Quantcast

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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by gbran, Jun 8, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gbran

    gbran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Location:
    california
  2. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,992
    The question is, how many people that would otherwise vote Dem, will that dissuade from doing so?
     
  3. LeonCarr

    LeonCarr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,821
    Location:
    At The Range
    I'll bet their bodyguards will still have guns.

    Just my .02,
    LeonCarr
     
  4. Shovelhead

    Shovelhead Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    707
    Location:
    Northern VA / Burkeville, VA
    Another question is, How many will vote Democratic, and ignore another gun law?

    Thinking Washington DC, Baltimore, New York, Chicago, etc voters.
     
  5. Plan2Live

    Plan2Live Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    "DNC Platform Committee Member Says Nobody ‘Should Have A Gun’ "

    And this is news?
     
  6. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    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. :evil:
     
  7. Swing

    Swing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,572
    Pretty much. Most of them lack the intellectual honesty to admit it, but it is still their mindset.
     
  8. Paul7

    Paul7 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,243
    Location:
    New Mexico
    I have no idea why any gun owner would vote Democratic.
     
  9. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "Because some issues are more important" than our basic civil rights, or some such hogwash.

    TCB
     
  10. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2016
  11. dogrunner

    dogrunner Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,187
    Location:
    E/Cntrl Fla.
    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.
     
  12. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    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.
     
  13. Tinpig

    Tinpig Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Messages:
    932
    Location:
    SE Massachusetts
    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
     
  14. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,826
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    Hasn't the DNC had some sort of anti-gun platform plank for decades? At least back into the 1930s.
     
  15. Red Wind

    Red Wind Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,419
    Location:
    Rock Harbor,Florida
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2016
  16. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,093
    Location:
    Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
    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.
     
  17. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,706
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    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.
     
  18. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    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
     
  19. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,250
    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.
     
  20. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    793
    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.
     
  21. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,250
    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.
     
  22. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    793
    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.
     
  23. TimSr

    TimSr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2015
    Messages:
    1,530
    Location:
    Wayne co. Ohio
    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.
     
  24. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    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.
     
  25. Ellsnjel

    Ellsnjel Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    Florida
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice