Democratic Party's formal gun control platform

[TurtleDude]

will the 2nd be overturned in your lifetime?

I expect the supreme court will continue to strengthen it

 

[TurtleDude]

LOL... The president has no power to impose tariffs or ban imports on second amendment grounds? LMAO... How about a $10 per round tariff on all ammunition... you know, to protect the American ammunition industry...

that's really stupid

 

[BlueTex]

that's really stupid

Is it within the powers of the president?

 

[zsu2357]

Come one TurtleDude.... Does the president have the power to ban the importation of firearms and ammunition... As a legal scholar, weigh in on those powers regardless of whether someone supports them or not...

From my point of view (as per post 90) you are saying firearms and ammo are national security issues. That's BS and you know it.

 

[zsu2357]

="vesper, post: 1072749600, member: 21996"]
I watched during the Democratic primaries and their discussions on guns, and while that was going on, sales in the country during that time and still today are at an all time high. People get it.

Watching the Demoncreeps debate gun control is funny. They are either high 5ing or slapping each other on the backs or trying too out do each other.

 

[zsu2357]

I think gangs might have a gun or two. Me too, for that matter, and I don't fit into any of those categories.

Well as the saying goes "me three" and I think there's a lot of Liberals that might take some of that action also.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I expect the supreme court will continue to strengthen it

and that, folks, is why it's so hilarious to listen to all the male Karens cry about the 2nd. it won't be overturned and it never had a chance to be overturned.

it's simply "As the World Turns" drama.

 

[zsu2357]

What is this quoted from? The link doesn't go anywhere.

How about this, which is pretty damn close. https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...declares-total-war-on-second-amendment-rights link tested.

 

[Grand Mal]

How about this, which is pretty damn close. https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...declares-total-war-on-second-amendment-rights link tested.

Thanks.
I like to check up on what's been posted. The OP linked to itself.

 

[zsu2357]

Thanks.
I like to check up on what's been posted. The OP linked to itself.

Hmm saves time? I'm still mucking around with this new setup.

 

[TurtleDude]

and that, folks, is why it's so hilarious to listen to all the male Karens cry about the 2nd. it won't be overturned and it never had a chance to be overturned.

it's simply "As the World Turns" drama.

the real karens are the moronic "mothers against guns" and the other sheep who latch on to the Giffords, Brady and Bloomberg astroturf organizations and try to ban guns at a state level. Hopefully, with a Roberts proof Court, the Thomas agenda can be imposed-striking down magazine and gun bans in places like MD and California

 

[CaughtInThe]

the real karens are the moronic "mothers against guns" and the other sheep who latch on to the Giffords, Brady and Bloomberg astroturf organizations and try to ban guns at a state level. Hopefully, with a Roberts proof Court, the Thomas agenda can be imposed-striking down magazine and gun bans in places like MD and California

Well, as their kids are killed I can understand them using their constitutional voice.

But it's a lost cause. People will continue to die from firearms in our country. That ain't never changing.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, as their kids are killed I can understand them using their constitutional voice.

But it's a lost cause. People will continue to die from firearms in our country. That ain't never changing.

few of the Karens who are part of the Bloomberg astroturf are the mothers of slain children. Most children killed by firearms are young adults engaged in the narcotics trade or closely associated with those in the narcotics trade

 

[CaughtInThe]

few of the Karens who are part of the Bloomberg astroturf are the mothers of slain children. Most children killed by firearms are young adults engaged in the narcotics trade or closely associated with those in the narcotics trade

How many freakin times are you gonna make me start posting pictures of wives, girlfriends and exes who were blown away on a daily basis?

 

[TurtleDude]

How many freakin times are you gonna make me start posting pictures of wives, girlfriends and exes who were blown away on a daily basis?

Go ahead-that is one of the lamest things I have seen on DP. You post that crap, without any explanations and hope weak minded folks will somehow blame guns. You seem to ignore that those cases all involve serious felonies with severe punishments. And only morons think that those who commit murder and don't care about the consequences, will obey gun laws (and you are well known for being rather demure in telling us what laws you want and why they would stop those killings. IN reality, its fairly honest you are hoping for all sorts of draconian restrictions on honest people because honest gun owners tend to vote against the politicians you support)

 

[Logician Man]

few of the Karens who are part of the Bloomberg astroturf are the mothers of slain children. Most children killed by firearms are young adults engaged in the narcotics trade or closely associated with those in the narcotics trade

/// Most children killed by firearms are young adults engaged in the narcotics trade. /// <---- Present your evidence to support this positive claim.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Go ahead

 

[TurtleDude]

That is worthless without any explanation and who is to know if those are even victims. Plus it is derailing the thread

 

[ClaraD]

"Democrats will
enact universal background checks,
end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check system.
We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms
and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others.
We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability. "

https://debatepolitics.com/forums/gun-control.160/post-thread

universal background checks are a good thing and legal
there is no right to sell them on line....the courts have ruled that the government can regulate gun dealers
Red flag laws...Trump supports them too.
people convicted of hate crimes should not own a gun...that too is legal..as we already forbid felons from owning one
assault weapons bans were already ruled lawful by the Supreme court
again red flag laws...Trump supports those too.
they probably won't pass constitutional muster with the requirement that guns can only be kept at home, but I haven't seen where they are required to do this..probably cannot make them keep them stored in a certain place at home either.
I don't support making gun manufacturers liable and I would bet that most moderate democrats don't either.

 

[TurtleDude]

universal background checks are a good thing and legal
there is no right to sell them on line....the courts have ruled that the government can regulate gun dealers
Red flag laws...Trump supports them too.
people convicted of hate crimes should not own a gun...that too is legal..as we already forbid felons from owning one
assault weapons bans were already ruled lawful by the Supreme court
again red flag laws...Trump supports those too.
they probably won't pass constitutional muster with the requirement that guns can only be kept at home, but I haven't seen where they are required to do this..probably cannot make them keep them stored in a certain place at home either.
I don't support making gun manufacturers liable and I would bet that most moderate democrats don't either.

what case-I believe you are lying.

 

[Glitch]

universal background checks are a good thing and legal

Incorrect. Universal background checks were part of the Brady Bill, and tossed out as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).

there is no right to sell them on line....the courts have ruled that the government can regulate gun dealers

Only when it pertains to interstate or international commerce. The federal government has no say over intrastate commerce.

Red flag laws...Trump supports them too.

So? They still violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment's "due process" clause, it doesn't matter who supports them.

people convicted of hate crimes should not own a gun...that too is legal..as we already forbid felons from owning one

Providing they have been actually convicted of a felony. A mere accusation means nothing.

assault weapons bans were already ruled lawful by the Supreme court

Incorrect, again. The Supreme Court held them to be an individual right at the federal level in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and at the State level in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

again red flag laws...Trump supports those too.

Big deal. Trump is a life-long leftist Democrat who registered as Republican for the first time in his life in 2012. Of course he supports deliberately violating the US Constitution. All leftist freaks do, regardless of the party they happen to be registered with at the time.

they probably won't pass constitutional muster with the requirement that guns can only be kept at home, but I haven't seen where they are required to do this..probably cannot make them keep them stored in a certain place at home either.
I don't support making gun manufacturers liable and I would bet that most moderate democrats don't either.

The phrase "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment is often overlooked by the mentally-deranged left. Government has no place to tell anyone what firearms they may own, the manner in which they are kept or carried, or how they are to be used. All concealed carry permits in every State violates the Second Amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

Incorrect. Universal background checks were part of the Brady Bill, and tossed out as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).

Only when it pertains to interstate or international commerce. The federal government has no say over intrastate commerce.

So? They still violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment's "due process" clause, it doesn't matter who supports them.

Providing they have been actually convicted of a felony. A mere accusation means nothing.

Incorrect, again. The Supreme Court held them to be an individual right at the federal level in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and at the State level in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

Big deal. Trump is a life-long leftist Democrat who registered as Republican for the first time in his life in 2012. Of course he supports deliberately violating the US Constitution. All leftist freaks do, regardless of the party they happen to be registered with at the time.


The phrase "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment is often overlooked by the mentally-deranged left. Government has no place to tell anyone what firearms they may own, the manner in which they are kept or carried, or how they are to be used. All concealed carry permits in every State violates the Second Amendment.

Do you believe this was the case before the 14th amendment?

Before the second amendment was incorporated in McDonald v Chicago?

Before Cruikshank held that the second amendment did not apply to the states?

 

[Logician Man]

what case-I believe you are lying.

Clara is a well respected, straight-up, top tier poster/debater. NO ONE has EVER implied/accused her of being anything but an 'honest' poster/debater. On what grounds ( specifically ) are you basing your asinine claim Clara is 'lying'?

 

[Glitch]

Do you believe this was the case before the 14th amendment?

Before the second amendment was incorporated in McDonald v Chicago?

Before Cruikshank held that the second amendment did not apply to the states?

Before 1867 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the States had the freedom to enact any law they pleased restricting firearm ownership or possession. The Second Amendment only applied to the federal government, not the States.

Once the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, however, then the entire Bill of Rights applied to the States in that instant. Not just the Second Amendment. That is when our Supreme Court decided to "selectively incorporate" each individual constitutionally protected right, but only when it comes before the court for a review. Which is why it took until 1925 before the Supreme Court "selectively incorporated" the First Amendment and applied it to the States in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). That is 58 years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. In February 2019 the Supreme Court finally got around to "selectively incorporating" the Eighth Amendment and applying it to the States in Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019). That was 152 years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the case of the Second Amendment, the States had an additional 143 years when they could continue to intentionally violate the Second Amendment before the Supreme Court finally applied the amendment to the States. For 221 years the Second Amendment did not apply to the States, so the States could enact any restrictions they pleased. All that changed with McDonald in 2010.

 

[Glitch]

Clara is a well respected, straight-up, top tier poster/debater. NO ONE has EVER implied/accused her of being anything but an 'honest' poster/debater. On what grounds ( specifically ) are you basing your asinine claim Clara is 'lying'?

When she claimed that universal background checks were legal. That was a lie. The Supreme Court held it to be unconstitutional, and therefore not legal. The Supreme Court also never held the assault weapon ban to be constitutional. They never heard the case, and the law was allowed to sunset in 2004. So that was another lie.