Firearms. We recognize that the individual 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. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
2012 Democratic National Platform - Moving America Forward
Full text
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Triming out the blather, this comes down to "We believe in the Second Amendment, but here's a list of infringements that we want." Why does your side even give lip service to believing in the Second Amendment? Menino and Bloomberg made the same claim a while ago. That's like saying that you believe in letting blacks vote, so long as they can read, pay a poll tax, and have ID documents.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that the platform is called "Moving America Forward." We've been treading water since Obama was elected. He had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress for his first two years, and the most that he could get done was a messy and yet-to-be realized healthcare reform. He's our employee, and I see no reason to renew his contract.
ReplyDeleteWell I can understand people's concern about scary looking black semi-automatic rifles ... since criminals killed more people with their fists last year than with scary-looking black semi-automatic rifles.
ReplyDeleteFrom the text: "it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious."
ReplyDeleteSeriously? Do these extremist leftists expect anyone to buy their bunch of baloney? They couldn't care less about life.
Charlotte
The 2012 Democratic party will officially adopt an extreme position on the issue of abortion on Tuesday. According to a copy of the party platform, which was released online just before midnight on Monday, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay."
That last part--"regardless of ability to pay"--is an endorsement of taxpayer-funded abortions, a policy that President Obama has personally endorsed. Obama wants Medicaid to pay directly for elective abortions, and Obamacare will allow beneficiaries to use federal subsidies to purchase health care plans that cover elective abortions. According to a 2009 Quinnipiac poll, 72 percent of voters oppose public funding of abortion and 23 percent support it. In other words, public funding of abortion--a policy President Obama actively supports--is as unpopular as banning abortion in the case of rape, a policy on which the media have focused much attention over the past two weeks despite the fact that neither presidential candidate supports it.
The 2012 Democratic party also endorses an unrestricted right to abortion-on-demand. According to the platform, on the issue of abortion "there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way." In 2003, Obama was asked if he was pro-choice on abortion "in all situations including the late-term thing." Obama replied: "I'm pro-choice."
In 1992, then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton tried to soften the party's image on abortion by expressing his desire to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare." Although the Democratic party platforms in 2000 and 2004 stated the party's goal is to make abortion "rare," the 2012 platform makes no such claim. "In 2000, the Democratic platform said the party's goal was 'to make abortion less necessary and more rare,'" Jeff Jacoby wrote in the Boston Globe last week. "The 2004 platform declared, 'Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.' But even calling for abortion to be 'rare' is now too much for the Democrats' platform committee, which deleted the word in 2008." The word "rare" did not make a comeback in 2012.
orlin sellers
Well I don't get it. Most Democrats oppose the death penalty, using lethal force in defense of self and others, and even war for the most part ... they want to save lives at all cost. So how is it that they are cool with executing unborn babies in abortions?
Delete"Executing unborn babies," please give me a break.
DeleteA reasonable pro-control statement. Could be stronger, but supporting a ban on assault rifles and requiring a background check for all gun sales is an excellent start.
ReplyDeleteI understand your desire for requiring background checks. It's unrealistic, given the number of firearms that have gone well beyond their original owners and paperwork, but at least that measure is trying to solve a genuine problem--criminals getting guns. Wanting to ban "assault weapons" just makes you look like a cry baby. Guns that fall under the typical definition of an "assault weapon" are hardly ever used in crimes. It's the equivalent of wanting to ban Ferraris because of drunk drivers.
Delete" Guns that fall under the typical definition of an "assault weapon" are hardly ever used in crimes. It's the equivalent of wanting to ban Ferraris because of drunk drivers."
DeleteBut Greg, gun control supporters can't help themselves. Statistics do not matter to them. The .50 cal has only been used in a handful of crimes, yet they want to ban that too. They are by nature control freaks.
Baldr, the statement does not say anything about "assault rifles", which, as I'm sure you know, are not legal for civilian ownership or transfer unless manufactured prior to May 19, 1986. The statement DID contain the phrase "assault weapons", which, as you may or may not know, generally refers to semi-automatic weapons which possess one or more (depending on jurisdiction) cosmetic (as opposed to functional) features.
ReplyDeleteMoonshine7102
Once again, the Democrats sound reasonable and their detractors base their arguments on lies and a dangeous obsession with deadly weapons.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWay to go Scott, you keep drinking that delicious reasonable Kool-aide, meanwhile the DNC obsessing over God and Israel and bending all you precious little drones over the platform.....
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cncbOEoQbOg
And please tell me how it was not a desperate grab for votes......
http://babalublog.com/wpr/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/teleprompter-500x551.png
Please I am dying to hear your reasonable little spin on that whole debacle......
Once again, the Democrats sound reasonable and their detractors base their arguments on lies and a dangeous obsession with deadly weapons.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats sound reasonable? The platform statement starts off asserting that they will preserve our right to own and use firearms and then immediately launches into all the new restrictions that they want. It calls for a ban on "assault weapons," even though that is a meaningless term, and it seeks to end the "gun-show loophole," even though there is no such thing and ending legal private sales would accomplish nothing.
DeleteBut since you call that statement reasonable, I can see why you'd say that my side bases our argument on lies and a dangerous obsession. Words clearly mean nothing to you beyond the feelings that they convey.