How can you support the right to bear arms and vote Democrat?

Question

Nearly everyone on this site seems to support the Second Amendment (the right to own and use lawful firearms) but many claim to be Democrats, despite the fact that many leaders of the Democrat party have as their top priority the registration and eventual confiscation of all lawful citizens's personal firearms.

I have been called a liar and challenged to name any leading Democrat who has made it a top priority to register and confiscate legally owned firearms. I will start with Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstien of California who publically stated (and I quote) ..."Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in". She is strongly supported in this by Democrat Senators Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and others. Bill Clinton was the most anti-gun president in American history.

Confiscation HAS followed registration of lawful firearms in many countries, including the UK, Canada and Australia in recent years. California has already declared illegal and confiscated firearms, including the old 10-round semi-automatic SKS rifle, that it had specifically told law-abiding people moving into California that they could continue to own.

The weapons that the Democrat Senators, named above, attempted to make illegal by defining them as "assault weapons" included anything with two features such as a bayonet lug, a threaded muzzle, a pistol grip, or a magazine holding 10 rounds, which would have made many old military-type hunting rifles illegal. Kennedy and Schumer tried to make any cartridge capable of piercing a Kevlar vest illegal, which would have made EVERY hunting rifle illegal. Schumer tried to put a 1000% tax on all ammunition.

To "Tony A": Nobody is "screaming Waco" or "Ruby Ridge", although Janet Reno and Louis Freeh under the Clinton administration did shoot to kill and DID accidentally kill Randy Weaver's wife at Ruby Ridge, after entrapping Weaver into the alleged "felony" of shortening a gunbarrel for them as a favor, and then had the court give him a bogus trial date that he would miss, enabling them to hunt him down. This was done so they could force him to provide information on another person. They didn't WANT Weaver.

As for Koresh, he was a nutcase breaking the law, but Janet Reno and Louis Freeh managed to accidentally burn all of his people to death. By the way, there were ten empty special "FBI only" shell cases found in the bunker where sniper Lon Horiuchi (same man who killed Weaver's wife) was stationed, but the FBI said they never fired a shot. Interesting.

For facts on registration/confiscation, see "2006 Firearms Facts" at nra.com., the best source available anywhere.

Answer 1

None of the people above me seem to remember the Clinton Gun Ban..

Answer 2

I am a registered Democrat, though I hold a lot of moderate views. And I object to your question.

First, you are making a VERY big leap between the 'registration' and 'eventual confiscation' or personal firearms. Yes, there are some far-left Democrats who think we would all be safer if the only people who had guns were the criminals and the police. It WOULD prevent a lot of accidental shootings and 'heat-of-the-moment' homicides. It would make guns less available to petty criminals. But I don't accept either of those arguments as valid, since most 'heat-of-the-moment' murders are done with blunt force trauma, strangulation, knives, and other more readily-available objects. And most petty criminals would just turn to threatening people with knives instead of guns. it doesn't matter if YOU don't have a gun as long as you know your victim doesn't either, right?

Most gun-control legislation over the past ten years has fallen into two categories: one is background check requirements to make sure that guns aren't being sold to convicted felons, and the other is limiting the definition of a legal firearm in order to eliminate things with an autofire mode that can put out 30 rounds a second. I support both of these types of legislation. I don't see that anyone needs full auto for personal defense, and I think all gun sales should make sure it's not to someone who has already proven themselves violent. These things make sense to me.

Drives for full registration have generally gone nowhere, and I don't see any reason that they should go anywhere. Criminals wouldn't register their guns anyway, and I don't fear the ones held by law-abiding citizens. So what's the point?

So, to summarize, as a Democrat, I support background checks and limiting availability of military-style weaponry, I oppose registration, and I don't believe that, even if there WERE registration, confiscation would certainly follow.

Answer 3

Ok, I'm calling your bluff on this. There is not one democrat that has lobbied to confiscate legally owned guns. Regardless of what that hypocrite Rush, et al. tells you day in, day out, the Dems will not be knocking on your door demanding you hand over your guns.

And before you scream "Waco!" David Koresh was breaking the law plain and simple. You abide by the law, you have nothing to worry about.

Provide an actual link or 2 of legit websites where these claims of yours can be verified.

Plus, if you vote based only on one subject matter, you have bigger issues to worry about.

Answer 4

First off, because people tend to identify with a particular party, even though their particular views might not match up on each individual issue.

Second, untrue statements like "despite the fact that many leaders of the Democrat party have as their top priority the registration and eventual confiscation of all lawful citizens's personal firearms" show your extreme bias.

Why ask the question if you just want a thread of people that agree with your own viewpoint? You're not fooling anyone.

Answer 5

First off you are a liar. NO "LEADING DEMOCRAT" Has ever said that the democratic party has as their top priority that the registration and eventual confiscations lawful citizens personal firearms.

If you are NOT a liar, I invite you to post a link in "ADDITIONAL DETAILS" quoting a leading democrat in office today who has said that they want to confiscate the firearms of lawful citizens. I challenge you to prove that you are not a liar.

Republicans have governed so poorly that they are afriad of losing power in this campaign. They are bringing back the old BOOGYMAN LIE of "Democrats want to take your guns away." Sorry, it won't work this time. Maybe people believed that in the 70's but people aren't that stupid.


NOW THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU ARE A LIAR.....
After 6 years of bush I think me and lots of other Democrats have realized that we may actually have to exercise our second amendment rights some day. As the repubicans have pretty much gutted the fourth amendment since they have taken power.

When democrats were in control, things were so stable and the country was going so well, that most people didn't take it seriously.

Answer 6

Democrats aren't trying to outlaw guns. Would you want a man with a homicide on his record buying them? I support the right to keep guns off of the streets and back in the homes where they belong. Republican U.S. Senator from Ohio Mike DeWine opposes gun rights too. It's not just Democrats.

Answer 7

Your point is well taken. Democrats support "rights" when the subject is low-life criminals but when it comes to innocent folks protecting themselves from savages it's a different story. Never trust politicians that fear armed citizens. Back during the Revolutionary War the British would have been happy if America had been run by Democrats. Our capital would still be London!

Answer 8

lawful citizens...lol