Party platform statements.

[Steelharp]

Party Platform statements:

Republican Party...

"We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,†conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority."

Democratic Party...

“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.â€

Just fyi.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, no difference. sarcastly said for those who can't tell.

Edited September 8, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Chucktshoes]

"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

<br /><br />Mitt Romney speaking at the MA AWB signing ceremony. Edited September 8, 2012 by Chucktshoes

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That ain't in the platform. Are

you suggesting he has devious

intentions?

I doubt Congress would go that

way, anyway, and he wouldn't

try that on his own, unless you

say he is going to play the way

the "messiah" is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

That ain't in the platform. Are

you suggesting he has devious

intentions?

Are you suggesting that his Johnny-come-lately conservative talk negates his historically liberal walk?

[Jonnin]

They both (the obama and romney) want to start with a ban on semi automatic rifles and continue from there, old news. The R platform can say they want to legalize bazookas, nukes, and guncopters for public fun and sport, and it would not change that fact.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Are you suggesting that his Johnny-come-lately conservative talk negates his historically liberal walk?

All I'm suggesting is that he ain't gonna lead the charge like you may think. I think he may be more sane than you

do. That dog won't hunt.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They both (the obama and romney) want to start with a ban on semi automatic rifles and continue from there, old news. The R platform can say they want to legalize bazookas, nukes, and guncopters for public fun and sport, and it would not change that fact.

Are you relying on his governorship for this, or have I missed something, lately?

[Jonnin]

I am relying on his many anti gun quotes and dealings including his governership and I think a few of his statements were in the early primaries.

If congress handed him a ban like the one clinton signed, he would sign it. I 100% believe that. Esp if it were his second term, with no consequences for him.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How many anti gun quotes outside his governorship have I missed? Maybe I haven't looked that much for that

kind of stuff, but I don't recall him quite like that. I guess I could be wrong, though.

Anyway, believe what you will. If that could happen, I guess anything else could, also, and it won't matter anyway.

Whatever...

[quietguy]

How many anti gun quotes outside his governorship have I missed? Maybe I haven't looked that much for that

kind of stuff, but I don't recall him quite like that. I guess I could be wrong, though.

Anyway, believe what you will. If that could happen, I guess anything else could, also, and it won't matter anyway.

Whatever...

I am with you. I know that most folks here will disagree, but I do see a huge difference between a governor (of what is probably one of the two most philosophically liberal states in the Union) signing a piece of restrictive legislation, as opposed to a view of the Constitution at the Federal level. Keep in mind that he was governor before the Heller decision, and the general consensus was that legally it was up to the several States to determine their own restrictions on firearms prior to that court action.

I don't think that Romney will ever be a great proponent of our 2nd Amendment rights, but I also don't believe that he has a secret agenda to suppress them.

Edited September 9, 2012 by quietguy

[Oh Shoot]

.... Keep in mind that he was governor before the Heller decision, and the general consensus was that legally it was up to the several States to determine their own restrictions on firearms prior to that court action....

Heller didn't negate any laws in states like MA, NY, Kali, MD, etc., where types of weapons, round capacity, configuration, etc. are legislated.

- OS

[quietguy]

Heller didn't negate any laws in states like MA, NY, Kali, MD, etc., where types of weapons, round capacity, configuration, etc. are legislated.

- OS

No, but it was the first SC decision that established the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, and opened the door to further litigation.

[Guest CCI]

That above statements by the Republican Party . They are trying to say every thing a gun own wants to hear! It's too good to be true!

Which makes the above statements, nothing but lies!

[waynesan]

All I can say is that the Republican Platform is much better than the Democratic Platform as I see it.

As far as the two candidates; Obama and Romney; One of them will probably appoint two or more Supreme Court Justices in the next Presidential term. After the two that Obama appointed this term (Sotomayor and Kagan) I can't possibly believe that he would do anything other than appoint like minded judges in the future and put our 2nd Amendment rights in jeapardy.

Just because the current Supreme Court upheld the 2nd Amendment as we see it, never forget that "what the Supreme Court giveth, the Supreme Court can taketh away." It's happend before and it can happen again. Since we only have the two choices, I will play the odds and vote for the one most likely to do what I want done on this issue. It's for sure that Obama is not on our side and will use any opportunity he can find to restrict gun rights when he gets the chance in his lame duck second term.

[Jonnin]

no tinfoil hat. No hidden agenda. Just exactly what I said.... in the very unlikely off chance they hand him something like the brady bill, it will be signed. He won't push for it, or ask for it, but if gift wrapped for him....

[quietguy]

no tinfoil hat. No hidden agenda. Just exactly what I said.... in the very unlikely off chance they hand him something like the brady bill, it will be signed. He won't push for it, or ask for it, but if gift wrapped for him....

I have to agree with you there.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If a non democrat controlled house and a non democrat controlled senate both conspired to vote for and pass a

bill that gets sent to the President for his signature that will re-institute a semblance of the Assault Weapons Bill,

we will have more problems than you allude to. The odds of this happening with the premise you are stating make

this event highly unlikely, except at the end of our constitutional government and invaders being at our doorstep

expecting to collect the credit card payments.

I don't know, we could be there, but I don't see it without other events happening first. One event I can think of would

trigger martial law to cause that. Another would be an outright uncivil war against our own leadership. The unraveling

would be nasty.

But putting all this on one man's back is still a stretch to me.

[Jonnin]

If a non democrat controlled house and a non democrat controlled senate both conspired to vote for and pass a

bill that gets sent to the President for his signature that will re-institute a semblance of the Assault Weapons Bill,

we will have more problems than you allude to. The odds of this happening with the premise you are stating make

this event highly unlikely, except at the end of our constitutional government and invaders being at our doorstep

expecting to collect the credit card payments.

I don't know, we could be there, but I don't see it without other events happening first. One event I can think of would

trigger martial law to cause that. Another would be an outright uncivil war against our own leadership. The unraveling

would be nasty.

But putting all this on one man's back is still a stretch to me.

Point is only that romney does not follow the listed platform at all when it comes to guns. Odds of something happening, tiny to none. Odds of him riding along with anything that does happen? Pretty good. I do not trust him on this issue, and its going to take all 8 years to convince me otherwise.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's not a very well made point, jonnin. I think you rely mostly on his term as governor of MA for most of your

reasoning, and I don't recall any such statements during his ruin for prez. I won't say it didn't happen, but I sure

don't remember him stating he would do such a thing. Besides, watching him sign a document that has odds

approaching infinity against making it to his desk, assuming he wins the election, going against the platform and

the votes of the people, you may as well called him the antichrist, because to make that leap assumes a lot of other

things would have had to have gone wrong.

I don't trust him on the issue, if he had a lefty Congress, but that ain't the case.

where has he not followed the platform, or, has he even had a chance to break the platform?

Or, you're just stirring the pot.

[gregintenn]

How much new gun control legislation have we seen passed since Obama has been in office? I don't like him any more than you do, but I think it may be a coin toss between the two when it comes to the second amendment.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There will most likely not be any gun control legislation if Obama is re-elected. It will be in the form of an

Executive Order after his signing of that UN crap and shoved down our throats. It probably won't have

anything to do with the constitutional process past that.

Greg, you know the difference in terms. A re-election gives the Prez the mandate he seeks, or at least that

seems to be what's in his head. Even if we took the senate with a supermajority, Obama would consider the

people to have spoken to him.

Y'all beat Romney to death on this. The country appears to like him better, don't know why, but they do. Put

all your eggs in the Obama basket and let the chips fall. It's obvious you don't want Romney. Some things

work out better in our favor, and others don't. We've been disappointed by SCOTUS, a narcissistic Prez, and

have huge problems staring us in the face. I think Romney will be a breath of fresh air over that commie,

and even that Libertarian candidate who still has no chance.

Get a groundswell of support for a better candidate next time, rather than bitch about what we're stuck with. This

kind of thing has been going on for a lot longer than our lifetimes. Sometimes you have to work with what you got!

[Oh Shoot]

How much new gun control legislation have we seen passed since Obama has been in office? I don't like him any more than you do, but I think it may be a coin toss between the two when it comes to the second amendment.

Read the Dem platform? Reinstatement of AWB and end of private sales are mentioned (called "ending gun show loophole")

HBO with long history of anti-gun voting wins second term with nothing to lose.

What's the logical bet?

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How much new gun control legislation have we seen passed since Obama has been in office? I don't like him any more than you do, but I think it may be a coin toss between the two when it comes to the second amendment.

He has spoken very anti 2nd Amendment, Hell, very anti-constitution, if you will. Unless you agree he can just trounce

out an EO to get his laws taken care of. That cybersecurity bill that didn't make it out of Congress is being trial ballooned

as we speak as an EO. No toss up at all.

[gregintenn]

Y'all beat Romney to death on this. The country appears to like him better, don't know why, but they do.

If that's the case, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.