Dem party platform: more gun bans, restrictions

[gryphon]

The platform calls for laws banning assault weapons and requiring all gun sellers – not just licensed dealers – to perform background checks on buyers.

Some are charging the gun reform proposals don't go far enough.

http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247083-dem-platform-calls-for-gun-reforms-but-advocates-pan-draft-as-timid

But both parties are the same.

No, they are not.

B-but both candidates are the same!

No, they are not.

[TheQ]

Platforms hold no binding over candidates.  In 2002 Bush Jr. ran on the platform of reducing the department of Ed.  Instead, him and the Republican controlled congress pass "No Child Left behind" and double the Dept. of Ed.





Sadly, Mitt can't run from his past.

[drtodd]

Platforms hold no binding over candidates.  In 2002 Bush Jr. ran on the platform of reducing the department of Ed.  Instead, him and the Republican controlled congress pass "No Child Left behind" and double the Dept. of Ed.





Sadly, Mitt can't run from his past.

Political parties in the US only exist to win elections; to do this they exist to raise and spend money. This way they perpetuate themselves. Ever wonder why people can switch parties so easily? Ever wonder why most major corporations support both parties during any one election cycle? The reason is that they both reward those that give them money and to get money they need to win elections ...plain and simple. Why did Romney do what he did in Massachusetts? He did what was needed to get elected. Ever wonder why Obama hasn't pushed for major gun-control legislation? He does what he needs to do to get elected.
I guarantee that if 90% of the population supported more gun laws restricting the 2nd Amendment, both parties would be trying to outdo each other as to how many new gun control laws they could pass. To see this in action, just look at the history of gun-control in the US from 1968-1999.

[TheQ]

Political parties in the US only exist to win elections; to do this they exist to raise and spend money. This way they perpetuate themselves. Ever wonder why people can switch parties so easily? Ever wonder why most major corporations support both parties during any one election cycle? The reason is that they both reward those that give them money and to get money they need to win elections ...plain and simple. Why did Romney do what he did in Massachusetts? He did what was needed to get elected. Ever wonder why Obama hasn't pushed for major gun-control legislation? He does what he needs to do to get elected.
I guarantee that if 90% of the population supported more gun laws restricting the 2nd Amendment, both parties would be trying to outdo each other as to how many new gun control laws they could pass. To see this in action, just look at the history of gun-control in the US from 1968-1999.

So we've digressed into nothing but populism. As long as the politicians keep handing out treats, uncle Ben keeps printing Money, and the world keeps accepting our inflated currency....

[bigt8261]

Let me see if I have a clear picture here. Members of a group whose stated purpose is to change people's mind, is criticizing someone for changing their mind in a way that favors the group. Yes it would be great if everyone just saw things the way we did in the first place, but unfortunately that's not reality.

I understand that Romney is not the perfect candidate, and in a lot of ways, not even a good candidate, but what does everyone propose we do about it? Let Obama win again? Who here heavily criticized Bush? (raises hand) If Gore or Kerry were elected, do you think we would have Heller or McDonald?

Ask yourself who is more likely to strengthen gun rights and who is more likely to weaken gun rights? Who is more likely to nominate judges that will support the constitution and who is more likely to nominate judges that will subvert the constitution?

You're right. A politician can change his mind at any time. However, I'm going to go with the guy that at least says he is going to support gun rights, rather than the guy that says he is going to take them away. Even if I don't believe Romney I do believe Obama.

I also suggest everyone take a look at this post. It's the most detailed description of Romney's "anti" gun record that I've seen. http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320601935/m/4570024092?r=8250007092#8250007092

[TheQ]

He's a flip flopper. I can't trust what he says today will be the same thing he says and does 6 months from now. Absolutely no integrity.


At least Obama won't flip flop and if he does it'll be good for us

Do I plan to vote for Obama? Hells no! Will I vote for Romney? Probably not.

Will I send one red cent to Romney's campaign? Definitely not. Will I change my very personal stance on this? I don't think so.

If the RNC cared about the small government conservative vote (like me) they certainly picked the wrong guy. If they wanted to play to the middle, they picked the right fellow probably...but in doing so they left their "base" behind.

If we keep picking candidates in the middle and the other side keeps picking candidates to the "far left", where does that leave us come "compromise"? Well into "left" field!

[Super Trucker]

After reading how many folks are going to indirectly vote for obummer just to prove a point. I guess I need to buy a boat to prepare for that boating accident I see happening.

[TheQ]

After reading how many folks are going to indirectly vote for obummer just to prove a point. I guess I need to buy a boat to prepare for that boating accident I see happening.

Just go fishing off a long pier -- there is one in East Tawas -- same effect.

If you think Romney will protect gun rights, good for you. I don't. I think he'll throw gun owners under the bus as fast as it suits him to get something else done that he wants done as a part of a "compromise".

After Romney dumps gun owners under a locomotive, I'll bump this thread to remind you that you thought he was your hero.

[CV67PAT]

Rmoney doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning this election. He is far too liberal for the conservative base to rally behind him. With O'Bummer as a lame duck president we can expect a whole slew of communistic crap coming down the pike.

[wardog6t]

Rmoney doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning this election. He is far too liberal for the conservative base to rally behind him. With O'Bummer as a lame duck president we can expect a whole slew of communistic crap coming down the pike.

As much as it pains me to say. He truly looks more and more out of touch and this whole offshore account in the Camens, Taxes and everything else. It doesnt look good.

[Super Trucker]

Just go fishing off a long pier -- there is one in East Tawas -- same effect.

If you think Romney will protect gun rights, good for you. I don't. I think he'll throw gun owners under the bus as fast as it suits him to get something else done that he wants done as a part of a "compromise".

After Romney dumps gun owners under a locomotive, I'll bump this thread to remind you that you thought he was your hero.

Point missed.
I think romney is a less evil version of obummer, I do not like romney. Anybody knows that a vote for anybody other then him is a vote for obummer though. I would have liked ron paul, but since only 6 of us voted for him in the primary that boat has sailed.

If obummer wins and puts more judges in place, do you think it will be a positive thing for anybody? At least with romney we don't really know what he will do.

I look at it as romney might kick you in the jewels, obummer will kick you in the jewels. Why vote for whatever no name "other" candidate that nobody will remember their name next year and be sure to take the boot to the jewels?

[TheQ]

Point missed.
I think romney is a less evil version of obummer, I do not like romney. Anybody knows that a vote for anybody other then him is a vote for obummer though. I would have liked ron paul, but since only 6 of us voted for him in the primary that boat has sailed.

If obummer wins and puts more judges in place, do you think it will be a positive thing for anybody? At least with romney we don't really know what he will do.

I look at it as romney might kick you in the jewels, obummer will kick you in the jewels. Why vote for whatever no name "other" candidate that nobody will remember their name next year and be sure to take the boot to the jewels?

With what Romney pushed the RNC to do to the Paul contingent in Tampa, I'd sooner swallow the business end of my 12 gauge than vote for Romney.

[WilDChilD]

With what Romney pushed the RNC to do to the Paul contingent in Tampa, I'd sooner swallow the business end of my 12 gauge than vote for Romney.

What happened at the RNC?

[TheQ]

What happened at the RNC?

Romney had the credentials committee refuse to seat Maine's elected delegation because it was packed (80%+) with Paul backers -- thus denying Ron Paul his fifth state. The fifth state would have put Paul's name on the nomination ballot and guaranteed him a 15 minute speaking slot where he could say whatever he wanted, without Romney pre-approving what he'd say.

They then changed the rules going forward, allowing the person who wins a State in the primary to choose the delegates to send to the national convention rather than letting the state party decide -- thus weakening the state party.

There were many other shenanigans too.

[bigt8261]

I don't believe in the notion that there is such a thing as throwing away your vote. However, not voting for one of the top two is the same as saying that you are ok with either of them winning and I am NOT ok with Obama winning. I am not ok with the policies that he will (not may) try to implement, and I am not ok with the judges that he will (not may) nominate.

Since this is a gun forum, I'll stick to the gun stuff. I've heard a lot of people in a lot of places make comments amounting to Romney is anti gun, yet I have failed to see anything that truly backs that up. The GOP has adopted one of the most pro gun platforms ever, but now many gun rights supporters are no longer backing the GOP. We get what we want, but now it's no longer good enough? We are worried about flip-flopping while we flip-flop ourselves.

I didn't vote for Romney in the primaries, but come this November I will happily be voting for him then. To not is to accept Obama, and that is exactly what he wants.

[TheQ]

I don't believe in the notion that there is such a thing as throwing away your vote. However, not voting for one of the top two is the same as saying that you are ok with either of them winning and I am NOT ok with Obama winning. I am not ok with the policies that he will (not may) try to implement, and I am not ok with the judges that he will (not may) nominate.

Since this is a gun forum, I'll stick to the gun stuff. I've heard a lot of people in a lot of places make comments amounting to Romney is anti gun, yet I have failed to see anything that truly backs that up. The GOP has adopted one of the most pro gun platforms ever, but now many gun rights supporters are no longer backing the GOP. We get what we want, but now it's no longer good enough? We are worried about flip-flopping while we flip-flop ourselves.

I didn't vote for Romney in the primaries, but come this November I will happily be voting for him then. To not is to accept Obama, and that is exactly what he wants.

Did you read post #2 and watch the videos there-in?

"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts, I support them..."

[CV67PAT]

After reading how many folks are going to indirectly vote for obummer just to prove a point. I guess I need to buy a boat to prepare for that boating accident I see happening.

I had a terrible boating accident last winter while ice fishing.

[bagz013]

Voting for Osama and voting for Rombot is like sleeping with your sister or sleeping with your step-sister.......either way you're getting screwed and prob not enjoying the thing a whole lot.

[TheQ]

Voting for Osama and voting for Rombot is like sleeping with your sister or sleeping with your step-sister.......either way you're getting screwed and prob not enjoying the thing a whole lot.

It's more akin to sleeping with your cousin -- one on your mom's side and another on your dad's.

[bagz013]

It's more akin to stepping with your cousin -- one on your mom's side and another on your dad's.

Hahahaahhaa.....

I was more thinking along the sister/step-sister line cause they're both from the same bloodline.....just like Rombot and Osama

[TheQ]

Hahahaahhaa.....

I was more thinking along the sister/step-sister line cause they're both from the same bloodline.....just like Rombot and Osama

Actually, a step-sister isn't the same blood line of you or your sister

[bagz013]

Actually, a step-sister isn't the same blood line of you or your sister

Dang it!!

Haaahaaa....what a no-bariner move on my part 

I was thinking half-sister relationship and typed step-sister.


Maybe I was a product of inbreeding myself.......

[wardog6t]

Voting for Osama and voting for Rombot is like sleeping with your sister or sleeping with your step-sister.......either way you're getting screwed and prob not enjoying the thing a whole lot.

Were all a bunch of gun nuts! There is only one person we would have been satisified with. I say write em in anyway, Screw it. Ron Paul for life!

[gryphon]

If we lose Michigan by one or two votes, Q, I'm going to send you mail with postage due! 

[TheQ]

If we lose Michigan by one or two votes, Q, I'm going to send you mail with postage due! 

[Super Trucker]

With what Romney pushed the RNC to do to the Paul contingent in Tampa, I'd sooner swallow the business end of my 12 gauge than vote for Romney.

By letting obummer win you might not have that business end available eventually. Just sayin.

BTW: I agree with you 100% on the paul subject

[drtodd]

I think that any system that is at its most basic level predicated on the acceptance of a substandard product is doomed to fail.

The two-party system perpetuates itself by removing any real opposition to the status quo. What people fail to understand us that both parties have colluded to maintain a very limited choice in almost any election. Both parties work together to keep those that stray too far from the notion that the present two-party system is adequate to represent us. By limiting discussion to generalities rather than specifics, keeping all "spokespersons" to a predetermined script, and using party authority to quell any deviation from what party leaders believe the message should be, the ability to have substantive discussions regarding any issue is almost nonexistent.

The problem is that when anyone begins to even question the way things are, there are always a substantial number of people who claim anyone who acts in response to the entrenched two-party system just casts a vote to the other side. With this mindset, I'm afraid nothing will ever change.

[TheQ]

The problem is that when anyone begins to even question the way things are, there are always a substantial number of people who claim anyone who acts in response to the entrenched two-party system just casts a vote to the other side. With this mindset, I'm afraid nothing will ever change.

+1. I'd I wasn't on my phone, I'd give you a cheer. Will someone cheer the man for me?

[CV67PAT]

+1. I'd I wasn't on my phone, I'd give you a cheer. Will someone cheer the man for me?

Opps. Sorry. I thought you said jeer.

[gryphon]

Will I vote for Romney? Probably not.

A few words from Wayne Root,  2008 Libertarian VP Candidate, Libertarian National Committee (LNC) and Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee (LNCC) Boards 2009-2012:

To My LNC and Libertarian Party Friends,

Like some of my political heroes who have fought the good fight for smaller government — Ron Paul, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Jim DeMint, and in earlier generations Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater — I have come to the conclusion that I’ll have more opportunity to elect good people and change the direction of this country outside of a third party.

 I aim for one metric as the indicator of success — winning elections to change public policy. My colleagues are correct when they state that there is no point to winning without a philosophical foundation rooted in liberty. But I believe it’s also correct to state there is little point to having such a philosophical foundation, if you are not going to use it to improve people’s everyday lives. I owe it to my four young children to try to actually elect people that can change policy and make a difference in their future.

Do those elected officials have imperfections in their beliefs or their track records? Absolutely! Every politician does. But I don’t see how one can make progress by demanding nothing less than perfection from others. Effective politics is about finding where you agree with others, and working with them to achieve mutual goals.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/09/wayne-root-leaves-libertarian-party-leadership-will-seek-us-senate-seat/

When I asked if he was now backing Mitt Romney, Root responded, “I am,” adding, “I don’t deny that Romney and Ryan aren’t libertarians, but Romney is a pro-business capitalist and Obama is a Marxist-socialist.”

“The economy has been trashed. This is about my kids’ future, it’s about my businesses,” said Root. “There is no hope for America if Obama is re-elected.”

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/11150-wayne-root-leaves-libertarian-party-backs-romney