Or is it a refelction of their own stupidity?
Excerpt from the 2008 Democratic Platform Report (DNC 08-13-08):
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
I find it amazing that the democrats can contradict themselves so much in one paragraph.
Let’s look at this sentence by sentence.
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.
To the Dem’s the right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than american tradition. Notice how they changed the verbage on the second half of the sentance from keep and bear to keep and use? I don’t believe for a second that this is a typo. There is a HUGE difference between “keep and bear” and “keep and use”. The 2nd amendment says “keep and bear”, ’nuff said.
We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation,
Yeah, and the Dem’s get to determine what is reasonable? Give me a break.
Definition of the word reasonable
rea·son·a·ble /’ri
z?n?b?l, ‘rizn?-/ -adjective
| 1. | agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman. |
| 2. | not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive: reasonable terms. |
| 3. | moderate, esp. in price; not expensive: The coat was reasonable but not cheap. |
| 4. | endowed with reason. |
| 5. | capable of rational behavior, decision, etc. |
hmm, let’s see, I don’t know of any liberal democrat that meets that definition at all.
Maybe the sentance should have started like this. “We Believe that the right to own firearms is subject to illogical, knee-jerk reaction, emotionally inspired regulation.” Because that’s what it really is.
but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.
Really? I doubt it. But even if I were to concede that some things may work in Cheyann that don’t work in Chicago, why the hell would the Federal government step in. They have state and local governments to handle that, so long as they themselves don’t violate the constitution.
We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements -
“Commonsense” is very similar to “reasonable”. In the same way that I can’t think of any liberal democrats that have are reasonable, I can’t think of any that actually have more than an ounce of commonsense, because if they did, the gun-rights would be a non-issue.
like closing the gun show loophole
There is no such thing as a “gun show loophole”. What they are really talking about is making it illegal for ANYONE other than a FFL from transfering a weapon. No private transfers period. The impact of this is a huge infringement on our right to keep and bear arms, let alone basic property rights (but that’s a whole ‘nother subject).
improving our background check system,
Improving the background check system? For god’s sake, how hard is it to run a NICS check? I’m interested to see in what they have in mind here. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that they want to track more information about the citizens of the country. And don’t get me started on that.
and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals
Reinstating the assault weapons ban? First off it didn’t really ban any assault weapons that weren’t already banned. Second, the Brady bill did absolutely nothing to stop or reduce crime. The only thing it did was infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. The CDC’s (Center For Disease Control) own studies even show there is absolutely no evidence that the Brady Bill did anything to reduce crime.
Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
I just about choked when I read this sentence. They actually believe that 2nd amendment rights and safety are mutually exclusive. IMO, the only way we can be sure to keep our communities and our children safe IS to protect the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. For that matter protect ALL of our civil rights. Compromising our civil rights is neither responsible, nor respectful of our differing views. Besides, if they actually respected the 2nd amendment, there wouldn’t be a differing view.
Anyway, that’s only one little tidbit from the platform. We could go on for days about the rest of the crap that is the plaform of the democratic party, but this is a gun blog.
-Thomas