I apologize in advance for posting this in two different forums here at AR, but it is important enough to all gun folks that it needs to be seen.

------------------------------

"If you haven't seen this, you should read it. Then pick some other party you can vote for which has any chance of beating the Dems, for your own self interest.

BTW, you might want to pass this around ASAP to all of your family and friends too....

http://necpgv.blogspot.com/2008/08/open-democratic-platform-meeting.html


BTW, I put this here rather than in the political forum, because it IS directly gun related.

Please note the proposed registering of ALL gun sales, centralization of personal/private info and records, ammo tagging, and strengthening of BATFE in particular."

Dear Alberta Canuck:

Thanks for the posting, concerning the gun violence/gun control crowd.

My reading of their directive shows that the Heller decision certainly let the hot air out of their balloon. Seems that dog doesn't have much in the way of teeth anymore.

I'm sure the gun control crowd will be back, but Heller certainly was a serious defeat.

Hopefully, the San Francisco and Chicago gun ban lawsuits will work their way up to the Supreme Court. Then, the Supreme Court can rule to incorporate the second amendment through the 14th amendment and preclude the states and municipal corporations such as Chicago from passing laws that outright ban guns and/or require firearms be inoperable in the home.

Man, that Heller decision made me happy.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

While I am happy with the Heller decision, it was not a strong enough message to the ANTI crowd. They know that their elected officials can pass more laws, faster than the SCOTUS can remove at their turtle like pace of justice. The DC lawwas on the books for the equivalent of a lifetime for many peole... not fair and certainly, not sppedy justice by any means.

quote:

Then pick some other party you can vote for

Sadly the only ones that will read and head this are ones that don't vote Democrat anyway!

There is that danger, Vapo, but we who DO understand (including, one would hope, everyone on AR) have to actually work to inform and convince our neighbors and acquaintances. We can't just lay down and let them walk on our individual rights, or we won't have ANY, including the rights to personal property and life itself.

Sure we may not convince many, but we only have to convince 5% to swing ANY election. (When Clinton was first elected President of the U.S., he only got 43% of the total vote!!) And we convince NONE if we don't try to.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
There is that danger, Vapo, but we who DO understand (including, one would hope, everyone on AR) have to actually work to inform and convince our neighbors and acquaintances. We can't just lay down and let them walk on our individual rights, or we won't have ANY, including the rights to personal proerty and life itself.

Sure we may not convince many, but we only have to convince 5% to swing ANY election. (When Clinton was first elected, he only got 43% of the total vote!!) And we convince NONE if we don't try to.

Make no mistake about it.....I'm a preacher of the gun control issue.....and people are surprised at what I tell them about the Democrat position....such as Obama's statement: "I don't believe people should have the right to own guns"....they act surprised!!!

I'm on your side here 100%

What really needs to happen is to have this printed on the front page of every major newspaper in the USA where the population exceeds 1,000,000.....

The platform opens

quote:

The Democratic Party believes that all Americans have the right to be free from gun violence in our homes, schools, places of work and on the streets of our communities. Easy access to firearms by terrorists, felons, domestic violence offenders, violent teens, the mentally ill and many others who we all agree should not possess guns continues to put tens of thousands of Americans at risk every year for death or injury due to gun violence.

...

- Remove the Tiahrt restrictions on the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

- Institute a national ballistics program to initiate microstamping technology on all weapons manufactured or sold in the United States, so that crime guns and casings can be traced quickly to the original sale.

- Support manufacturers who voluntarily develop and sell childproof handguns.

- Strengthen and make permanent the federal Assault Weapons Ban and the ban on large capacity ammunition magazines and clips.

It is worth examining how they view causes and solutions. First point is what our rights (as recognized and ostensibly protected in the US) are regarding criminal attacks. Yes, we do have a right against attack, which is why such violations are called "criminal."

The next step in the argument is distinguishing "gun violence" from other faces of criminal attack, and by arguing that any violent act -- including refuting a criminal attack by an act of "gun violence" is itself an act society should be protected from. They bow to Heller, but maintain much of the same position they held before.

Going down the list of actions designed to protect American society against gun violence are many of the same issues listed before. Their complaint about Tiahrt is a prime example: they claim it blocks police from access to records in investigation of violent acts. It does not, and has not. It blocks access to unspecific requests, which had been used to build lawsuits against manufacturers of guns for how distributors and retail shops sold guns -- essentially holding manufacturers liable for how criminals used their guns. The Smith&Wesson deal with Cuomo (Clinton's HUD director) points out how much responsibility they wanted manufacturers to assume in imposing rules on dealers who sold their products. The rules were very expensive for any shop to implement.. which was the point of the exercise.


THIS is an interesting forum to post this: I am very interested how this will be viewed in an international forum?

Dan

Political forum.

Political topic or not, if the guns go away in America so will 98% of Saeed's traffic.

If, and that's a big IF, the Dems prevail in the November elections and they pass gun control legislation through congress, will guns go away in America? Or will what we have now be 'grandfathered' in such as the 'preban' semi-auto's during Clinton's 10 year fiasco? Did anybody here actually have to give up a particular weapon such as they did in Oz?

Wait a minute! This is a DRAFT advocated by a New England anti-gun group that they want the Democratic Party to adopt this week in Denver. It is NOT part of the Democratic Party's platform. There may be plenty to criticize once the Dems actually adopt their platform on guns, but criticizing something they haven't adopted damages your credibility (as well as your opportunity to have any influence with the party who the oddsmakers say will win in November).

Wait until they have a platform plank on guns, then critcize anything you find that you don't like. Same goes for the Rebubs.

Here's a link to the ACTUAL draft of the Democratic Platform on guns. Find "firearms" on page 45.

http://www.workinglife.org/storage/users/4/4/images/111...latform%20080808.pdf

I don't agree with it, but it is nothing like the New England group's wish list.

All -

The item I posted was sent to me as the Dem's platform. If it is not, I apologize.

I would go read the DRAFT you posted, Stonecreek, but for some reason it will not come up on my computer. If it is a DRAFT too, then how it can be viewed as more authoritative is beyond me, but will let that go.

In the meantime, if this kerfluffle gets everyone to track, read and, assess the Dem's platform on gun control, then it has done its work as far as I am concerned.

Sorry if it turns out I have misled anyone. Was certainly not my intent...the intent was to pass on what I received.

We all know that the Democrats (it is the Democrat Party and not the Democratic Party. Everyone misuses the word or the liberal media does it on purpose to make it sound better than it is. If they do that by mistake, how is it they are supposedly so damn smart?) are anti-gun, whether it is on any platform or not.

Regardless of what happened in the Supreme Court, if they had their way they would make your life hell. Just because the court ruled you have the right to own one, what does that mean? You can own one kept in pieces at the bottom of a 55 gallon drum of water?

If you think there is not impossible hurdles and harassment on their agenda in spite of what anything the Supreme Court might say, you are extremely naive.

Convention platforms are rarely worth the paper space. Since you insist this topic is OK over here, and the administrators haven't said no, then I can post on it as well.

---------------------

Ammunition Restriction Study. Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Bill Frist (R-TN) offered this amendment to S. 1805. Among other things, the language of this provision would commission the Attorney General to determine whether the ban on so-called "cop killer" ammunition should include superior performance bullets in popular hunting calibers such as the 30-06. The amendment passed the Senate 85-12 on March 2, 2004.
McCain Gun Show Ban. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) offered a gun show amendment (to S. 1805) on March 2, 2004. His language would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows, unless the buyer agrees to submit to a background registration check. Also, it could effectively eliminate gun shows because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every "person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law]." Thus, if the person responsible for handing out "Brady pamphlets" took a break to go to the bathroom, everyone responsible for the event could be sent to prison. The McCain amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 53-47.



I'm pretty sure you won't find mention of these things in the republican "platform".

I just hope everyone that belongs to AR votes.

Albert, the official Demo platform draft comes up okay on my computer. If it won't open for you, simply google "Democratic Party Platform" and you can find it. It's not the platform until the convention adopts it, but platform drafts are usually not changed by the convention once adopted by the platform committee. As I say, I don't agree with it, but it is much less hostile toward gun owners than the New England group's wish list.

Lot's of misinformation circulates around the internet. Like Obama is a "muslim". I don't care if he is a Hindu, Buddist, or Morman as I am not especially impressed by most folks who represent themselves as "Christian" these days; it's just a disservice to the public for misinformation to be laid out there as the truth. There's enough to be critisized in the DemocratIC (yes, Will, parties get to name themselves and that's what they named themselves about 185 years ago) party platform without attributing other groups' positions to it.

quote:

it's just a disservice to the public for misinformation to be laid out there as the truth. .

Yes, IF it is really misinformation. On the other hand until the official platform is adopted , it isn't misinformation. It is a proposed platform, in either case, and could become official in either case.

If the Dems feel offended by its being posted, tough. All they have to do is come out with a strongly worded PRO_GUN platform, and abide by it, and the Republican party would probably NEVER win another U.S. national election in this century. I have long been an old traditional southern Democrat myself, but the blindness and treachery of my party to the Bill or Rights is such that I question the ability of the party to be trusted on anything at this point in time.

As a matter of fact, I am starting to feel that the two party system is a major pox on our country. I'd far prefer proportional representation at this point.

As to your view of the role of religion in this election, I view it somewhat differently than you. It does not matter to me either if the candidates are Morman, Hindu Shinto, or Native American in religion.

It DOES matter to me if they are Muslim. It is MUSLIM extremists who have declared war on MY country, America and are doing their best to destroy it. As I cannot sort out the active extremists among them from those who are either silent supporters of the extremists, or the truly good people, I will not vote to elect ANY of them until they clean their own religious house. They, and only they, have the ability to do so. They need to prove to me that they have the desire if any of them want my vote.

I do agree with you about many of the Christians. That has never been a very gentle or just religion either historically. However, it appears to be maturing, progressing to the point where at least it no longer believes in spreading religion through the aegis of the sword.

I am neither a Christian nor a Muslim, but I try to be a peaceful, open minded person. I cannot vote for anyone or any group member I do not know to be the same (not just one who claims to be, but whom I KNOW by his historic actions to be so).

Insomuch as those views, however, do not relate to guns, maybe we should discuss them somewhere else?