If you want evidence of what their position actually was, that is definitely the smoking gun.
You’ll have to explain that allusion.
Here is the platform:
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.
The proposals in the past few weeks have included things like adding background checks for all transfers, even when the people involved are not FFLs. This isn’t in the platform. They have included banning magazines over a certain size. That isn’t in the platform.
The platform is half fluff and have dishonest, tired rhetoric like “common sense” laws and “gun show loopholes”.
Feigning innocence. Pretending that the Democrats haven’t been claiming to have given up on gun control for the past decade or so.
So, that’s what they say. But you know it isn’t what they really mean, because, well, you know it. Therefore, they are being dishonest, because they are not saying what you already know they really mean.
Please submit your Certificate of Telepathy for inspection.
I’m not seeing the background checks, and the magazine banning.
It’s a platform, not s piece of legislation. But the key item that you focused on in you OP is in there. And the idea that they do favor more restrictions is. You claim they signaled no interest. Obviously there is interest.
Which prospects enjoy…what was it, about 90% support amongst the people? Which is equal to zero support, I hear…
No, I don’t agree. Phrases like “reasonable regulation,” and “focus on effective enforcement of existing laws,” are weasel worded to allow Democrats to dance on both sides of the street: to an audience of Mother Jones readers, they can point to their commitment to pass new “reasonable” legislation. To more moderate voters, they can point to the same words as evidence for the fact that they don’t want to do anything outrageous.
No. It is 100% clear that they support further legislation, contrary to what you have claimed.
Could be. Outside of your telepathic powers, have you any evidence to back that up?
I’ll grant you that the AWB is in there, and I’m surprised it made it in since there are many Democrats from rural areas who are opposed to it.
I disagree with this, however. The focus is clearly on enforcement of existing laws, especially regarding background checks. It clearly states that it would prefer to enforce the current laws and now you’ve got proposals to dramatically expand background checks to include every sale.
Let’s take hitting out of the discussion. Four or five years ago, my neighbor said that if I wanted to borrow some of her yard tools, I should just help myself from her shed anytime.
Now it’s four or five years later, and I’ve never taken advantage of this offer. I wouldn’t feel right just going to her shed and borrowing her edger without asking first, because while she didn’t specify any time limit on her offer, the value of an informal commitment fades with time. People forget, change their minds, their situations and recollections change, you name it.
If I did go back to her shed without asking first, would I hold it against her if she said, “excuse me, but WTF are you doing in my shed?” Of course not.
YMMV.
Tru dat. But the question has been one of “were the Dems signaling that it was safe to vote for them if you were opposed to new gun control measures, and did they violate that implicit pledge?”
It hasn’t been about “they were for one set of gun control measures, but now they’re for a different set of gun control measures.”
I don’t think that is the focus. It appears to me to more about regulation and new laws than enforcing existing ones, but I think the most you could reasonably stretch it to is saying it’s about equal parts better enforcement and equal parts new laws.
At any rate, the OP made the claim that the Democrats signaled that people who wanted “expansive gun rights” could safely for them. But it’s 100% clear that they are for more, not less regulation. A more restrictive right to bear arms, not a more expansive right. There is no wolf in sheep’s clothing here. Just the wolf, plain and simple.
Wouldn’t they be sheep in wolve’s clothing in this case?
I’ve got no problem with that. I’d feel the same way if the neighbor said it once and I had waited five years. However, that’s not analogous to the Democrats on gun rights. For many years they have been assuring us that they don’t want to take away gun rights. Indeed, even as he’s proposing new restrictions Obama has been going out of his way to claim support for the second amendment.
This is a lie.
I’ll ask you this: Assume Obama gets everything he wants next week. AWB part II, background checks on all sales, magazine restrictions.
Do he and his fellow Democrats call it quits? The issue of gun control is off the table, since they got everything they wanted?
You know this isn’t true. They would be back pushing for further restrictions.
On and on it goes.
If this is true then why the code words in the conversation and in the platform? Why call for “common sense” gun laws without defining what they are? Why call for a “open national conversation” on guns, whatever that means. Why claim to want to address a “gunshow loophole” that doesn’t actually exist?
The platform on guns is only a paragraph. It’s not like they needed filler. Why all the distraction and noise, if not to disguise their true intentions?
One section up from guns in the platform is “Freedom to Marry”.
See how clear it is? They say what they actually mean. There aren’t any code words.
A bit further up we have Abortion rights:
Why is the gun rights section filled with weasel words while these are not?
Another good comparison is the Republican platform on Gun rights:
No weaseling there. They say what they mean, because they don’t have to hide their opinions to win elections.*
*On this topic. Of course, on many other topics they lie just like the Democrats do. See “War in Iraq will pay for itself” for obvious example.
No doubt a response to the overwhelming grass-roots pressure. All across America, in the diners, the truck stops, and the beauty salons, all they talk about is the plight of gun manufacturers and the frivolous lawsuits. When they take a break from talking about voter fraud, of course.