The Second Amendment and the Democratic Party

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, if you missed it, out of 12 Democratic presidential candidates last night, the most centrist, pro-2A position, was a 1994-style ban on semi-automatics, universal background checks, red flag laws, and all of the Bloomberg wishlist.

The far left position was staked out by O’Rourke who promised to confiscate your AR15 and take them from you if you refused to sell them “back” to the government (though I don’t recall buying any of mine from Uncle Sam). He did decline to start door to door round ups though.

Compare that to the positions staked out by John Kerry in 2004, or Obama in both 2008 and 2012... you know back in the good old days when the Dems would just lie to your face and tell you they didn’t want to ban guns, let alone confiscate them. Even the most centrist candidate is now well to the left of Obama’s stated position prior to the 2012 election.

That's not an accident. That’s because taking that far left position is what you have to do to get that sweet Bloomberg money.

[Pahoo]

The far left position was staked out by O’Rourke who promised to confiscate your AR15 and take them from you if you refused to sell them “back” to the government (though I don’t recall buying any of mine from Uncle Sam). He did decline to start door to door round ups though.

It's not going to happen although the 2A is going to take a beating. A beating that will only leave some braising, that will pass. I believe this so strongly that I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. O'Rourke will not make the cut and neither will the rest. I have a number of Democrat friends who are good people and we all know that they need all the help they can get. …..

Be Safe !!!

[sigarms228]

That's not an accident. That’s because taking that far left position is what you have to do to get that sweet Bloomberg money.

Yep. I just read again today that he is pledging 500 million dollars to defeat President Trump in 2020 and now even considering running himself to make sure that the gun bans happen assuming he is elected which is assuming a lot though IMO.

[American Man]

Bloomberg and the democrats are the sole reason we have a 2A.

[Spats McGee]

My hunch, and it's purely a hunch is this: O'Rourke knows he can't get the nomination, so he's been promised some other 'party favor' in exchange for being the decoy. He takes the extreme position so that the party's actual nominee looks reasonable by comparison.

And it looks like Mr. O'Rourke is perfectly comfortable sending people into your home to take your guns: https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/1...oor-take-guns/


(I couldn't find the original source video)

[Tom Servo]

He takes the extreme position so that the party's actual nominee looks reasonable by comparison.

This is my suspicion as well. They're seeing how far they can push the Overton Window on the issue. No matter what the eventual nominee promises, it'll marketed as "not as extreme as what O'Rourke wanted."

[BarryLee]

Early in the last round of Presidential elections the DNC made the comment that they no longer saw pushing gun control as a losing position, but as one that could actually win them votes. Regardless of whether they actually believe the gibberish that comes out of their mouths I think we are seeing that strategy at play. Remember it is not about public safety, but using lies to deceive and gain political power.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by American Man

Bloomberg and the democrats are the sole reason we have a 2A.

Ahh, the tyranny of the Federal Government...no tyranny goin on right now, eh?

Lessee...who mentioned FEDERAL UBC, RFL and instituted the bump stock ban?..hmmm..it was in all the papers. I could cite examples of the percentage of people who FAVOR those things..even GOP who favor it but it'll be labeled 'fake news'...

It's hilarous to see so many take 'debate' stage comments and say that stuff is etched in stone and brought down from the mountain top..PARTICULARLY by 'some' who won't be there in a month..

As for those running to look for favors in a DEM administration...happens every election, by every elected POTUS...DOE, HUD, others...

[MTT TL]

I could cite examples of the percentage of people who FAVOR those things..even GOP who favor it but it'll be labeled 'fake news'...

Ah gosh here we go with the leftist POLITCO poll again. It is a like a broken record. Next time you want a post I can just write it for you. I can sum them all up in one line:

"Dems really aren't that bad, 22 billion republicans want to ban guns too, bump stocks: 'I told you so, see there!'"

No sane person with any objectivity at all would try to equate right and left wing positions on gun control as anything even remotely the same.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

Ah gosh here we go with the leftist POLITCO poll again. It is a like a broken record. Next time you want a post I can just write it for you. I can sum them all up in one line:

"Dems really aren't that bad, 22 billion republicans want to ban guns too, bump stocks: 'I told you so, see there!'"

No sane person with any objectivity at all would try to equate right and left wing positions on gun control as anything even remotely the same.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox...p-ratings-down

On specific measures to reduce gun violence, there’s broad support for requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (90 percent) and passing “red flag” laws that allow police to take guns from people shown to be a danger to themselves or others (81 percent).

[natman]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

My hunch, and it's purely a hunch is this: O'Rourke knows he can't get the nomination, so he's been promised some other 'party favor' in exchange for being the decoy. He takes the extreme position so that the party's actual nominee looks reasonable by comparison.

I see it differently. I think O'Rourke is brave / stupid / desperate enough to come right out and say what the rest of them are thinking, hoping it will give him an edge with Democratic voters.

The rest of the candidates are upset that he let the cat out of the bag.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Natman

I see it differently. I think O'Rourke is brave / stupid / desperate enough to come right out and say what the rest of them are thinking, hoping it will give him an edge with Democratic voters.

Natman, that's my take as well. While there is no difference in effect, the problem I see with Spats' hunch is that it involves some of the people on stage putting aside their immediate ambitions to work toward a common goal. I don't believe any of them have such limited ambition.

Not too long ago Robert Francis O'Rourke was telling Texans that he had no designs on their guns, because he determined that the message fit his audience. In the current debates, his audience includes primary voters and the activists who influence them, and he has calculated that a gun prohibition message without nuance is what can separate him from the softer sounding message of the others.

RFO's current position is a form of a Kinsley gaffe.

Originally Posted by wiki

A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit.[2][3] The term comes from journalist Michael Kinsley, who said, "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say."[4][5]

RFO's gaffe showed that his assumption of an unlimited government power to remove arms from private possession enjoyed no principled opposition from the others on the debate stage.

[American Man]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Ahh, the tyranny of the Federal Government...no tyranny goin on right now, eh?

Lessee...who mentioned FEDERAL UBC, RFL and instituted the bump stock ban?..hmmm..it was in all the papers. I could cite examples of the percentage of people who FAVOR those things..even GOP who favor it but it'll be labeled 'fake news'...

It's hilarous to see so many take 'debate' stage comments and say that stuff is etched in stone and brought down from the mountain top..PARTICULARLY by 'some' who won't be there in a month..

As for those running to look for favors in a DEM administration...happens every election, by every elected POTUS...DOE, HUD, others...

If you get off on defending the Democrat Party by trashing republicans, then have at it.

What party is talking about gun confiscation? What party is talking about sending the feds to go to your home and take your weapons? Or maybe you can't cite any of that crap that has been coming out of the candidates mouths the past few weeks.

There always has to be someone that plays to the other side to show they have such common sense and rational thinking... I guess that is you... and just like John McCain, Romney, Sass, they attack someone who calls it like it is.

But go ahead and make some semi intelligent counter to what I write. I can tell you one thing... Beto's remarks will be repeated for a lot longer than the month he will be around. They will be sitting, quietly in some of the minds, and loudly in some minds of the democrats and socialists sitting in elected office and they will be ready like sheep to take away our gun rights. Maybe you haven't noticed 13 of the 50 states... oh no government tyranny going on there. Oh... what is the common denominator in those not so tyrannical states in your eyes?... Democrats.

Oh.. I'm sure you will pin all of that on republicans right? But if you are not too busy, please cite how these 13 states run by democrats is really the fault of the republicans.

Tiring

[Tom Servo]

OK, guys. Take a deep breath. In. Out.

Better? Alright. Now take a moment and review the rules specific to this forum. We're skirting the thin edge of broad partisan politics, and that's something we don't do here.

These discussions need to be had, and that entails comparing the agendas of respective parties and candidates, but two big rules apply:

1. Let's refrain from pure partisan R vs. D stuff.
2. Keep it civil. Discuss ideas, not people.

Seriously, don't make me stop this car.

[American Man]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

OK, guys. Take a deep breath. In. Out.

Better? Alright. Now take a moment and review the rules specific to this forum. We're skirting the thin edge of broad partisan politics, and that's something we don't do here.

These discussions need to be had, and that entails comparing the agendas of respective parties and candidates, but two big rules apply:

1. Let's refrain from pure partisan R vs. D stuff.
2. Keep it civil. Discuss ideas, not people.

Seriously, don't make me stop this car.

Roger that.

I just didn't know my statement would call for someone to start bashing the R party for things that are miniscule compared to the current agenda of this specific D and Socialist party. If there was ever a time that our freedoms and rights were at risk, this is it. The 2A is for one thing... stopping gov't tyranny... and I did not say we are at a breaking point right at this time either. But what some of these candidates are calling for is pretty alarming. And they are not calling for it so that one day we will all get along and be happy and safe.

I dismissed Obama in 2008. He was hell on this country. I'm not dismissing any of these other candidates and their rhetoric... and why would I?... all of their insanity seems to come true and become normalized while most of us have said throughout the years, "that's crazy, that will never happen".

[sigarms228]

I look at things like what happens in Supreme Court decisions and looking at Heller and McDonald which were both 5-4 it tells me a lot on who is pro Second Amendment and who is not.

Also looked at how the vote went on the 2013 AWB and again no confusion to me.

https://projects.propublica.org/repr...3/senate/1/101

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

It's hilarous to see so many take 'debate' stage comments and say that stuff is etched in stone and brought down from the mountain top..PARTICULARLY by 'some' who won't be there in a month..

Well, I’m not sure how you managed to illustrate my point without grasping it; but you did so nicely. Some Republicans do support gun control. It has bipartisan support. The thing is, gun rights used to have bipartisan support as well. That’s no longer true at the national level. The Democratic party is putting forth candidates well to the left of Obama on guns. And not one or two - ALL of them.

I’d love to see gun rights become a bipartisan issue again.

On specific measures to reduce gun violence, there’s broad support for requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (90 percent) and passing “red flag” laws that allow police to take guns from people shown to be a danger to themselves or others (81 percent).

1) The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the majority. Slavery is still wrong even if it has 81% support. The Bill of Rights are not every right; but they do show the ones the founders felt were critical to gain support for ratification. Not to mention that this whole line of propaganda (and that’s exactly what it is) is just a variation on “All the cool kids do it” from grade school. I could care less what 81% of people think if I don’t agree with them. That’s a strategic problem, not a reason to change my mind. Except it isn’t a strategic problem here because...

2). My whole life growing up I’ve read nonsense polls about guns. 90% of people support handgun bans! You can find support for anything as a vague, amorphous idea. I mean, I’d support universal background checks if they respected gun owner privacy. I haven’t seen a single piece of proposed legislation since 1994 that does it adequately and only one bill that even attempted it. So am I a “yes” or “no” in that poll?

Once you get into the details though, people tend to be less supportive of specific proposals. That’s happened so many times on gun legislation I can’t even begin to count them. 90% of people support background checks but it couldn’t pass Congress in 2013 after Sandy Hook?

You want UBCs? Listen to gun owner concerns on privacy and address them. Instead, like all 12 Democratic presidential candidates, the gun grabbers just continue to offer the same pig in a poke and scream “Why are you being so unreasonable and stupid!? 90% of people want to buy this unseen pig! Buy it you idiot!”

[Mike38]

Bartholomew Roberts wrote:
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the majority.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to establish personal liberties and put limits on government power.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Mike38

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to establish personal liberties and put limits on government power.

No, the Bill of Rights does not and did not create or establish any rights or personal liberties. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to [supposedly] guarantee that the government would not usurp the personal rights that the Founders recognized were granted to us by God.

[Mike38]

Aguila Blanca wrote:
No, the Bill of Rights does not and did not create or establish any rights or personal liberties.

I never wrote create.

Establish.

To show something to be true or certain by determining the facts.

synonyms:
prove · demonstrate · show · show to be true · show beyond doubt

Looks like we can agree to disagree.

[rickyrick]

Freedom dies in the arms of “majority rule”.

Majority rule is bad for the minority.

Like I always say, the second amendment is very short and to the point. Anyone with the reading comprehension skills can understand what it’s intent and meaning is... I mean come on, it’s only one sentence. If you attest that the second amendment means anything other than “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, you are not an honest person.

To be honest, I feel that a good portion of the first amendment has been twisted and warped way beyond the original intent.

I don’t care how many people hate my civil rights, they are still my rights, and that was kinda the point of the bill of rights.

The government would trample over the rights mentioned in the BOR in a split second of those ten amendments didn’t exist.

They want the guns, yes... they just haven’t figured out how to do it yet. The funny thing is, the wide spread proliferation is due to attempts to control them.

[JERRYS.]

The Second Amendment and the Democratic Party

are mutually exclusive.

don't believe me? look at who is pushing the anti-Second Amendment legislation.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Mike38

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to establish personal liberties and put limits on government power.

I’m not sure if you don’t understand how that concept relates to my statement or you were just possessed by the angry Gods of Internet pedantry?

[American Man]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

Freedom dies in the arms of “majority rule”.

Majority rule is bad for the minority.

Like I always say, the second amendment is very short and to the point. Anyone with the reading comprehension skills can understand what it’s intent and meaning is... I mean come on, it’s only one sentence. If you attest that the second amendment means anything other than “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, you are not an honest person.

To be honest, I feel that a good portion of the first amendment has been twisted and warped way beyond the original intent.

I don’t care how many people hate my civil rights, they are still my rights, and that was kinda the point of the bill of rights.

The government would trample over the rights mentioned in the BOR in a split second of those ten amendments didn’t exist.

They want the guns, yes... they just haven’t figured out how to do it yet. The funny thing is, the wide spread proliferation is due to attempts to control them.

There has been no better pitch man for firearms than Barack Hussein Obama. I doubt anyone will ever sell as many guns than him. lol

The fact that regular Americans go out and clear the shelves of every firearm after a highly publicized shooting, gives me a little faith that survivability hasn't been completely bred out of our country just yet... not that it is anything to celebrate.

People that otherwise might not have bought a firearm or additional firearms, felt compelled by the threat of the democrat party's repetitive gun control howls as well as the threat that violence could happen to them.

[Pathfinder45]

My view is that politics in general is a sordid arena and all who participate tend to get soiled. I think that the voters ought to vote their conscience and not be blindly loyal to any political party. Are there any candidates that honestly care about the 2nd amendment, or do they just say so for the votes it may get them?
The Democrats outnumber the Republicans, yet the Democrats can still lose elections because their positions can be unacceptable to voters. The issue of gun control versus gun rights is one of those hot topics. Democrats that own guns don't want their guns confiscated either.
I think that the Democratic Party virtually elected the current President by choosing a candidate that was unacceptable to those voters that would prefer to vote democrat, but could not vote for Hillary. There is a good chance that they will repeat that blunder.
Today, I have no idea how I will vote on election day. But I resent the idea that I must choose between the lesser of two evils.
When the public buys more ammo than the producers can keep up with, causing another shortage, maybe that reminds the politicians that guns are important to Americans. I believe that the Democrats could easily win the White House if they choose a half-way respectable candidate that engages in the shooting sports and comes out in favor of the 2nd Amendment. But I rather doubt that will happen.