After J and Laurie's lively debate, I decided to find the horse's mouth and copied this text out of each party's site. Maybe the devil is in the details since they both seem somewhat rational... Thoughts?
Democrat 2008 Platform
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 commonsense 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.
Republican 2008 Platform
We uphold the right of individual Americans to own firearms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller affirming that right, and we assert the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. We call on the next president to appoint judges who will similarly respect the Constitution.
Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend themselves, their property, and communities. We call for education in constitutional rights in schools, and we support the option of firearms training in federal programs serving senior citizens and women. We urge immediate action to review the automatic denial of gun ownership to returning members of the Armed Forces who have suffered trauma during service to their country. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment. We recognize that gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens, and that such proposals are ineffective at reducing violent crime.
Brady Campaign
National Rifle Association
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I don't care about gun issues much. It's been a dead issue for us for a while now, maybe for the same reasons the GOP is so eager to return to them. But they are issues that do have a risk of back firing. Obviously, with their "we can shoot them if we don't like the way they look" bill, they are now in real trouble given the events in Florida.
--Hiram
I had very little interest in gun control until I learned about the crazy stand your ground law.
Here's an explanation of how it works in FLorida:
"Numerous cases have set the precedent in Florida, with the courts arguing that the law "does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable." When a defendant claims self-defense, "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." In other words the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the prosecution, so it's surprisingly easy to evade prosecution by claiming self-defense.
This has led to some stunning verdicts in the state. In Tallahassee in 2008, two rival gangs engaged in a neighborhood shootout, and a 15-year-old African American male was killed in the crossfire. The three defendants all either were acquitted or had their cases dismissed, because the defense successfully argued they were defending themselves under the "stand your ground" law. The state attorney in Tallahassee, Willie Meggs, was beside himself. "Basically this law has put us in the posture that our citizens can go out into the streets and have a gun fight and the dead person is buried and the survivor of the gun fight is immune from prosecution," he said at the time."
The NRA Wants the Law Protecting Trayvon Martin's Killer in All 50 States
Wow. Am I the only one that reads those two platform statements and finds only ONE of them "rational"? The DFL language contains so many ifs, ands and buts that it is quite obvious (especially coupled with their public antipathy to any expansion of "gun rights" or curbs on gun control) they do not believe law-abiding citizens should have guns. I only heard it recently so I still find it amusing, that the DFL believes in the notion that "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
Laurie, I've only heard the name of the Florida case, so thank you for the additional information. I agree that, at least the way you tell it makes it sound as if the Florida law is "irrational" or was at least applied irrationally in this case. But do you really want to stand there and say that this is what (I assume Republicans) in the FL legislature INTENDED with the law? That is always the clear implication when DFLers speak, and it is a terrible thing to say, especially since it is not true. Legislators make mistakes, sometimes, and leave loopholes, but defending the legitimate right of self defense isn't and cannot be a mistake.
Recent studies of crime rates in Washington, DC show that gun crimes have dropped something like 80% since the Supreme Court struck down their strict gun control law. Rationality therefore requires less gun control.
J. Ewing
I like this guy's perspective better than the Mother's. CNN Killing shows Flaws Maybe we add some text like. "If you follow the supposed bad guy down an alley against the dispatcher's explicit guidance and end up shooting him, we are going to give you a lethal injection shot as a reward. Thereby preventing your genes from being passed on to the next generation." (ooh... we can talk about the death penalty sometime...)
I can see the upside to this law, however the loop holes definitely need to be closed. The gang fight thing is a pretty definite problem. I could see 2 gangs really going at it, all the while claiming they were in fear for their life.
J, Must be just you... I can't argue with these pretty basic safe guards. "like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban" They seem pretty clear and rational.
I just want the right to own a basic rifle, shot gun or hand gun. And preferably the right to carry them if I so choose. Also, needing a license is fine with me since I need a license for so many other things. Kind of like needing a photo ID to vote, it is just normal common sense.
I have friends who would love to add assault weapons to their collections. However I have never seen any sense to it, especially since they almost never take those guns out of their gun safes. And yes I mean safes, as in multiple units.
As I say, I usually don't care about these issues. But I will say that Democrats are concerned about getting Minnesotans back to work, Republicans are concerned with figuring out which Minnesotans it's ok to shoot with the bright and shiny weapons they conceal after taking a six hour training course. I mean you buy the things, it really would be a shame not to have opportunities to use them, wouldn't it? I think on the whole, that contrast can work to our favor.
--Hiram
You see, that's the problem with platforms. The language doesn't mean what you think it does. You have to dig a little and look at actual legislation to understand the meaning. For example:
"Reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban" sounds like a great idea. After all, we don't want people running down the street randomly firing thousands of rounds of ammunition from these "deadly" weapons. But the legislation was very specific. The guns you could not buy did not fire any faster than a non-banned firearm. The only thing that defined an "assault weapon" were cosmetics like a front grip, folding stock or bayonet lug. Frankly, wouldn't we be safer if we required EVERYBODY to use their bayonet lugs, rather than pulling the trigger? These were SEMI-automatic weapons; you had to pull the trigger once for each shot,just like thousands of other guns that weren't "ugly" and covered by the ban.
And did you notice when the ban was instituted, how crimes using these weapons dropped to zero? Of course you didn't, because crimes committed with these weapons, BY CRIMINALS, were only about 1% of the total of gun crimes anyway, and criminals will always find guns to commit crimes with. One more crime doesn't much matter. So crime wasn't decreased. And when the ban expired, did we suddenly see a burst of random killing sprees by law-abiding citizens? Of course not, and the criminal use of "ugly guns" didn't increase, either, because the "ban" was a totally fictitious proposition in the first place. It was political pablum.
Which is the Democrats forte'. Sounds great, means nothing except a constriction of the rights of ordinary citizen. Testifying against the ban, one wheelchair-bound young man said something to the effect that, because of his disability, he had to live in a "dangerous neighborhood" and could not use two hands on a weapon. "I need something I can use with one hand," he said, "and I want the biggest, ugliest gun I can hold so that, maybe, I won't have to use it." Why should he be legally prohibited from legitimate self defense, and possibly deterring rather than shooting a criminal? Isn't "public safety" thereby better served, on both ends of that formerly "banned" weapon?
J. Ewing
And another thing. When was the last time you had to get a license to say what you say here? Do you need a license of any kind to exercise your right of free speech? I hope not. So why do I need or want a license just to buy or own a firearm? To what use might that license information be put by a government that suddenly wants guns OUT of private hands, like Nazi Germany did?
J. Ewing
So why do I need or want a license just to buy or own a firearm?
Because we have concerns with what people do with firearms. Which is exactly the same thinking behind the Republican push for firearms. Republicans are concerned with how people use the ballot, in particular, that they might use it to vote for Democrats. Even I concede the consistency of Republican thinking on these issues.
--Hiram
The best and most effective wedge issues are the ones rooted in human nature, and are irresolvable, or at the very least, very difficult to resolve. Issues related to sexuality are great in this respect. And that's been the problem with gun issues. The political battle with respect to guns has largely been fought, and from my perspective. So when some nut guns down 20 kids on a college campus, I pretty much keep my thoughts to myself. This has been Republicans for wedge issue loving Republicans so they spend a lot of time and effort trying to inject new life into these issues. So they push the boundaries ever father. You not only have a right to carry guns, but you can conceal them on your person. And wouldn't it be great to arm our hormone addled high school kids so if a fire fight breaks out in the lunchroom, possibly because the fiststicks were overcooked, they will have the means to defend themselves? And now with the castle doctrine we have provided one more avenue for our six hour training wonders to play out their adolescent Marshal Dillon fantasies, by gunning down teenagers on rainy nights.
Isn't politics a wonderful thing?
--Hiram
J,
Where should the line be drawn then? Guns from Predator I really think the kid should mount at minigun to his wheel chair.
Look, I have no particular love of guns. But I get it. I grew up in a town that was so country that we had gun safety (including actually firing a gun, more than once) as a stand alone unit in our 8th grade science curriculum (yay for local control, yeah?). So I get how integral they are to some people's identity.
The 2nd amendment, as written, has virtually nothing to do with the modern day NRA's efforts (and I'd bet my paycheck that they drafted the Republican platform). The muskets of the 18th century bear little resemblance to the semi-automatic firearms of today. Philosophically, I get it, but in practice, you have to acknowledge that we're in an entirely new universe.
So own and carry a gun--get trained, get a background check, get a license, follow a few reasonable restrictions. Don't bring your damn gun to church or parades or parks or places where you'll be drinking and/or kids. Go ahead and hunt. If you're smart, you'll put it in a safe, but if you're so inclined, fine, keep it in your bedside table. Put a trigger lock on it to protect your kid and your kids' friends, for heaven's sake.
But the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Florida shows just how crazy the laws can get when you start progressively loosening the acquisition and useage laws. You get a half-cocked vigilante who stalks, confronts, and shoots a child armed with nothing but iced tea and skittles, and it appears that the law may be twisted enough to let him off the hook. Indefensible.
"And another thing. When was the last time you had to get a license to say what you say here? Do you need a license of any kind to exercise your right of free speech?"
Guns, when used as directed, kill people. Words, when used as directed, inspire, criticize, educate, enlighten. You're not exactly winning me over to your side with your insightful parallels.
--Annie
John,
it seems to me that your positions related to gun control align more closely with the DFL than the GOP.
J-
I don't think your words about legislator intent would provide much comfort to the family members of the hundreds of people whose deaths have been been found to be justifiable homicide in Florida.
The gang shoot out mentioned in my previous quote was in 2008. Shouldn't they have fixed this crazy law by now?
Does anyone know of a case that is high profile like the Trayvon Martin but for the opposite reason, a person convicted of manslaughter when the facts point to true self defense?
Oh I have to say it...
"Annie get your gun"
If the Brady group speaks the DFL, I don't think so...
Does this help?
CATO at Liberty
It has some links to folks that faced grave trials on the other side. Of course, they were apparently resolved otherwise they would not be reported. The folks would be in jail and there would be no story.
The facts are clear. Concealed carry in Minnesota has not resulted in (there may be just one) case in which a permit holder shot somebody he should not have. The predictions of the DFL alarmists have been proven to be entirely hyperbolic, off the charts, insane and out of this world. I checked, and Sen. Ann Rest did not even BUY flak jackets for her kids, let alone make them be worn.
Concealed carry states have lower crime than others, and yes, that's per capita. Passage of concealed carry reduces crime in those states. Cities with strict gun control laws have the highest level of gun crime, and crime goes down when those laws are reduced. The assault weapons ban did not reduce crime. It is still illegal to possess fully automatic weapons, but criminals break the law and have them, nonetheless. And use them to commit crimes, because that is what criminals DO. They need a gun in their chosen work.
There's nothing really wrong with "sensible" gun control, and it may keep known crazies from harming themselves or others, but let's not pretend that keeping guns away from normal law-abiding citizens does anything at all for public safety, and in fact makes the public LESS safe. You might even say "When having a gun is criminal, only criminals will have guns."
By all means, if you have a proven "loophole" or flaw in your "sensible" gun freedom law, fix it, but toughening up a gun control law only makes it worse. There's been a lot of political claptrap flung at the "stand your ground" bill, the vast majority (if not all) of it the same hyperbolic, fevered imaginings of the anti-gun DFL crowd that opposed concealed carry. Why do I need a license from the government to prevent some loony criminal from killing my family?
J. Ewing
John,
So far your link has not helped. In this case that was cited as an example of something I think the prison sentence give to the gun owner was too light if anything.
To my world view choosing to point a loaded gun at someone carries the risk that you might wrongly kill
him and go to jail for this. I don't get why a teanager's right not to be shot isn't at least as great as someone's right to have and use a weapon.
This whole issue has me in such a mood as to take a small amt of satisfaction when it is the child of a conservative/NRA member who is the one accidentally killed. (which is so unlike me)
Apparently the Governor disagreed... NY Times Coverage Here is some background.
You were looking for an example of where someone was arrested for defending themself.
I liked the domestic abuse concept. Goodbye Earl
Thanks for the link. Funny how often race is a major factor in crime and justice.
I no longer feel I can reach a verdict on this one without being privy to all the evidence. Perhaps I would have voted not guilty by reason of self defense, even if it still seems like a senseless avoidable killing. I am very convinced cases like this should go to trial.
Gun rights advocates are not becoming victims of their own success, thrill seekers in a way, in search ever more exhilarating ever more dangerous. And now a price is being exacted for that.
--Hiram
I am thinking of the 2 women in Iowa that were minding their own business working in a convenience store, when a deranged young man came in and shot them. I wonder if they were thrill seekers that got more than they bargained for...
Then I wonder if more deranged young men were shot dead as they fulfilled their insanity... Would their be fewer deranged young men acting insane?
Now if the ladies had had guns and had no fear of the consequences of using them, would they have gone home to their families that night instead of being sent to a mortician? And would the deranged young man be dead before he could take a shot at the 2nd woman or clogged up our court system.
Or would he have just stayed home that day?KARE 11 Swanson
That one doesn't seem to hard to think through. Have you noticed that, since those legal notices-- the "No guns permitted on these premises" signs-- have gone up there hasn't been a single instance of a gun being used in any convenience store in the whole state? :-^
"When guns are outlawed only outlaws..." Using a gun improperly makes you an outlaw, but not all uses are improper.
J. Ewing
"Then I wonder if more deranged young men were shot dead as they fulfilled their insanity... Would their be fewer deranged young men acting insane?"
Unfortunately no, but there would be far fewer innocent victims. Which I think ought to be the point. Government cannot stop the criminal use of guns by making those uses criminal; they can only stop the use of guns by law-abiding citizens by making those uses criminal-- uses that might save their lives.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment