2020 Democratic Party Platform on gun guntrol

[Rucker61]

That's like saying no drug dealer sells heroin or crack cocaine for people to OD with.

It's hugely different, given that both heroin and crack cocaine are illegal with no commonly lawful uses.

it's like saying no alcoholic beverage company sells their product for people to consume and then drive while intoxicated, abuse their domestic partners or simply drink themselves to death.

 

[Bullseye]

From Draft 2020 Democratic Party Platform

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
13 close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
14 or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
15 system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
16 convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
17 of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
18 requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
19 guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
20 legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
21 companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
22 prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Ending internet sales of firearms and ammo makes no sense at all.
Neither does banning “assault weapons” or high capacity magazines (because neither term is well defined)
Allowing manufacturers and sellers to be sued for unlawful use of their products is just opening the door for frivolous lawsuits.

These three provisions have nothing to do with actual gun violence and are merely attacks on the firearms industry.

Safe storage laws are simply harassment laws...no one would ever be investigated for it and the only point is either to add an additional charge to whatever the cops are investigating.

Red flag laws are not necessarily bad, but it’s really difficult to write one that can’t be easily abused.

Extending the deadline for background checks isn’t horrible...an inconvenience rather than infringement, but background checks for private intrastate sales is huge overreach.

I'm sure that will buy them a lot of votes from the millions of new gun owners who bought their first gun this year.

The Dems should read existing laws - much of that stuff is already in law.

 

[Rich2018]

It's hugely different, given that both heroin and crack cocaine are illegal with no commonly lawful uses.

it's like saying no alcoholic beverage company sells their product for people to consume and then drive while intoxicated, abuse their domestic partners or simply drink themselves to death.

The biggest use of guns is the same as heroin and cocaine - recreation

No drug dealer wants his customers to OD and die and I'm not saying for a moment that arms companies WANT people to die either

But unlike almost any other industry (legal or illegal), their wares are designed to kill*


*Caveat: almost all, there are hunting rifles, targets firearms and things like starting pistols and flare guns.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

IMO the Democrats have become the party of authoritarian socialism.

So I am not surprised that they are continuing in their ongoing efforts to disarm the general population as much as they can get away with.

An armed population is the best defense against government tyranny...so in order to ensure meeker public compliance with central authority, one must disarm the population.

Plus the shootings have subsided since Trump took office. All we need is another democrat in office to start the killing spree again.

 

[Artymoon]

I know of the contents of your posts.

Sigh...

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

So what ?



So gun manufacturers should be liable



"Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection."


Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President





It's being "gone" for

Minneapolis, NYC and Seattle are just three cities that are reducing police budgets in favor of other programs.

Here we go again where their left refuse to take responsibility for their actions. It is always someone else's fault. I shot myself so it is the gun manufacturers fault. I get drunk and
drive causing an accident so it is the bar tenders fault. The breweries fault. It can never be their fault.

 

[Rich2018]

Sigh...

Would you like a tissue ?

 

[Rich2018]

Here we go again where their left refuse to take responsibility for their actions. It is always someone else's fault. I shot myself so it is the gun manufacturers fault. I get drunk and
drive causing an accident so it is the bar tenders fault. The breweries fault. It can never be their fault.

No, if you shoot yourself it's your fault.

If you shoot a dozen other people it's your fault...and the person who supplied you that gun...and the company that made that gun.

 

[Nickyjo]

When a presidential candidate says "our enemy is the gun manufacturers", and not one single Democratic leader or voter calls him out on that, that's evidence enough that justice isn't the goal of any actions involving gun manufacturers. It's revenge. Has any other industry been called "our enemy"?

What do you think would happen if the PLAAC were to be overturned?

That the NRA is a front for gun manufacturers was his very defensible point.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

No, if you shoot yourself it's your fault.

If you shoot a dozen other people it's your fault...and the person who supplied you that gun...and the company that made that gun.

Right. So 300 million people get punished because one idiot kills people. I not buying such nonsense. Punish the 1 idiot.

 

[BahamaBob]

If your first two sentences are correct, why the need for special legislation on gun manufacturers only?

Why do gays get special legislation? Aren't they covered by the same laws as everyone else?

 

[Nickyjo]

Why do gays get special legislation? Aren't they covered by the same laws as everyone else?

Absurd comparison. And gays don’t get special legislation any more than straights or whites do.

 

[BahamaBob]

Absurd comparison. And gays don’t get special legislation any more than straights or whites do.

Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why do blacks and gays need special laws?

 

[Nickyjo]

Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why do blacks and gays need special laws?

I think you may be unclear on what these laws say. I used to investigate cases covered by that law and a similar state (Colorado) law. Those laws cover whites and blacks, Hispanics and Anglos, males and females. At the time there was agitation to include sexual preference as a category in the Colorado law, which if passed would have covered both gays and straights. So our agency investigated cases where males or whites felt discriminated against.

 

[Integrityrespec]

From Draft 2020 Democratic Party Platform

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
13 close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
14 or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
15 system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
16 convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
17 of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
18 requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
19 guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
20 legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
21 companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
22 prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Ending internet sales of firearms and ammo makes no sense at all.
Neither does banning “assault weapons” or high capacity magazines (because neither term is well defined)
Allowing manufacturers and sellers to be sued for unlawful use of their products is just opening the door for frivolous lawsuits.

These three provisions have nothing to do with actual gun violence and are merely attacks on the firearms industry.

Safe storage laws are simply harassment laws...no one would ever be investigated for it and the only point is either to add an additional charge to whatever the cops are investigating.

Red flag laws are not necessarily bad, but it’s really difficult to write one that can’t be easily abused.

Extending the deadline for background checks isn’t horrible...an inconvenience rather than infringement, but background checks for private intrastate sales is huge overreach.

So democrats are going to take away guns. Ok, what are they going to do about crime? If NYC, Portland, Seattle, Chicago are nay example they are going to do nothing about crime. Lawless thugs looting and stealing while democrat mayors tell the police to stand down and do nothing to protect the property of business owners.
Our country under the current group of democrats is in for a rough go of it. If democrats win the Presidential election and keep the house or possibly take the Senate the country will be in ruins after a few years of this kind of law enforcement tactics. The infiltration of the democrat party by marxist, socialist, communist, anarchist and groups like BLM and Antifa have turned that party into an anti-American, anti law and order party.

 

[BahamaBob]

I think you may be unclear on what these laws say. I used to investigate cases covered by that law and a similar state (Colorado) law. Those laws cover whites and blacks, Hispanics and Anglos, males and females. At the time there was agitation to include sexual preference as a category in the Colorado law, which if passed would have covered both gays and straights. So our agency investigated cases where males or whites felt discriminated against.

Lets see, you claim to be a lawyer. Yet you don't know the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to insure the rights of blacks and other minorities.

News flash, the Civil Rights Act is not a state law. Try again after you get your new internet law degree.

 

[Nickyjo]

Lets see, you claim to be a lawyer. Yet you don't know the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to insure the rights of blacks and other minorities.

News flash, the Civil Rights Act is not a state law. Try again after you get your new internet law degree.

Not a lawyer. I was an investigator. Yes, the act was passed following agitation from blacks and their allies to insure their rights. But the language of the act protects people of all races, both sexes and all nationalities and religions. A Jew or a Gentile, white or black, male or female could (and did) file complaints. My colleagues investigated cases filed by whites. One guy whose case I investigated filed a claim alleging sexual harassment from a female boss.

The officials charged with investigating the federal law gave deference to state agencies, who often got the first crack at the cases, though we gave complainants federal forms to fill out as well as our state forms. The Feds were, I believe, required to give us the first shot. There were some differences, as federal law at the time only covered companies with 15 or more employees, if I remember correctly. State law did not include "terms, conditions and privileges of employment," as did the federal statute. (There was a federal liaison to our agency, and the Feds generally accepted our results.) But other than differences noted, the language of both laws was closely based on or copied (I was told by the lawyers on staff) from New York State law, as apparently NY was one of the first states to pass such legislation. I worked during the 1970s, so some things may have changed. But to get to your main point, so-called "reverse discrimination" has always been prohibited by the law, despite its coming about through the movements on behalf of blacks, Hispanics, and/or women. So if you're a white guy like me, not to worry.

 

[pinqy]

Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why do blacks and gays need special laws?

I have heard if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Please cite which part of the law you think gives rights to Blacks and which part even mentions sexual orientation.

 

[BahamaBob]

I have heard if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Please cite which part of the law you think gives rights to Blacks and which part even mentions sexual orientation.

Supreme Court says LGBTQ employees have civil rights ...
The Supreme Court declared Monday that the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination nationwide. The 6-3 ruling, one of the most far-reaching civil ...

Civil Rights Act Protects Gay Workers, Court Rules - The New York Times.

In July 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. The legislation attempted to deal with the problem of African Americans being denied the vote in the Deep South.

Voting Rights Act

 

[SocTheory]

IMO the Democrats have become the party of authoritarian socialism. So I am not surprised that they are continuing in their ongoing efforts to disarm the general population as much as they can get away with. An armed population is the best defense against government tyranny...so in order to ensure meeker public compliance with central authority, one must disarm the population.

If all citizens were united in their opinion, then the weapon would oppose the government. But, citizens are divided in their opinion 50% by 50%, or so. Society is split. And therefore, the presence of a large number of weapons in the hands of citizens is a pretext for unrest and civil war. It is dangerous to arm African Americans and Latinos. But, it is even more dangerous to arm those whites who vote for Trump and other dishonest people. So weapons won't help America. Rather, on the contrary, it will lead to riots, anarchy and war. Look at England, the population has no weapons there. But, democracy in England is in excellent condition. It is not weapons that protect democracy, but the corresponding institutions of the state, society and their balance. As well as the general rationality of society.

 

[TurtleDude]

If all citizens were united in their opinion, then the weapon would oppose the government. But, citizens are divided in their opinion 50% by 50%, or so. Society is split. And therefore, the presence of a large number of weapons in the hands of citizens is a pretext for unrest and civil war. It is dangerous to arm African Americans and Latinos. But, it is even more dangerous to arm those whites who vote for Trump and other dishonest people. So weapons won't help America. Rather, on the contrary, it will lead to riots, anarchy and war. Look at England, the population has no weapons there. But, democracy in England is in excellent condition. It is not weapons that protect democracy, but the corresponding institutions of the state, society and their balance. As well as the general rationality of society.

what silliness to claim those who vote for Trump are dishonest

 

[SocTheory]

what silliness to claim those who vote for Trump are dishonest

Trump is not being honest, even though he does something. Isn't it stupidity to vote for the dishonest? But are Republicans and Democrats honest people and politicians? Or are your eyes completely closed?

 

[TurtleDude]

Trump is not being honest, even though he does something. Isn't it stupidity to vote for the dishonest? But are Republicans and Democrats honest people and politicians? Or are your eyes completely closed?

so which side are you supporting in the upcoming election?

 

[Rucker61]

If all citizens were united in their opinion, then the weapon would oppose the government. But, citizens are divided in their opinion 50% by 50%, or so. Society is split. And therefore, the presence of a large number of weapons in the hands of citizens is a pretext for unrest and civil war. It is dangerous to arm African Americans and Latinos. But, it is even more dangerous to arm those whites who vote for Trump and other dishonest people. So weapons won't help America. Rather, on the contrary, it will lead to riots, anarchy and war. Look at England, the population has no weapons there. But, democracy in England is in excellent condition. It is not weapons that protect democracy, but the corresponding institutions of the state, society and their balance. As well as the general rationality of society.

Evidently it's the citizens of Britain who are dangerous. The government outlawed handguns and doesn't trust any average peaceful person in Britain to own one. The homicide rate in England/Wales was the same rate in 1995 as it was in 2016. Even without guns the citizens are just as dangerous.

 

[Bum]

Evidently it's the citizens of Britain who are dangerous. The government outlawed handguns and doesn't trust any average peaceful person in Britain to own one. The homicide rate in England/Wales was the same rate in 1995 as it was in 2016. Even without guns the citizens are just as dangerous.

Show me a criminal that will obey a gun control law and I will show you a gun control law that might work.