Dem Platform Omission On Guns

[chasfm11]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkou ... in_chicago" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Leah Barkoukis
Blogger, Townhall.com
Sep 07, 2012 12:51 PM EST

We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.

So gun control is working in Chicago????? And here I thought that there was a huge amount of people killed in Chicago with guns this year. Silly me.

[RPB]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkou ... in_chicago
Leah Barkoukis
Blogger, Townhall.com
Sep 07, 2012 12:51 PM EST

We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.

So gun control is working in Chicago????? And here I thought that there was a huge amount of people killed in Chicago with guns this year. Silly me.

[Excaliber]

The fact that asserting gun control works in Chicago is such an obvious laugh line is the reason behind the Democrats' decision to eliminate that 2008 wording from their 2012 platform.

The new sentence ends with "reasonable regulations" and eliminates all the 2008 language that went after that.

[chasfm11]

The fact that asserting gun control works in Chicago is such an obvious laugh line is the reason behind the Democrats' decision to eliminate that 2008 wording from their 2012 platform.

The new sentence ends with "reasonable regulations" and eliminates all the 2008 language that went after that.

My point was that, like the dubious vote to put God and Jerusalem back into the platform, the removal of the 2008 wording doesn't change the underlying feeling by those in the Dem party who want gun control. The wording change was for public consumption, not a fundamental change in philosophy. The wolf is trying to put on sheep's clothing.

[77346]

I think the following from Rev. Jesse Jackson summarizes that "reasonable" means to the Democrats: (the underlines are mine)

“You have the right to have a gun in your castle to protect your house. You have the right to have a gun to hunt,” the reverend said in an interview in Charlotte. “Semi-automatic weapons — military-style weapons — are beyond the zone of reasonableness.” The civil-rights leader asserted, “These mass killings in Aurora and Milwaukee … we must end easy access and ban these assault weapons.” He added, “Twenty-five percent of all police are killed by assault weapons, and they cannot defend themselves from that.”

Does he even know what he is talking about? A gun (one?) to defend your home and a gun to hunt... and all semi-autos banned. So that means one revolver to defend your castle and for hunting, what? A shotgun to shoot squirrel, deer, waterfowl and predators. Oh, and no mention of "a gun" for carrying... Right! Carrying will be outlawed in all states in Jesse's world!

Here's the link to the full story: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rev-jes ... vers-poll/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JALLEN]

Good grief! You aren't supposed to read those platforms. They are not for reading and analyzing. They are for referring to in speeches, pandering for your vote, so the office seeker can rant and rave about how (s)he is protecting you from these things, and helping you with these other things.

Nobody actually expects a party to DO the things listed in the platform; none ever has. It is for the purpose of trying to get the "big tent" over as many as possible, all congregating and participating in hopes that their fondest desires can be met.

It is all just part of the sales pitch, like you might encounter at a car dealership, or furniture store, or carnival freak show and similar venues. Nobody really means anything by it. It's just "part of the show!"

[Excaliber]

The fact that asserting gun control works in Chicago is such an obvious laugh line is the reason behind the Democrats' decision to eliminate that 2008 wording from their 2012 platform.

The new sentence ends with "reasonable regulations" and eliminates all the 2008 language that went after that.

My point was that, like the dubious vote to put God and Jerusalem back into the platform, the removal of the 2008 wording doesn't change the underlying feeling by those in the Dem party who want gun control. The wording change was for public consumption, not a fundamental change in philosophy. The wolf is trying to put on sheep's clothing.

I understand, but I find it highly ironic that one of the cities that has implemented what they advocate for the rest of the country their prescription would be a laugh line if it was held up as an example of success.

They're running away from their results while demanding that everyone adopt measures they have already proven as spectacular failures.

[chasfm11]

The fact that asserting gun control works in Chicago is such an obvious laugh line is the reason behind the Democrats' decision to eliminate that 2008 wording from their 2012 platform.

The new sentence ends with "reasonable regulations" and eliminates all the 2008 language that went after that.

My point was that, like the dubious vote to put God and Jerusalem back into the platform, the removal of the 2008 wording doesn't change the underlying feeling by those in the Dem party who want gun control. The wording change was for public consumption, not a fundamental change in philosophy. The wolf is trying to put on sheep's clothing.

I understand, but I find it highly ironic that one of the cities that has implemented what they advocate for the rest of the country their prescription would be a laugh line if it was held up as an example of success.

They're running away from their results while demanding that everyone adopt measures they have already proven as spectacular failures.

There is a theme here. Say "Detroit" and noone thinks of the model city that it was supposed to after the Great Society
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/12832

The word "healthcare" was hardly uttered at the Dem convention and I didn't here a single speaker take a victory lap for the 2009 Stimulus.

It is more that ironic that the whole herd of these "elephants in the room" are completely ignored and when the same failed policies are touted again and again, the voters seem to buy them.