General Discussion

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

96. Sounds quite reasonable to me.

Reply to kelly1mm (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:45 PM

Dec 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

102 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does the Democratic Party Platform reflect DU views? It supports an indiviual right to bear arms. [View all] kelly1mm Dec 2012 OP

not gun nuttery though fascisthunter Dec 2012 #1

Agreed. However, many here are saying ALL guns need to be confiscated, or all assault weapons, or kelly1mm Dec 2012 #5

Only those pipoman Dec 2012 #9

Why Does The World Need Individual Weapons Of Mass Destruction? cantbeserious Dec 2012 #32

That horse has left the stable.. pipoman Dec 2012 #41

And That Is A Non-Responsive Answer To An Honest Question cantbeserious Dec 2012 #47

It's short and more polite than pipoman Dec 2012 #74

Now What - Stiff Penalties For Not Registering - Stiff Taxes For Purchase Of Guns And Ammo cantbeserious Dec 2012 #100

None of which the supreme court would allow Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #101

Yeah...No, the constitution is very real pipoman Dec 2012 #102

The platform supports a renewed assault weapons ban. DanTex Dec 2012 #16

Please scan active posts and you'll find many of us do support our party's platform and others don't jody Dec 2012 #2

Lots of debate for sure. I think it is good. However there have been NUMEROUS posts calling for a kelly1mm Dec 2012 #6

I have not noticed the "full confiscation" posts. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #13

Here is one. I will edit to add more as I come across them: kelly1mm Dec 2012 #29

Nope, not there. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #43

Are you seriously trying to say that there has not been one post calling for the confiscation of kelly1mm Dec 2012 #52

You are the one making the claim DURHAM D Dec 2012 #64

You just don't want to read the words. former9thward Dec 2012 #55

Where have you been? Berserker Dec 2012 #60

So you support the renewal of the assault weapons ban. Who knew? DanTex Dec 2012 #18

You clearly don't know what AWB was. It banned cosmetic features that were easily eliminated in jody Dec 2012 #22

You clearly haven't read the Democratic platform, which calls for it's renewal. DanTex Dec 2012 #25

DanTex I have DU posts going back years discussing our parties platform. Is all you want just to jody Dec 2012 #58

Stop changing the subject. DanTex Dec 2012 #65

I have not changed the subject but are trying to avoid my simple question. Do you want to expand jody Dec 2012 #69

LOL. Dodge. Are you still claiming to support the Democratic platform? Answer please. DanTex Dec 2012 #72

I must assume you do want to expand the AWB. Your true position is what worries many pro-RKBA jody Dec 2012 #73

Dodge again. Why is it that the pro-gun crowd can't stay on topic? DanTex Dec 2012 #76

I support the Democratic Party Platform. You don't because you want to expand AWB. jody Dec 2012 #85

So you support the AWB? Because that is part of the platform. DanTex Dec 2012 #89

The "cosmetic features" is a RW talking point. NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #42

Only the features below were banned. Which of those were more than cosmetic? jody Dec 2012 #45

Actually, there were a lot more and most NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #66

Sorry they are cosmetic and as I said easily omitted in new production. That's exactly what happened jody Dec 2012 #70

I just explained why they are not merely "cosmetic". NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #92

Have a blissful evening and goodbye. nt jody Dec 2012 #94

And this is where it becomes important to know what you're talking about. beevul Dec 2012 #75

Agreed - it's important to know what you're talking about. NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #90

Yup. beevul Dec 2012 #97

IN or around 1971 the Feds told Colt, the only maker of AR-15 rifles at the time oneshooter Dec 2012 #95

Wasn't it '86 when the registry was closed? beevul Dec 2012 #98

I think the platform strikes an appropriately vague tone. Robb Dec 2012 #3

Not on the 2nd being an individual right, that part is clear in the platform. Although some here kelly1mm Dec 2012 #10

I support an individual right to own guns... but only one per person. Maybe two, tops. reformist2 Dec 2012 #4

Ok - that view seems to be in harmony with the Democratic Party platform. nt kelly1mm Dec 2012 #15

Nearly every murder in this country pipoman Dec 2012 #21

Since there is not an single "DU View" how can the question be answered? Lionessa Dec 2012 #7

True. You are correct. I could have worded that better. Although I wonder how many people kelly1mm Dec 2012 #11

For that, it is a good OP, most probably don't Lionessa Dec 2012 #14

own and fondle them them in your home . . . not tote them to school, parks, etc DrDan Dec 2012 #8

That would be kind of hard in my line of work. nt kelly1mm Dec 2012 #12

which is . . . DrDan Dec 2012 #17

Let's just say that I am required to be armed at all times as a condition of employment. nt kelly1mm Dec 2012 #30

not the focus of the OP then DrDan Dec 2012 #34

Ummmm, what? Since I was the Op, I will decide what it's focus is, thank you. I am not asking for kelly1mm Dec 2012 #44

you do not think "individual right" and military, LEO etc are different? DrDan Dec 2012 #62

So... LP2K12 Dec 2012 #20

2A allows guns in the home - not at school or in parks DrDan Dec 2012 #23

I'm a sport shooter... LP2K12 Dec 2012 #46

and my safety is an inalienable right DrDan Dec 2012 #56

I don't LP2K12 Dec 2012 #63

HAHAHAHAHA!! Zoeisright Dec 2012 #33

I went to school... LP2K12 Dec 2012 #57

DU is far to the left of the Democratic Mainstream banned from Kos Dec 2012 #19

Those who want to squelch dialog on this board are not "far to the left of the Democratic Mainstream AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #78

Bullshit. 66% of self identified democrats support gun control. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #80

Personally I think the members that want all guns confiscated are nutty to the extreme former-republican Dec 2012 #24

so you wouldn't want ALL guns confiscated? Why is that? DrDan Dec 2012 #26

I like shooting former-republican Dec 2012 #31

thought so . . . DrDan Dec 2012 #37

You have named yourself incorrectly. That "former" part....... kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #39

In some areas it is needed to protect oneself NOT from people NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #54

If you can help it, please don't kill snakes. beevul Dec 2012 #79

Why? Joe the Revelator Dec 2012 #27

Not according to a number of posters here who are calling for rl6214 Dec 2012 #28

There is no need to outlaw guns Autumn Dec 2012 #35

It also favors free trade agreements and MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #36

Nothing there that says we have to support the NEA. So we shouldn't. They are dangerous thugs. kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #38

the national education association? HiPointDem Dec 2012 #40

I meant the NRA, smartass! kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #48

Not as dangerous as the coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #51

Just as the 'right' to free speech does not include the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #49

Yes- I do agree. Thanks for the reasonable response, one that is in conformity with our kelly1mm Dec 2012 #67

PERFECT ! What's wrong with that? I own 3 guns. It is CRAZY gun nuttery that is the problem. RBInMaine Dec 2012 #50

Some would say that 3 guns is too many and that you are a gun nut. That seems to be the kelly1mm Dec 2012 #53

The platform is perfect as is, we are not the Left's TeaParty, & regulated responsible hunting & gun RBInMaine Dec 2012 #59

post #4 says you should only be allowed one, maybe two firearms max. So, to some, you would be part kelly1mm Dec 2012 #68

66% of Democrats support gun control. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #83

What in that post was against gun control? S/he had several reasonable enhancements to the current kelly1mm Dec 2012 #87

I support this. It balances our individual rights with some common-sense regulations. Chemisse Dec 2012 #61

I'd like to see reasonble regulation that outlaws anything that fires more than once per 10 minutes Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #71

I suppose that does technically fall within the scope of the Democratic Party platform. Do you kelly1mm Dec 2012 #77

Fair argument. However, it is generally accepted that limits on personal ownership of "Arms" are Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #82

Ok - I agree 'what are the reasonable limits' is what the debate will (and should) focus on. While kelly1mm Dec 2012 #84

Thanks. It seems to me that one common denominator in these incidents is that they often involve Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #86

As far as mass shootings, you are correct. However, if looking at annual firearm kelly1mm Dec 2012 #88

I am dubious of explanations involving "cultural issues", personally. Seems to be a knee-jerk Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #93

I don't support it. I oppose special rights for guns. Dems to Win Dec 2012 #81

You can't support the Second Amendment and also support a ban on so-called assault weapons derby378 Dec 2012 #91

Really? So the 2nd Amendment means everyone has a right to personal ownership of ANY weapon? Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #99

Sounds quite reasonable to me. JDPriestly Dec 2012 #96