Posted on 08/12/2008 1:35:26 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The 2008 Democratic Party’s draft platform confirms that the party still “doesn’t get it” about Second Amendment gun rights versus the Utopian fantasy that gun control laws will somehow make neighborhoods safer, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
“While promising to preserve our Second Amendment rights,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “the party platform demonizes semiautomatic sport utility rifles and wants them banned, calls for anti-gun show legislation and proposes so-called ‘common-sense’ gun laws. Many Democrats believe bans on most guns are ‘common sense’ and they still support the handgun ban in Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago. Boiled down, all it really means is that the Democrats are still the party of gun control no matter how they try to re-package the rhetoric, and they know it.”
Gottlieb, co-author of a new book called These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns, said the party is shamelessly telling American gun owners that they embrace the rights of millions of shooters, hunters and gun collectors, “but there’s a caveat.”
“The party’s gun control platform plank puts the lie to everything they say,” he added. “As Democrats descend on Denver to nominate a candidate who is on record in opposition to sensible concealed carry laws, we encourage gun owners across the country, and especially in Colorado, to remind the party that the Supreme Court in June held that gun bans are unconstitutional. Yet here they are, calling for a ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ even after years of experience tells us that Bill Clinton’s ban accomplished nothing, and cost the party control of Congress in 1994.
“Democrats want to regulate gun shows out of business,” he continued, “even after a study done for the Justice Department found that gun shows are rarely the source of firearms used by criminals. Gun shows provide a forum, a gathering place for law-abiding gun owners to discuss ideas and issues, and share constitutionally protected freedoms of speech, assembly and the right to keep and bear arms. Increasingly, Democrats seem averse to the exercise of these rights by anyone who does not share their philosophy. And this is the party of inclusion?
“Democrats have an opportunity to reject and repudiate this platform,” Gottlieb concluded. “If they do not, that tells American gun owners everything they need to know about Democrats as November approaches.”
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
That would be like saying that treating far more sickle cell anemia cases among black people [who in fact are afflicted with that condition then other races in far greater numbers than any other race] makes treating more blacks with that ailment a racist thing to do.
You seem to be working under the misapprehension that for a policy to have a racist or biased background or overtones, it needs to explicitly state that it applies only to a given race, and that it is enforced exclusively against members of a given race.
If you want to discuss this mess with me, please read what I say, and naot twist it all out of shape. I DID NOT say anything that could possibly be construed as meaning anything close to that nonsense.
Neither is true,....
At least that makes sense.
... and Jim Crow laws aren't acceptable today just because they get enforced against some white folks now too.
No, honest to God, I an not that damned dumb, even if you think I am. I became aware of their unconscionability many years before I finished High School in Virginia; and way long before I took to court my first case against the bigotry and racism of those extremely cruel laws. In fact I was fighting against that asinine cruelty probably before you were even a gleam in your daddy's eye.
You seem to be working under the misapprehension that for a policy to have a racist or biased background or overtones, it needs to explicitly state that it applies only to a given race, and that it is enforced exclusively against members of a given race. Neither is true, and Jim Crow laws aren't acceptable today just because they get enforced against some white folks now too.
zzzzzzzznow, if you cannot understand that simple fcrt, please don't waste any more of my time or yours regurgitating your appleps v. oranges business.
I didn’t think you would get it.
If you don't have enough of a command of the English language to explain what in the hell you are talking about, just buzz off and leave me alone.
In the early days of our republic, no one but slaves or indians were unconstitutionally prohibited from carrying arms.
The 14th tried to make it clear that fed/state/local 'laws' on keeping/bearing could not be enforced without due process of [constitutional] law..
Needless to say, that principle is being ignored..
It's racist as most of the folks who can only afford inexpensive handguns are the poor. Ask any lib and they'll tell you that the poor are predominately black.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.