This thread is oddly absent of folks actually claiming to be 2a Democrats. But instead is a bunch of folks postulating that these unicorns might exist…
1 Like
On a digressive note, I admit to judging people every day. I believe it to be a fundamental aspect of the human condition, as natural as the right to self defense. I will say that I judge actions , not thoughts. Anyone may think anything they like, saintly or sinful, and I don’t much care. What I do care about is how those thoughts are manifested in the world through action.
What I don’t do is pronounce my judgements out loud, or too the people about whom I have made said judgement. For the most part these judgements are simply one aspect of my internal compass and world view. Also, in the same spirit, I am aware of and comfortable with the knowledge that others are judging me.
And now back to your regular programming…
5 Likes
Here is what I know. In federal elections this year, I know Rep. John Yarmuth is a far left Democrat and is anti 2A and pro give everything away and I will not vote for him. I know both Democratic Presidential Candidates are anti 2A, one is proclaimed socialist and the other is not much better. I know Trump supports capitalism, a free market and 2A. I will vote for him. I know Mitch McConnell is pro 2A, pro Kentucky and pro capitalism. I will vote for him.
There is virtually nothing about Bernie, Biden or Yarmuth that I support.
6 Likes
I’m with you on hoping they ‘go thru the process’, then they’ll learn there is a process and it’s not as easy as they’ve believed it is. That education would benefit not only them, but us too.
2 Likes
If I were a democrat, I wouldn’t comment on this thread. I don’t need to be harassed or called out or have my decisions questioned by a bunch of people I don’t know and don’t know me.
And that’s part of the reason I am adamant that about not using labels excluding people here. This thread would make anyone who is new or questioning not want to comment here. And that is against the purpose of this Community.
This Community is open to all people who want to learn about protecting themselves and their loved ones, no matter their background.
4 Likes
If certain individuals in Congress, who happen to be Democrats, have their way no one, regardless of political affiliation, would have been able to purchase a weapon recently. It’ll be interesting to see if it makes it to the floor and if so more interesting to see if it passes the House (both the committee and House are controlled by representatives who identify as Democrats).
2 Likes
If that’s how you feel about the thread, then you should lock it down as the moderator as a violation of community guidelines. I agree, that everyone should be respectful and listen to each other’s positions/ideas, but I haven’t seen IMO (and granted I’m not a moderator so am not speaking with any authority) anything that would rise to the level of “harassment” and/or being called out. But if that’s how this thread is being viewed it should be locked with an explanation on where we went awry.
So would that apply if I were to come onto this board/community (it’s an open community) and promote an anti-2A stance? Or would the expectation be that a respectful dialogue ensue to discuss my stance much of which I’m sure would be pointing out various errors of my position and being called out on my anti-2A stance?
As it should be, we should not be using labels to exclude people here (or anywhere). But I don’t think that it’s unfair to label political parties based on their national positions on issues (e.g. The Democratic Party is pro-choice, the Republican Party is pro-life) and hold them accountable and call them (the political party) out for those positions.
Awesome, as it should be. I’d (again no authority here) expand that to anyone with opposing views that would like to engage in dialogue on why we take the position we do and challenge us on our ideas just as we would challenge them in their position and ideas.
You’ve got a tough gig @Dawn, thanks for taking it on.
3 Likes
As an addendum to above…Here is the “Official” 2020 Democratic Platform talking points on the issue:
Preventing Gun Violence
With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/ensure-the-health-and-safety-of-all-americans/
And the GOP’s platform…
The Second Amendment:Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Top)
We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a natural inalienable right that predates the Constitution and is secured by the Second Amendment. Lawful gun ownership enables Americans to exercise their God-given right of self-defense for the safety of their homes, their loved ones, and their communities.
We salute the Republican Congress for defending the right to keep and bear arms by preventing the President from installing a new liberal majority on the Supreme Court. The confirmation to the Court of additional anti-gun justices would eviscerate the Second Amendment’s fundamental protections. Already, local officials in the nation’s capital and elsewhere are defying the Court’s decisions upholding an individual right to bear arms as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. We support firearm reciprocity legislation to recognize the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms to protect themselves and their families in all 50 states. We support constitutional carry statutes and salute the states that have passed them. We oppose ill-conceived laws that would restrict magazine capacity or ban the sale of the most popular and common modern rifle. We also oppose any effort to deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms without due process of law.
We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and the current Administration’s illegal harassment of firearm dealers. We oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners, registration of ammunition, and restoration of the ill-fated Clinton gun ban. We call for a thorough investigation — by a new Republican administration — of the deadly “Fast and Furious” operation perpetrated by Department of Justice officials who approved and allowed illegal sales of guns to known violent criminals.
2 Likes
Although I’m a Republican, there’s a lot of things coming out of R voters mouths over the years that, IMO, are just plain ignorant, or fueled by media narratives. I agree with @Dawn on the scent this thread is giving off… although I support the right to have the thread and talk about w/e.
I was taught, that there are three types of people that a statement, comment, speech, or even a thread like this is generally directed to: 1. people that are dead set on your side and already agree with what is being said 2. people that are on the fence and can be persuaded to one side or the other 3. people that are dead set on the other side and will never agree with what is being said.
IMO, this thread was created and focused on #1. I’m fine with that. However, in general, if you have the opportunity to persuade a fence sitter, but take it as an opportunity to gloat with people already agreeing with you and push away the fence sitter group, are you part of the problem? Is this helping or hurting the cause? I’ve heard some comments on both sides that are clearly only meant to cater to others that agree and further distance everyone else… including people that are trying to remain open-minded and willing to listen.
Just my 2 cents, I’m not directing this to any particular person here, but I don’t see this thread as a sign welcoming discussion from a Dem. One last thing:
2 Likes
On a final note for this conversation- please discuss what the political parties stances are. It’s part of being an informed citizen. And yes, I agree the a Democratic Party platform right now is anti-Second Amendment.
However, the Democratic Party isn’t just about one issue. All Democrats are not anti-Second Amendment, just like all Republicans aren’t pro-Second Amendment. So please clarify who you are talking about with specifics.
If you are talking about people who anti-Second Amendment, please say people who are anti-Second Amendment - not Democrats or liberals or republicans or women or men or any other broad group that has a variety of opinions on numerous of issues.
5 Likes