General Category > Latest News Stories

Dem party platform: more gun bans, restrictions

(1/6) > >>

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:

--- Quote from: TheQ on September 02, 2012, 08:24:33 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: drtodd on September 05, 2012, 12:28:51 AM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page