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

[old lady new shooter]

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

I also no longer shop at Target. A side reward is that a little online shopping turned up better prices elsewhere for the stuff I used to buy there.

 

[old lady new shooter]

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.

Twenty or thirty years ago we were turned inward, concentrating on our own individual behavior, and never imagined our country could become what it now has. Meanwhile the left were working assiduously to accomplish their goal.

 

[old lady new shooter]

If I had a penny for every time someone has claimed that anything besides explicit support of the status quo is surrendering to evil, I'd have enough money to hold major political office in the US.

If I've done a bad job of explaining it sufficiently, let me make it explicitly clear. I am not concerned with getting better candidates because I don't believe such a thing exists.

I am not concerned with getting a better candidate because I am not only concerned with the candidate, but our entire system of government.

I am not concerned with getting a better candidate because I am more concerned with getting people to see past the lesser of two evils mentality to see the larger systematic problems that we have that preempt majority representation as a method of reform.

You can characterize what I do as surrendering to evil all you want, but at the end of the day my goal is to fight against evil instead of campaign for it and tell people it's their duty to support it.

So what system of government do you want?

And what do you propose to do during the interim when one or the other of the current candidates is in office? How will each of them further or hinder your wish?

 

[barnbwt]

Twenty or thirty years ago we were turned inward, concentrating on our own individual behavior, and never imagined our country could become what it now has. Meanwhile the left were working assiduously to accomplish their goal.

Hmm, I'll need to do some research; the thought just occurred to me that gun control may correlate with periods of sustained or rapid currency inflation in this country (hypothesis: the feds are fully aware inflationary policies are theft from the citizens, and are fearful the civil unrest they are likely inducing may turn on them). The rapid inflation of the post-Depression years, the Seventies, and steady/strong inflation of the 90's were all preceded by dogged gun control efforts spanning years. We presently have that whole QE thing waiting to pour currency into the market right now, and here comes Hillary trumpeting gun control, almost as if on cue...might just be that gun control tracks with social unrest, which itself is driven by inflationary policies (anything to attribute less malice to events, I suppose)

TCB

 

[DeepSouth]

So what system of government do you want?

Someone asked me that last week, after some thought I decided I'd like a Constitutional Republic, with 3 separate but equal branches of government. It doesn't exist now but it worked good for 140ish years, for the most part anyway.

 

[jstert]

Hmm, I'll need to do some research; the thought just occurred to me that gun control may correlate with periods of sustained or rapid currency inflation in this country (hypothesis: the feds are fully aware inflationary policies are theft from the citizens, and are fearful the civil unrest they are likely inducing may turn on them). The rapid inflation of the post-Depression years, the Seventies, and steady/strong inflation of the 90's were all preceded by dogged gun control efforts spanning years. We presently have that whole QE thing waiting to pour currency into the market right now, and here comes Hillary trumpeting gun control, almost as if on cue...might just be that gun control tracks with social unrest, which itself is driven by inflationary policies (anything to attribute less malice to events, I suppose)



TCB

very interesting idea. makes sense. please post what you find.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[old lady new shooter]

How do you propose to MAKE them wake up?

Here's an idea -- offer them better candidates. But that means YOU and I must recruit those candidates. And we have to start now and work for the next 30 years or so, starting at the bottom and supporting good men and women at low levels, and helping them up the ladder.

The GOP had 16 other candidates besides Trump, many of them excellent IMO. Trump won the popular vote. While I can see reasons why several people I liked did not win the votes needed for the nomination, I can also see a lot of reasons why Trump should not have won. But here we are. We have to be realistic. Now the choice is Hillary or Trump. Being that Hillary wants to totally emasculate the 2nd Amendment and has made no secret of that, while Trump has come out strongly pro-2A and published a list of very good people he would choose from for the Supreme Court, and last but not least has sons who are avid shooters, although some don't trust him because his position on guns has changed, I think it's pretty clear we have a better chance with him.

 

[danez71]

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

Since these federal proposals wont affect the anti gun states much at all, if any, please explain why should any of the anti gun states help you when you aren't willing to help them.

 

[barnbwt]

Because it can actually be stopped with your help, unlike your domestic initiatives

No one "deserves" advocacy resources with no realistic expected benefit as an outcome --might be a foreign concept to some.

TCB

 

[goon]

The GOP had 16 other candidates besides Trump, many of them excellent IMO. Trump won the popular vote. While I can see reasons why several people I liked did not win the votes needed for the nomination, I can also see a lot of reasons why Trump should not have won. But here we are. We have to be realistic. Now the choice is Hillary or Trump. Being that Hillary wants to totally emasculate the 2nd Amendment and has made no secret of that, while Trump has come out strongly pro-2A and published a list of very good people he would choose from for the Supreme Court, and last but not least has sons who are avid shooters, although some don't trust him because his position on guns has changed, I think it's pretty clear we have a better chance with him.

That assumes that gun rights are the only issue you care about. Some gun owners may appreciate Trump's lip service to gun rights (though he is prone to wild variations on the same subject in any given week), but loathe his point of view on other issues. For example, the no-fly/no-buy list.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Originally posted by old lady new shooter

The GOP had 16 other candidates besides Trump, many of them excellent IMO.

Exactly -- none of the other candidates had any popular "push" behind them. Some of them, like Ted Cruz got some traction, but the VOTERS didn't take a shine to them.

Originally posted by old lady new shooter
Trump won the popular vote.

Exactly right.

Originally posted by old lady new shooter
While I can see reasons why several people I liked did not win the votes needed for the nomination, I can also see a lot of reasons why Trump should not have won. But here we are. We have to be realistic. Now the choice is Hillary or Trump. Being that

What reasons are sufficient to trump the people's will? (No pun intended.)

Originally posted by old lady new shooter Hillary wants to totally emasculate the 2nd Amendment and has made no secret of that, while Trump has come out strongly pro-2A and published a list of very good people he would choose from for the Supreme Court, and last but not least has sons who are avid shooters, although some don't trust him because his position on guns has changed, I think it's pretty clear we have a better chance with him.

There is an old saying, "The perfect is the enemy of good enough." Many people demand the perfect candidate (while doing nothing to promote and groom such a candidate during the years before the election.)

The people have spoken. Trump is the candidate. It's now up to us to support him and defeat Hillary.

 

[barnbwt]

What reasons are sufficient to trump the people's will? (No pun intended.)

The fact that he had such a weak primary showing, for one, and the fact he's been declining preciptously ever since he lost his last competitor & has been largely out of the news vs the last six months. The fact he's been backsliding on several key issues he'd "evolved" on, namely gun control. Basically, all the stuff that was promised after the nomination fight to make a victory possible (media domination, effective attacks, unifying of the party, a more approachable tone to bring in less devoted voters, a clear & defined set of policy goals Trump himself would advocate for) --isn't happening. He still has a smaller campaign structure than Cruz had, isn't raising money, and at this point appears to be expecting the Party to handle message, marketing, research, analysis, advertizing, all funding, and outreach. Recall he didn't really worry about any of those things during the primary since it was all about his face getting on TV (which is already starting to lose appeal as a reliable ratings-generator)

The people spoke, and didn't particularly like any of the candidates, or they'd have attracted unanimity by the end, like in most contests. The point isn't for one guy to 'win,' or defeat their opponents, but to unify support behind one name. That didn't happen (simple fact) so it begs a more strategic hand. The primaries clearly showed about three guys had real support & an ability to direct a campaign; I don't see anything wrong with a party determining which of them would be the best strategic option since the voters could not. Sadly, a lot of folks would prefer to back anyone but that choice, since they no longer back the party (but are still working within it for some reason)

TCB

 

[danez71]

Because it can actually be stopped with your help, unlike your domestic initiatives

No one "deserves" advocacy resources with no realistic expected benefit as an outcome --might be a foreign concept to some.

TCB

But you're wrong about that.

Not only can it be stopped... it can also be reversed.


CA Dems lost their supermajority in the Senate in 2014... AND they lost it in the Assembly too.


http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-california-analysis-20141106-story.html

For a party sharply diminished by two decades of relentless setbacks in California, it passed as a major achievement for Republicans to capture more than a third of the seats in the state Senate and possibly the Assembly as well.

(ETA: The Dems did end up losing their Assembly supermajority after the article was written)

“What you're seeing is the Republican Party crawling its way back to relevance."

With some outside help, it would be easier to not only hold on to that, but also gain more ground.

Bloomberg has proven how outside of the state money can heavily influence the outcomes negatively. Its only logical that outside of the state money can also heavily influence results in a good way, too.


So why not support battles that CAN be won in one of the most influential states there is?

Then CA wouldn't be sending so many Dems, to Washington, like the CA AG will be going this year.

That would help you and the country as a whole.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The fact that he had such a weak primary showing, for one,

Does that mean he didn't win? Because he did, you know?

And if we don't pick him, who do we pick? And more importantly, who GETS to choose the candidate?

Do the people rule, or do they not?

 

[old lady new shooter]

he's been declining preciptously ever since he lost his last competitor

No, the decline was because of the really stupid way he criticized the judge on the Trump University case. I hope he finally learned from that that he needs to control his mouth better. If he had said the judge belongs to an organization that advocated boycotting Trump businesses already last year, that would have been fine. Referencing the judge's ancestry was not.

I have some hope that he's learned his lesson, despite criticism I think it was fine for him to say he wanted to discuss the no fly-no buy thing with the NRA, after all they are the recognized spokesperson for all things gun. Much better than talking without thinking all the issues through and then having to walk it back later. Of course, the same people who previously criticized him for talking without thinking are now complaining that he's equivocating and not taking a clear position.

Just remember, Hillary is a thousand times worse in every respect.

 

[Red Wind]

Just remember, Hillary is a thousand times worse in every respect .

That sounded so good I had to say it again! Thank you,Ma'am

 

[barnbwt]

I think it was fine for him to say he wanted to discuss the no fly-no buy thing with the NRA

I believe they discussed this last December when he first proposed this type of measure (congrats on moving the Overton Window to secret lists, "pro-gun conservative" Donald Trump ). Only reason I can see him doing so again, was to coordinate strategies for getting it passed along to the legislature. He certainly wasn't getting an education on the topic from the NRA.

TCB

 

[blarby]

Because some issues are more important" than our basic civil rights, or some such hogwash.

Some folks happen to believe the right side tramples a good many basic civil rights OTHER than guns, and vote accordingly.

There are a whole new crop of young, socially progressive and yet for the most part remarkably open minded folks out there who believe that the GOP actively suppresses social evolution, and in a lot of cases they'd be right.

There are quite a few of these new young voters, and in short order, they'll outnumber and outvote the GOP every darn time. It's happening already.

So, we can either find some common voting ground together by engaging them in civil discourse, or dismiss their ideas out of hand as "Hogwash, or some other non-sense" and then lose our fight 3-5% points cumulatively over the next 3 election cycles.

Do the people rule, or do they not?

Yes they do. If we want to keep it that way, we need to find a way to make the new voting bloc understand exactly how important the 2nd A is in that respect, while working to find a solution to our fatality problem that unfortunately follows that right more and more of late. We have to find a way to work WITH THEM, not AGAINST THEM, or we WILL LOSE this fight by failing to engage with the new generation on the basis of voter attrition alone.


Our move.....

 

[taliv]

take a new shooter with you every time you go to the range.

 

[goon]

take a new shooter with you every time you go to the range.

Yep.
And resist the urge to dive headfirst into a crotchety old-man tirade about how "them Democrats is a-ruinin' the country!"

Even if you think you're right... even if you have a lot of valid points... it just makes you look like Yosimite Sam. The older generation has a lot of useful insight, and we can pick it up from you guys, but try being subtle about it. Start with the 10/22 or (or an old Marlin 39) and let things work on their own.

 

[Walkalong]

Good points goon, good points. Wow them with the experience, then work on them slow, don't scare them off.

 

[RavenTai]

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

This! I have had limited success using this tactic, person to person, friendly not pushy conversation, and if I can get any interest at all bring them to the range (my back yard) explain safety, demonstrate safety by your actions, enforce safety on the range. start with a bolt action 22, quiet no recoil, and then let them move up from there at thier own pace.

I won't reach a lot of people this way, maybe a dozen in my lifetime. But if all of us "gun nuts" do the same our rights and heritage will be passed in to our children. And that is the goal of it all.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk