Right to bear arms ....gun grab


PDA






22/22mag
November 9, 2008, 03:26 AM
We have a right to bear arms ...How about ammo:confused:
Sure they can let you keep your guns:scrutiny: but watch for the anti gun lobby to prevent or limit the amount of ammo per month-year with ID drivers license current address and for which gun will they be used with a turn in of ALL spent shells.....Remember they were thinking of marking all ammo sold in California so it could be traced back...AND you can keep your guns:banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "Right to bear arms ....gun grab" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cbrgator
November 9, 2008, 03:28 AM
Write your congressmen and join the NRA.

indoorsoccerfrea
November 9, 2008, 03:28 AM
maybe we should all get into reloading...no spent shells there!

Ridgerunner665
November 9, 2008, 04:05 AM
Join the NRA today...like it or not, thats our best line of defense now.

I have been a member for years...night before last I made it permanent. I sent them $1000 for a life membership and I still plan on donating what I can, when I can.

Money talks and BS walks.

Starship1st
November 9, 2008, 08:31 AM
I think that we should stock up on ammo especially the hollow point that libs love to ban. Maybe invest in reloading equipment so that we all can make our own if need to.

Remember we have survived lib anti gun, magazine, and ammo laws in the past and we can do it again. :cool:

Sinixstar
November 9, 2008, 08:34 AM
I've mentioned this in a few other threads - but i figure it's worth saying again.

As a democrat, i can tell you the vast majority of us look at this as a waste of time. A gun ban has a lot more likelyhood of getting passed than an ammo ban (which everyone knows would be useless) - and gun bans aren't even anything we want to get within a 50 mile radius of for a long long time. A growing number of us don't want to go there at all, and some of us never wanted to go there to begin with.

Gun Geezer
November 9, 2008, 08:54 AM
Hey Sin old pal, you and your bunch did go there though, didn't you?

So are you now an American who supports the Consititution or are you still a Democrat?

rfurtkamp
November 9, 2008, 09:26 AM
As a democrat, i can tell you the vast majority of us look at this as a waste of time.


Funny, the solidly D states with a history of D control have a D or F rating when it comes to gun freedom.

If the party won't listen to its constituents in CA, IL, NYC, etc...then why would they listen to you now?

So either you've been bamboozled by the party or you're bamboozling us. Which is it?

Sinixstar
November 9, 2008, 09:41 AM
Hey Sin old pal, you and your bunch did go there though, didn't you?

So are you now an American who supports the Consititution or are you still a Democrat?

You should really stop to take a look at the roll-call votes of the Clinton-era gun bans. Specifically the AWB senate vote. Unfortunately digging up house votes seems to be more problematic than I would have thought - but the senate votes are pretty telling. Even the Brady Bill only passed because of Republican support.

as for Constitution vs Democrat - after the last 8 years, please don't pretend to lecture me about one party gutting the constitution over another.

My comments were never meant to start a political... whatever this is turning into - certainly not a civilized conversation.

Funny, the solidly D states with a history of D control have a D or F rating when it comes to gun freedom.

If the party won't listen to its constituents in CA, IL, NYC, etc...then why would they listen to you now?

So either you've been bamboozled by the party or you're bamboozling us. Which is it?

Take it for whatever you want - clearly you have your mind made up. I can tell you that when voted to adopt the party platform (yea, i'm that level of involved) Gun issues were nowhere on the list.

Fact of the matter is, 2nd rights supporters and detractors do not break down party lines. Again, look at the voting history. Look at the bills that are introduced. 6257 was introduced by a republican, was co-sponsored by 4 other republicans, in a dem controlled congress - and it is going NOWHERE.
If the dems were going to pick up on an anti-gun bill, it would have been that one, as we would have had the political cover to say "we're going with the republican gun law!". Instead, it's going nowhere.

The sooner we stop looking at this as a left vs right issue - the better off we all are.

If you want to deteriorate the issue to that level - feel free. Fair warning, you will lose. The sooner people realize it's not left or right - get their heads out of the ideological clouds and work together - the better.

rfurtkamp
November 9, 2008, 09:45 AM
Take it for whatever you want - clearly you have your mind made up. I can tell you that when voted to adopt the party platform (yea, i'm that level of involved) Gun issues were nowhere on the list.


Then you're lying to us.

From the 2008 platform,

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.

Don't believe me? Check here (http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html).

You're a stooge and a liar, sir.

Of the worst sort.

Sinixstar
November 9, 2008, 09:56 AM
You're a stooge and a liar, sir.

If you're going to call me a liar, have some idea of what you're talking about.
I'll break it down to you nice and slow so hopefully it sinks in.

Local parties vote on the local platform.
Those local platforms are rolled up to the state platform.
The national platform is largely... *yawn*

for the national platform to be worth the paper it's written on, it has to have the support from the states and the localities.

The national party starts going off on some crap that isn't important, those of us at the local level complain to the state - and the national party backs off.

all that being said - gun laws are extraordinarily low on the list of priorities. Do they mention it in the national platform? Sure.
Look where it shows up. Chapter 3. Page 50 of 59, it gets a whole what - 4 lines? Yea, BIG PRIORITY.

Again - you want to turn this into a left vs right issue - feel free. In the process you're just going to alienate the very people that could be helping you. You'll also provoke the same type of knee-jerk reactions that got us here in the first place.

hoosier8
November 9, 2008, 09:57 AM
Sinixstar, do you really believe that Obama will govern differently than he believes? Maybe so but if you believe he will govern differently then you will have to admit that he does not have the courage of his convictions.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/30/obama-and-guns/

In 2004, he said he was "consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry," and that he'd back "federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement." Mr. Obama had already put that anti-self-defense belief into action in 2001, voting against a state Senate bill that would have allowed people who receive protective orders - such as domestic violence victims - to carry firearms. Why? Because, in Mr. Obama's world, "authorizing potential victims to carry firearms would potentially lead to a more dangerous rather than less dangerous situation … It was a bad idea and I'm glad it failed," he said.

Sinixstar
November 9, 2008, 10:05 AM
hoosier - op-eds aren't worth the paper they're written on, most notably the ones written with a clearly biased slant.

We can trade op-ed pieces and "research" all day on the subject. Doesn't much change anything.

You can complain about Obama until your face turns into that little orb logo he likes so much. Doesn't much change anything.

You can sit here and continue to go nuts over liberal vs conservative as if that's somehow going to change something.

Or people can start to realize that this isn't a clear-cut political issue, start treating it as such, and start using some good old fashioned thought to solve the problem.

rfurtkamp
November 9, 2008, 10:05 AM
If you're going to call me a liar, have some idea of what you're talking about.


You claimed, and I quote, "Take it for whatever you want - clearly you have your mind made up. I can tell you that when voted to adopt the party platform (yea, i'm that level of involved) Gun issues were nowhere on the list."

I pulled up the party platform, and presto, a whole section on guns.

So yes, liar.


I'll break it down to you nice and slow so hopefully it sinks in.

Local parties vote on the local platform.
Those local platforms are rolled up to the state platform.
The national platform is largely... *yawn*

for the national platform to be worth the paper it's written on, it has to have the support from the states and the localities.

The national party starts going off on some crap that isn't important, those of us at the local level complain to the state - and the national party backs off.


Yet, the AWB ban, restricting the right of private citizens to sell property (which is what the 'gun show loophole' is in fact, simple sales of private property), and restrictions on my gun rights because the retards in NYC and Chicago can't handle their own problems are all AOK for a decade with the national plaform...but you expect me to believe that it's not part and parcel of what the Democratic Party is?

There doesn't seem to be any backing off in the platforms I've read for the last 20 or so years now - the Democratic Party supports, endorses, and recommends gun control as a policy plank.


all that being said - gun laws are extraordinarily low on the list of priorities. Do they mention it in the national platform? Sure.
Look where it shows up. Chapter 3. Page 50 of 59, it gets a whole what - 4 lines? Yea, BIG PRIORITY.


It's there. You said it wasn't. I say again, liar.


Again - you want to turn this into a left vs right issue - feel free. In the process you're just going to alienate the very people that could be helping you. You'll also provoke the same type of knee-jerk reactions that got us here in the first place.


This isn't a left vs right issue. This is an issue of freedom and honesty.

The Democratic Party, bless its soul, is open and honest in its desire to restrict private property rights, redistribute wealth, and ban common firearms.

rfurtkamp
November 9, 2008, 10:06 AM
Or people can start to realize that this isn't a clear-cut political issue, start treating it as such, and start using some good old fashioned thought to solve the problem.

This is a clear-cut political issue; in supporting the organization and its stated policy goals, those who support gun rights yet go along with the rest are either willfully ignorant or fools.

hags
November 9, 2008, 10:09 AM
Name calling doesn't belong at THR.

Politics doesn't belong on Rifle Country.

Neither party it appears is good for America.

Sinixstar
November 9, 2008, 10:26 AM
It's very simple. I voted on the local platform. Zero talk about guns. To the best of my knowledge, the state(NV) platform says zero about banning guns as well. (And for the record we're as pissed about Reid as everyone else is, and he will not win his next election). As i've pointed out, yes - it is in the national platform as essentially a side note.

I would also like to ask you a simple question. If democrats are trying to take guns away, and republicans are trying to stop it - why have all the anti-gun bills passed only as a result of republican support? Why are republicans pushing AWBs?
I'm not going to bother getting into your other issues - as it's beyond the scope of this site.

The sooner you, and people like you - start looking at the reality of the situation - the better the rest of us will be. If you want to keep shoving people like me down a hole because I have a (D) in front of my name, good luck getting anything done. There's enough republicans on the anti side of the gun issue to move things along. All you're doing by calling me a liar, and trying to insult me because of party affiliation, is pushing away people who look at things in the same light.

Sinixstar
November 9, 2008, 10:28 AM
This is a clear-cut political issue; in supporting the organization and its stated policy goals, those who support gun rights yet go along with the rest are either willfully ignorant or fools.

again - keep calling people who support your causes ignorant fools... see how far it gets you.

rfurtkamp
November 9, 2008, 10:42 AM
It's very simple. I voted on the local platform.

Scrambling for cover after the initial claim was blown doesn't fly real well.

'The platform' (your initial claim) refers to the Democratic Party's, not Nevada's. Misleading or dishonest, I won't make the call on which, I'll be..nice.

I should add that in the Nevada one you spent quality time on the importance of arts programs under the Constitution section - but nothing whatsoever about guns.

So who am I to believe here? A state platform which says nothing about guns and does nothing to stray from the national line of the organization, which is the re-implementation of the AWB, restrictions on private sales of firearms, etc.

Silence implies consent. If you and your state party disagreed strongly with the national platform, it's not noted..anywhere.

And once again, I go back to the whole question of honesty. You didn't work on 'the' platform. You worked on an individual state one at best, which does not counter the national organization's stated desire to restrict our rights as gun owners.

Sinixstar
November 9, 2008, 10:55 AM
If you want to nit-pick over semantics - fine. I forgot the word "local" - there was no dishonest intent, it was an oversight. Brain moves faster than my hands.
The point i was trying to make - is not all democrats are trying to take your guns away.

The "nothing whatsoever about guns" in Nevada should also tell you a few things. Think about who's running the senate right now, and the state he's from. I can tell you many of us have already made our distaste for the great Senator Harry known - he knows he very well may face a challenge for his seat from his own party as it is. He lets gun control get anywhere near the senate - he's done for. Period. He's not going to let Pelosi put him in that spot.
It's in the national platform as a holdout from Clinton. Again, it's on page 50/59 and got a whopping 4 lines. Nobody wants to make this an issue. The republicans don't even want to make it an issue - you look at the GOP platform, and there's literally 1 line about the 2nd (page 47) in an intro paragraph.
The whole topic is toxic to both parties politically right now, and even more so to dems. Everything going on in the world, what do you think we'll look like if we're focused on banning guns?

rfurtkamp
November 9, 2008, 11:13 AM
Everything going on in the world, what do you think we'll look like if we're focused on banning guns?


It'll be packaged as a broader 'change' to promote the common good.

After all, we're dealing with the national leader of the Democratic Party calling for the same exact anti-gun options in his campaign for 'change' (spare some, mister) as the national platform.

It's part of his overall package.

You expect us to honestly believe that something in the party platform, endorsed by the candiate himself, and backed by his personal voting history in Illinois and the Senate isn't going to be an issue?

And this is where I revert to fools and idiots and morons, because it appears that's what we're being made out to be.

rfurtkamp
November 9, 2008, 11:16 AM
And forgot,


The point i was trying to make - is not all democrats are trying to take your guns away.

No, Joe Biden supports my right to have an over/under Beretta.

The problem is, I have a MP5.

That's a weapon that, to the Obama campaign and the national party, belongs on 'foreign battlefields', not on US soil.

You're a Democrat. Your state party has not repudiated this disgusting nonsense.

Individual members trying to convince us gun control is a dead issue in the party and that we'll be alright is like the one solitary member of the all-white, all-male country club telling us how he has black friends.

Sinixstar
November 9, 2008, 11:29 AM
no, i'm telling you it's not a priority. Given that fact, I personally would be very surprised if it comes up in any serious discussion in the next four years.

You know how it will come up? It will come up as something we take off the table. It's the oldest used car salesman trick in the book. Overstate your position, and negotiate down. D's do it to R's, R's do it D's. Unfortunately that's how the game is played.
Another example of this is the fairness doctrine. You really think we want the fairness doctrine?!?!?! We ran circles around the McCain campaign in terms of media, you think we really want a situation where McCain would have been able to keep up for free?

We're still talking about this in terms of D vs R though - and that's NOT what it comes down to. There are plenty of D's who support the 2nd, and plenty of R's who oppose it. It's not a clear-cut party issue. We have to stop looking at it that way.

I can tell you that we're not pushing the issue internally, quite the opposite in fact. The only way it even sees the light of day - is if there's enough solid republican support to put it over the top. That's why we have to stop looking at it through party lenses. We're putting pressure on dems to leave this alone. You guys need to put pressure on Rs to leave it alone. We all have to stop browbeating eachother over the head with it - cause we're working against it eachother. Doesn't make any sense.

moooose102
November 9, 2008, 11:31 AM
look, my dad was a big supporter of the democratic party. he never registered as one, because he didnt want to be held to vote only democraticly. he felt that doing so was infringing on his freedom to vote his concience. personally, i lean twords republicans. simply because in my eyes, the democrats have to much anti gun and right to life and other social program baggage tied to their party. that being said, mr sinixstar can be a democrat, and not like the typical democratic veiw on weapons. unfortunatly, if he votes democraticly all the time, it just perpetuates the democratic veiw point, no matter of his own feeling. so do not call a person a liar if you do not have facts to back them up. just because he is a democrat, does not mean he wants our guns taken away. some democrats enjoy shooting sports also. just like some republicans hate guns. personally, i wish they would do away with political parties all together, and every individule votes his own concience. then come election time, you would simply look at the politicians voting record and decide if his values were similar enough to yours to re-elect that person. if not, then you start looking for a candidate who's veiws are similar to your own.

rfurtkamp
November 9, 2008, 11:33 AM
Given that fact, I personally would be very surprised if it comes up in any serious discussion in the next four years.


The American people, including gun owners on DU, don't believe you - they're busily stocking up.


You know how it will come up? It will come up as something we take off the table. It's the oldest used car salesman trick in the book. Overstate your position, and negotiate down. D's do it to R's, R's do it D's. Unfortunately that's how the game is played.


So put some of that 'change' in that was promised. This right is not negotiable, period.

That's right, 'change' is just a campaign slogan.

And that's where we go back to the divide.

One party actively supports gun control, the other is ambivalent to somewhat opposed.

I can tell you that we're not pushing the issue internally, quite the opposite in fact. The only way it even sees the light of day - is if there's enough solid republican support to put it over the top.


If nothing has come to pass in two years, we might start to believe the duck that is quacking might not be a duck.

Right now, the duck is a duck. It looks like one, it swims like one, it votes like one, it has policy statements like one.

Go make some 'change' - because trust me, gun owners don't believe a word of it.

rfurtkamp
November 9, 2008, 11:34 AM
so do not call a person a liar if you do not have facts to back them up.


There was a definite falsehood perpetrated here, that the Democratic Party had no firearms provisions in its platform.

Hence, a lie.

Sinixstar
November 9, 2008, 11:40 AM
Individual members trying to convince us gun control is a dead issue in the party and that we'll be alright is like the one solitary member of the all-white, all-male country club telling us how he has black friends.

And therein lies the problem. In '93 and '94 - those laws passed due to republican support. Even then democrats voted against it - and if the same bills came up today, even more democrats would vote against it. In the '94 AWB, there were a grand total of 4 no votes in the senate. 1 R, 1 D, and 2 I's. Tell me how that's "democrat's taking guns away" - you guys voted for it too!

Are there democrats who want to ban guns? sure. There's republicans too. That's why i keep saying you can't look at this as a D vs R issue. There's plenty on both sides that are for and against.
To use your analogy - your statements are like the white guy in the all white country club trying to say he ONLY has black friends.

Sinixstar
November 9, 2008, 11:43 AM
There was a definite falsehood perpetrated here, that the Democratic Party had no firearms provisions in its platform.

Hence, a lie.

No, I said the platform I voted on didn't mention a word about guns. By your own words, that is not a lie. Again, nit-picking details though.

Sinixstar
November 9, 2008, 11:44 AM
There was a definite falsehood perpetrated here, that the Democratic Party had no firearms provisions in its platform.

Hence, a lie.

No, I said the platform I voted on didn't mention a word about guns. By your own words, that is not a lie. Again, nit-picking details though.

Art Eatman
November 9, 2008, 01:15 PM
It's bad enough that people poop political pap into the legal forum. Even worse, here.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Right to bear arms ....gun grab" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!