Here’s their webpage
I am surprised you have not heard of the largest political party in the USA. Are you from some foreign nation or just not into current events or US History?
That site belongs to the Democratic National Committee, not the Democrat Party.
So you’re unaware that’s not the name of the party then? That it’s actually the Democratic Party?
Because nowhere on that page is “Democrat Party” listed. And you might be horrified to know that calling it as such puts you in the same group as a lot of assholes who do know this to intentionally be negative or hostile.
Since I am sure you wouldn’t want to be considered part of a group of assholes, and I know that on a board fighting ignorance that you wouldn’t want to appear ignorant even if being an asshole wasn’t a consideration, you will immediately start to use the accurate nomenclature in this case.
They don’t represent the party?
Odd, their website seems to suggest they do. Is it a spoof? Doesn’t seem like it to me. What then is the real website for that party?
This exchange stopped being cute three posts ago. He is pointing out that it is called “The Democratic Party”, not “The Democrat Party”.
And my post should be the final word on the subject.
What are you fuck are babbling about? Democrat is just a shortening of Democratic. Look at the fucking name of the website:
DEMOCRATS.org
From the parties site: “Democrats believe that we’re greater together than we are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. Our party, led by President Obama, is focused on building an economy that lasts—an economy that lifts up all Americans.
That’s why Democrats are working to advance issues like job creation, education, health care, and clean energy—and you’ll find all the information you need on these important issues right here on Democrats.org.
• Take a look at some of our accomplishments, and you’ll see why we’re proud to be **Democrats.**In the 1930s, Americans turned to Democrats and elected President Franklin Roosevelt to end the Great Depression.
In the 1960s, Americans again turned to Democrats and elected President John Kennedy to tackle the challenges of a new era.”
Did you really fucking post *“No such thing as the Democrat Party as far as I know. You have a cite? *“ because of a fucking minor pedantic quibble over the name?
Dude, I am not only a member of that party (likely for more years that you have been alive) , I was a candidate for that party. We have used “Democrats” for like 100 years.
Maybe the Pubbies…whoops, GoP…whoops… Republican Party… whoops …United States Republican Party thinks they are being insulting, but they are just a bunch of losers anyway. 
So… This guy was shown with a citation that his term is not only incorrect but is meant to be hostile.
Once shown this, with the option to correct his use of the erroneous and offensive term, he doubles down on the term.
Is there a universe where that is NOT being a jerk, a direct violation of the number one rule on this message board?
He does sound like a Republican.
People do it all the time around here. “Anti-choice” springs to mind as a term selected in opposition to what people would prefer, specifically as a form of derision. Whether or not that represents being a jerk, it sure as hell doesn’t seem to rise to the level of a warning. At least I’ve never seen it (and I’m not suggesting it should get a warning as a rules violation).
Drop the hijack about the name of the Democratic Party, please.
It’s meant to be hostile by a small group of morons who I pay no attention to, and until today, I have never herd or seen that usage. Like, I said, I have been a member of that party, and even a candidate for office for them, for over 40 years. Even our website uses the term.
I am proud to be a Democrat.
Ps: see that little button “report this post”? try it.
Sorry, posted while Marley was posting. I agree, let us drop this hijack.
You apparently have not been reading my posts. I do not rely on a single syllable of the 2nd Amendment for the existence of the right to arms. It is my argument that all this inspection of the words of the Amendment is a useless, pointless endeavor that serves no purpose.
The right to arms does not exist because of the 2nd Amendment or a particular interpretation of the Amendment. The right exists and is possessed by the individual American because no power was ever granted to government to dictate to or impact the private citizen and his personal arms.
The Supreme Court affirmed this principle long, long ago and has NEVER wavered from it (as recent as 2008 and again in 2010):
[INDENT]“[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)[/INDENT]
So, exactly why are you all wasting your time trying to invent qualifications, conditions and restrictions on the right to arms by parsing and “interpreting” words that the right IN NO MANNER depends on to exist?
Really? That’s where you are going?
Aren’t you embarrassed posting such idiocy?
There is ample evidence in this thread that there are those who believe the simple exercise of the right to arms by a law-abiding citizen for private purposes is predicated on the existence of a “well regulated militia” and the citizen must be enrolled /attached to that organized, approved by government entity to claim their “2nd Amendment right”.
I consider such a position ridiculous.
The “militia right” / “state’s right” interpretations are dead. They were dead when they were first introduced in the lower federal courts in 1942. All Heller did was invalidate those perversions of the lesser courts; Heller did not rework or overturn any Supreme Court holdings . . . Heller was in alignment with all prior SCOTUS decisions on the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment.
Actually, future courts couldn’t “re-interpret” Heller’s holding without a complete upheaval of the entire foundation of rights theory; the principles of conferred powers and retained rights.
The wiggle room for future courts is found in the standard of scrutiny that is applied to contested law. The Heller dissents agreed that the right is individual; they advocated for a low standard which would have upheld the DC statutes, namely Breyer’s “interest balancing inquiry” . . . .
I know I will get shouted down but it is funny to me that people use a document that was written in simpler olde worlde times as a blueprint for a modern society, bit like using some stone age stories like say the bible for moral teachings…
No, it’s not. It’s the democratically decided law of the land. It has a clear outline for how to democratically amend it. If we, the people, don’t like it, then we, the people. can change it. And we have changed it many times. A comparison to The Bible is nonsense.
The Bill of Rights purports to be a statement of what things are fundamental features of a free people. As mentioned upthread, could one claim that the invention of the Internet means that freedom of speech and of the press shouldn’t be a “blueprint” for our modern society today? The fundamental principle behind the Second Amendment is that individuals have a right to possess the means of force (and that therefore the government should NOT have a monopoly on force) and to use them in legitimate defense of their rights. Now you can debate whether this ought to be held true, but then you’re disputing the very philosophical basis that our government was founded on, and going back to something like Hobbes’ view of government as the iron fist needed to keep the savages civilized.
I would enjoy a discussion where you expound on that premise.
Where is that connection stated? Scalia sets out to define the right to self defense as being a fundamental, stand-alone right that has no interdependency with any constitutional provision. It, like the basic right to arms, exists without reference to the 2nd Amendment.
You care to explain your premise and cite its origin?
I am quite familiar with all the instances that SCOTUS has mentioned and ruled on the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment and I am not aware of any that stand in opposition to the holding and explanations of Heller. I don’t dispute that beginning in 1942 lower federal courts went off the rails and inserted the “militia right” and “state’s right” inventions into the federal courts but I would never consider those lower court holdings as precedential for SCOTUS.
You care to explain your condemnation and cite its origin?
Well, that’s not what I said. Actually, I think that the profound Constitutional ignorance that Democrats (including Obama) suffer under will force a continuation of their impotence in getting even minimal gun control enacted.
They haven’t a clue what Heller means and that renders them into jello.
If you would like to respond to the point I actually did make instead of this one you invented for me here ya go:
“Mayor Fenty threw a monkey wrench into the hopes and dreams of Obama and the anti-2nd Amendment left. That the Obama administration (and the merry band of anti-liberty Dems in Congress) spent the last 4 years politically inactive advancing gun control is only a benefit of Fenty’s stupidity in appealing Parker v DC. It is NOT evidence of a suddenly acquired respect for the traditions and heritage of hunting or target shooting or any acceptance, tolerance or respect for any rights claimed by gun owners.”
Yes, as I said, he made it up.
*Miller *was the precedent, as you must be aware based on your claim to a comprehensive knowledge of the history. But then, you’ve also told us that *Presser *challenged the Militia Act of 1903 even though it was in 1886, so who knows.
If you want to continue to assert that Obama has some nefarious plan to take your guns away, do please be aware that your belief is held in spite of the factual evidence and is therefore unconvincing, okay?