Both the DNC and RNC have issued their platform with expected results.
Dems:We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know what works in Chicago might not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact commonsense laws and improvements- like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban.
Reps:We condemn frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licencing of lawabiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the second amendment. We recognize that gun control only affects and penalizes law abiding citizens and such proposals are ineffective at reducing violent crime.:hand10:
This is the only part of the Rep section that I have a problem with.
and we support the option of firearms training
in federal programs serving senior citizens and
women.
Do we really need federal dollars to train old folks and women. If so, why just them? Sounds like more gov spending to me. I was hoping McCain would put a stop to some of it.
I don't totally disagree with this, but it would also depend on where the person lives. If they were from IL, WI, NYC or even MA, where you either can't carry a concealed weapon or can't keep a loaded gun in your home ready for self defense, it really ain't going to do any good. You would also have to convince the people to purchase a gun and then use it if necessary. And if it is such a good idea for old folks and women, why not include the men and children along with the others.
We already know that many of the CCW permit holders don't carry daily.
Then again, who is going to provide the training. What hoops would have you to go through to become an authorized gov. trainer of these women and old folks.
I watched a quite a bit of the platform building process for the Rep. it really was comical at times some of the things people wanted to put in, and some of the arguements made for certain things. It turns out some pretty feel good items in the platform that should be left without gov. involvement.
But it does beat the heck out of the Dem platform on the 2A issue as pointed out by the OP.
No, providing it to a select group of people is effectively another form of welfare. The federal government does not have the authority to take from all and give to few. That firearms training needs to be available to everyone, not just a few, however well-intended it might otherwise be. A woman doing her damnest to protect her family in the Bronx deserves training as much as an elderly person, no?
I'm not voting for the Democratic Party nominee, no. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm voting for the other, either. My choices, and those of everyone I know, are not as influenced by what the parties say will be done as much as what the parties have done (much of it having little to do with our right to keep and bear arms).
I dont think that 90 % of democrats are anti-gun. I do think that the ones we hear from are anti-gun, therefore the perception of them all being anti-gun.
To listen to some of the dems speak, with their though processes on life styles and life in general, they NEED to carry guns. Its a fact that many of those that speak the loudest about guns, actually carry them.
Sorry can't buy that one! Every gun hating person I have ever met is usually a democrat. Yes there are a few out there that are pro gun, thats how they win in conservative states. But my experience is most of them are anti gun. And yes you are right, some of the most anti gun dems actually do carry themselves! What hipocrites! Chuck Shumer from New York is one of the most anti gun senators in the US senate and they say he is one of the few privledged in New York to have a carry permit and in New York it takes and act of congress to get a permit, oh yeah he is in congress!!!
Not buying the opening statement, "Dems believe in the right to own firearms." Their track record says otherwise, tired of being played as a fool! Wish both sides would speak truth, we can plainly see who they are, just stop the lies!!
A Democrat president appointing 2 or 3 members of the Supreme Court will show everyone why they should have voted Republican, but by then they will have stopped you from carrying and probably outlawed most of your weapons and the rest will have to be registered and locked away where you can't get to them.
No doubt about it, the Democrat party is anti-gun to its core. The Republicans have not done a whole lot for gun owners either. McCain teamed up with Lieberman to propose the putrid McCain-Lieberman "gun show loophole" bill.
I'll jump in on this one with the risk of having it wiped because of going too far !
I have supported the party the has voted to support firearm rights since I've been a young guy,along with the rights of the unborn.Money will be earn no matter
who's in power; it does matter who's in power and how many days you will work for "the Uncle." I have done this since the great communicator was President.
I don't think there's been a pro-2ndA President since /perhaps/ Teddy Roosevelt, not even Reagan, if you look at what he actually supported instead of what he said. (Gun laws passed when he was Gov of CA)
Only a minimal number of federal legislators from either party actually support the 2ndA, from the way I read things. I suspect most of them give lip service to get votes.
The Democratic Party is just more honest about it. Keep a close eye on both.
As much as this may be heresy, the gun issue is not likely to be a very important one for most voters. We tend to see it as a very important issue (which it is, IMO) and it is in the forefront of our minds because we value it and we tend to associate online and in our lives with other gun owners. The vast majority of people I talk to are focused on two issues when it comes to making the choice this fall: the war in Iraq, and the economy.
It's also my opinion that the federal elections are nowhere near as important to the RKBA as your state elections. The vast majority of positive gun legislation has occurred on the state level in the recent past. With the fallout of the recent Heller decision, the momentum is on our side, and numerous groups are taking advantage of that to press the issue.
You know, occasionally we all hear that the "gun issue" is not the only issue to consider important, and I will agree that it is not.
On the other hand, while its not the only issue, it does tend to lead one to believe in a certain direction. If a man is truly anti-gun, they have a tendency to be very liberal in everything else. While this is not true in all cases, it does seem to be true in a majority of them.
For instance, when I hear that someone leans toward certain issues such as homosexuality, abortion, more government, more taxes, atheism, and many other issues that liberals for the most part tend to believe in, it would be a good bet that they are also anti-gun.
Now I know that all of them cant be painted with the same brush, because there are exceptions to every rule, (we see them on this forum everyday but for the most part that seems to be the case.
Anyone else or is it just me? What say you?:scruntiny:
I'm sure Ive greatly annoyed some for speaking my observations, so by all means flame away.:gah:
I still don't think that the majority of people that call themselves Democrats consider themselves anti-gun. I have qualified most of the big Democratic supporters for CHL's in this county and they don't agree with the anti-gun platform at all. Many of the avid hunters and fisherman still call themselves Democrats as well.
I do believe that the large populations in the big cities probably are anti-gun, but for the most part small time America isn't and I do believe that a higher percentage of Dem's are anti-gun than Republicans are.
Now, I do realize that I am seeing a very small picture here compared to the big scheme of things, but I have to believe that more people are still pro-gun than anti- gun, or we would have lost the right to bear arms a long time ago.
Part of the problem is a two party system. People vote for push button issues but don't agree with the entire party platform. I''m not calling for an end to the two party system, just pointing out something that happens.
I don't think so. I think the politicians are more anti-gun, but not the people. If CC (legal or illegal) is any indication of pro-gun, Detroit is pro-gun.
Hotguns, you make a lot of good points, but from what I've read in other posts, you believe people that are pro-regulation are (in general) anti-gun. By that defination, I have no doubt more people (across the nation) would be on average more anti-gun then pro-gun. A lot of people are more pro-regulation (I'm just willing to hear the case) then me, and a lot more pro-regulation (therefore anti-gun) then you would like.
IMO, one of the reasons we have the protections we have is because the 2nd protects a "right" and not a "privilege" that could be dictated by a simple majority.
I believe that the gun industry is one of the most regulated industries there are. Not only on a local level,but state and federal as well.
Most people that are pro-regulation are in fact anti-gun. If they had their way, they would regulate them out of existence, much as D.C. did by the regulations that they imposed. Their goal is to make them such a burden to maintain or own, that eventually people just give up. That is not speculation, that is fact.
The pro regulation for guns people are usually in one of two categories. They are either well meaning and ignorant, or absolutely anti- gun and don't want anyone to own one. The ignorant people use flawed arguments for their stances. They do not understand that only law abiding people abide the law or regulations and more regulation put unnecessary burdens on law abiding people, while the thugs aren't hindered by regulations at all.
Lets say that another gun regulation was passed that required registration of guns. How many law abiding citizens would do that? A lot more than the thugs would because they wouldn't do it. So once again, a regulation is passed that does nothing for the good guys that it was "supposed to protect."
There in lies the fly in the ointment. Regulations do very little to reduce crime,so why put more on something?
Of course we need to regulate somethings, but guns are already as regulated as they need to be.
I don't think so. I think the politicians are more anti-gun, but not the people. If CC (legal or illegal) is any indication of pro-gun, Detroit is pro-gun.
Facts show differently. Most people with a clue know that Detroit is one of the most anti-gun cities in the nation, ranking right up there with Chicago,NYC, San Fransico.
While it may appear that lots of people are getting gun permits, I'd be willing to be they are in the minority population wise.
Most people that are pro-regulation are in fact anti-gun. If they had their way, they would regulate them out of existence, much as D.C. did by the regulations that they imposed. Their goal is to make them such a burden to maintain or own, that eventually people just give up. That is not speculation, that is fact.
One of the many studies done by John Lott a few years ago, of the laws and regulations that were sponsored or co sponsored by the more prominent anti gunners showed that they favored more regulations on not only guns, but everything that they dealt with. It seemed to be a lifestyle with them. It's almost like they were on a power trip or something, some of the regulations that were used as an example bordered on being ridiculous. It would have been funny if it weren't true and those were just the regulations that passed, there were a bunch more that didn't make it through.
Lott went on a campaign to uncover lots of misinformation and lies that were published as fact and used by the many anti-gun groups and by accident noticed a correlation of certain things. It was then that they did everything in their power to discredit him and his findings.
Am I understanding your first point correctly in that politicians supportive of more firearms regulations also tend to be those supportive of more regulations in general? If so, that has nothing to do with the vast body of people (voters), given the strong tendency of politicians to gravitate towards group think ("party-think", if you will) concerning "issues" votes.
That still doesn't support your "fact" that those who are "pro-regulation" are also "anti-gun". You can't even say most who are pro-regulation are also anti-gun. You haven't supported your stated fact.
Skygod, I might be inclined to agree with you had he not chosen to make an argument that ought to be supported by facts, stating his side as a fact, and failing to support stated fact. The fact is... that's not a fact at all, and you're right in that it's most likely simply an opinion. I don't even believe it to be an accurate opinion. Remember that we who congregate on internet communities dedicated to shared interests are already subsets of a larger society, shooters in general, and which itself is only a subset of an even larger society, being the people at large. Most shooters I know (limited sample size, I'm well aware of this) are supportive of some kind of regulations concerning firearms; no-carry in bars is an issue that many people on this site support. Most people I know, being further distanced from the issues at hand (and thus less likely to be as informed as shooters and firearms enthusiasts), are even more inclined to be supportive of some kind of regulations. Are all of these people suddenly anti-gun?
No, they're not. Not all of them. Not even most of them. If you can't provide something solid (read: empirical) to support your stated fact, a fact it's not.
Detroit has roughly a 4,500,000 population. According to MSP numbers the concealed hangun permits are around 27,415 as of August. Thats a pretty small percentage of people in Detroit that are armed. As a matter of fact, its only around .6 %. Not even 1 percent.Thats a pretty low number for a big city.
I'm willing to bet a larger % of households in Detroit have a firearm for SD then in a small town. Now a greater % of the small town citizens may have a hunting rifle for hunting, but you are kidding yourself if you don't assume at least 51% of the homes in Detroit do not have at least one loaded firearm (just ask any LE).
I'll give you credit for at least having numbers (on something) before you posted. However, the logic is way off. % of CCW does not = how pro-gun a city is (especially a place like Detroit with the $200 price tag and the distrust in LE). Do you understand how much harder the "politicians" in Detroit make it to geta CCW then someplace like one of the neighboring suburbs.
If that is the logic. Not only would pro-regulation be anti-gun, then anyone who did not have a CC would be anti-gun in your mind. That would make pro-gun, at absolute best, 10% of the nation. The majority of the contry can not be considered pro-gun to the level you believe defines "pro-gun."
I happen to believe pro-gun can includes those who are luke-warm-regulation and do not CC. Just like I know some hunters who own 7 rifles, 2 pistols, and have a CCW can somehow be anti-gun as they are very pro-regulation. But even by my definition, I doubt most in the nation would be pro-gun.
I stand by what I said 100% with no doubt in my mind. The only reason gun owners rights are protected at the current level is because the 2nd is a constitutional right not a privlage dictated by the majority.
I stand by what I said 100% with no doubt in my mind. The only reason gun owners rights are protected at the current level is because the 2nd is a constitutional right not a privlage dictated by the majority.
Going to try and keep this forum PC, so please understand I'm not trying to insult anyone.
I've met a lot of pro-gun atheist. Frankly, as a Christian, I often find my faith to make me a little to a lot less pro-gun then many atheists.
Now Hotguns, you and I may agree, JungleJim going to burn unless he finds Jesus (and for the record, I just said a prayer for JungleJim) but most likely JungleJim just thinks you and I are smoking the opium of the masses.
IMHO pro-gun does not = pro or anti some other unrelated issue (in general). In our country most people have one or two hot button issues they vote on. They go with the party that supports their hot button issues and argue the talking points on the other issues of that chosen party. But when you get down to it, they don't really believe in those talking points, they just worry about the hot button issues.
I know I'm guilty of voting on hotbutton issues. If you were to take three or so issues off the table, I'm not sure what party I would vote for.
This thread has drifted way off topic of 2A issues and is now into several subjects that don't need to be discussed here.
Forum rule #8:
8. We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of certain subjects (politics, religion, abortion, sexual orientation, etc) often degenerate quickly. For this reason, we do not focus on these subjects in our discussions. We encourage you to take these discussions to other forums where these topics are the focus.
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!