until we have a near complete ban on handgun possession and extremely tight controls on the manufacture and sale of ammunition, murders, suicides and accidental deaths will continue to plague our society.

There is no room for handguns in a civilized nation. Ever since the 2nd amendment was bastardized by an activivist right wing extremest supreme court our nation has been running head long into third world status.

There never was and never was meant to be a constitutionally protected right for individuals to own firearms outside of the construct of a well regulated militia. The amendment clearly is a collective right of 'the people' not the person.

will you be willing to help in confiscation or are you just another keyboard kommando? Another question, how do propose to disarm law abiding Americans, to say nothing of the criminals, and how do you propose to keep firearms from the criminals?
Shit, we can't even keep people or drugs and the like from coming over the border. And how do propose to keep someone with a lathe and drill press in their basement or garage from manufacturing one? Didn't think ahead very far did you?
Yours is just another gun banning wet dream that will never happen.

...are instructive as bad examples.

In, say, the next 25 years? I'm curious.

( for the record, I'll assert it's a small fraction of 1%)

because as I recall, all 9 justices on the SCOTUS agreed that the 2A means individual RKBA, not collective, what they disagreed on was the level of restrictions.

remove every weapon that are owned by people now? Where would the money come from to compensate the people who's guns you have taken?

"There never was and never was meant to be a constitutionally protected right for individuals to own firearms outside of the construct of a well regulated militia. The amendment clearly is a collective right of 'the people' not the person."

No one with even a rudimentary grasp of linguistic analysis would agree with that nonsense. Look up "denial of the antecedent."

Where does it state in the 2A that government gets to keep firearms until needed to protect the homeland?

.....doesn't.

Real and actual reality based gun control...background checks at retail, mental health reporting and disqualification, felony prohibitions,...theyre safe. they're not going anywhere soon, and just about nobody wants them to.


"Gun control" as the phrase means by the usual suspects, however... assault weapons bans, magazing restrictions, arbitrary "may issue" CCW, and other arbitrary and capricious things...


They're on life support, and fading fast.



Good riddance to bad rubbish.

.....they'll be right back where they belong.....in our party platform.


Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common- sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe

[div class='excerpt']...

(That's the current section in our party platform dealing with gun control.)

You might want to get on the phone to the DNC if you don't like it.

WRONG


HERE IS THE CURRENT PARTY PLATFORM ON FIREARMS

How can some thing be pulled that hasn't been written?

SILLY...but I suppose you really think that blank page is what the party stands for and always had.

Unable to defend our current platform, I suppose you are left only with these childish and cleaver games.

Nah....it doesn't 'suck' to be a responsible pro gun control advocate who supports the Second Amendment. It's what the vast majority of Democrats stand for as espoused in our party platform.

Derp.

....because .....duh.....the 2012 party platform hasn't been written and gosh....after almost four years of being the it's time to write it again. It couldn't possibly be because the Democratic party didn't want to confuse. LOL.

Notice how you have a problem with me that is to you worthy of comment but not about the 2008 party platform.

Sounds like your issue is personal rather than a substantive about anything the Democratic party has to say about guns. Apparently....that doesn't warrant a comment from you.

Come up with something substantive and we'll chat.

Til then?

The Democratic Party Platform on firearms is not substanative and on point to this board worthy of your comments but your thoughts on the worthlessness of my posts are.

Seriously laughing out very loud.

Derp.

....your wishful thinking otherwise not withstanding.

Notice that whitehouse.gov also removed the renewal of the so-called 'assault weapons ban'.

So much for your party purity pablum. You need to pick up the phone and call the president right now.

*snort*

Keep trying to convince yourself that the priorities of the Democratic party are not to close gun show loopholes, improve background checks, reinstate the assault weapons ban, and keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals all while preserving the Second Amendment.

But heh, you keep holding that President of ours accountable. That's a good thing!

Funny, I didn't realize that Democrats were supposed to support the BushCo "Patriot Act" and their stripping citizens of due process.

Tell me, when did you change your mind on Dubya's attack on our civil liberties?

Keep grasping.

Thom Hartmann, Think Progress all said there were no terrorists on the list.

Nothing to do with what I wrote or what the Democratic Party Platform said regarding fire arms.

Keep trying to divert attention away from THAT fact.

He wants to make all the "names" on the BushCo "Terrorism Watch List" ineligible to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.

I put "names" in quotes, because the watch list doesn't actually contain actual people, just names- and sometimes not even complete names- "T.Kennedy" for example.

And the DHS has admitted that no actual terrorism suspects are on that list, because then they could find our they're under surveillance by simply trying to fly from Point A to Point B.

No, the real suspects' names are kept off the list. So who's left? Anti-war protesters, Quakers, environmental activists, and 65,000 other assorted names or parts of names.

What due process is involved in getting one's name removed from this list? There isn't any.

But go ahead, keep clapping for Bush the Moron's assault on our liberties. It can only help me.

Has nothing to do with what I wrote. Keep grasping.

Too bad you disagree with the Democratic party platform as it relates to fighting terrorism and crime....not to mention the assault weapons ban, and gun show loop holes.

EDITED BY ADDING BELOW

Feel free to back away, now that your support for this 'watch list' bullshit has been exposed.

Or hell, you can double down and support Lautenberg's dollop of shit on the scales of due process.

Begging the question do you oppose fighting terrorism?

Why do you assume that is the ONLY way to fight terrorism?

But alas....you digress.....

THE CURRENT DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM ON FIRE ARMS

Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common- sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Feel free to find another piece. I'll wait.

No need to. It's a side show and so are your posts.

Keep grasping. I'd have more respect (as I have posted about others I disagree with) if you simply said you disagree with our party as it relates to firearms. You do...don't you? The only thing I heard you say is you don't like the Patriot Act.

We are in agreement about the Patriot Act so fight with someone else. And yes........there has been lots of legislation regarding fighting terrorism including dozens of funding bills outlying priorities in commerce , transportation, defense, civil defense and a whole lot of other things.

If so, then on that we agree.

But there has been no other proposed legislation that mentions terrorism and guns. Zip. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

LOL. There has been lots of proposed and passed legislation.

Are we now done with the Patriot Act.....moving on to Lautenberg?

Ok. Are you talking about S1317? I support his legislation as I understand it but I'm open to hearing other points of view.

Now....tell us where you stand on the Democratic platform regarding firearms

Start with http://thomas.loc.gov

Lautenberg is the perennial author of the only bill that so much as *mentions* guns and terrorists.

S 1317 was the 2009 version of the bill, yes.

[div class='excerpt']Ok. Are you talking about S1317? I support his legislation as I understand it but I'm open to hearing other points of view.

So you *do* support Lautenberg's use of the BushCo Patriot Act provisions!

I hope you understand what you're supporting. Denial of a constitutionally protected right without any due process.

Do you support the party platform or not?

Good try with the misdirect but this thread STARTED with that.

Do you support or not?

It's alright....you can disagree. Just say you do.

I don't blindly support our party, no. What kind of unthinking moron would?!? Each plank has to be evaluated on its merits independently.

If the DNC told you to jump off a bridge, would you?!?

Seriously...please reread a post before responding with your rant about morons to avoid sounding.....moronic.

In fact, if you read the thread you would see where I have expressed respect for posters who disagree with me and our party. You're not one of them.









.

You said:

....except the little people in your head.

And of course, if you actually read the thread you'd know we were talking about the party position on FIREARMS.

As I said, I've openly supported those I disagree with regarding our party's position on firearms because they were honest, direct and open with their disagreement and didn't resort to 'moronic' statements.

I wrote: Keep trying to convince yourself that the priorities of the Democratic party are not to close gun show loopholes, improve background checks, reinstate the assault weapons ban, and keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals all while preserving the Second Amendment.

You respond: Funny, I didn't realize that Democrats were supposed to support the BushCo "Patriot Act" and their stripping citizens of due process. Tell me, when did you change your mind on Dubya's attack on our civil liberties?'

Try connecting the dots again. Sure sounds like you think the ONLY way to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals is the Patriot Act!!!! Newsflash--- It's not.

Convicts in prisons haqve nothing to do but file appeals and jam up the court system with worthless appeals, hoping to hit the jackpot and find something that will spring the jail doors open for them. Along with all the other junk they file appeals claiming that their 2nd Amendment rights were violated. Rightfully such appeals are denied.

The fact that some of the laws have not been upheld shows that there are some legitimate cases that are going through the system.

Last month we were "treated" to extensive and verbose posts confirming that the NRA has no real political power to sway elections, really they don't. Since someone cut and pasted it, and it wasn't from a non-approved gungeon source, it must be true.

Now we're told that gun control is a real winner in court, with 300 cases confirming something or other and refuting some claim that nobody here made.

Well, if I combine those two brilliant pieces of observation, the gun control supporters can just sit back, and wait for this whole gun ownership, CCW 2nd amendment thing to blow over.

Wait, that's what they normally do anyway, sit around and wait for someone else to do something. If only they'd stop whining too.

You mean someone else does something like a mass murder or shoots his family or allows their son or daughter to play with a loaded gun or ....oh gosh.....never mind.

How many NRA board members are Dems compared to Republicans?

How much did they spend to elect GOP candidates compared to Democrats?

Are they helping or hurting the Democratic party?

The NRA has no real political clout, your fellow gun control supporters have said so repeatedly and ad nauseum, so it must be true, so who cares what the NRA-PVF says or does anyway?

And ... with 300 court cases proving that you can regulate gun ownership, (don't know who ever said you couldn't) you should be in fat city as far as gun control goes.

It's probably only a matter of a week or two before states start repealing concealed carry too.

Rejoice and be happy.

You gun control types are so funny when you get all excited.

Before you presume to know what I think of the NRA, ask.

And nothing you said diminishes THE point that over 300 gun control laws have been upheld and only a few rejected by the courts.

How many NRA board members are Dems compared to Republicans?

How much did they spend to elect GOP candidates compared to Democrats?

Are they helping or hurting the Democratic party?

So each case was over a different specific gun control law?

Did you actually review each case for substance, or are you just kind of flailing away and hoping for the best?

Or ... might more than a few of them have been "Hail Mary" lawsuits, over a common gun related conviction some jailhouse lawyer was trying to overturn?

....for telling me what I think of the NRA without answering the questions I asked about the NRA to give you the respect you didn't give me by ASKING you for your opinion?

The gun cases in question were not regarding the facts of the trial but the constitutionality of the laws.

EDITED AND ADDED


How many NRA board members are Dems compared to Republicans?

How much did they spend to elect GOP candidates compared to Democrats?

Are they helping or hurting the Democratic party?

most of them have been felons challenging the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 because they were busted for, felon in possession or some other disqualifying factor under federal law. It is nothing new. There is a Miller v Texas in 1894, where Miller (not the same Miller in 1939) challenged Texas' handgun licensing law. The point of the appeal escapes me because having a unlicensed handgun was the least of his problems.
He was a white guy with a SO of color and he was convicted of killing a Dallas cop.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/153/535/case.html