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

Sam1911 said:

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

Click to expand...

Yep.

Someone argues above that a "liberal" cannot be pro-gun because they don't hold the proper view of the Constitution. I'd suggest that many conservatives don't either.

For example, I've heard a lot of conservatives say things like "well if you're not doing anything wrong, let them search. I have nothing to hide!" A statement like that completely misses the point of search warrants, illegal search and seizure, and the presumption of innocence.

I've heard others talk about the rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights with the mistaken impression that they're the only rights we should expect to have protected. In fact,
some of the Founders feared even writing a Bill of Rights at all for that exact reason.

Now my intention here isn't to provoke an argument or stretch the bounds of the rules we have in this forum - only to try and make sure that we as gun owners (many of whom are conservative) don't fall into an echo chamber of our own making.

And that's neither "wrong" nor illogical...

Click to expand...

Of course. What you stated is the reality for a great deal of people. I feel that we are fortunate in that we, as a nation that is relatively unique, have people who have the "luxury" of being able to "fight the good fight" so to speak, to try to keep our rights and freedoms alive, and to, hopefully as a nation, empower or at least educate those others who may not have the luxury of being able to do so. Even a person with other priorities at the forefront of their cycle of life can certainly appreciate the concept of the intent of the 2A.

Discussions of ideas such as freedom vs tyranny, etc, may not mean much to someone who is trying to take care of a starving family from day to day, or simply working to make ends meet while falling a little deeper and deeper into the hole with each paycheck, or even wanting the stock market to keep going up to maximize the wad of cash in their 401k. To them, these ideas may be academic at best. Again, Maslow's hierarchy of needs certainly has a say; however, they can certainly at least appreciate the concept. Why would anyone belittle them?

There are indeed those who choose to remain ignorant, or will simply vote for anyone who promises to "give them stuff", whether it's free college, health care, or a strong stock market. They may simply not care about what they consider to be a purely academic, faraway notion. There are also people who couldn't care less about living under tyranny, as long as it doesn't directly affect them. Not everyone fought in the American Revolution, and not everyone in this country cares one way or another about our constitution and the liberties we have. That's just a simple fact. There are people either in, or want to be in power who will use this to further their agendas. It is what it is. It can be frustrating discussing this stuff with them. It is also frustrating when one realizes that they can vote, and have no qualms with voting away liberties, even if those liberties are for them, as well. That's pretty much the human condition.

We are fortunate that we live in a nation that has high ideals for liberty, and that we have a constitution designed to protect those liberties. Such a design is a rare thing, and given the nature of humanity in general, it is difficult to protect, and requires constant vigilance and enlightenment. It is certainly not the norm. It took a lot of enlightenment, luck, and hard work to create it. It certainly won't be easy to keep it.

Hence, these discussions.

At the end of any given day, probably 1/3 of the people in America don't care about guns at all. I have issues that have a lot of people seriously torqued up right now that I don't even care how it turns out...just couldn't care less.

1/3 of the people are probably nominally pro-gun. 1/3 are probably nominally anti-gun. Out of each of these thirds is a small proportion of people with passion, rational or otherwise.

Thus, a lot of people in America will watch the sun rise the same as it always does no matter who is in the White House or who has what right vis-à-vis firearms.

My point? It is hard for both extremes of this topic to spread the passion. Thus, other issues still make a lot of sense to keep in the forefront.

I do think, milquetoast as my post has been thus far, that the election of 2016 will in fact see guns made a key topic which, despite what so many think, we will not have seen for several election cycles. This year, there are people with passion to curtail gun ownership in the mix. Vote wisely.

A point that should be made is that if the 2nd Amendment can be ignored, ALL of the Bill of Rights can be ignored. We are already seeing how the 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are being swept aside.

kwguy said:

There are indeed those who choose to remain ignorant, or will simply vote for anyone who promises to "give them stuff", whether it's free college, health care, or a strong stock market. They may simply not care about what they consider to be a purely academic, faraway notion. There are also people who couldn't care less about living under tyranny, as long as it doesn't directly affect them. Not everyone fought in the American Revolution, and not everyone in this country cares one way or another about our constitution and the liberties we have. That's just a simple fact. There are people either in, or want to be in power who will use this to further their agendas. It is what it is. It can be frustrating discussing this stuff with them. It is also frustrating when one realizes that they can vote, and have no qualms with voting away liberties, even if those liberties are for them, as well. That's pretty much the human condition.

Click to expand...

Vern Humphrey said:

A point that should be made is that if the 2nd Amendment can be ignored, ALL of the Bill of Rights can be ignored. We are already seeing how the 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are being swept aside.

Click to expand...

Well said gentlemen!

HoosierQ said:

I do think, milquetoast as my post has been thus far, that the election of 2016 will in fact see guns made a key topic which, despite what so many think, we will not have seen for several election cycles. This year, there are people with passion to curtail gun ownership in the mix. Vote wisely.

Click to expand...

The problem is that to vote for the major candidate who's not overtly anti-RKBA (I happen to think he just says what the crowd wants to hear), you also have to accept a package that tarnishes the reputation of all who throw in with him - including the RKBA community. It's basically either lose now, or lose later. It's kind of like trying to decide which toilet to drown yourself in.

What a miserable choice to have to make.

goon said:

The problem is that to vote for the major candidate who's not overtly anti-RKBA (I happen to think he just says what the crowd wants to hear), you also have to accept a package that tarnishes the reputation of all who throw in with him - including the RKBA community. It's basically either lose now, or lose later. It's kind of like trying to decide which toilet to drown yourself in.

What a miserable choice to have to make.

Click to expand...

Mae West famously said, when faced with a choice between two evils, she always picks the one she hasn't tried before.

The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, created a government with three branches - each with it's own powers and responsibilities, and each balanced to act as a check on the others. We have seen where an overbearing Executive has tried to force the adoption of gun control legislation, only to be foiled by a Congress partly controlled by his own party.

At the moment we are faced by two likely candidates, one who is determined to advance the gun control agenda proposed by her party, and a second who's exact beliefs' may (or may not) be questionable.

But it should be clearly kept in mind that neither can accomplish their end without the support and consent of the Legislature.

Old Fuff - Thank you for the reminder.

Exactly.

Simple question: WHY is the right to keep and bear arms even a political issue at all? It is a right, end of conversation. Why do the major political candidates fail to see this?

orpington said:

Simple question: WHY is the right to keep and bear arms even a political issue at all? It is a right, end of conversation. Why do the major political candidates fail to see this?

Click to expand...

Because it isn't actually a Right, in practice.

Because ''all Rights have limits and restrictions" is something people say, a lot

Because there are people who want control and will vote for control and don't care what the Constitution says

The trouble with making this a Democrat issue is that the leadership of the Republican Party also does not want any threat to their gravy train. I was formerly a cheerleader for them as I believed in the Reagan revolution but Mitch McConnell and the RINO parade through the House has burned me out.......

Old Fuff said:

The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, created a government with three branches - each with it's own powers and responsibilities, and each balanced to act as a check on the others. We have seen where an overbearing Executive has tried to force the adoption of gun control legislation, only to be foiled by a Congress partly controlled by his own party.

At the moment we are faced by two likely candidates, one who is determined to advance the gun control agenda proposed by her party, and a second who's exact beliefs' may (or may not) be questionable.

But it should be clearly kept in mind that neither can accomplish their end without the support and consent of the Legislature.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are dangerously wrong. If Hillary is elected she will have the opportunity to appoint FOUR Supreme Court justices, and she will appoint all far left, anti gun activists. Just one gun case brought before them will neuter the 2A, probably forever, taking our rights with it.

Also, what happens of the Legislature goes Democrat?

It sounds counterintuitive, but the more radical these nitwits are, the better. When they propose widespread bans and say that nobody should have a gun, it only distances them from people who were on the fence with regards to what party with which to side. It's better that the liberals say things like that because the citizen who takes a bolt action .22 out once a year to shoot with his grandson who might not care about mag capacities, ARs, and other staples of the gun control battle is now dissuaded by them in addition to the avid gun enthusiasts. People who dislike guns are probably already backing these nitwits anyways.

Neo-Luddite said:

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.

Click to expand...

excellent point here. i no longer enter target. i go out of my way to shop at kroger. i wish that there is a list of antigunners' businesses and charities so i know how to vote with my wallet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

old lady new shooter said:

Mae West famously said, when faced with a choice between two evils, she always picks the one she hasn't tried before.

Click to expand...

When I have the choice between two evils, I withdraw my consent.

But I have a feeling that's possibly going to earn me even more derision than liberals get around here.

When I have the choice between two evils, I withdraw my consent.

Click to expand...

Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils, automatically votes for the greater of those evils.

The problem is, we should have been working hard twenty or thirty years ago or more. We got where we are by sitting around and complaining while the liberals worked their butts off -- and simply out competed us.

Vern Humphrey said:

Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils, automatically votes for the greater of those evils.

The problem is, we should have been working hard twenty or thirty years ago or more. We got where we are by sitting around and complaining while the liberals worked their butts off -- and simply out competed us.

Click to expand...

That's funny, because according to the "other" side my abstention from the polls somehow is a vote for what I assume is your side. Remember, your evil isn't necessarily my evil. In my eyes, the term "greater of two evils" is meaningless given that they're both evil.

At the end of the day either of the two evils are going to make us worse off, and a lot of innocent people are going to suffer. I refuse to be complicit in that, and I do not believe meaningful change will ever come from voting for the "lesser" of two evils. That mindset got us where we are now in terms of Federal overreach, and that mindset is going to carry us into the authoritarian future we're already slipping into.

Pilot said:

Sorry, but you are dangerously wrong. If Hillary is elected she will have the opportunity to appoint FOUR Supreme Court justices, and she will appoint all far left, anti gun activists. Just one gun case brought before them will neuter the 2A, probably forever, taking our rights with it.

Also, what happens of the Legislature goes Democrat?

Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing this up!

This is really the biggest issue that we face and should concern every gun owner in this country. We have a lot at stake this time. It is not just four years of putting up with Hillary. But it is who Hillary picks as Supreme Court Justice that potentially can result in decades of anti-gun rulings well after she leaves office....
.

At the end of the day either of the two evils are going to make us worse off, and a lot of innocent people are going to suffer. I refuse to be complicit in that, and I do not believe meaningful change will ever come from voting for the "lesser" of two evils. That mindset got us where we are now in terms of Federal overreach, and that mindset is going to carry us into the authoritarian future we're already slipping into.

Click to expand...

And yet by refusing to participate in the political process you ARE complicit.

Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of Evil is for good men to do nothing." When you do nothing, you contribute to the triumph of Evil.

Vern Humphrey said:

And yet by refusing to participate in the political process you ARE complicit.

Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of Evil is for good men to do nothing." When you do nothing, you contribute to the triumph of Evil.

Click to expand...

Look, you can spit the same tired propaganda at me all you want, but my moral values will never allow me to consent to the intentional oppression of other people, even if they promise some things that I would enjoy personally. You can tell me I'm complicit all I want, but at the end of the day anyone voting for a candidate is explicitly consenting to the outcome of the election, whether or not their candidate wins.

Everybody on this forum likes to spit out the same old statements about how other people will vote for just about anyone as long as they are given something without realizing that they do the same thing albeit with a cosmetic swap of values.

Look, you can spit the same tired propaganda at me all you want, but my moral values will never allow me to consent to the intentional oppression of other people

Click to expand...

Your moral values ALREADY consent to the intentional oppression of other people. By doing nothing, you help evil win.