DNC Platform Committee Member: No One Should Have A Gun

[TurtleDude]

70% isnt accurate either lmao

again replace democrat with republican and make the issue equal rights for gays :shrug:

they are both dishonest hyperbolic partisan that nobody honest will take seriously.

here's a question for you (and I won't get into the fact that the founders were pro gun, gun rights are specifically mentioned in both the writings of the founders and the second amendment, while "gay rights" were probably not something the founders even contemplated, let alone supported and has no mention in the Bill of rights)

If the NINTH AMENDMENT properly strikes down laws against homosexual sodomy, laws banning gay marriage and discrimination against LGBTs, then why shouldn't the NINTH amendment also blow away laws interfering with what sort of arms honest citizens own in their own homes?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

70% isnt accurate either lmao

again replace democrat with republican and make the issue equal rights for gays :shrug:

they are both dishonest hyperbolic partisan that nobody honest will take seriously.

Is it dishonest? until a couple of years ago several major cities banned handguns, we had a ten year law banning popular low crime firearms based on appearances, if someone looks me in the eye and says they'll stab me with a fork, and have stabbed me with a fork in the past, I'm not going to go "well the majority of the time he hasn't stabbed me with a fork".

I get you support gay rights, cool so do I, that's not the issue here.

 

[AGENT J]

here's a question for you (and I won't get into the fact that the founders were pro gun, gun rights are specifically mentioned in both the writings of the founders and the second amendment, while "gay rights" were probably not something the founders even contemplated, let alone supported and has no mention in the Bill of rights)

If the NINTH AMENDMENT properly strikes down laws against homosexual sodomy, laws banning gay marriage and discrimination against LGBTs, then why shouldn't the NINTH amendment also blow away laws interfering with what sort of arms honest citizens own in their own homes?

What does that have to do with anything I actually said?
1.) im independant
2.) you should know my stance on guns and gun laws, I carry and everytime I post my copy and past about guns laws you like it.

Ill state it again, I dont support any gun law that punishes me or other law abiding citizens, while also empowering criminals and limiting the ability of myself and others to protect themselves while infringing on our rights.

Also im not aware the 9th does any of which you say. I support gay rights based on the 14th and I support guns rights based on the second.

but again, most importantly none of this changes the fact its dishonest to say "democrats want to take away all our guns" or "republicans want to deny gays equal rights"

 

[AGENT J]

1)Is it dishonest? until a couple of years ago several major cities banned handguns, we had a ten year law banning popular low crime firearms based on appearances, if someone looks me in the eye and says they'll stab me with a fork, and have stabbed me with a fork in the past, I'm not going to go "well the majority of the time he hasn't stabbed me with a fork".
2.)I get you support gay rights, cool so do I, that's not the issue here.

1.) yes
2.) didnt say it was just saying it would be another example of dishonest partisan hackery

 

[TurtleDude]

What does that have to do with anything I actually said?
1.) im independant
2.) you should know my stance on guns and gun laws, I carry and everytime I post my copy and past about guns laws you like it.

Ill state it again, I dont support any gun law that punishes me or other law abiding citizens, while also empowering criminals and limiting the ability of myself and others to protect themselves while infringing on our rights.

Also im not aware the 9th does any of which you say. I support gay rights based on the 14th and I support guns rights based on the second.

but again, most importantly none of this changes the fact its dishonest to say "democrats want to take away all our guns" or "republicans want to deny gays equal rights"

every federal encroachment on our gun rights and almost every state violation of the now incorporated 2nd amendment has been passed and sponsored by Democrats.

 

[AGENT J]

every federal encroachment on our gun rights and almost every state violation of the now incorporated 2nd amendment has been passed and sponsored by Democrats.

i can say the same about gay rights :shrug:

facts remains the claim that all democrats want to take away guns is factually false and dishonest just like it would be about republicans and equal rights.

 

[TurtleDude]

i can say the same about gay rights :shrug:

facts remains the claim that all democrats want to take away guns is factually false and dishonest just like it would be about republicans and equal rights.

true not all democrats

but if gun rights are your main issue, you'd be an idiot to want the Democrats to control congress or the senate given every single anti gun bill at a federal level that has been proposed in the last 20 years has come mainly from democrat sponsors (goofy liberal republican Lincoln Chaffee was anti gun IIRC). and every Democrat nominee to the USSC in the last 15 25 years has voted against gun rights every time it came upl

 

[AGENT J]

1.)true not all democrats
2.)but if gun rights are your main issue, you'd be an idiot to want the Democrats to control congress or the senate given every single anti gun bill at a federal level that has been proposed in the last 20 years has come mainly from democrat sponsors (goofy liberal republican Lincoln Chaffee was anti gun IIRC). and every Democrat nominee to the USSC in the last 15 25 years has voted against gun rights every time it came upl

1.) and that was my only and sole point, the OP is a lie

2.) you are free to feel that way if you also accept the other one. any body that supports equal rights would have to be an idiot to want the reps to control congress.

I dont agree but my point is if you believe your statment you have to believe the other or its hypocritical.

 

[Fishking]

As much as I dislike defending the Democratic Party, she does say it is just her own personal philosophy. It isn't the platform of the Democratic Party. And if the Democrats put that in their platform, well, I will be trashing them about it right along with you.

Of course it's not going to be officially on their platform as it's no where near politically expedient enough to do so. All they have to do is keep pushing the narrative enough and slowly, over time, it will be more acceptable and it will become a thing that is pushed.

-edit- I mean, you have Hillary openly declaring that she wants gun manufacturers held liable for their guns operating as intended but used in a crime. That, in and of itself, would be a de facto gun ban as gun manufacturers would go out of business from law suits and they would be the only business in existence that would be held liable for their products working properly.

 

[Fishking]

But, but...Obama said it wasn't true....

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Guns are an area where Sanders is more moderate than Clinton and could help steer the platform in a more gun-friendly direction .

Nope, Clintons and the Clintonites won't have it. Its THEIR party now!

 

[Linc]

GOPosters arguing against something NOT in the DNC platform who routinely dismiss right-wing social engineering that IS in the RNC platform as "unimportant and nobody reads it" since it is not favored by a majority of Americans .

 

[Moot]

why would you need anything more =those people are already banned from possessing firearms

what do we get back from gun banners for saying-yeah,if you are violent felon you are punished for merely touching a firearm

I was part of a trial team where a three time convicted robber got 15 years for possessing a firearm for 15 seconds. He didn't even intend to use the gun, he saw a guy being chased by the Po-Po ditch a weapon and he picked it up and tried to throw it over a wall so the cops wouldn't find it. another cop-he didn't see saw him pick it up-run a few yards and try to chuck it over the wall. the mope didn't see a chain link fence on top the wall which caused the weapon to bounce back. (and allowed the cop to retrieve it)

he's still in prison and might well die there-he was late fifties when he got popped. and no one even suggested he was intending on keeping the weapon or using it

Not even the cops? A three time convicted robber...and he just happened to be near the guy being chased...and he dropped the gun in front of him? Somehow I think there might be more to the story than you're saying.

Btw, were you taught semantics in law school?

 

[Beaudreaux]

So one lady who doesnt think people should have guns who happens to be a democrat means all democrats feel the same way? LMAO brilliant. Thats just as retarded as saying all republicans are against equal rights because I can find one that wants gay marriage to be illegal.

Try making a post that is honest and less biased fallacy.

To clarify, my intent in the OP was to inquire about the Democrat's leadership (which the lady in the OP video is) and them being the party that has sponsored every law at a federal, state, or local level that has restricted the rights protected by the Second Amendment. The woman was honest in her personal feelings, which are mirrored by the constant increases in restrictions by the party leadership via legislation as well as general rhetoric - common sense legislation, reasonable restrictions, constantly using the dead children of Sandy Hook to justify their actions, and so on, and so on.

Just as I didn't specify Democratic leadership, nor did I say "all" Democrats. I should have spoken more clearly. However, I did ask a question, not make a statement.

As for all the references to gays by you in this thread, one has nothing to do with the other, because the GOP as a party and as seen by the majority of their leadership can be described as you felt I described the Democrats regarding the Second Amendment - they are anti-gay. Just as I didn't intend to describe all Democrats as being anti-Second Amendment (Bernie Sanders is not), I would not say all GOP'ers are anti-gay (you know that I am not).

I should have been more clear, and you should have been less vitriolic.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not even the cops? A three time convicted robber...and he just happened to be near the guy being chased...and he dropped the gun in front of him? Somehow I think there might be more to the story than you're saying.

Btw, were you taught semantics in law school?

He picked it up and tried to throw it over a wall so the cops couldn't find it. there was no access into the area he was trying to throw the gun into

 

[blackjack50]

Where haven't you?

I don't think I've ever seen him say he wants everyone to have gun (felons, mentally unstable, etc). I also haven't seen you say you want them all banned. You just are pro extra control. He isn't.

Those of us who are "anti gun control" have to resist every ambition to counter act that ambition of anti gun advocates like the op.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)To clarify, my intent in the OP was to inquire about the Democrat's leadership (which the lady in the OP video is) and them being the party that has sponsored every law at a federal, state, or local level that has restricted the rights protected by the Second Amendment. The woman was honest in her personal feelings, which are mirrored by the constant increases in restrictions by the party leadership via legislation as well as general rhetoric - common sense legislation, reasonable restrictions, constantly using the dead children of Sandy Hook to justify their actions, and so on, and so on.

Just as I didn't specify Democratic leadership, nor did I say "all" Democrats. I should have spoken more clearly. However, I did ask a question, not make a statement.

2.) As for all the references to gays by you in this thread, one has nothing to do with the other, because the GOP as a party and as seen by the majority of their leadership can be described as you felt I described the Democrats regarding the Second Amendment - they are anti-gay. Just as I didn't intend to describe all Democrats as being anti-Second Amendment (Bernie Sanders is not), I would not say all GOP'ers are anti-gay (you know that I am not).

3.) I should have been more clear
4.) and you should have been less vitriolic.

1.) saying democrats without specifying means all. Thats just how english works but thank you for aknowldging your mistake and it shows integerity doing so.We all make them and misspeak at times.
2.) actually its spot on and has everything to do with it because the anology is 100% alike. Every reference that could be unfirly made to democrates about being anti gun as a whole group or majoirty group could als be made about republicans and equal rights. But NEITHER would be accurate and honest.
3.) 100% correct you should have and you fied it.
4.) i wasnt vitrolic even a little bit so Im good, thank you lol That

 

[SMTA]

As opposed to the philosophy that everyone should have a gun. Somewhere in the middle is the answer.

Of course - only everyone who wants to own a gun should.

 

[Beaudreaux]

1.) saying democrats without specifying means all. Thats just how english works but thank you for aknowldging your mistake and it shows integerity doing so.We all make them and misspeak at times.
2.) actually its spot on and has everything to do with it because the anology is 100% alike. Every reference that could be unfirly made to democrates about being anti gun as a whole group or majoirty group could als be made about republicans and equal rights. But NEITHER would be accurate and honest.
3.) 100% correct you should have and you fied it.
4.) i wasnt vitrolic even a little bit so Im good, thank you lol That

What in the world crawled up you butt? I don't remember ever saying or doing anything to you which would deserve such responses. In fact, on issues in most threads that I can remember (until now) we have always agreed.

 

[SMTA]

Not even the cops? A three time convicted robber...and he just happened to be near the guy being chased...and he dropped the gun in front of him? Somehow I think there might be more to the story than you're saying.

Btw, were you taught semantics in law school?

Well, I'll be damned - close proximity is indicative of absolute guilt.

You damn well better hope that you are never on the receiving end of such insanely wrong vitriol.

 

[SMTA]

What in the world crawled up you butt? I don't remember ever saying or doing anything to you which would deserve such responses. In fact, on issues in most threads that I can remember (until now) we have always agreed.

Cough.....monthly friend's visit.....cough.

 

[AGENT J]

That in the world crawled up you butt? I don't remember ever saying or doing anything to you which would deserve such responses. In fact, on issues in most threads that I can remember (until now) we have always agreed.

I'm sorry but YOU are inventing any attuitude or judgment that you THINK is in my post. I assure you there is NONE. I simply pointed out your statment as written was factually wrong and inaccurate. ANd then when you admitted that mistake, I thanked you for it, aknolweded you fixed it and said that shows intergrity. which is acomplement???

so im not sure why wou would ever think somethign is up my butt LMAO

seems you are misunderstanding something, not sure what, and I again apologize for that but I assure you theres nothig on my end that is judging you or your post, hence the complement I gave you.

Is there somethign in particular you think is showing emotion or anger towards you?
I can be honest and tell you noody is even capable of bring that out of me on a message board, im simply not wired that way.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I'm sorry but YOU are inventing any attuitude or judgment that you THINK is in my post. I assure you there is NONE. I simply pointed out your statment as written was factually wrong and inaccurate. ANd then when you admitted that mistake, I thanked you for it, aknolweded you fixed it and said that shows intergrity. which is acomplement???

so im not sure why wou would ever think somethign is up my butt LMAO

seems you are misunderstanding something, not sure what, and I again apologize for that but I assure you theres nothig on my end that is judging you or your post, hence the complement I gave you.

Is there somethign in particular you think is showing emotion or anger towards you?
I can be honest and tell you noody is even capable of bring that out of me on a message board, im simply not wired that way.

What gave me that idea? I read all your posts in this thread. Not just the ones directed to me, but the ones about me and the OP. Go back and read them again, maybe you will see what I see.

 

[Moot]

Well, I'll be damned - close proximity is indicative of absolute guilt.

You damn well better hope that you are never on the receiving end of such insanely wrong vitriol.

Like I said, I think there's probably more to the story. You don't know anymore about it than I do. But you go ahead and judge a case based solely on hearsay from a source you only know on the internet. But if you don't mind I'll pass. And please, don't whine if I don't believe you or take you seriously..mk?

 

[SMTA]

Like I said, I think there's probably more to the story. You don't know anymore about it than I do. But you go ahead and judge a case based solely on hearsay from a source you only know on the internet. But if you don't mind I'll pass. And please, don't whine if I don't believe you or take you seriously..mk?

I passed no judgement at all, except chastising you for your incorrect assumption of immediate and unproven guilt..

My logic is to follow the legal presumption of innocence statute until an actor is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is the basis for our legal system, which you seem to not comprehend.