Democratic Platform Calls for “Honest and Open Conversation About Firearms”

 

The 2012 Democratic Party party platform his the hit of the Internet. Sort of. The official version hasn’t been rubber stamped and released. But the Dems’ friends have the inside dope on the Party’s party line and there’s not a lot for gun rights advocates to like. thehill.com reports “The document calls for ‘reasonable regulation’ governing guns, including laws banning assault weapons and requiring all gun sellers — not just licensed dealers — to perform background checks on potential buyers.” Apparently, that’s not enough for the Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ Director Mark Glaze [above right]. ” . . . the Democratic language on guns is a terrific example of how completely they blow [off] this issue.” And that language says  . . .

As was the case in 2008, the Democrats’ draft platform pushes back hard against accusations that the party hopes to do away with guns altogether, a charge frequently made by the National Rifle Association (NRA). “We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve the Second Amendment right to own and use firearms,” reads the draft, which was approved by the Democratic National Committee’s platform committee in Detroit earlier this month. But the Democrats also emphasize a belief that “the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.” “We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements — like reinstating the assault weapon ban and closing the gun-show loophole — so that guns to do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible law-breaking few,” the draft statement reads.

Yes, well, common sense says the word “reasonable” doesn’t mean what the stealthy gun grabbers want the American public to think it means. It means whatever they (gun control advocates) want it to mean. For example, how does an assault weapons ban stop guns from falling into the hands of those “irresponsible law-breaking few”? And what’s up with calling violent criminals “irresponsible”?  Weak beer dontchathink? Anyway, the Dems’ call for an “open conversation about gun control” is new—and slimy as hell. By attempting to appear “open” to a “debate” with gun rights advocates the Democratic antis camouflage the fact that they’re not willing to “discuss” anything. They want to get what they can get and they don’t care who gets upset. As long as they don’t get too upset and vote Republican. How close-minded people can have an open conversation remains to be seen, but we invite Mark to hit guntruth@me.com with his best shot. Hear that? That’s the sound of me not holding my breath.

comments

  1. avatar Jean Paul says:

    That is an awfully long-winded way for them to say “We don’t care about votes in the South, Southwest, Rocky Mountains, Midwest, or Appalachia.”.

    Do the Democrats think they can win with the west coast, Northeast, and Illinois?

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Do the Democrats think they can win with the west coast, Northeast, and Illinois?

      Seeing how CA and NY give them more than 1/3 of the electoral votes needed to win, they might be able to pull it off depending on how you define the northeast.

      1. avatar Jean Paul says:

        That’s why I think eventually the US will split. You have ultra liberals in the densely populated areas, and conservatives in the middle.

        1. avatar Dennis Miller says:

          The only problem with that is I would have to move. Living in PA about two hours from Philly or Pittsburgh, I guess I’m included in the northeast densely populated area.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      Yes they do. A few states with most of the electorial votes could end up Lording it over the rest of us.

      1. avatar Tim McNabb says:

        This is why the electoral college is so important. It blunts the impact of densely populated states.

        It is also why proportionate electoral college distribution sucks. It needs to stay winner take all.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          I think you have it backwards. We have a few high population states that are predominately Democrat and they get obscene amounts of Electoral Votes and silence the non-Democrats in those states. If we did proportional electoral votes, then the 30% or so of non-Democrats in those states would get a say instead of being ignored.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          this i have to agree with. if you get 51% of the vote in a state you should only get 51% of the electoral votes.

        3. avatar The Pit Boxer says:

          Tim has it correct. Well, so does Totenglocke. But the point of the electoral college wasn’t to protect the interests of the minority populations within the state, but to protect the interests of whole states with minority populations.

          The President is elected by the states. If a state, by 51% votes for candidate A, then that state has chosen candidate A.

          If the President were chosen by the population as a whole (proportional electoral votes), that would be a strict democracy, which we are not. We are a union of 50 sovereign states.

  2. avatar 2wheels says:

    “We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve the Second Amendment right to own and use firearms”

    Oh, so you’re ok with concealed carry now? Somehow I doubt that.

    “we can work together to enact commonsense improvements — like reinstating the assault weapon ban and closing the gun-show loophole”

    I will not support a BS ban on guns that look scary to you, and there is no such thing as a gunshow loophole.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      I can see I have nothing to add to this conversation. Thanks.

    2. avatar weoi says:

      It’s funny how republicans think they can vote their way out of problems that were caused by voting in the first place. Republicans have had nearly 80 years to get rid of gun control and haven’t done jack shit except to make the enemies of freedom (including themselves)even more entrenched.

  3. avatar JoshinGA says:

    What exactly constitutes an “assault weapon”? Something that scares you?

    In that case, politicians from in and around Chicago are assault weapons, and must be banned. Its for the good of the country.

    1. avatar Mark Kelley says:

      The term “assault weapon” was coined by the gun control crowd. There is no exact definition. It essentially means any gun they want to ban.

  4. avatar RKflorida says:

    Honest and Open conversation? Guns? Democrats?
    hahahahahahahaha…. You mean it wasn’t a joke?

  5. avatar JSIII says:

    I vote for ANY democrat is a vote for the brady bunch. I am not a single issue voter but the second ammendment is high up there.

  6. avatar Mark says:

    The individual right to bear arms is in The Bill of Rights, donkey party!

    1. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

      No, it’s just an ol’ country tradition, haven’t you heard.

  7. avatar Bob says:

    Watch out for the innuendo filled KEY WORDS.

    Reasonable = to us, but no one else would consider it reasonable or acceptable.
    Common Sense = see Reasonable.
    Assault Weapon = anygun or part of a gun that looks scary, but actually has no effect on crime statistics.
    Gun Show Loophole = something that doesn’t exist
    Preserve/support the Second Amendment right = Since they don’t believe the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right (only for the militia), they will attack your individual right.
    Effective enforcement of existing laws = Of course, they need to add new laws that allow them to do this.

    It’s not just what they said. It’s the hidden meaning in the words they used.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      The thing you have to realize with their doublethink is that their minds are so warped that they don’t realize how out of touch with reality they are. Try it yourself and talk to Democrats from the liberal bastions such as NY, MA, Chicago, CA, etc and ask them if they’re very liberal or “extremist” or anything resembling that – they’ll almost all tell you that they’re not a liberal and that they’re in fact a moderate.

    2. avatar Jamie in ND says:

      Spot on!!!

  8. avatar Bob says:

    Honest and open conversation?

    On “gun violence”?

    The problem is not the gun – The problem is the violence.

    Until they stop attacking the guns and start attacking the violence, there is nothing to be gained by discussion.

  9. avatar jwm says:

    i’ve said it and i’m going to keep saying til you vote to ban me from this site. vote for a no hope indepent candidate or abstain from voting and you’re handing a victory to barry, hillary, difi ,bloomberg, and the u.n. arms treaty.

    and it would serve you right to loose your right to anything but heavily regulated shotguns but you’d be dragging my rights down with you.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      The problem being that if you vote for Romney (aka White Obama), you’re voting for those same things. Welcome to the one party Republicrat system, where no matter who wins, the American people lose.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Yes, I’m familiar with the spin put on Romney’s actions by the gun-owning devout Republicans. It’s rather laughable how bad their attempts at turning his anti-gun positions (he’s even said that he supports the scary looking weapons ban in MA) into a pro-gun position are.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        if you truly believe that totenglocke then you must be prepared to turn in most if not all of your guns to the police. that’s all that will satisfy the dems. if barry gets a second term we can realistically expect hillary in 2016 and you know she’ll sign a u.n. arms treaty with no 2a protections in it.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          No, I’m prepared to fight and die if necessary when the day comes (and regardless of who you vote for or what laws we get passed, the day WILL come – whether we’re alive to see it or not is another issue) that they march through the streets to fully enslave us.

          If I’m ever left with no other option, suicide is always on the table as a last resort.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          that’s the bravado of youth talking totenglocke. hopefully it’ll never come to that. if it does remember that line from patton. the object is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.

      2. avatar Accur81 says:

        Are familiar with Feinstein / Pelosi / Bloomberg / Schumer / Yee? The big cities are anti-gun, and firmly under Deomocratic control. It’s a pretty common theme throughout CA / NY / Chicago etc. I’m really confused why more people don’t see this.

    2. avatar matt says:

      Republicans like Romney and Regan have put in to law plenty of gun control legislation, they are no different from the Democrats. Romney signed in to law a AWB in MA and said “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”. Regan signed in to law the Mulford Act which banned carrying firearms in CA, and publicly supported the Brady bill.

      But magically somehow this is all the democrats fault, right?

      1. avatar JoshinGA says:

        At least Romney wouldnt be a lame duck president. And given his track record of doing whatever will get him elected, having re-election in the back of his mind wouldnt be a bad thing for us gun owners.
        Also, his “do what it takes to get elected” strategy probably weighed heavily on his decision to sign that AWB ban in MA. Didnt it contain less strict language than previous bills?
        We also wouldnt have to worry about Romney pushing through a law by executive order, as Barry seems to be fond of doing.

        1. avatar matt says:

          How is Obama a lame duck? From Wikipedia:
          A lame duck is an elected official who is approaching the end of his or her tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected.

          The status can be due to

          – having lost a re-election bid
          – choosing not to seek another term at the expiration of the current term
          – a term limit which keeps the official from running for that particular office again
          – the abolishment of the office, which must nonetheless be served out until the end of the official’s term.[1]

          If you didnt notice, Obama is running for re-election…

          He had a chance to veto the bill, he did not. Instead he came out as a strong supporter, see my quote. What if a new federal AWB is what it takes to get him the blue vote for re-election?

          Every single president since I was born has pushed thru laws via executive order. Why would Romney be different?

        2. avatar JoshinGA says:

          If he’s re-elected he will no longer be able to seek election to the office of the president, hence “lame duck”. Romney would be able to run for president again if he was to win.

          Romney wouldnt push through an unpopular law by executive order because then he might risk losing out on the next election. Barry would have no risk of losing an election since he would be at his term limit. Barry would be more likely to push through unpopular legislation in the form of executive order.

          And if you honestly think Romney is going to forsake his party and lose the majority of the people who voted for him to get *maybe* a couple more votes from crazy gun grabbers who are only voting one issue, then nothing I say will probably even register with you.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        well matt you live in chicago, a democrat run paradise so you should know better than any that while the gop isn’t near perfect they’re still ahead of the dems. but of course your agenda is to get as many people as possible to abstain from voting, you have some idea that the system will collapse since you don’t take part.

        what will actually happen is we’ll wind up with even stricter gun laws and maybe outright bans on most types of weapons like in england.

        1. avatar matt says:

          while the gop isn’t near perfect they’re still ahead of the dems.

          Provide examples, so that I may contradict them.

          what will actually happen is we’ll wind up with even stricter gun laws and maybe outright bans

          Then we’ll finally see how many people will stick to the line, “you can take them from my cold dead hands”.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          schumer, difi, pelosi with help from bloomberg etc. the 68 gca and the awb. the awb started in ca with our dems and spread to the national level. hillary likes the u.n. arms treaty.

          as for sticking to their guns, most people will not because we are a fat spoiled country and as individuals we have too much to loose.

          if it came to an actual gun grab only a few die hard holdouts will resist and they’ll be dealt with.

      3. avatar Accur81 says:

        You live in Chicago. I live in Orange County – a Republican controlled county within a liberal state. I’ve got a dozen non-LEO friends who have applied for, and obtained CCW permits. In Chicago, you can’t have squat. What were you saying about Republicans being the same as Democrats being the same? You’re gun laws are even worse, which is a shame. Republicans aren’t perfect, certainly, but they are talking about gun rights. The Dems are talking about common sense gun control – which means crappy Chicago style laws, or worse, for the whole nation.

    3. avatar Jake says:

      So what you’re saying is a vote for Willard is a vote for Obama. Thanks for telling me what I already know. Even before that atrocity of a convention, the Republican party was a professional organization of disenfranchising its members that aren’t rich old straight white guys. It has been known for some time that Obama takes independents and fence riders more than Willard does, and Ron Paul took them even more than both. So, basically the GOP detonated a torpedo in the tube and is now blaming it on all the guys who were shouting not to detonate because they were distracting the important people from their important job of trying to reach the ocean floor as quickly as possible.

  10. avatar Bob says:

    Robert Farago,

    Your “thehill.com” link doesn’t work.

  11. avatar Silver says:

    I think one must actually understand the concept of “honesty” and have some basic grasp of the Constitution before they can have an “open” discussion on it. Obviously, gun-grabbers do not qualify.

    Nobody with half a brain is fooled by their deception. They are oppressors to the core, the modern would-be successors to the greatest tyrants and monsters in history.

    Never give an inch to these tyrants and thieves.

  12. avatar Greg says:

    Figures when a Party wants to take our guns away, what else can they say other than, “yea, we want to take your 2nd amendment rights away”.
    Just more run around on what THEY really want to do.

  13. avatar gej88 says:

    what’s with the faux gang signs?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      well they do represent the dems.

    2. avatar Greg says:

      yea, I was wondering that also.
      Kinda dumb….really hate that when I see that on Facebook.

  14. avatar Kevin T says:

    So does this mean they’ve already surrendered Tester’s Senate seat in MT?

  15. avatar Little John says:

    OMG reasonable, they do not know what reasonable is…. all they want to do is take our guns away so they can govern without worry….. an unarmed people are easy to govern, put in their prisons when someone talks back and disagrees with them….. oh reasonable, Hilter did reasonable for him and look what happened….. millions died because they could not protect themselves……. the reason our forfathers put the second amed. in there giving us, the people the right to keep and bear arms was not to go hunting deer, or turkey, or to put food on our tables, it was to protect the republic from being taken over by enemies of the republic foreign, and domestic… it was so WE THE PEOPLE could protect our nation from tyranny…. from the government over stepping its bounds, as we are seeing right now when a president can disreguard legal procedures as outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America,in that he bypasses Congress by using executive orders to make Law, when Congress had voted down the legislation which the president made law. Our system is not run that way….. when the president can make appointments and open our government offices to known terriorst org. like the muslim brotherhood, who is now working in our Home Land Security with high level clearances having access to secrets in NASA, the military, FBI and the CIA…… and they want to be reasonable about gun control….. almost every bill that has come before Congress and the Senate has had a rider on them dealing with gun control…… reasonable, they do not know what reasonable is. The Dem have been working hand and glove with the united nations trying to take our guns away…. and who has been on the committies working out the details on these treaties,,,, none other than IRAN…. who was a major contributor to the Small Arms Treaty…… get real people wake up.. We as a nation are in big big big trouble with the administration in office at this time……. and it is time for a change….. I just wish we had another Ronald Reagan to put in there to get this country straight……. send your Congressmen and Senators emails folks let them know how you feel and who you are…… let them know they are limited in the time in office if they do not do what we as a nation needs. the present administation is more concerned about our guns than the economy,,,,, have you asked yourself why is that….. an unarmed people are easy to govern……. simple is it not…….

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      “… like the muslim brotherhood, who is now working in our Home Land Security with high level clearances having access to secrets in NASA, the military, FBI and the CIA…”

      That’s the second, maybe third time you’ve made statements along these lines. Can you back that up, at all, or should we just ignore you entirely? I’m thinking the latter, but I’m willing to be persuaded.

  16. avatar Mr. Lion says:

    Walter Mondale, call your office.

    1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

      And get ahold of the original triple-H, while you’re at it.

  17. avatar tomrkba says:

    They want an honest conversation about the rate at which they will restrict guns to the point of a full ban. We are to agree to these staged restrictions or risk being called names.

  18. avatar Snachnim says:

    First off everyone thinks gun laws will fix a crime problem which isn’t true.
    Second most of the antis want no guns, despite what they say on the surface. Poke around a bit, and the picture becomes quite clear.
    The UN met last week on the small arms treaty. Because we don’t know the exact text or how it would be applied to us I can not comment on any revisions. The problem is that it would be applied to us at all.

  19. avatar Little John says:

    To Matt in FL, you want proof of what I say here it is buddy……… and if you would keep track of your own Senators and Congressmen you would know this:Actually, along with Huma Abedin, there are at least six other persons with Muslim Brotherhood ties whose involvement in Obama administration “Muslim outreach” and/or related policy-making also deserve investigation by the IGs and the Congress:

    Rashad Hussain, Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation;

    Dalia, a member of Homeland Security Department’s Advisory Council;

    Mohamed Magid, a member Mogahed, an advisor to President Obama;

    Mohamed Elibiary of the Homeland Security Department’s Countering-Violent Extremism Working Group;

    Louay Safi, until recently the credentialing authority for Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military and now a leader of the Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council; and

    Kifah Mustapha, a Hamas-fundraiser and graduate of the FBI’s ‘Citizens Academy’
    all of the above are members of the muslim brotherhood…….. I will get back with you on some more information reference to a Congressal inquirey with a Congressman from Texas asking the head of homeland security Janet deponitano, about the muslim brotherhood members in homeland security……

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Little John: “…all of the above are members of the muslim brotherhood…”

      There is no substantive proof of that for any of them. Some of them might be members of organizations who might have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood maybe. Some of those ties are simply because someone from organization “A” attended the same mosque as someone who is known to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Attending the same church is a tenuous connection at best. I used to attend church with a guy who got a couple DUI’s, and another guy who was later arrested for statutory rape. Does that somehow make me a drunk and/or a rapist? The logic doesn’t hold up. At least three of the people you listed are accused of being members of the Muslim Brotherhood by the same guy, Robert Spencer of jihadwatch, a guy who by his own admission bears a solid animosity toward Islam in general, and who himself seems to be just this side of fanatical.

      Sorry, you need to come up with better reinforcing information than that. For one of those people to prove they’re not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood is hard, because you can’t prove a negative. Conversely, it should be easy for you to come up with something to prove that they are. The existence of evidence, any evidence, would be on your side. Surely you can find some that’s not just baseless accusations and conjecture?

      1. avatar elnonio says:

        Careful there Matt, you actually expect accusations of this sort to be backed up by verifiable, independent sources? Right! Nah, it’s all single-source in America these days. Must be true, I read about that on the internet…

        The funny thing about boards like these is that they cut both ways: if the people listed above can be accused of being MB members due to loose affiliations, then all it takes is a couple of right wing extremists on this board to brand us all right wing terrorists. On this thread alone:
        “That’s why I think eventually the US will split.”

        “No, I’m prepared to fight and die if necessary when the day comes (and regardless of who you vote for or what laws we get passed, the day WILL come – whether we’re alive to see it or not is another issue) that they march through the streets to fully enslave us.”

        And judging by some of the infowars.com-type drivel I read around here, the time when the link is made is getting nearer.

  20. avatar pat says:

    It is not a gun problem, but a gang problem. Enforce common sense existing laws rather than create worthless new ones (unless those new laws were for some sinister goal….like increased big gov control).

  21. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    The reason that the D’s want to “start” to “engage” in a “reasonable” and “open” “discussion” on “commonsense” measures to prevent “gun violence” is simply because they’ve lost all of the past “debates”, are utterly incapable of seeing the fallacy of their position, are completely clueless about the real world and they fail to recognize, let alone understand, the basic, essential, fundamental tenets of the human condition. They are a primitive, ignorant cargo cult. They believe in horoscopes, crystal energy, aromatherapy, rainbows and unicorn farts. They make a mockery of the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, the sacrifices of our forefathers and the efficacy of our system of higher education. They are an evolutionary dead end. The quicker they are crushed and discarded, the better off our society will be.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      And you mean that in the nicest possible way.

      1. avatar Greg in Allston says:

        Of course. I’m a loving and caring kind of guy.

    2. avatar Snachnim says:

      Hahaha you said unicorn farts hahahh

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Canned albino unicorn farts was my idea. Mine!!!

        1. avatar jwm says:

          accur81, you may be unto something with your canned unicorn farts. do you remember pet rocks?

  22. avatar Steve says:

    You may want to register your comments directly to the Obama campaign: http://barackobama.force.com/questions/Questions_or_Comments

  23. avatar Mitch says:

    Damn it. Damn it, damn it, damn it! As a “leftey” on so many issues, I feel like I am being forced to become a “one issue” voter, due to this kind of BS stance on gun control (which already exists, and largely works). The two party system is failing the American people, as it seems it’s become one extreme or the other. Which do you value more- the ability to defend yourself, or *(insert a bagillion other social and economic issues that effect us all)*? This makes me sick, as I shouldn’t have to feel like I am giving up a fundamental human right to protect another. I’m sick of this “lesser or two evils” BS. I’m so tired of this “Turd sandwich or giant douche” line of choices. I like Obama, don’t get me wrong. But this… this changes the landscape for me. They staid quiet in ’08, let the pieces fall into place (let’s not forget a good ole tragedy or two!), and now look to make a move, after gaining support on issues that have nothing to do with a law abiding citizen’s right to defend him/herself. Ah, who am I kidding? It’s been this way for decades. Losing faith rapidly in any ability for our government to truly speak “For the people”. Hulk frustrated, and HULK ANGRY!!!!

    1. avatar jwm says:

      mitch, i’m an ardent die hard fanatic out to protect my 2a rights and expand them.

      i also believe that people should have the ability to marry whomever they want as long as both or more parties are consenrting adults.

      i also believe in legalizing drugs. i believe a woman’s body is her own and i have no business interfering with her choices.

      unfortunately the extremist gun grabbers have forced me to become extremist in my defense of my guns.

      when they support and recognise my rights i will support and recognise theirs. but i’ve been in this fight since the 68 gca so they’ll have to do something truly radical to win me over.

      1. avatar matt says:

        unfortunately the extremist gun grabbers have forced me to become extremist in my defense of my guns.

        Aren’t you not a fan of the idea of fighting the government? It is kind of hard to be a extremist if you don’t advocate violence.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          i do not advocate and will not use violence except as a last resort. i have seen real violence and real anarchy and those that have do not wish for it again.

          so i will continue to work within the system so long as i can. i know what you wish for matt, but the reality is more than your imagination is allowing for.

          the difference between us is i have people i care enough for in my life not to wish for the anarchy you seem to think of as a good thing.

        2. avatar matt says:

          i have seen… real anarchy

          where did you see this?

        3. avatar jwm says:

          saigon in ’75 and thailand in 76. real anarchy is not like you imagine. and 1 thing that wiki and the movies can’t give you is the smell. real anarchy has a smell that stays with you forever.

        4. avatar matt says:

          Anarchy and war zones are very different things.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          matt, i would agree in theory. but what is happening now and in saigon in 75 is that the war zone and the civilian cities are the same. look at what’s happening in syria right now. you live in chicago, think about the total breakdown of government in a place like that tell me how different that would be from what i’m talking about.

          anarchy, chaos, war, however you choose to call it it still adds up to suffering for all.

        6. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          “Anarchy and war zones are very different things.”
          ——
          Actually, no. If there is no law present in said war zone, then there is, by definition, anarchy. Can you name an instance of true anarchy that did not take place in a de-facto war zone?

      2. avatar Will says:

        This +100

  24. avatar Aharon says:

    No such thing in politics such as practicing honesty and consideration for the true facts of an issue. I call for an honest and candid conversation about the size and scope of government.

  25. avatar Chas says:

    They can start the conversation by repealing the ban on concealed/open carry in California, Illinois, and NYC.

  26. avatar GS650G says:

    It’s going to be a lot easier to confiscate wealth once we melt all the guns down and convert the police into a branch of the DoD.

    That’s the real position on guns in the Democratic Party.

  27. avatar APBTFan says:

    As I recall it was a week or so ago that Eric Holder and MAIG were invited to a sit down with the major pro-gun groups and they both declined. Kinda shoots the shit out of the anti-gunners stance that they are willing to entertain any sort of debate.

    1. avatar RuffRidr says:

      “Kinda shoots the shit out of the anti-gunners stance that they are willing to entertain any sort of debate.”

      It’s kinda like the anti-gun bloggers who seek out others for discussion, but then heavily censor their blogs. They’re only interested in debate if it’s on their terms.

  28. avatar Wiregrass says:

    The individual right to keep and bear arms is not a right because of “American tradition”. First get that idea straight and then we can see if you are really interested in a conversation.

  29. avatar JeffreyB says:

    Reasonable is just purely gray area and I believe in leaving the 2nd Amendment alone as it is. Don’t be a geezer and gullible to fall for “reasonable”! Do I need to slap your face, no, you’re grown up and be smart like the military.

  30. avatar Azimuth says:

    It’s not that liberal democrats don’t like guns, far from it. It’s just that they don’t like guns in the hands of anyone who might rise to violently oppose them. Historically speaking, Leftist ideologies are more dependent on guns than anything. Guns that are only in their hands and nobody else’s.

    Open and honest are not considered to be core principles of any Leftist ideologies.
    But restriction and deception, are. Are those douches in the photo flashing some parody of gang signs?

  31. avatar Angel says:

    The party of choice only lets you choose when it’s the choice they want you to make.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email