Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Just so there is no doubt....guess which is which


Recommended Posts

Equal time...both sides... no political position...just informational facts.

 

The 2012 Platform of one major political party on guns:

 

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

 

And the 2012 platform on guns of the other party:

 

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.

 

Hmmm....which do you suppose is which?

 

LL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like most snapshots, they don't tell the entire story. There's a lot more to consider than just what's addressed in the OP.

 

ETA: After thinking about it, both platform statements fall short. They are both directed at the faithful, who already agree with them, and they offer nothing to the other side or even to the undecideds. For example, I'd be happier if the 2nd statement expanded a little bit on the responsibilities of gun ownership, or at least definied what is meant by "safe use." You might say that it's automatically understood, but it is precisely the kind of thing that needs to be plainly stated up front and often, both to reassure others and to remind your own side (if gun owners didn't need reminding, then why do shooters get reminded at every SASS match?). And something else that's missing: why not a statement of how gun owners feel about the recent series of shootings? Why not make it plain that we're just as horrified and disgusted as everyone else? Why not say that we support prosecution and punishment of the perps to the fullest extent of the law? You might think it's obvious, but go back and read the 2nd statement again; it's all about rights and legalities. By contrast, the 1st statement talks about "the terrible consequences of gun violence; ...life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious." Frankly, I don't see any humanity in the 2nd statement, and I really wish I did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1...too easy :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The major difference in the two parties is this phrase:

 

"we recognize the individual responsibility"

 

 

+1 Yep. That is the real, proper "humanity" in the second statement (and party platform).

 

The first statement is simple emotional pandering and disingenuous given the party's consistently more restrictive actions.

 

The concept of "individual responsibility" is largely missing throughout the entire first party platform.

 

Harvey

(edited to avoid political content)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with all of these statements (not just limited to these portions re guns) is that they are specifically designed to be vague enough for wiggle room, while communicating some kind of "code" that means different things to different folks.

 

What is "middle class"? When you pledge to "protect the middle class", who are you talking to? Most folks think of themselves as middle class; who wants to admit to being "poor", and who (in the present environment) want to brag about being "rich". So we all see ourselves as middle class, and the message is "I will protect you" - when we all should know that no politician can protect us all against tax increases - and probably will end up shielding only the very poor and the very rich. I'd like to require specificity when they use these words - let's hear the actual numbers. Over the last 4 years, I've heard that various tax proposals would not affect those making less than $100,000, then less than $200,000, and most recently, less than $250,000...it seems that the definition of "middle class" keeps sliding.

 

Similarly, I am furious with these references by both parties to adoption of "common sense regulations" or "common sense reforms". There is no such thing as "common sense" in these settings. The language is used strictly to try to fend off criticism by making an oppoenent appear to be against "common sense" - i.e., making them look unreasonable and obtructionist. Actually, use of the term "reform" falls into the same category - a buzz word used in an attempt to portray opponents as reactionaries and opposed to improvement - when in actuality, what they call a "reform" is just a revision, with no inherent goodness or improvement guaranteed. Proposals to revise laws or regulations or agencies need to be judged upon their actual effects and merits - not based upon a meaningless label.

 

When I read these two statements, I assume first of all that neither party, and no individual candidate, is bound to the terms of either. Politics is all about the moment, and if it is adventageous tomorrow for either to do a 180 degree turnabout, they will without hesitation. Beyond that, there is one significant policy difference to me; the first treats gun "rights" as a "tradition", subject to "reasonable regulation", and views gun ownership as a potential threat to some idealized view of peace and harmony. The second recogizes that gun ownership and use is an inherent right, not dependent upon, but instead reinforced by, the Constitution, and essential to the basic human right of self-defense. For me, that's a view more solidly based in reality.

 

LL

Link to post
Share on other sites
When I read these two statements, I assume first of all that neither party, and no individual candidate, is bound to the terms of either. Politics is all about the moment, and if it is adventageous tomorrow for either to do a 180 degree turnabout, they will without hesitation. Beyond that, there is one significant policy difference to me; the first treats gun "rights" as a "tradition", subject to "reasonable regulation", and views gun ownership as a potential threat to some idealized view of peace and harmony. The second recogizes that gun ownership and use is an inherent right, not dependent upon, but instead reinforced by, the Constitution, and essential to the basic human right of self-defense. For me, that's a view more solidly based in reality.

 

I don't have a real problem with this. What I have a problem with is that these are statements intended to explain a postion, and they explain nothing. The voters on the left will vote for the left, regardless of what the statement says, and the same for the right. The statements are completely unnecessary if the intended audience is the party faithful. Therefore, the statements are (or should be) aimed at the center/undecided. But there's nothing there for the undecided. The left statement is emotional, with only a nod to the law; the right statement is legal, with only a nod to the emotions. If you assume that human beings are more emotional than rational (which is how I always place my bets), it's the legalistic argument that does the least to sway the undecideds. So, are the folks here really willing to bet on winning without the help of the undecideds?

 

Mind, I am not saying the statement needs to be changed or softened, just make some additions along the lines I've suggested. After all, what's wrong with being horrified at mass murder? Seems to me there's more of a reason to let people know you're horrified than to let them think (or claim) you don't care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.