A sigline I’ve used on forums for years.
“Without the First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless and all will soon be taken away with the waive of a pen.”
5 Likes
While it may be part of the Democratic platform, I have yet to meet a single person who 100% agrees with every single thing in the platform of the party they are affiliated with or vote for.
Generalizing people that way creates divides and alienated people. By specifying anti-gun people specifically as anti-gun people, we do not discount or alienate anyone who is pro 2A no matter what “side of the aisle” they’re from.
11 Likes
This chart is pretty accurate. Look at what’s really reported, posted or shared and check the numbers vs the total number of users of a platform or outlet. The numbers who feel and spew the “left /right” mentalities are quite small. They’re just tweaking your emotions and distracting you from the fact they’re not doing anything for their checks. 
12 Likes
We are currently in the final stages of the 100 year plan initiated by the Communists to destroy America slowly yet effectively. Part of their plan was to use our Constitution, which we hold dear, as a tool against us. They have slowly infiltrated our political parties with those sympathetic to their cause and purpose. More and more politicians are leaning towards Socialism. The universities are turning out uninformed or misinformed young people with socialist ideals in their heads they believe is the way to go.
Another part of the Communist plan is to create an American Holocaust, which they have done so well. We have killed 60 million of our children, allowing illegal aliens, and those of other groups who want to destroy us to flourish in great numbers, and call it choice.
As time goes on and God fearing, family loving, country honoring Americans die off, a piece of America, as she was, dies too. That is why we who still live by the old school ways must unit and stand strong.
Socialism is only the beginning. Once it gets a firm hold, it will hold the door open for Communism. The difference between Socialism and Communism is the gun. One tries to get you to submit, then disarms you, the other forces you to submit because they have all the guns.
Me must remain on our feet and fight if necessary, whether it be in self defense, in defense of our freedoms that were secured by much blood shed, or our very survival.
If not we will die on our knees begging for stale bread dipped in turnip water.
President Ronald Reagan once said “ if we lose our freedoms here there is no where to run”. God bless America. Let’s keep her with all we have for as long as we can.
6 Likes
I’d agree with you for the most part unfortunately reality shows that liberal democratic politicians are anti gun. Not for themselves but for the massed. And that’s my problem
2 Likes
Politicians are not the same as the general public - they have proven that repeatedly IMO.
I will continue to challenge everyone here to be accepting of all viewpoints expressed respectfully and call our people on generalizations that alienate those who support our right to carry because they lean more one way or the other politically on other areas
7 Likes
Studies of the population show that 36% of Americans are conservative contrasted to 25% that are considered liberal. This leaves a huge number of people in America (from both parties) squarely in the middle. While liberal views are gaining more acceptance within the Democratic Party, 44% are liberal with the remaining 56% being moderate or even conservative minded. This poll by Gallup, which is generally characterized as low biased, but somewhat leaning right, shows that while liberalism is on the rise, it certainly isn’t taking over the country.
Also, if you look at their data for the Democratic Party, it isn’t college grads that have had the highest change from moderate to liberal, it is the 65 and over crowd that has had the largest percentage rise in liberalism with the 30 to 49 year old range coming in second. I agree with Dawn and hope that everyone here remains open to both sides of the Isle so that we can pick up support everywhere we can get it.
4 Likes
It’s not a generalization. The polls are very clear on the types of gun restrictions democrat voters favor.
If you support gun control in any form you are anti 2nd Amendment since the 2nd couldn’t be clearer as to “The Right of The people”.
Even supposed pro hunting or 2nd Amendment democrats when pressed on the details of the types of laws they will or won’t support are in fact supporting reducing gun ownership and carry rights to a heavily restricted privilege.
Ask them about their 2nd Amendment positions and you’ll get one of two replies pretty well across the board.
- I think the 2nd Amendment has outlived it’s usefulness, it was written over 200 years ago by people who couldn’t imagine the world we live in today.
or
- I support the 2nd Amendment but… . Fill in the blank.
Most commonly, it’s "I support the 2nd Amendment but support universal background checks or I support it, but I also support universal registration so we can more easily stop crimes.
No matter what the “but” is, by definition it is an infringement on “The Right of the People” unless it specifically targets only those who have separated themselves from “The People” through criminal conviction, indictment, or mental illness".
While you can certainly find the extremely rare democrat that says they do not support any new restrictions on firearms/carry laws, about 13%, they are still voting for candidates who openly are campaigning for tighter restrictions so in practice they too are in fact supporting the gutting of our 2nd Amendment rights.
A pro 2nd Amendment democrat today has zero chance of winning a national election and they will get zero support from their state or national party organizations if they do run as same.
Yes, you can find an exception to nearly every rule of thumb but this is one issue where there is virtually no dissent allowed within the democratic party, the only question is just how extreme the positions are that they support.
They all amount to prior restraint and/or denial of our due process rights both of which by definition are “infringements”.
3 Likes
It is a generalization as not all democrats are against the 2nd and not all republicans are for it.
You can argue or disagree with me, @WildRose, but until every single democrat is against the 2nd, I will enforce the respect for individuals by asking you to comments about anti-2nd People to those who are against the 2nd only. It is not all liberals or all democrats.
And if it ever gets to that point where 100% of Democrat’s are against the 2nd I will still enforce respectful behavior here. Anything less than that will do nothing to advance our fight for our rights.
6 Likes
Stating the facts and demonstrating them with documentary evidence is not disrespectful.
You can be pro carry and anti 2nd Amendment, the two are not mutually exclusive.
With the exception of outright constitutional carry with no restrictions at all on the law abiding they all come with some infringements.
Now without a doubt we can start to win over pro gun control democrats by introducing them to licensed carry but that doesn’t change the fact that licensed carry itself comes with infringements of the 2nd Amendment.
“The People” in the context of our founding documents always refers to the whole of the law abiding public not simply those selected for special privileges the others are denied.
I get your position, I get the position of the USCCA and NRA, we want to be inclusive but that doesn’t mean we have to pretend that those differences on the 2nd Amendment do not exist.
1 Like
I’m not sure how you can be pro carry and anti- second amendment.
And if your basing that all liberals are anti- gun because they are ok with some regulation, then you need to include a large portion of the Republican Party as well in your liberal generalization.
I did not say you were being disrespectful, I said you were arguing that all Democrats are anti-second.
It is a FACT that not every democrat is against the second amendment or carrying.
Constitutional carry does not remove all restrictions - you still need a background check to purchase a firearm in constitutional carry states.
No one is pretending those differences don’t exists. We’re choosing to deal with them as respectful conversation, listening to others viewpoints, and not name calling or making sweeping generalizations.
6 Likes
Very easily, lots of people support lawful carry but only when highly restrictive.
And if your basing that all liberals are anti- gun because they are ok with some regulation, then you need to include a large portion of the Republican Party as well in your liberal generalization.
I’m not excluding anyone. We have a lot of republicans who are neither conservative nor libertarian and support many gun control laws to at least some degree.
I did not say you were being disrespectful, I said you were arguing that all Democrats are anti-second.
Perhaps not your intent but that is what you implied. The opposite of respectful is disrespectful.
It is a FACT that not every democrat is against the second amendment or carrying.
Find me a democrat that doesn’t support at least some restrictions on purchase, possession, or carry and you will have found a very rare bird that should be listed on the endangered species list.
Constitutional carry does not remove all restrictions - you still need a background check to purchase a firearm in constitutional carry states.
A background check only restricts those already excluded under federal law. Each of those restrictions include due process, felony convictions, a court ruling of mental incompetence, or current PO’s or Indictment. Each of those separate that individual from “The People” thus such restrictions do not infringe on “the right of the people”.
From DC v. Heller
Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body. 5
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment(providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. 6
What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez , 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) :
“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
No one is pretending those differences don’t exists. We’re choosing to deal with them as respectful conversation, listening to others viewpoints, and not name calling or making sweeping generalizations.
Again the implication I’m being disrespectful.
How respectful is it for you to continually berate me over my stated positions stated here which are clearly supported by the facts and the constitution?
I’ll state again, you cannot be pro 2nd Amendment while supporting gun control, the two positions are mutually exclusive.
1 Like
No rationalizing with some people. Loons are everywhere, including the right
5 Likes
Brilliant argument, congrats.
1 Like
You can’t be pro-2A, while supporting mandatory training for ANY citizen, yet in other posts, YOU are ok with that. As far as respect in this community goes, @Dawn invited us to this party. You don’t go to a party, and tell the maitre d when to serve dessert. Dawn asks respect for each other, to all on the page. Arguing semantics over liberal democrat vs anti-2A is like arguing if 9mm is better than 45 acp. Look up the definition of liberal and conservative. You’ll see that neither of those are defined by a stance on the 2nd Amendment. They are defined by old school, vs new ideas. So, yes you can have a pro-2A Democrat, and an anti-2A Republican.
5 Likes
What mandatory training am I supporting? For kids in school? That isn’t a prior restraint or other limitation on their right to keep and bear, it’s simply an curriculum requirement.
Math, Science, English, Geography curriculum requirements don’t infringe on anyone’s rights either.
Show me in the 2nd Amendment where it says
“You shall be required to take a gun safety course.”
Anything outside of the exact wording of the Constitution, is based on someone’s opinion. So, ANYONE who supports mandatory training, is not in full support of that God given, Constitutionally protected RIGHT!
1 Like
If it were a prerequisite for gun ownership you’d have a point. I’ve not supported such a measure.
The 2nd’ Amendment offers us no restrictions on public education that I’m aware of. If you can direct me to a case where such a decision has been handed down I’d love to read it.
No, you said you support a “mandatory gun safety class” in school. If I’m a gun hating, anti-2A individual, you have just put a requirement on my child’s education that does not have a bearing in their career, but is still required. Basic math, English, and writing all have such bearing. Gun safety does not. This, making it an infringement of someone’s rights. Even, the 2A rights of someone like me. My right to Keep and Bear arms are not subject to anything I learned in any school.
3 Likes
From the “Carry Age” discussion:
Age restrictions aren’t a part of Federal due process, thus removing or separating that individual from “The People.” How is an age restriction not gun control?
3 Likes