Quantcast
DNC Platform Committee Member Says Nobody ‘Should Have A Gun’ - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > General Gun Discussions

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 8, 2016, 07:28 PM   #1
gbran
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 21, 2003
Location: california
Posts: 2,901
DNC Platform Committee Member Says Nobody ‘Should Have A Gun’

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/08/dn...#ixzz4B1nf0Ne7

By the end of their (DNC) convention a party platform will be adopted and an anti gun plank in some form will be adopted.
gbran is offline  
Old June 8, 2016, 07:33 PM   #2
old lady new shooter
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 26, 2015
Posts: 1,283
The question is, how many people that would otherwise vote Dem, will that dissuade from doing so?
old lady new shooter is offline  
Old June 8, 2016, 07:35 PM   #3
LeonCarr
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 20, 2003
Location: DFW Texas
Posts: 3,737
I'll bet their bodyguards will still have guns.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
__________________
How often does an armed criminal/enemy combatant who is intent on inflicting death or grave bodily harm on a law abiding citizen/law enforcement officer/soldier, stand out in the open, squarely facing you, with his hands at his side and holding perfectly still while allowing you to shoot at him and all the while not shooting back at you?
LeonCarr is offline  
Old June 8, 2016, 07:37 PM   #4
Shovelhead
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 24, 2004
Location: Northern VA / Burkeville, VA
Posts: 698
Another question is, How many will vote Democratic, and ignore another gun law?

Thinking Washington DC, Baltimore, New York, Chicago, etc voters.
__________________
Courage is being scared to death, but saddling up anyway
John Wayne
Shovelhead is offline  
Old June 8, 2016, 07:40 PM   #5
Plan2Live
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 17, 2011
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 1,588
DNC Platform Committee Member Says Nobody ‘Should Have A Gun’

"DNC Platform Committee Member Says Nobody ‘Should Have A Gun’ "

And this is news?
__________________
Gun Control - The ability to walk out of the gun store without buying another gun.
Plan2Live is offline  
Old June 8, 2016, 09:27 PM   #6
Old Fuff
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 24, 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 23,669
Quote:
By the end of their (DNC) convention a party platform will be adopted and an anti gun plank in some form will be adopted.
They already have one, and have had for decades. It dates back to at least the late 1960's.

Problem for them is that some (but not many) office holder's pay more attention to what's in their mail from back home, rather then what's in the platform.
Old Fuff is offline  
Old June 9, 2016, 01:03 AM   #7
Swing
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Location: The Off-World Colonies
Posts: 1,409
Quote:
"DNC Platform Committee Member Says Nobody ‘Should Have A Gun’ "

And this is news?
Pretty much. Most of them lack the intellectual honesty to admit it, but it is still their mindset.
Swing is offline  
Old June 9, 2016, 06:53 AM   #8
Paul7
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 3, 2008
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 764
I have no idea why any gun owner would vote Democratic.
Paul7 is offline  
Old June 9, 2016, 08:11 AM   #9
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 5,975
Quote:
I have no idea why any gun owner would vote Democratic
"Because some issues are more important" than our basic civil rights, or some such hogwash.

TCB
barnbwt is offline  
Old June 9, 2016, 09:06 AM   #10
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 32,777
Quote:
"Because some issues are more important" than our basic civil rights, or some such hogwash.
It is important to understand why people feel the way they do or you're never going to come up with a means to persuade them to see your version of the truth. And without that ability to understand, relate, and communicate, there is no avenue besides brute force to get society to do what you want. (And, good luck with that.)

There are A LOT of gun owners in this country. There are a FEW gun owners for whom no issue is more important than their personal opinion that any firearms law violates the utter sanctity of the simplest reading of the 2nd Amendment.

You can say that another gun owner's conviction that it is more important to vote for someone who he thinks will help him keep his job/career alive -- or will protect his 1st Amendment rights or a right to privacy, or will support a certain version of "women's rights", or wants the government to provide more of a social safety net, more health care coverage, and make education more freely available, or doesn't interject pop-religious interpretation into scientific, environmental, and public policy decisions, doesn't support a party's foreign policy and views on war-making, or who just can't stand to vote for a certain candidate for reasons of distrust and distaste -- is more important than the risk that a candidate might be able to pass another incrementally bad gun law, is misguided by "some such hogwash."

But in saying that you're simply putting your own personal values (your own "hogwash" if you will) above theirs, as if there's anything more than your own opinion giving you the higher ground -- when there is not. Your views of "our basic civil rights" over their view of "our basic civil rights."


Remember, for every one of us who says:
"I can't believe those IDIOTS would vote for THAT guy when he's going to try to ban our 30-round magazines, just because he's all environmentalist and pro-gay-rights. Don't those IDIOTS understand that the 2nd Amendment is what protects all their other rights?!?"

There's ten or a hundred others out there who say:
"I can't believe those IDIOTS care so much about having 20 or 50 or 100 bullets in their gun that they'd vote for some retrograde nut who won't work to make health care affordable to our citizens, would deny basic human rights to people who want to be married to each other, and who thinks reducing pollution is stupid because we're living in the "end times" anyway and the battle of Armageddon is just around the corner. Are these IDIOTS so short-sighted and selfish that they'd vote for THAT guy?!?"

If you just call "hogwash" and dismiss those who've done the math a little differently than you you're going to find yourself in a very uncomfortable place, probably sooner than later.
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
For Sale

Last edited by Sam1911; June 9, 2016 at 09:42 AM.
Sam1911 is offline  
Old June 9, 2016, 09:15 AM   #11
dogrunner
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: E/Cntrl Fla.
Posts: 1,180
And Sam, it is highly unlikely that one could EVER persuade the hard core anti movement to even consider the firearm rights issue as legitimate.

Better we spend our time and resources in 'eternal battle' with that thought process than trying to deal with it from the perspective of cold hard logic.
dogrunner is offline  
Old June 9, 2016, 09:22 AM   #12
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 32,777
I think you miss my point.

I'm not talking about the "hard core anti" wingnuts. There aren't really very many of them and you won't change their minds.

I'm talking about the friends and neighbors and average Jane and Joe Citizen out there who isn't a "nut" either way. Why SHOULD they ever care about your gun rights? Why SHOULD they understand your reasons for holding your nose and voting for the miserable jackwagon the party you're supposed to be with is putting up for Senator, Representative or POTUS? If you think we're just going to outnumber them...oh...crap, guess not.

Better find a way to talk to them and understand them, and deal with them without dismissing them and insulting them, or they're going to be your enemies just by default.
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
For Sale
Sam1911 is offline  
Old June 9, 2016, 10:30 AM   #13
Tinpig
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 26, 2009
Location: SE Massachusetts
Posts: 854
Two excellent posts by Sam1911.

I run into a lot of people in Massachusetts who are either against guns or indifferent to them. Many of them are family members, many of them are Democrats. I've found that calling them "nuts" and their opinions "hogwash" simply backs them further into their ignorance and fear.

Often, you can talk to them conversationally and offer to take them to the range. This exposes them to rational gun-owners, the sheer pleasure of shooting, and demystifies their brainwashing about the "cult of the gun." Anti-gun fervor (like a lot of other "anti" sentiment) is usually based on unfamiliarity and fear.

Some people we will never reach. But some, after discussions about the innate right to self-defense and especially after a fun afternoon at the range, begin to understand. They may never buy a gun but the ones who do "get it" may stop trying to take away ours.

Tinpig
__________________
Quote:
"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1903
Tinpig is offline  
Old June 9, 2016, 12:11 PM   #14
P5 Guy
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 13, 2004
Location: Tampa Bay area
Posts: 1,484
Hasn't the DNC had some sort of anti-gun platform plank for decades? At least back into the 1930s.
P5 Guy is offline  
Old June 9, 2016, 03:10 PM   #15
Red Wind
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 13, 2013
Location: Rock Harbor,Florida
Posts: 2,049
Tinpig, excellent post. Many lucid,valid points. We must try to use rational arguments on these people.

Calling them nuts or progressive whack jobs just backs them further into their corner.

The lady from the DNC, certainly rich and feeling entitled ,has never been exposed to the big picture of the positive side of gun ownership.
__________________
"Beyond a certain point all dangers are equal."
-Raymond Chandler The Long Goodbye 1953

Last edited by Red Wind; June 9, 2016 at 03:16 PM.
Red Wind is offline  
Old June 9, 2016, 06:37 PM   #16
Neo-Luddite
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 13, 2006
Location: Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
Posts: 2,952
We're done spending money at Claire's (pre-teen/teen girls' fashions), her family founded the company. She's on the Board here, too: http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=lsKWLbPJLnF She should be knowledgeable about the utter vulnerability of unarmed people against totalitarian regimes but somehow, in her mind, a government monopoly on power is best.
__________________
Jack was on his feet.
"We'll have rules!" he cried excitedly. "Lots of rules! Then when anyone breaks 'em--"
William Golding, The Lord of the Flies
Neo-Luddite is offline  
Old June 9, 2016, 06:48 PM   #17
Vern Humphrey
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 30, 2002
Location: Deep in the Ozarks
Posts: 17,815
Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? She IS knowledgeable about the utter vulnerability of unarmed people against totalitarian regimes, but she intends to be one of the power elite -- and how would it be if the peasants had the means to resist, or even overthrow her.
Vern Humphrey is offline  
Old June 10, 2016, 12:57 AM   #18
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 5,975
Quote:
"Because some issues are more important" than our basic civil rights, or some such hogwash."
It is important to understand why people feel the way they do
I absolutely understand why; they're afraid of something in front of them and can look no further. Be it money trouble, personal security, moral threats. The basics. The fears manipulated by tyrants throughout history to maintain a hold over an otherwise uncooperative populace. The party whom the anti-gunners have shacked up with currently hardly has a monopoly on this in America.

Gun rights, as we all know, are rather 'fundamental' at the end of the day, being essentially a baseline indicator of a government's belief its existence is justified/justifiable*, also rather binary at the end of the day, and most importantly not easily reclaimed once lost. Recognizing this requires an educated, logical, long, view; mindful of history and precedent, and wary of unintended consequences or ulterior motives. Healthy skepticism and then some, one might say. Stated intentions of politicians and the present state of affairs play a limited role.

These things require thought, not persuasion or reaction. If a person can't see past their fear of something immediately in front of them, and adopt a strategic viewpoint, there's not much any arguments founded in that perspective can do for them. Yeah, education is possible, but obviously requires both a lot of time for all involved, as well as a rather high level of willingness on the part of the ignorant to expand their understanding --a person motivated by superficial fear is unable.

Our best bet is to prey upon the most contradictory cracks in the rationale for gun laws, and plant seeds of distrust for them as a panacea for society's problems. If possible, conveying onto them an appropriate sense of the betrayal by the people pushing these solutions. That's how I came to realize gun control had nothing at all to do with reducing crime, that the politicians promoting it were uniformly ignorant or outright liars, which led to the realization that without a crime-reduction purpose or effect, there was no reason for the laws to exist at all, other than to function as selectively-enforced punishment tools for authority figures (with the added benefit of theoretically insulating them from unrest, though I dispute the practical effect of gun control to this end)

In the end, they have to choose to hear our arguments, then think about whether their understanding needs additional information to resolve contradictions, and seek that which is necessary to do so. I did, initially because I believed it important I know how to operate and shoot a firearm (Boy Scouts background, no doubt). Someone with no such inclination would shut down the very first time they were contradicted.

We all know darn well we evangelical gun owners play but a small part in directing any of those steps of evolution, and are mostly useful as an available resource & good example.

TCB
*One could also argue gun rights measure some combination of; the rule of just law, individual liberty in general, and the consent of the governed granted to the government --which are themselves something of a three-legged stool, each crucial to each other and necessary for a healthy human society
barnbwt is offline  
Old June 10, 2016, 01:19 AM   #19
goon
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 20, 2003
Posts: 7,241
Sam1911 - right on.

If you can approach someone with respect as a person, not influenced by their politics or anything else, by just as a human being who might need you to help them carry their groceries to the car or help them change a tire, you'd sometimes be astounded what you can learn from them or teach them.

I've introduced several somewhat antis to guns, and two now own their own. One just bought her first AR-15. But they rarely vote conservative, and given the way things have played out lately, they may not ever. It is what it is, but it doesn't mean they don't appreciate the need for an armed populace or value the idea of self defense.

If I took the "us versus them" mentality, we'd have never become friends. Instead, I taught a liberal friend to use her new-to-her 1911 last night. Which course of action has improved my life and done the most good for the shooting community? I think we all can see the answer to that.
goon is offline  
Old June 10, 2016, 01:38 AM   #20
kwguy
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 17, 2012
Posts: 789
Quote:
they're afraid of something in front of them and can look no further. Be it money trouble, personal security, moral threats. The basics. The fears manipulated by tyrants throughout history to maintain a hold over an otherwise uncooperative populace.
Very well said. For many people, the basic importance of the 2A is overwhelmed by many other important "life factors", and is lost in in the day to day priorities of their own lives.

Kind of like Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
kwguy is offline  
Old June 10, 2016, 03:00 AM   #21
goon
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 20, 2003
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwguy
Very well said. For many people, the basic importance of the 2A is overwhelmed by many other important "life factors", and is lost in in the day to day priorities of their own lives.

Kind of like Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Or they feel pressed into a situation where they have to choose the rights that are most relevant to them in their daily lives. Sadly, there's a lot of disrespect of the population's rights from the entire political spectrum.

We should all be applying constant gentle pressure to have all of our rights respected, but even in the pro-gun camp, many lose sight of the big picture.
goon is offline  
Old June 10, 2016, 07:05 AM   #22
kwguy
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 17, 2012
Posts: 789
Quote:
We should all be applying constant gentle pressure to have all of our rights respected, but even in the pro-gun camp, many lose sight of the big picture.
Exactly. All of our rights are important. None of them should be infringed upon, or "picked and chosen" as to which ones are more important. I will say that the 2A represents the 'teeth', or force by which one would ultimately secure those rights for themselves, which may scare some people, since it represents power; however, being pro-gun, yet wanting to deny any of the other rights to someone is also un-constitutional.
kwguy is offline  
Old June 10, 2016, 09:04 AM   #23
TimSr
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 13, 2015
Location: Wayne co. Ohio
Posts: 1,452
Forums often like to pretend that party affiliation makes no difference, and it's not about one party or the other, so I'll commend the moderators for not locking this thread and telling us that the 2nd Amendment has proportional support on both sides. The number 2A champions on the democrat side are notably few. I repeatedly voted for our former democrat governor of Ohio as a state senator, and for governor. Now is running for US Senator, and has decided to adopt the party stance.

The 2A is not a single issue. It comes down to how a person views the US Constitution, whether as a conservative it means what it says, and what it was intended to mean when it was written, or as a liberal it is a "living document" meant to be twisted and contorted, and redefined based on the issues of the day, and evolution of the American English language.

There is no such thing as a pro 2A liberal, because of their view of the Constitution. There are pro-gun liberals who are willing to accept the traditional meaning of the 2A because they are pro-gun, but can just as easily reject and rewrite other traditional interpretations if conflicts with their personal sense of what should be.

A Conservative supports the 2A as a matter of principle, whether he is a gun owner or not. A liberal supports it if he has an interest in guns. We can't talk about other liberal issues here, such as abortion or gay marriage, but what we are talking about has nothing to do with whether you are for or against these issues. That is irrelevant to the conservative Constitutionalist. We support the 2nd Amendment because its a Constitutional right, that can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment. We don't have to have an opinion on gay marriage or abortion to understand that they are simply not addressed in the Constitution, which makes them state issues, which is where the discussion on them should take place. You can be pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage and still abhor the US Supreme Court for declaring them as originally intended Constitutional rights that have been sitting in the Constitution undiscovered for 200 years, when both issues clearly should have been handled in state legislatures.

To me, this is why you simply cannot have Constitutionalist liberals, and cannot depend on pro-gun liberals to support the 2nd Amendment as a Constitutional principle, while opposing Constitutionalism for the rest of it.
TimSr is offline  
Old June 10, 2016, 10:29 AM   #24
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 32,777
Quote:
Very well said. For many people, the basic importance of the 2A is overwhelmed by many other important "life factors", and is lost in in the day to day priorities of their own lives.
And that's neither "wrong" nor illogical. A gun owner may go their entire lives without being even unpleasantly inconvenienced by a gun law. The shooting activities they enjoy doing may not be threatened or prohibited or altered in any way by the gun control laws that exist or that are proposed. And they will almost certainly live their whole lives (as did their great grandparents, and as will their children's children) without facing a totalitarian regime that breaks apart the rule of law and representative government as they understand it -- so the idea of the 2nd Amendment as our last security against tyranny will seem exceedingly remote, if not laughable.

Meanwhile, that gun owner may face dozens of inconveniences, intrusions, prohibitions, outrages, and insults from other laws (and the people who promulgate them) which impact him or her very directly daily, in very serious ways.

For the most part the majority of us here have the luxury, if you will, of not being particularly put out, offended, or excluded from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by the platform planks of those in politics who pay some lip service to RKBA. It is generally -- for a lot of gun owners -- pretty easy to vote for the guy who says he's "pro gun" because we don't care about, or we accept being told we shouldn't care about, or can manage to overlook our true feelings about, the issues that so hurt our gun-owning pal across the street.

And conveniently, we can say that we hold the true, right, "conservative" high ground, true to the intent of the Founders, standing as patriots against whatever tyranny may someday arise, and so forth.

For the gun owner across the street, that may be a completely self-damaging stance to take, to vote "for the Constitution" so to speak, because he's empowering the people who'll hurt him today, for real, materially. We can tell him he's a selfish, short-sighted, fool for not seeing the bigger picture and voting as we would.

But not very many of "us" gun nuts would be so high-minded and "wise" if the situation was reversed. How many of us would (or DO?) vote against gun rights in order to protect other freedoms and rights?

So derision and dismissal of the other guy and his concerns are inappropriate and self-defeating.
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
For Sale
Sam1911 is offline  
Old June 10, 2016, 10:42 AM   #25
Ellsnjel
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 22, 2015
Location: Florida
Posts: 76
How is this news? It's been part of the party platform since they were putting on white sheets and burning crosses at night. The only thing that has changed is their stated motivation for such policies although they occasionally slip up like when Mike Bloomberg said young minority men shouldn't be allowed to own guns
__________________
If .45 ACP was meant to use small pistol primers John Browning would have designed it that way
Ellsnjel is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2016 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.