RNC 2nd Amendment Plank?
- Thread starter onerifle
- Start date
- Status
Taipei Personality
Member
Here you go:
Oh, sorry . . . wrong party.
Oh, sorry . . . wrong party.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
B
boofus
Guest
At least they believe it is a basic human right to keep and bear guns. I think the only gun rights you have under the Democrats is your right to be shot by a cop or ted kennedy's bodyguard.
Mulliga
Member
Prolly been posted before, but worth posting again...
DNC 2004 platform:
Mulliga's Translation for non-THR members:
DNC 2004 platform:
Mulliga's Translation for non-THR members:
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
I blogged about the 2000 2A planks for both parties some time ago.
DONK: http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2003_08_24_geekwitha45_archive.html#106193426029007358
Not Fit For Power
This is from the Democratic Party National Platform, 2000, page 25:
Quote:
-------------------------------------
Strong and Sensible Gun Laws.
A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn?t have them ? in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners.
The Columbine tragedy struck America?s heart, but in its wake Republicans have done nothing to keep guns away from those who should not have them.
Democrats believe that we should fight gun crime on all fronts ? with stronger laws and stronger enforcement.
That?s why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban.
We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since
1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent.
Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children.
We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America.
We support more federal gun prosecutors, ATF agents and inspectors, and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.
-------------------------------------
Sigh. Let's take it apart, one odious piece at a time.
Strong and Sensible Gun Laws. A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn?t have them ?
Shocking, is it, compared to what? Uganda? The Middle East? How shocking is it compared to say, traffic fatalities? (Hint: it's a small fraction of traffic deaths, but no one is going on about keeping cars from the hands of "those who shouldn't have them")
in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners.
Hmmm. No mention of folks who want to defend themselves from the "shocking levels of gun violence". No mention either of the original intent of the 2nd, which was to keep tyranical government in check. And if you're not a hunter or sportsmen, who gets to decide who a legitimate gunowner is? Well, here's a hint.
To a Democrat, a legitimate gunowner is one who has complied with all the 20,000 gun laws that are on the books.
So, if they make a law that says you must, say, jump through a hoop of fire, fend off wild beasts, and sing the national anthem in the nude to get a permit, and the wild beasts win,
you're not a legitimate gunowner.
The Columbine
tragedy struck America?s heart, but in its wake Republicans have done nothing to keep guns away from those who should not have them.
Oh, let us invoke the martyrs of Columbine! If only we had one more gun law, then....Harris and Klebold would have violated 22 laws, instead of 21.
And, uh, WHICH party was in the oval office April 20, 1999?
Democrats believe that we should fight gun crime on all fronts ? with stronger laws and stronger enforcement.
...because gun crime deserves it's own category? Because people are less dead when killed with clubs, knives, swords, or any other piece of pre powder technology?
That?s why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban.
Both bits of legislation with dubious Constitutionality.
Hoping to capitalize on public confusion between fully automatic (machine guns) and semi automatic (one shot per trigger pull) the Democrats perverted the military definition of "Assault Weapon" to include types of firearms that are A) perfectly innocuous, but military in lineage, and B) whose use in crime is rare, rare, rare. The arguments swirled around the "sporting uses" of such firearms. The second amendment isn't about sports, ducks, or any such nonsense. It's about Life and Liberty itself.
We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since
1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent.
Well, if you say so. Without a source for those numbers, I don't know what you're talking about. Does "gun crime" include posession of, say, pre-ban firearms without the proper paperwork? Honest Johns and Janes, seeking to preserve their lives, with the temerity to carry without a permit?
I dunno. Whatever.
Hey, how about this? At {my address}, I've completely eliminated (not that there ever was any) gun crime, by scrupulously observing the law, and by continually refusing to shoot anyone, and I didn't spend a dime!
Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children.
I was waiting for the refrain "It's for the chiiiiildreeeeen". I knew I wouldn't be disappointed.
The fact is, kids DO need to be kept out of the gunlockers, but the best way to go about that is going to vary from one circumstance to another, and is best left to individual judgement. But lets face it, liberals hate individual judgement.
Furthermore, gunlocks should never be applied to the house defense gun. It MUST be available for action in a 5 second timeframe, or the cops will be collecting YOUR body instead of the home invader's.
"Mandatory child safety locks" is leading to the introduction of all sorts of foolish and
dangerous components into firearms design, including expensive and faulty "personalisation technologies" aka smart guns.
How about encouraging smart gunowners, instead? Oh, but wait. That would be encouraging gun ownership, and smart people. They certainly don't want any either of those.
We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America.
OK, here's why that's a bad idea:
The Power To License is The Power To Deny.
From first principles, denial of Constitutional Rights must be narrowly construed, and
applied as sparingly as possible. By shifting the burden of proof from the .gov, who seeks to restrict the right, to the People, who seek to excercise the right, you set the field for mass abrogation of rights by administrative malfeasance.
Gun safety test: Hmmm...not that I'm against firearms proficiency mind you, but this is more of the same. You could demand unrealistic, olympic level marksmanship from purchasers. You could decide to test only once a year. The list goes on and on. Use your imagination here. The Sarah Brady's and Diane Fienstien's of the world certainly do.
We support more federal gun prosecutors, ATF agents and inspectors, and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.
Well, don't let the fact that gun control has never proven itself to actually achieve the
goal of reducing crime,and in fact, tends to increase it stop you. But what the hell,
they're Democrats. They wanna throw more money at the problem. And by the way, assuming that a prosecuter works on the cheap and makes $50k, that's a 1/2 Billion taxpayer dollars shoveled into the second most frightening federal agencies after the IRS.
Ya'll know the ATF historically has been known to kill innocent women, children and family pets, right? And that they've refused to submit to criminal prosecution for same?
All in all, not one line of the Democrats platform shows any knowledge of facts, wisdom of judgement, or bias towards the Liberty of the People on gun issues.
To blatantly steal a line from Kim DuToit, "The Democrats Must Never Ever Be Granted Access To The Levers of Power".
They are not fit to lead a free people.
GOP: http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2004_02_08_geekwitha45_archive.html#107642633762918107
Fit For Power.
Quite some time ago, I "fisked" the Democrat's party platform, documenting their institutionalized gun bigotry in my essay Not Fit For Power. If you haven't read that one, it's a hoot, I heartily recommend you read it before continuing.
In the spirit of fairness, I will now turn my attention to that portion of the Republican party platform that deals with firearms, found here, under the section headed "Upholding the rights of all".
Here it is in its entirety, so you can see it in context.
Quote:
--------------------
We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and we affirm the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. Because self-defense is a basic human right, we will promote training in their safe usage, especially in federal programs for women and the elderly. A Republican administration will vigorously enforce current gun laws, neglected by the Democrats, especially by prosecuting dangerous offenders identified as felons in instant background checks. Although we support background checks to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals, we oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens. Through programs like Project Exile, we will hold criminals individually accountable for their actions by strong enforcement of federal and state firearm laws, especially when guns are used in violent or drug-related crimes. With a special emphasis upon school safety, we propose the crackdown on youth violence explained elsewhere in this platform.
--------------------
Now we'll take it one piece at a time:
We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,
Great opening line! "We DEFEND". Strong. Proactive. Contrast with the donk's fear mongering opening line, "A shocking level of gun violence...".
and we affirm the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms.
That's right. It's an individual responsibility, and shouldn't be subject to governmental regulation, inspection, and nanny statist "lock up your safety" nonsense.
Because self-defense is a basic human right,
Yes, it is.
we will promote training in their safe usage, especially in federal programs for women and the elderly.
Oddly enough, training and arming the militia IS an enumerated power and responsibility of the federal government.
A Republican administration will vigorously enforce current gun laws,
This is were they start getting into trouble, considering the Constitutional dubiousness (to put it mildly) of "current gun laws".
neglected by the Democrats,
I recall seeing evidence of this, but whatever....
especially by prosecuting dangerous offenders identified as felons in instant background checks.
In principle, I'm with them here, but my main reservation has to do with non violent felons, and the issue of "felony creep". There's just too damned many ways to become a felon, including paperwork screwups with respect to Constitutional rights.
Although we support background checks to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals,
As a purist, I've got real problems with this, but I can live with it for the time being, as there are bigger fish to fry.
we oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens.
Yay! There it is, in black and white! Of course, if I asked them about the 1934 NFA, they'd weasel out of it claiming it was a transfer tax, with appropriate record keeping, and background check. And when I countered with, "so, what's the deal with taxing the instrumentality of a fundamental Right?", I'm sure the response would be amusing, and worth the price of being hauled out on my ass by the secret service guys.
Through programs like Project Exile, we will hold criminals individually accountable for their actions by strong enforcement of federal and state firearm laws,
Again, the devil is in the details. The intent of project exile, et al is to hold the line on prosecuting bona fide criminal behavior. The problem is that too damned many state and federal firearms laws aren't about bona fide criminal behavior, they extend well into the territory of "status crimes". I've commented on the sea change of the term "gun crime" morphing from "robber/murderer/rapist with a gun" to "honest man without a permit", like Hale Demaar.
Note the use of the codewords "hold criminals individually accountable", which is distinct from "interfering collectively with honest gunowners because of criminals".
especially when guns are used in violent or drug-related crimes.
To a certain extent, they're buying into the whole "drug dealer fueled carnage in the streets with huge numbers of innocent bystanders being slaughtered" fantasy. I also remind my Readers that the War on (some) drugs, and all it's unconstitutional consequences is a Reagan invention, and so we must lay blame were it belongs.
With a special emphasis upon school safety, we propose the crackdown on youth violence explained elsewhere in this platform.
Well, cracking down on violent criminals, no matter their age, is a good thing.
Conclusion:
Well, it's not perfect, but it's lightyears apart from what the donks have to offer. Let's revisit my conclusion concerning the Dem's platform:
Quote:
------------
All in all, not one line of the Democrat's platform shows any knowledge of facts, wisdom of judgement, or bias towards the Liberty of the People on gun issues.
To blatantly steal a line from Kim DuToit, "The Democrats Must Never Ever Be Granted Access To The Levers of Power.
They are not fit to lead a free people.
------------
The GOP's platform shows SOME knowledge of facts.
The GOP's platform shows a FAIR amount of wisdom of judgement.
The GOP's platform shows a DEFINATE bias towards the Liberty of the People on gun issues.
I'm certainly aware that a great deal is left to be desired concerning the GOP and guns. I'm also aware that politicians will innevitably not live up to their initial proposition, but this is a much stronger place to start from than the alternative.
I can only conclude that they are a hell of a lot more fit to lead a free people than their opponents.
Remember that in November.
DONK: http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2003_08_24_geekwitha45_archive.html#106193426029007358
Not Fit For Power
This is from the Democratic Party National Platform, 2000, page 25:
Quote:
-------------------------------------
Strong and Sensible Gun Laws.
A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn?t have them ? in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners.
The Columbine tragedy struck America?s heart, but in its wake Republicans have done nothing to keep guns away from those who should not have them.
Democrats believe that we should fight gun crime on all fronts ? with stronger laws and stronger enforcement.
That?s why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban.
We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since
1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent.
Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children.
We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America.
We support more federal gun prosecutors, ATF agents and inspectors, and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.
-------------------------------------
Sigh. Let's take it apart, one odious piece at a time.
Strong and Sensible Gun Laws. A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn?t have them ?
Shocking, is it, compared to what? Uganda? The Middle East? How shocking is it compared to say, traffic fatalities? (Hint: it's a small fraction of traffic deaths, but no one is going on about keeping cars from the hands of "those who shouldn't have them")
in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners.
Hmmm. No mention of folks who want to defend themselves from the "shocking levels of gun violence". No mention either of the original intent of the 2nd, which was to keep tyranical government in check. And if you're not a hunter or sportsmen, who gets to decide who a legitimate gunowner is? Well, here's a hint.
To a Democrat, a legitimate gunowner is one who has complied with all the 20,000 gun laws that are on the books.
So, if they make a law that says you must, say, jump through a hoop of fire, fend off wild beasts, and sing the national anthem in the nude to get a permit, and the wild beasts win,
you're not a legitimate gunowner.
The Columbine
tragedy struck America?s heart, but in its wake Republicans have done nothing to keep guns away from those who should not have them.
Oh, let us invoke the martyrs of Columbine! If only we had one more gun law, then....Harris and Klebold would have violated 22 laws, instead of 21.
And, uh, WHICH party was in the oval office April 20, 1999?
Democrats believe that we should fight gun crime on all fronts ? with stronger laws and stronger enforcement.
...because gun crime deserves it's own category? Because people are less dead when killed with clubs, knives, swords, or any other piece of pre powder technology?
That?s why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban.
Both bits of legislation with dubious Constitutionality.
Hoping to capitalize on public confusion between fully automatic (machine guns) and semi automatic (one shot per trigger pull) the Democrats perverted the military definition of "Assault Weapon" to include types of firearms that are A) perfectly innocuous, but military in lineage, and B) whose use in crime is rare, rare, rare. The arguments swirled around the "sporting uses" of such firearms. The second amendment isn't about sports, ducks, or any such nonsense. It's about Life and Liberty itself.
We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since
1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent.
Well, if you say so. Without a source for those numbers, I don't know what you're talking about. Does "gun crime" include posession of, say, pre-ban firearms without the proper paperwork? Honest Johns and Janes, seeking to preserve their lives, with the temerity to carry without a permit?
I dunno. Whatever.
Hey, how about this? At {my address}, I've completely eliminated (not that there ever was any) gun crime, by scrupulously observing the law, and by continually refusing to shoot anyone, and I didn't spend a dime!
Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children.
I was waiting for the refrain "It's for the chiiiiildreeeeen". I knew I wouldn't be disappointed.
The fact is, kids DO need to be kept out of the gunlockers, but the best way to go about that is going to vary from one circumstance to another, and is best left to individual judgement. But lets face it, liberals hate individual judgement.
Furthermore, gunlocks should never be applied to the house defense gun. It MUST be available for action in a 5 second timeframe, or the cops will be collecting YOUR body instead of the home invader's.
"Mandatory child safety locks" is leading to the introduction of all sorts of foolish and
dangerous components into firearms design, including expensive and faulty "personalisation technologies" aka smart guns.
How about encouraging smart gunowners, instead? Oh, but wait. That would be encouraging gun ownership, and smart people. They certainly don't want any either of those.
We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America.
OK, here's why that's a bad idea:
The Power To License is The Power To Deny.
From first principles, denial of Constitutional Rights must be narrowly construed, and
applied as sparingly as possible. By shifting the burden of proof from the .gov, who seeks to restrict the right, to the People, who seek to excercise the right, you set the field for mass abrogation of rights by administrative malfeasance.
Gun safety test: Hmmm...not that I'm against firearms proficiency mind you, but this is more of the same. You could demand unrealistic, olympic level marksmanship from purchasers. You could decide to test only once a year. The list goes on and on. Use your imagination here. The Sarah Brady's and Diane Fienstien's of the world certainly do.
We support more federal gun prosecutors, ATF agents and inspectors, and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.
Well, don't let the fact that gun control has never proven itself to actually achieve the
goal of reducing crime,and in fact, tends to increase it stop you. But what the hell,
they're Democrats. They wanna throw more money at the problem. And by the way, assuming that a prosecuter works on the cheap and makes $50k, that's a 1/2 Billion taxpayer dollars shoveled into the second most frightening federal agencies after the IRS.
Ya'll know the ATF historically has been known to kill innocent women, children and family pets, right? And that they've refused to submit to criminal prosecution for same?
All in all, not one line of the Democrats platform shows any knowledge of facts, wisdom of judgement, or bias towards the Liberty of the People on gun issues.
To blatantly steal a line from Kim DuToit, "The Democrats Must Never Ever Be Granted Access To The Levers of Power".
They are not fit to lead a free people.
GOP: http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2004_02_08_geekwitha45_archive.html#107642633762918107
Fit For Power.
Quite some time ago, I "fisked" the Democrat's party platform, documenting their institutionalized gun bigotry in my essay Not Fit For Power. If you haven't read that one, it's a hoot, I heartily recommend you read it before continuing.
In the spirit of fairness, I will now turn my attention to that portion of the Republican party platform that deals with firearms, found here, under the section headed "Upholding the rights of all".
Here it is in its entirety, so you can see it in context.
Quote:
--------------------
We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and we affirm the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. Because self-defense is a basic human right, we will promote training in their safe usage, especially in federal programs for women and the elderly. A Republican administration will vigorously enforce current gun laws, neglected by the Democrats, especially by prosecuting dangerous offenders identified as felons in instant background checks. Although we support background checks to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals, we oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens. Through programs like Project Exile, we will hold criminals individually accountable for their actions by strong enforcement of federal and state firearm laws, especially when guns are used in violent or drug-related crimes. With a special emphasis upon school safety, we propose the crackdown on youth violence explained elsewhere in this platform.
--------------------
Now we'll take it one piece at a time:
We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,
Great opening line! "We DEFEND". Strong. Proactive. Contrast with the donk's fear mongering opening line, "A shocking level of gun violence...".
and we affirm the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms.
That's right. It's an individual responsibility, and shouldn't be subject to governmental regulation, inspection, and nanny statist "lock up your safety" nonsense.
Because self-defense is a basic human right,
Yes, it is.
we will promote training in their safe usage, especially in federal programs for women and the elderly.
Oddly enough, training and arming the militia IS an enumerated power and responsibility of the federal government.
A Republican administration will vigorously enforce current gun laws,
This is were they start getting into trouble, considering the Constitutional dubiousness (to put it mildly) of "current gun laws".
neglected by the Democrats,
I recall seeing evidence of this, but whatever....
especially by prosecuting dangerous offenders identified as felons in instant background checks.
In principle, I'm with them here, but my main reservation has to do with non violent felons, and the issue of "felony creep". There's just too damned many ways to become a felon, including paperwork screwups with respect to Constitutional rights.
Although we support background checks to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals,
As a purist, I've got real problems with this, but I can live with it for the time being, as there are bigger fish to fry.
we oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens.
Yay! There it is, in black and white! Of course, if I asked them about the 1934 NFA, they'd weasel out of it claiming it was a transfer tax, with appropriate record keeping, and background check. And when I countered with, "so, what's the deal with taxing the instrumentality of a fundamental Right?", I'm sure the response would be amusing, and worth the price of being hauled out on my ass by the secret service guys.
Through programs like Project Exile, we will hold criminals individually accountable for their actions by strong enforcement of federal and state firearm laws,
Again, the devil is in the details. The intent of project exile, et al is to hold the line on prosecuting bona fide criminal behavior. The problem is that too damned many state and federal firearms laws aren't about bona fide criminal behavior, they extend well into the territory of "status crimes". I've commented on the sea change of the term "gun crime" morphing from "robber/murderer/rapist with a gun" to "honest man without a permit", like Hale Demaar.
Note the use of the codewords "hold criminals individually accountable", which is distinct from "interfering collectively with honest gunowners because of criminals".
especially when guns are used in violent or drug-related crimes.
To a certain extent, they're buying into the whole "drug dealer fueled carnage in the streets with huge numbers of innocent bystanders being slaughtered" fantasy. I also remind my Readers that the War on (some) drugs, and all it's unconstitutional consequences is a Reagan invention, and so we must lay blame were it belongs.
With a special emphasis upon school safety, we propose the crackdown on youth violence explained elsewhere in this platform.
Well, cracking down on violent criminals, no matter their age, is a good thing.
Conclusion:
Well, it's not perfect, but it's lightyears apart from what the donks have to offer. Let's revisit my conclusion concerning the Dem's platform:
Quote:
------------
All in all, not one line of the Democrat's platform shows any knowledge of facts, wisdom of judgement, or bias towards the Liberty of the People on gun issues.
To blatantly steal a line from Kim DuToit, "The Democrats Must Never Ever Be Granted Access To The Levers of Power.
They are not fit to lead a free people.
------------
The GOP's platform shows SOME knowledge of facts.
The GOP's platform shows a FAIR amount of wisdom of judgement.
The GOP's platform shows a DEFINATE bias towards the Liberty of the People on gun issues.
I'm certainly aware that a great deal is left to be desired concerning the GOP and guns. I'm also aware that politicians will innevitably not live up to their initial proposition, but this is a much stronger place to start from than the alternative.
I can only conclude that they are a hell of a lot more fit to lead a free people than their opponents.
Remember that in November.
LoveMy45
Member
We can give our input on what should be in the GOP platform:
2004 Republican National Convention - Platform Portal
2004 Republican National Convention - Platform Portal
RealGun
Member
I don't see where that will do it. They have even taken down the platform link, which was from the 2000 convention. The 2004 ratification vote is scheduled for opening day on Monday, after which I would expect the platform to be posted.
The platform committee proceedings that I caught on CSPAN did not include anything about gun rights. I might have missed it. That could mean that 2000 platform mention, and there was some, was retained. That contrasted with no mention by the Democrats in 2000.
RealGun
Member
Too late!
The Real Hawkeye
member
The Republican platform is always very pleasing to conservative ears, but that's because it is written by grass root Republicans, who tend to be on the conservative side. Problem is that this is not the type of Republican we ever get to vote for in national elections. They always pick some guy who they think will appeal to both left and right, which means that they will generally not be strong on such issues as the Second Amendment. What they don't seem to realize is that liberals vote Democrat, not Republican. The Replicans need to lean conservative to libertarian to win land slide elections, not moderate to liberal. That was Reagan's appeal, and why he won in three landslide national elections. I say three, because G.H.W. Bush's landslide victory in '88 was actually America's stamp of approval for the previous eight years of R. Reagan. The RNC big wigs will never learn their lesson, however, which is why Bush 2 will lose in November, and we will have to suffer eight years of a Kerry presidency.
Can'thavenuthingood
Member
Regardless of their support for the 2nd Amendment, it's their interpretation of it I need to read and hear them speak of as well.
Lip service is merely to the right of liberal which lands you in the dem camp to the left of conservative Democrat.
Like Ronald Reagan said, "I didn't leave the democratic party, they left me."
What we need is for some displays of cajones, some backbone and stand your ground.
Too many times politicos are moved by the polls which are skewed from the start. They don't say what they really believe, or believe what they say.
I heard Vice President Cheney say both he and the President support the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms. What does that mean? What is their definition of that? Are there limitations? Are there conditions? Do they have a program in mind to "insure" this inalienable right?
If the Planks are broad strokes of generalities, I'll more than likely stay home.
Vick
Lip service is merely to the right of liberal which lands you in the dem camp to the left of conservative Democrat.
Like Ronald Reagan said, "I didn't leave the democratic party, they left me."
What we need is for some displays of cajones, some backbone and stand your ground.
Too many times politicos are moved by the polls which are skewed from the start. They don't say what they really believe, or believe what they say.
I heard Vice President Cheney say both he and the President support the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms. What does that mean? What is their definition of that? Are there limitations? Are there conditions? Do they have a program in mind to "insure" this inalienable right?
If the Planks are broad strokes of generalities, I'll more than likely stay home.
Vick
RealGun
Member
and let Kerry win.
I think it's a fallacy to let the platform or the convention or any campaigning affect you one way or the other. You either buy that Kerry is a terrible choice or you don't. If looking for the perfect candidate and one who could also win, this wouldn't be the time to do it. I still say that Senate races are where the action is. It would please the Dems no end to shake the confidence of their opposition. I think it helps to project beyond the next Presidential term.
Lastly, I think the platform is better discussed after we have seen it. It should be ratified tomorrow and become official.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
