DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM 2008 ON GUN CONTROL

[fightthegoodfightnow]

Delegates to the 2012 Convention - IT'S TIME TO STAND UP AGAIN.

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

[gejohnston]

1. that wasn't in the 2012 platform

until recently.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

2. Huh?

That's from the 2008 platform.

2012 hasn't been written yet.

[gejohnston]

10. it was pulled

it was up. I think there should be incentives to get private sellers to have FFLs or the police to broker sales to do background checks. The ATF should make it easier for FFL to broker deals without undue administrative hassle. It is easier to do within the framework of current law.
Certainly deal with states that have their heads up their asses like Virginia until after VT.
The AWB was theater at its most absurd.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

11. Talking about 2008 Democratic Platform on Firearms

I agree with all of it.

You don't.

[sarisataka]

3. Not bad

I do not believe in the assault weapon ban for a variety of reasons but would replace it with an anti-trafficking law of some sort against supplying Mexico. I think the laws could cover this already but an explicit law may have an effect

[mvccd1000]

4. Improvements needed for 2012

There is no "gun show loophole." They sound like fools for parroting that line. Gun show sales by non-federal firearms license holders are subject to exactly the same restrictions as sales are subject to in the newspaper classifieds, at a shooting range, or when you meet someone out hunting. In other words, gun shows sales work exactly like non-gun show sales. There is no "loophole" when you walk into a gun show.

While I would not be adverse to some improvements in private sales (I'd certainly be happy to know the person I'm selling to isn't currently wanted for aggravated assault or some such charge), the ability to use things like the NCIS does not exist for private sellers.

The party would get a lot further with these things if they actually used truth and facts in creating the platform.

BTW, I'd love to hear how reinstating the assault weapons ban would keep guns from falling into the hands of terrorists and criminals.

[ileus]

6. no no..it's magic...no gunshow loophole no illegal guns

See its that easy.

Of course private sales would still be legal....

Sell that fear.

[JDPriestly]

12. private sales are a gunshow loophole.

Private sales should be outlawed. All guns should be publicly registered.

If the police are permitted to catalog DNA samples as readily as they are, cataloging gun sales should also be allowed. It would make it much easier for police to trace guns.

And guns should be imprinted electronically or in some way that the gun can always be identified by its number and traced to a legitimate owner.

That would discourage gun theft. It would not end gun theft, but it would discourage it somewhat.

[gejohnston]

13. stupid question

And guns should be imprinted electronically or in some way that the gun can always be identified by its number and traced to a legitimate owner.

The serial number isn't enough? It works for every other country that has registration. How often are crime guns left at the scene?

[JDPriestly]

20. I think that sometimes the numbers are removed somehow.

Am I wrong about that?

[gejohnston]

22. they show it on TV

how it works in real world, search me.

[X_Digger]

25. Hint, criminals don't buy from federally licensed dealers.

They get the majority of their guns from theft/street/illegal sources, or straw purchases.

Prohibited persons are under no obligation to register their firearms (that would be self-incrimination).

It's a nice fairy tale, this magic tracking system, but it doesn't work.

New York is ditching their bullet casing / ballistic fingerprint system for this very reason.

[JDPriestly]

32. You're telling me. We had a gun stolen. In fact, if I go back

far enough, two guns stolen. And they were the only guns we ever owned. So you can understand my skepticism. If we hadn't had the guns, they would not have been stolen from us.

[X_Digger]

33. It's a laudable goal to remove as many guns from as many prohibited persons as possible.

That's even something that the NRA gets behind (as much as some protest to the contrary.)

But doing something that doesn't really affect criminals and how they get guns, only affects those who are already likely to follow the law? Seems counter-productive to the stated goal.

No, I see a lot of these hurdles for those predisposed to follow the law as an intentional impediment to gun ownership, period. There's some misguided notion that if you can keep the honest person from owning a gun, somehow that'll affect criminals.

That kind of thinking didn't work with prohibition, and it isn't working with the "war on drugs".

[JDPriestly]

34. I see two weaknesses in your argument.

1. Where do you think criminals get their illegal guns? From people who have them legally, that's where. Cut back on the numbers of legal guns and it will be harder for criminals to get guns. That's a tough job in a country like ours which is flooded with guns -- legal and illegal -- already.

2. One of my problems with gun laws is that a lot of people are prohibited from having them. Let's say we agree that mentally ill people should not have guns. But, who is more vulnerable to an assault than a mentally ill person walking the streets alone? Who is more like to to be shot and robbed than that person?

As we have seen with Trayvon Martin, underaged kids are unlikely to have guns. So are they to face a man with a weapon with their hands and fists because of their age? What if Trayvon had been younger and the man with the gun had been a predator?

Regardless of the laws, we need to create a society in which guns are for shooting animals, war and the police -- not for ordinary citizens' shooting other ordinary citizens. They shouldn't even be needed for self-defense. That's a cultural issue. We pay a very high price for this paranoid culture we have created.

[X_Digger]

35. According to DOJ studies, criminals get their guns from..

80% street/illegal market/theft.

Attempting to cut back on the number of legal firearms in order to cut down on the number in criminals hands would be like making car ownership harder just to try to curtail drunk driving. And driving on public roads isn't even a right (it's a privilege).

Re #2, I'm not sure I get your point. Vulnerable members of our society deserve all the protection we can give them- whether that's the mentally ill, children, or the poor (to name three.) However, I don't believe removing the rights of others is an appropriate avenue to take, just for their sake. It doesn't take a gun to abuse a child or the mentally ill.

Regardless of the laws, we need to create a society in which guns are for shooting animals, war and the police -- not for ordinary citizens' shooting other ordinary citizens. They shouldn't even be needed for self-defense. That's a cultural issue. We pay a very high price for this paranoid culture we have created.

That's a nice sentiment, but I think a bit naive. While we're at violent crime levels not seen since 1969, there's still a one in 20 chance of being the victim of violent crime each year. I'd prefer that folks have the means to minimize their own harm when put in that position by criminals not interested in the social contract the rest of us abide by.

[JDPriestly]

41. This is a lousy response.

Vulnerable members of our society deserve all the protection we can give them- whether that's the mentally ill, children, or the poor (to name three.) However, I don't believe removing the rights of others is an appropriate avenue to take, just for their sake. It doesn't take a gun to abuse a child or the mentally ill.

How do you propose to protect the mentally ill and other vulnerable members of our society against the violence of folks like Zimmerman? If his story has any truth in it at all, he thought he WAS protecting the vulnerable when in fact he was shooting a vulnerable member of our society.

Obviously, if the crime level is higher than it has been since 1969 and yet our gun laws have become increasingly permissive with the blessings of the Supreme Court, then it appears that laxer gun laws lead to more crime or at least correlate with more crime. So, if your statement is true then, seems to me that is an argument in favor of tightening gun controls.

I think it should be a local issue. I also think that gun permits should be issued locally and guns for which no local permit has been issued should be illegal if carried other than in a locked box in the trunk of a car.

[X_Digger]

43. Actually, our crime *rate* is at 1968 levels.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=daaSearch/Crime/State/StateCrime.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
[div class='excerpt']Overall, the crime rate in the U.S. was the same in 2009 as in 1968...

The violent crime rate is 403.6 per 100,000, the lowest it's been since 1973.
Homicide is 4.8 per 100,000, the lowest it's been since 1961.
Property crime is 2,941 per 100,000, the lowest it's been since 1968.

You've likely never been safer since you were a kid.

[WinniSkipper]

56. But the police....

.....can't walk up to you and take your DNA for their catalog unless they have a reason.

If you see the sale of a item, that is currently legal, as the same as an unlawful grab of your DNA - you need to look no further as to why people on the Pro-Gun side worry about the goals of those on the Pro-Control side

[fightthegoodfightnow]

7. So

....you have a problem with reinstating the assault weapon ban and what you call the 'nonexistent' loophole on gun sales.

[ileus]

17. correct...

Awb and loop holes are nothing but fear based terms to scare people into supporting bad ideas.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

54. Incorrect

.

[mvccd1000]

50. Yes

Can you tell us one single positive thing that the AWB did? OK, I'll give you one: it raised the prices of some items, based on perceived supply and demand. (Speculators, in other words, just like the evil speculators who gave us $4.00/gal gasoline in 2008.)

For example, the manufacture or import of magazines in excess of 10 rounds was prohibited. Apparently the supply was not greatly diminished, as every factory-capacity magazine I own (15 rounds each), was purchased between 2001-2003 - the late years of the AWB.

Look what happened to sales and prices of AR-15 derivative rifles; the manufacturers made a cosmetic change or two, raised the prices to the sky, and sold as many as they could make. I suppose that just like the brady bill, the AWB drove gun sales to new highs and set the stage for the current pendulum swing in favor of decreasing the restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

My dad, for example, had never owned a gun in his life. When the brady bill passed and it looked like the government was going to place additional restrictions on that right, he went out and purchased several pistols, a rifle, and a shotgun. I don't think he's ever fired one of them - he simply bought them because of the impending possibility of his rights disappearing. That's at least one gun owner and 5-6 gun purchases directly attributable to the brady bill. How many other fence-sitters took the same view when the AWB was passed?

Look at rifle crime before, during, and after the AWB and tell me what did it do "to protect the children?" (Hint: nothing.)

[X_Digger]

55. Here's a study chart of the sales of ar-15 type weapons..

That first doubling around '89 corresponds to California's 'ban'.

There were three times more ar-15's sold during the ban than the ten years previous.

[mvccd1000]

51. Yes.

Can you tell us one single positive thing that the AWB did? OK, I'll give you one: it raised the prices of some items, based on perceived supply and demand. (Speculators, in other words, just like the evil speculators who gave us $4.00/gal gasoline in 2008.)

For example, the manufacture or import of magazines in excess of 10 rounds was prohibited. Apparently the supply was not greatly diminished, as every factory-capacity magazine I own (15 rounds each), was purchased between 2001-2003 - the late years of the AWB.

Look what happened to sales and prices of AR-15 derivative rifles; the manufacturers made a cosmetic change or two, raised the prices to the sky, and sold as many as they could make. I suppose that just like the brady bill, the AWB drove gun sales to new highs and set the stage for the current pendulum swing in favor of decreasing the restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

My dad, for example, had never owned a gun in his life. When the brady bill passed and it looked like the government was going to place additional restrictions on that right, he went out and purchased several pistols, a rifle, and a shotgun. I don't think he's ever fired one of them - he simply bought them because of the impending possibility of his rights disappearing. That's at least one gun owner and 5-6 gun purchases directly attributable to the brady bill. How many other fence-sitters took the same view when the AWB was passed?

Look at rifle crime before, during, and after the AWB and tell me what did it do "to protect the children?" (Hint: nothing.)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

53. The Sequence of Your Events

.....are not related.

[ileus]

5. gun show loophole and common sense again...

Words to make people feel better...


It's for the children how can we not support it.

[Doctor_J]

8. Sounds like someone found the NRA teat between 04 and 08

Edit: And look how kowtowing to that "civil rights" organization garnered their favor. Wayne LaPierre was so wonderfully non-partisan last week.

I am positive that on some issue, at some time, our party is going to stand up against the right wing. I have about 15 years left on the planet, am I too optimistic?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. No

You have many more years!!!!!!

And if our party doesn't, you better stay around to fight the good fight!

[petronius]

14. That could be improved, here's my rough draft:

We recognize that the right of individual persons to keep and 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, so long as that regulation is narrowly tailored to meet a significant public need without unduly infringing the rights of individuals.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.

Could probably work in something about how states are entitled to pass their own "reasonable" laws, but that Chicago/Cheyenne bit just sounds hokey...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

15. Good Luck with that

Time will tell.

[bowens43]

16. sure if you want to toss the Constitution right the fuck out the window.....

there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. Funny how the supporters of the death merchants always ignore the part about a well regulated militia.....it is a collective right, not an individual right.


what happened to our party? What we need is a TOTAL BAN on all handguns and ammunition.

Anything less is not acceptable.

[gejohnston]

18. name one constitutional scholar that agrees with you

The BoR is also a set of negative rights.

[AH1Apache]

19. ONCE AGAIN

ARE YOU WILLING TO GO DOOR TO DOOR AND HELP WITH CONFISCATION, or are you just another keyboard kommando who just bitches and moans but does nothing?

[X_Digger]

26. "the right of the people" -- not the state, not the militias, not the government.

Here, have another go at the preamble to the bill of rights.

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

Let me guess, you're one of these misguided individuals who think that rights are 'granted' or 'permitted' based on the bill of rights?

Fuck bans. Didn't work for alcohol, isn't working for drugs, and is stupid as shit for guns.

[Meiko]

21. I haven't seen any

politicians on either side of the fence propose any kind of gun legislation. They are all afraid of it. Reinstating the AWB is not going to do anything. Private sales at gun shows should be regulated but if you are going to do that you will also need to regulate private sales all over the country and regulating the sale of private property can be a slippery slope. I would be in favor of improving our background check system but what do we need to improve exactly, how are we going to do it, who is going to be responsible and how much is it going to cost.

Banning weapons based solely for cosmetic reasons is not going to hack it and when are we going to stop repeating "terrorists are buying guns at gun shows" CMON! The background check system we have now works pretty well but a felon is not going to walk into a gun store and attempt to buy a gun, they are going to pick up a newspaper or the gun will go from hand to hand through the buddy system, we actually think that felons don't have friends. There have been several newspaper outlets in the past who have discontinued the listing of firearms, but it is still common in many rural areas to buy and sell guns through the newspaper. You can even find guns at yard sales, all perfectly legal.

Does anyone really know how many guns we have in this country? I know one thing I would like to see stopped and that is the recycling of police confiscated firearms back into the market. I know it goes on because I have attended gun shows in Arizona where LE guns are bought and sold, and there are lots of them. I am not sure how widespread the practice is but all confiscated guns should be destroyed. It may be just a drop in the bucket but it would take some guns off the market. Some local police agencies currently use the money in their budgets.

This is a multifaceted problem,you aren't going to solve it with one stroke of the brush. I know you guys out there are a smart bunch. What are your suggestions to solving the problems we have with guns?

[northoftheborder]

23. weak, elderly female here who does NOT own a gun, never will. hate them.

All you fearful males and females can have them, but not me. People in my family own guns, hunt, shoot rattlesnakes, etc. There have been FOUR accidental gun shootings in OUR ranch house and it was a miracle that no one was killed or hurt. It is possible to stab and beat to death, with a hoe, a rattlesnake when no weapon was available, which I have personally done, believe it or not.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. Bravo

..... and well said.

[gejohnston]

27. I grew up with guns too

I leave the snakes alone, they leave me alone. I have no reason to kill one.
Four accidents in your house? Given the statistics on such things, umm I would have them disarm before entering too. I don't get in a car with people who get in that many crashes.

[AH1Apache]

28. Fearful males and females?

Really? Because we choose to exercise out 2A rights? I sure hope you didn't spend alot of money for that online psycology degree. If so, then I would ask for a refund.
I respect your right to not own any firearms, but don't ridicule us for exercising our right to own them.

[ileus]

30. you're one of those baser gunner rude types aren't you.

Sorry I can't resist.

[AH1Apache]

31. Yes I am

and proudly at that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

36. Fear

Hunting....maybe not.

Otherwise....it's all about fear.

[AH1Apache]

38. And you know this how?

[hack89]

57. Pure fun is the third valid option

I have spend hours with my family on the range doing nothing more than shooting holes in paper. Great family time, great family atmosphere.

No fear at all.

[ileus]

29. 4 ND's indicates additional training required.

Find an NRA program near you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. Nah

Who said SHE has the problem?

What nonsense.

[Atypical Liberal]

40. I've owned guns for 30 years.

I've owned guns for 30 years and never once had an accident. My father before me owned them another 30 years before that and never had an accident.

[beevul]

52. OT but: Please, don't kill snakes if you can help it.

I understand there are times this can not be avoided, but please try to avoid killing them when you can.


Rattlesnakes are magnificent creatures, and are just as interested in being left alone by you, as you are in being left alone by them.

I carry a 7 foot long collapsible "stick" to shoo them off the road where I live, so they don't get run over...though there are only prairie rattlers here - which are far smaller and less dangerous than a south pacific or a mojave rattlesnake, or the eastern/western diamond backs. Generally if they see you, and you don't get too close, they'll leave without much prodding.

I carry the stick for those rare occasions when they won't. I hate seeing them squished on the road.

No matter what you end up doing, be careful.


A venemous snakebite besides being dangerous in itself, is an extremely costly matter.

Remember: The most venemous snake in the world, is the one that just bit you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. How is this believable?

"...and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."

Since terrorists ARE criminals and since criminals, by definition, break the law, how does an AWB law keep "assault weapons" out of the "hands of terrorists or criminals?"

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. Ask the Majority of Delegates

I suspect there is a reason they call the ASSAULT weapons....perhaps because they are not bought for defensive purposes.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. In a Democratic society...

...the people will, from time to time, raise issues that demand the action of government. (As the Occupy groups have.) If what is demanded by the people is problematic, the government has the duty to explain why rather than dismiss the demands. If legislation is opposed by the people, even a minority of the people, it is the duty of government to justify the legislation.

How disingenuous of you to support a law and, when questioned, suggest that I call my congressman for an explanation.

Wow, I'm convinced! You've won me over to the pro-control side.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Uhummmmmmm

You do know I was talking about party delegates who voted on the party platform you were asking about?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

46. Silly me...

...I thought you were advocating something political, potentially leading to some legislation.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

47. Right

Silly you. You didn't understand. Now you do.

[derby378]

48. Thought about becoming a national delegate?

I probably can't do it - too many irons in the fire at home. But I do plan on taking an active role at the state convention this year. All it takes is for like-minded Democrats to show up and speak up.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. Sounds nice...

...but I work full time and travel 30% of the time.