
August 28, 2008, 11:27 PM
*He* just finished his speech.
He re-ennumerated ALL of the party planks point-for-point--more-or-less in order as they were announced a week ago.

We all heard.

inserthumorhere
September 27, 2008, 06:46 PM
Wow. Like wow. I honestly don't mean to be rude, but I don't see how anyone can think that Biden being on the ticket makes the Dem ticket any more pro AWB. Maybe I take it for granted since I'm suffering at the hands of these gun banning elites in the greater Chicagoland area, but Obama is just ANTI-GUN in general. I believe that this state is the only state where you have to show your "papers" before you are allowed to purchase ammo or even reloading components. There is a reason that Obama's state is referred to as The People's Republic of Illinois.

benEzra
September 27, 2008, 07:47 PM
I don't see how anyone can think that Biden being on the ticket makes the Dem ticket any more pro AWB.
For Obama, guns have always seemed to be just "one of those other issues." He hasn't bothered to get all that involved in it, and his record consists primarily of a few votes on other people's legislation that he knew little about but felt compelled to sign onto, and a couple answers on questionnaires.

Biden, on the other hand, is a crusader, and banning "assault weapons" seems to be his personal Holy War. He was the only candidate in the YouTube primary debate to address the issue (and he did so by questioning the sanity of the AR-15 owner), he has consistently been at the forefront of gun-ban efforts even when they were politically a really bad idea, etc.

I could see Obama leaving the gun issue alone in order to avoid rocking the boat too badly. I can't see Biden doing that; he has treated it too much like a jihad in the past.

I could be pleasantly surprised, of course, but I don't have my hopes up, and the campaign has been more vocally anti-gun since Biden joined the ticket. I am wondering if that is Biden's doing; Obama said he wanted someone who would "challenge his thinking," and that worries me.

FLA2760
September 29, 2008, 02:04 PM
I knew this would happen. The best way to preserve our gun rights. Don't vote for Obama.

If you enjoyed reading about "2008 Democratic national platform demands re-instatement of AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!