The Second Amendment and the Democratic Party

[zukiphile]

BUT, once again..'some' are all twisted about some minor candidate's statements on a DEM 'debate' stage, with the election 13 months away while other 'candidate's' make similar statements, who happen to be on the other side of the isle and it's 'so what, he doesn't mean it'...

That's not an accurate synopsis.

While you can pull quotes of DJT making some statements apparently supportive of substantial additional firearms restrictions, one can also pull many DJT quotes that support a very hard line on 2d Am. rights. That's a comment on DJT's mode of communication rather than the policy of the last 3 years.

Where is that variability in the communication of putative democrat and socialist presidential candidates? It isn't there. That's the point. While repub candidates may be wobbly about 2d Am. rights depending on time and audience, the putative dems are not. The range of acceptable policy within viable democrat nominees does not extend to recognition of a robust right.

Congressionally, in 1994 each party had some outliers voting contrary to pattern for and against the 1994 AWB. A quarter century later, the continued legal recognition of the right rests in part on Sup Court justice recognizing the 2d Am and conceding that Heller was correctly decided, and Senate dems are conspicuous in their opposition to that effort.

The insinuation that at a national level the parties are the same on this issue is false.


That doesn't mean that weakness on the issue from repubs should escape critique. The reasoning behind NFA coverage of bumpstocks doesn't pass a laugh test. Mike Dewine, Ohio's repub governor, proposed a red flag law that had all the problems of other laws written about here, but he was deterred by a General Assembly that wasn't interested in adopting those problems into state code. The better remedy to repubs [and dems] behaving poorly is to oppose them when they behave poorly, not to suggest a false equivalence.

 

[MTT TL]

The biggest weaknesses on Trump are private party sales and the age of majority for firearms.

Private party sales without a background check are probably going to die no matter what we do. I will note that the NRA was for it before they were against it.

The age of majority thing is getting weird in American Society. It is all over the map from allowing 18+ to ship off to war while not allowing them to drink alcohol to some states not allowing them to carry pistols.

The DOD will never surrender on the 18 being allowed to join though. If it ever changed to 21 they would never have enough manpower ever again, short of a draft.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That's not an accurate synopsis.

While you can pull quotes of DJT making some statements apparently supportive of substantial additional firearms restrictions, one can also pull many DJT quotes that support a very hard line on 2d Am. rights. That's a comment on DJT's mode of communication rather than the policy of the last 3 years.

Where is that variability in the communication of putative democrat and socialist presidential candidates? It isn't there. That's the point. While repub candidates may be wobbly about 2d Am. rights depending on time and audience, the putative dems are not. The range of acceptable policy within viable democrat nominees does not extend to recognition of a robust right.

Well said.

 

[sigarms228]

Well said.

Yes I agree and thanks zukiphile.

The 2013 AWB yes vote was 38 democrats and only 1 republican with that republican losing his re election bid after that vote. I see a definite trend here. Obama wanted that bill passed badly and definitely would have signed it.

President Trump fought hard for his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh also and one of the big issues the democrats had with Brett Kavanaugh was that he supported ownership by citizens of AR-15 style rifles as demonstrated by his grilling by gun hating democrat Diane Feinstein and a previous dissenting opinion in 2011 he stated on a case involving them on the district court he was on.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judge-kavanaughs-record-on-second-amendment-gun-rights/

 

[American Man]

Just like every other MSM platform, you aren't getting 'news', but Opinions...

As for quotes above, I DID watch the video and it just shows how TV moments frame 'policy', and how that 'policy' disappears once the cameras are off.

BUT, once again..'some' are all twisted about some minor candidate's statements on a DEM 'debate' stage, with the election 13 months away while other 'candidate's' make similar statements, who happen to be on the other side of the isle and it's 'so what, he doesn't mean it'...

I am capable of discerning an opinion or slant even on a conservative's show, and still be able to figure out what the news story is. The difference between watching and listening to a story on a conservative channel/station and a liberal one is needing a barf bag while getting news from the latter. But yeah, Cavuto can be a real hyper partisan right?

MEANWHILE, you apparently are falling for straight up made up fake news even when they are politely spelling it out for you.

I'm not saying I get everything right all the time, but if I was quoting and pushing a fake story and someone proved to me it was phony, I would thank them for setting me straight.

 

[rickyrick]

Leftist media is intentionally peddling false information as fact. I know about a great many subjects. Over time, the media has lied about things in which I’m an expert, some of it is on guns, but guns are the least of my interests and expertise. Leftist media has made even larger lies about fields in which I have a much higher level of knowledge than guns.
I recognize propaganda driven journalism, they taught us how to spot it in K-12 school.
If they intentionally lie and mislead the public on things in which I am knowledgeable, I must assume the leftist media is lying about the things in which I am ignorant.

I don’t get that from right winger media, right media has a bias and slant... I see their bias as well, they all have a slant. There’s a huge problem in this country. The sheeple actually believes the leftists media lies now as fact. Leftist media and politicians have become dangerous to the country.

 

[USNRet93]

The insinuation that at a national level the parties are the same on this issue is false.

That doesn't mean that weakness on the issue from repubs should escape critique. The reasoning behind NFA coverage of bumpstocks doesn't pass a laugh test. Mike Dewine, Ohio's repub governor, proposed a red flag law that had all the problems of other laws written about here, but he was deterred by a General Assembly that wasn't interested in adopting those problems into state code. The better remedy to repubs [and dems] behaving poorly is to oppose them when they behave poorly, not to suggest a false equivalence.

NOT saying they are the same but saying any statement that reflects any anti 2A sentiment should be taken seriously, even if it comes from the guy in the big chair.

 

[MTT TL]

BUT, once again..'some' are all twisted about some minor candidate's statements on a DEM 'debate' stage, with the election 13 months away

NOT saying they are the same but saying any statement that reflects any anti 2A sentiment should be taken seriously, even if it comes from the guy in the big chair.

I am confused. Should we take the statements seriously or not?

 

[USNRet93]

I am confused. Should we take the statements seriously or not?

That's a personal decision. My point again, is that ALL these statements spell trouble, regardless of where/which side they come from. MY point is that 'some' are all fussed about a minor candidate's statements on a debate stage but those same people are unconcerned by statements by those actually in position of governing power.

 

[zukiphile]

NOT saying they are the same but saying any statement that reflects any anti 2A sentiment should be taken seriously, even if it comes from the guy in the big chair.

If they aren't the same, why would you take an unrepresentative quote from DJT as seriously as an unwavering message from every viable dem candidate for the nomination?

I am confused. Should we take the statements seriously or not?

That's a personal decision. My point again, is that ALL these statements spell trouble, regardless of where/which side they come from. MY point is that 'some' are all fussed about a minor candidate's statements on a debate stage but those same people are unconcerned by statements by those actually in position of governing power.

Is your point that these people exercise appropriate discernment?

Why would you treat consistent support for 2d Am. erosion amongst democrat and socialist candidates as equivalent to DJT's equivocation?


I've tried to explain this gently enough to not get any noses out of joint in the past. There are all sorts of social and political reasons an individual may identify as a republican or democrat. Once one's location even may have driven party affiliation. Those reasons have been a declining influence on affiliation in most subpopulations in the US. For about four decades, affiliations have been more influence by ideology. Increasingly, the dem ideology has been focused on reduction or erasure of the consequence or existence social and economic differences, and using government power toward that end. That ideology will see traditional constitutional constraints on exercise of that power as an obstacle.

This shows up in judicial philosophy as a disregard for constitutional restraints on power. The text of the 2d Am. is waved away with admonitions about what the founding fathers foresaw, and how society has changed. Popularly something similar happens with the 1st Am.

An individual can be a democrat and a fierce gun rights advocate. However, that is a heterodox position, not in sync with the leadership at a national level, and one that does not cohere or align well ideologically. Many people who identify with either major party will hold a heterodox position, or several. That isn't unusual.

You appear to have concluded that people who note these differences can do so only out of partisan bias. You are getting some push back from people who observe that although DJT and repubs may not be reliable on this issue, the dems and socialists under discussion are reliable, but in the wrong direction.


I hope I've set this out in a manner that makes sense and seems fair to you.

 

[NJgunowner]

Bartholomew Roberts

And how are gun rights in NJ these days?

He lived his whole life in Missouri, so I doubt he really gave two craps about gun rights in NJ. Try an actual argument next time.

For someone who hates political debates, you sure seem to be trying to take this one off Second Amendment topics and get the thread locked.

This part the of the forum deals with gun law and rights, and is supposed to be a politic free zone. As soon the topic said "The Second Amendment and the Democratic Party" it became a full on political discussion. It should have been locked or moved immediately. It became a farce as soon as it was allowed to continue.

As fond as I am of the 2nd amendment, I'm not willing to let everything burn because of that one issue. Neither party is doing us any favors and they both screw us in different ways. It's just a matter of how much and to what degree at this time. I'm not going to always vote republican over guns when I think they are screwing us harder on something else. Nor am I going to vote democrat when it's true for them.

 

[zukiphile]

This part the of the forum deals with gun law and rights, and is supposed to be a politic free zone. As soon the topic said "The Second Amendment and the Democratic Party" it became a full on political discussion. It should have been locked or moved immediately. It became a farce as soon as it was allowed to continue.

Where all the announced contenders for a party's nomination come out against an important civil right, how would you prefer to discuss it? Where the Sup Ct majority confirming the right itself were all nominees of Presidents of the other party, does observation of their affiliations bear no comment?

I don't see observing the animosity toward a civil right as a farce or a "full on political discussion". While I don't entirely disagree with your wider political argument, that doesn't mean the thread reflects your comment.

If you have a passion for the other issues you mention and it would drive you to support election of officeholders with less regard for 2d Am. rights, I can see why you would view that general tension with dissatisfaction. Should that mean the positions of aspiring officeholders are off limits?

 

[NJgunowner]

Where all the announced contenders for a party's nomination come out against an important civil right, how would you prefer to discuss it? Where the Sup Ct majority confirming the right itself were all nominees of Presidents of the other party, does observation of their affiliations bear no comment?

Simply put, create a forum heading for political discussions. Right now you have the ramblings of a desperate man trying to gin up any support he can from anywhere he can. No one here is shocked that the other dem's didn't immediately disavow the whole idea. It's not exactly news.

When an actual bill is proposed, drag it back over here.

 

[zukiphile]

Where all the announced contenders for a party's nomination come out against an important civil right, how would you prefer to discuss it? Where the Sup Ct majority confirming the right itself were all nominees of Presidents of the other party, does observation of their affiliations bear no comment?

Simply put, create a forum heading for political discussions.

Since this isn't a purely political matter, but one involving the defense of a civil right, that's a false choice.

Right now you have the ramblings of a desperate man trying to gin up any support he can from anywhere he can. No one here is shocked that the other dem's didn't immediately disavow the whole idea. It's not exactly news.

That also is not an accurate summary. It isn't that the others haven't disavowed O'Rourke, but that they all support greater restrictions. They vary in demeanor and degree only.

When an actual bill is proposed, drag it back over here.

That isn't what the NRA did when DJT made noises about UBCs. Waiting for a threat to become imminent isn't reasonable.

 

[NJgunowner]

That isn't what the NRA did when DJT made noises about UBCs. Waiting for a threat to become imminent isn't reasonable.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Right now you have politicians stating a stance on a subject. That in and of itself is NOT a law or civil rights issue. That's just free speech, they can believe what they want. IF one gets elected and starts trying to change the law and impose on those rights, THEN we have something to talk about here. The NRA rumbled at DJT because he's POTUS, not because he's joe guy on the street.

This whole thread is about the fitness of political CANDIDATES who have a stance we dislike.

And to finish it off in a way to make it VERY clear.

When you're discussing candidates and their stances and whether you agree and who you want to vote for... that's politics. It's their actions AFTER they get elected that should determine if it ends up here. There used to be a section called "Legal and Political" for this type of discussion. I think it was archived off for the slippery and dividing slope it caused.

 

[MTT TL]

I'm going to have to agree with NJG. The politics thing just doesn't work. As much as I dislike the positions staked out by the one party they are spouting rhetoric to appeal to their base. But there are more than ten of them and none of them are special. Come late spring when they choose their poison would be a better time to look at their plans and proposals.

 

[zukiphile]

Right now you have politicians stating a stance on a subject. That in and of itself is NOT a law or civil rights issue. That's just free speech, they can believe what they want.

That's not an accurate construction of the issue, or the thread.

Proposed changes to law as it affects a civil right is a civil rights issue. It isn't merely free speech or someone's subjective belief when someone seeks office based on his advocacy for restriction of a civil right.

While you raised

...environment, income inequality, healthcare, and social issues...

, you were alone in that.

When you're discussing candidates and their stances and whether you agree and who you want to vote for... that's politics.

It isn't purely or generally political to discuss the merits of various positions. That you might like a different sort of candidate for whom to vote doesn't mean that the thread is about voting.

There used to be a section called "Legal and Political" for this type of discussion. I think it was archived off for the slippery and dividing slope it caused.

The only politically general posts here appear to be your own. Contrary to your assertion, this isn't supposed to be a politics free zone, but political facets incidental to civil rights and activism as it pertains to those rights are explicitly within the contemplation of this forum. That you may dislike the implications of such a civil rights discussion should not be a basis on which you object to others having that discussion.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This thread was supposed to be about the Second Amendment and the Democratic party. We've allowed some slack in the hope that the train would put itself back on the tracks, but that doesn't appear to be likely. Please remember that TFL is not a place for general discussions about politics ... and that's what this thread has devolved into.

CLOSED by consensus of the staff.