The Second Amendment and the Democratic Party

[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]

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]

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.

 

[44 AMP]

A few years back, the people controlling the Democrat party made gun control ("the gun problem") one of their party's political planks.

No registered Democrat is going to be allowed to reach the top level of the party and become a candidate unless they publicly support gun control.

Like a lot of other social issues, they have made it an US or THEM thing, when it really applies to everyone. AND also like a lot of other issues, if you don't support all of them to the degree the party does, the party won't support your political advancement.

Yes, a D who supports private gun ownership and the 2nd amendment would please a lot of people, but it would NOT please the Democratic party leadership, and they won't have it.

Until that changes, don't look for any 2A support from any Democrat seeking national office.

Which doesn't mean all Republicans are our friends, or supporters. Some are, but many simply respect political power, rather than political principles.

 

[USNRet93]

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.

Cries of “Obama’s going to take your guns!” were so loud in conservative circles dating back a decade that very few people remember that the only two major gun bills Obama signed into law actually expanded the rights of gun owners.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/12/27/opinion-trump-gun-control-president-obama/

In debates during both the 2000 and the 2004 presidential campaign, Bush stated his support for background checks for gun buyers and for trigger locks. Additionally, he said on multiple occasions that the minimum age for carrying a handgun should be 21, not 18.

With the Assault Weapons Ban set to expire before the next presidential term was complete, Bush stated his support for the ban during the 2000 presidential campaign but stopped short of pledging to sign an extension.

As the 2004 expiration date neared, however, the Bush administration signaled its willingness to sign legislation that either extended the ban or made it permanent. “[Bush] supports reauthorization of the current law,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters in 2003, as the debate over the gun ban began to heat up.

 

[zukiphile]

Cries of “Obama’s going to take your guns!” were so loud in conservative circles dating back a decade that very few people remember that the only two major gun bills Obama signed into law actually expanded the rights of gun owners.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/1...esident-obama/

The problem with citing someone else's opinion piece is that it can give the appearance that you endorse the point set forth.

Perhaps BHO himself provided his view of gun owners in 2008 when he derided people in the middle of the country as clinging to their guns. Of course, the implication that BHO hadn't any intention of restricting people's 2d Am. rights is false, and rests on mistaking BHO's political failure to overcome Senate resistance in 2013 for what he was "going to" do. In 2013, BHO pushed for and nearly obtained UBCs. His was so invested in new restrictions that within minutes of losing, he held a press conference to complain about it, blaming the "gun lobby", pressure from voters, republicans in the Senate and claiming that there were no arguments against the restrictions. He claimed it was a shameful day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...eb028a-a77c-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html

That this deception still shows up as an evaluation of BHO's 2d Am. record illustrates how difficult it can be to orient voters who aren't steeped in the issue.

 

[USNRet93]

Guess my point is that these notions that all of one party's rhetoric is always completely one way and the other's is always completely the 'other way', isn't accurate. Like President Obama's intent to 'grab yer guns', to Bush2, real friend of the second amendment..the truth is always somewhere in the middle. I'v said it before, 'absolutes' rankle me. Always, Never, Everybody, Nobody....

That this deception still shows up as an evaluation of BHO's 2d Am. record illustrates how difficult it can be to orient voters who aren't steeped in the issue.

The above may be an opinion piece(what news these days isn't??)but The fact remains that in actual signed legislation, President Obama signed more pro gun legislation than President Bush(2)...

 

[zukiphile]

The above may be an opinion piece(what news these days isn't??)but The fact remains that in actual signed legislation, President Obama signed more pro gun legislation than President Bush(2)...

A fact detached from an understanding of its significance doesn't help to measure what BHO was "going to" do. Used as Wolf uses it is deceptive.

What BHO was offered to sign as exec isn't an indication of what he was "going to" do. Execs can only sign what could get through a Senate, which in 2013 was controlled by the republicans he blamed for killing UBCs. The facts of BHO's presidency don't work to support the thesis that the parties are fungible on 2d Am. issues. BHO didn't think that when he blamed those republicans in the press conference I linked.

Guess my point is that these notions that all of one party's rhetoric is always completely one way and the other's is always completely the 'other way', isn't accurate.

As Bart Roberts notes, that isn't his contention.

Do you contest American Man's idea that BHO's agitation [in concert with others in congress] for greater restriction of arms drove an increase in sales during his tenure?

 

[MTT TL]

The above may be an opinion piece(what news these days isn't??)but The fact remains that in actual signed legislation, President Obama signed more pro gun legislation than President Bush(2)...

And we care why? Last I checked nobody with the last name Obama was running for President. Before December 2012 Obama never went after guns nor said he would. The current crew running for POTUS have all said they are going after guns right at the starting gate.

This isn't a "lets see what he will do" type situation. This is "all they have to do is keep their word" situation.

 

[USNRet93]

A fact detached from an understanding of its significance doesn't help to measure what BHO was "going to" do. Used as Wolf uses it is deceptive.

What BHO was offered to sign as exec isn't an indication of what he was "going to" do. Execs can only sign what could get through a Senate, which in 2013 was controlled by the republicans he blamed for killing UBCs. The facts of BHO's presidency don't work to support the thesis that the parties are fungible on 2d Am. issues. BHO didn't think that when he blamed those republicans in the press conference I linked.



As Bart Roberts notes, that isn't his contention.

Do you contest American Man's idea that BHO's agitation [in concert with others in congress] for greater restriction of arms drove an increase in sales during his tenure?

And DJT has said more than a few things he was 'going to get done'...yet, except for the bump stock ban, which is close to being made gone by trump's ATF, nothing has nor will 'happen'.

Yes, President Obama, either through actual words and deeds or things he 'said' or even implied, DID increase gun sales. Haven't seen that this pre election season, but it's early. But, so what? The 'media' is a biased, partisan arena these days and people look at things that reinforces what they already think, whether it's accurate or not.

Why hasn't DLT's rhetoric led to increased gun sales?

 

[USNRet93]

And we care why? Last I checked nobody with the last name Obama was running for President. Before December 2012 Obama never went after guns nor said he would. The current crew running for POTUS have all said they are going after guns right at the starting gate.

This isn't a "lets see what he will do" type situation. This is "all they have to do is keep their word" situation.

President Obama has more chance of being nominated than Beto does(meaning zero chance). Yet, many seem to care, A LOT, about what he says.

And once again, DLT has 'embraced UBC and RFL, as the presumptive GOP candidate for the 2020 election.

"All they have to do is keep their word"...That's all eh? Lots is said everyday, that strains the truth or reality, by both sides of the isle, to try to keep their 'base' loyal..been that way for a long, long,time.

BTW-this 3 days ago.

Several local families are suing the U.S. Department of Justice, claiming the federal government’s negligence allowed shooter Devin P. Kelley to purchase the firearm used in the massacre. Now, Trump administration lawyers are trying to shift some of the attention onto Academy Sports + Outdoors, writing in a motion filed Tuesday that the retailer is liable for the massacre because the shooter purchased his gun and high-capacity magazine at one of its stores.

https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/nati...cle_bfad5550-1dae-5575-aa42-c175e2a61030.html

 

[zukiphile]

President Obama has more chance of being nominated than Beto does(meaning zero chance). Yet, many seem to care, A LOT, about what he says.

That's the nature of that gaffe.

Which debate participant will protect my right to buy an AR pattern rifle in the future?

Do you think any of them would veto a UBC bill?

Do you contest American Man's idea that BHO's agitation [in concert with others in congress] for greater restriction of arms drove an increase in sales during his tenure?

And DJT...

I don't believe either Roberts' observation or my question were so subtle that they can't be addressed. Neither were about DJT.

If you were in the AR market in 2013 and 2014, or followed BHO's efforts to have UBC passed into law, the market distortions were easily observed and profound.

 

[USNRet93]

Do you think any of them would veto a UBC bill?

I don't believe either Roberts' observation or my question were so subtle that they can't be addressed. Neither were about DJT.

If you were in the AR market in 2013 and 2014, or followed BHO's efforts to have UBC passed into law, the market distortions were easily observed and profound.

President Obama rattled his anti gun saber and gun sales went up, ok, 10-4, and??

followed BHO's efforts to have UBC passed into law, the market distortions were easily observed and profound.

OK..Obama made gun sales go up...In this very partisan and contentious political environment..observing the rhetoric from both sides, I guess gun sales are spiking again?

Up about 4% compared to June 2018.

Do you think DJT would sign a UBC bill if it ever got through the senate and ended up on his desk? It won't tho..Mitch won't make GOP senators go on the record on UBC, nor would he embarrass DJT by putting it on his desk.

 

[zukiphile]

President Obama rattled his anti gun saber and gun sales went up, ok, 10-4, and??

If at the time of that market distortion people perceived the effort at restriction, BHO's efforts aren't accurately described by what he was able to sign.

OK..Obama made gun sales go up...In this very partisan and contentious political environment..observing the rhetoric from both sides, I guess gun sales are spiking again?

Up about 4% compared to June 2018.

That they aren't spiking may speak to the absence of a substantial regulatory threat at the moment.

My sentiments aside, I don't think most people consider the bumpstock reg a substantial new threat.

Do you think DJT would sign a UBC bill if it ever got through the senate and ended up on his desk?

I think he has no conviction on the topic, and that what he would sign would depend on the prevailing winds.

I don't mind answering your questions. Would you mind answering mine?

Which [democrat] debate participant will protect my right to buy an AR pattern rifle in the future?

Do you think any of them would veto a UBC bill?

 

[NJgunowner]

This is why I hate political debates, and make no mistake that's what this whole thread is.

Here's the danger that hasn't been discussed. Many gun owners don't want their guns confiscated or bought back, but they also aren't one issue voters.

Things like environment, income inequality, healthcare, and social issues weight heavier in their voting than guns. This is where the GOP falls flat. They'll happily cut down a forest for $$, they don't care that CEO's are making 100 times what they did 30 years ago while the average workers are making less. Don't get me started on healthcare.

My grandfather was very pro-gun, but very anti GOP until he passed away for these very reasons.

Our only protection in the long term is the Supreme court, but sometime over the next 20 years don't be surprised if that swings the other way and we lose even that small defense.

 

[zukiphile]

This is why I hate political debates, and make no mistake that's what this whole thread is.

Do you really hate them, or are you engaging in one broadly?

(Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but the theme of the thread is somewhat more narrow.)

Here's the danger that hasn't been discussed. Many gun owners don't want their guns confiscated or bought back, but they also aren't one issue voters.

I agree that many voters aren't single issue voters, and would add that there are social and ideological alignments that can influence a voter. In the environment of the last decade at the national level, there has been some ideological alignment of those who see the COTUS as an important limit on federal power generally and those who seek protection of 2d Am. rights.

That doesn't mean the alignment is perfect, but the pattern is discernible.

Our only protection in the long term is the Supreme court, but sometime over the next 20 years don't be surprised if that swings the other way and we lose even that small defense.

I think the Court is very important and encourage nomination and confirmation of justices who read the COTUS as an important legal document. I would not suggest that it is the only protection. It's only a bump in the road if a solid majority want to disregard constitutional protections. Nothing beats strong political organization and wide support.

 

[American Man]

Quote: Cries of “Obama’s going to take your guns!” were so loud in conservative circles dating back a decade that very few people remember that the only two major gun bills Obama signed into law actually expanded the rights of gun owners.
End Quote:

Does the above account for how Veterans and ONLY VETERANS who use a fiduciary were prohibited from owning a gun... which was one of his first executive orders in March 2009. Was that one of his campaign promises?... he acted pretty fast on that... faster than he did on health care... only a month and a half in office. But if you are retired FBI, IRS, DOJ, CIA, ABC,etc... you could use a fiduciary and not have your guns taken away.

Anyone think this was a carefully planned gun grabbed devised on the hard drives at the Center For American Progress? I have a feeling a lot more was to come if this went smooth... oh yeah... he tried it at the very end with SSN recipients... just trying to make America more safe I guess. Fast and Furious was another great thing to come... all devious anti American ideology... all 8 years of him.

But apparently Obama expanded our rights... especially for our veterans right?

 

[zxcvbob]

I've said this before but I'll be more explicit this time. The Democratic Party (there might be a few exceptions but they are exceptional) hates the 2nd amendment, and aren't all that fond of the 1st, 9th, and 10th. They also don't like the Takings Clause in the 5th. The Republicans hate the 4th, and don't really like any of the others except they sometimes give lip service to supporting to the 2nd. Collectively, both parties undermine all the Bill of Rights, they just take turns eroding different parts as they come into power for a time. I almost think it's coordinated.

The 3rd amendment is the only one neither side seems to care about, but I suspect that's only because there have been no 3rd amendment Supreme Court cases.