Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.
Kudos to the NRA-ILA for putting together a brief analysis of how the Democrats have flip-flopped on the Second Amendment over the last three decades.
What’s evident by looking at the party’s gun control plank from election cycle to election cycle is that the Democrats are done playing possum. They’re no longer going to pretend to support gun ownership as an individual right. They’re no longer going to pretend that they don’t want to take your guns away. They game is on.
As the NRA-ILA pointed out, here is the Democrat’s 2016 “Gun Violence Prevention” Party Platform:
With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. We will expand background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws, hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable, keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons—off our streets, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues.
There is no acknowledgment that the Second Amendment is an individual right, as confirmed by the landmark Heller decision. And it’s not like Democrats aren’t aware of this fact because in 2012, on their Party Platform, they explicitly stated as much:
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.
In fact, four years earlier, in 2008, the Democratic Party Platform also contained this sentence:
We recognize that the 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.
Yet again, in 2004, the Democratic Party Platform read:
We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms…
What’s evident is that Democrats are returning to their pre-2000 posture toward the Second Amendment, a posture that was marked by extreme hostility. Remember the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban? Remember the various statewide prohibitions on concealed carry? Remember the duty-to-retreat laws? That’s the direction Democrats want to take us, back to the failed and ineffectual policies of the past (Just look at what they’ve done recently in California!!!).
SEE ALSO: CA Governor Signs Major Gun Control Bills: Mag Ban, ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, Database for Ammo Purchasers, More
The truth is that Democratic leaders have always had disdain for the Second Amendment. They never once believed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, not connected to militia service. But after Al Gore’s narrow defeat in 2000, which many attribute to his unapologetic endorsement of gun control, the party regrouped and decided to soften its language on gun control and to pay lip service to gun owners.
As the NRA-ILA noted:
For instance, in 2002, the Washington Post reported on a Democratic Senate caucus retreat at which “several” senators suggested a move away from gun control. According to the item, this prompted freshman Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to “[urge] her colleagues to keep their positions but change their language to be less inflammatory to swing voters.”
The Democrats plan to dupe gun owners worked. An anti-gunner in hiding, a man by the name of Barack Hussein Obama was elected to office in 2008. And then reelected in 2012. He ran as a moderate pro-gunner, if you’ll recall (see video below). But in his second term, as we all know, that changed.
Now, it appears, the Democrats have done the political calculus and they believe the gun vote isn’t as important as it was in the past. This would explain why Hillary Clinton has been so candid about her hatred for the Second Amendment.
Since she’s announced her candidacy for POTUS, Clinton has said that the Supreme Court “got it wrong” with respect to the Heller Decision, confirming that the Second Amendment is an individual right. She’s also endorsed bringing Australia’s notorious national “buyback” scheme, mandated in the wake of the Port Arthur shooting in 1996, to the US.
“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged,” said Clinton with respect to the Australia gun ban at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last October.
When it comes to gun control, Clinton supports it all. Bans on modern sporting rifles, bans on standard capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds, may-issue/no-issue concealed carry laws, universal background checks, etc. Quite simply put, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to surrender one’s right to keep and bear arms. Democrats are no longer playing possum on this issue. They don’t believe our vote will make a difference at the polls. It’s up to us to show them that they’re wrong.
AR WE NOW GOING TO HAVE TRUCK CONTROL?
Great idea. Horse and wagon would cause less damage. Too bad we can’t enact jackass control in Washington.
We do have truck control. For starters, test requirements are different from those for auto or motorcycle. Length, load, and speed legislations are different, as they should be. I have no problem with reasonable and intelligent scaled requirements for gun ownership. Having said that, I do have a problem with capricious and arbitrary restrictions.
How much is too much? How far will it go? At what point will the patriots in the United States physically demand restitution for the crimes of the government against the people? Seems like so far the bureaucrats have gotten away with pretty much whatever they want. Even worse, many people actually believe that Trump is a better answer than Hillary. Seriously? Voting for either one is suicide for the country. Regardless of which one takes office, the United States is screwed. The president is only one position, with a select set of powers. At best it might “delay” the inevitable. It’s the PEOPLE that need to change. And I fear that just isn’t going to happen. Apathy, dependence, and ignorance, have effectively infected far more than is acceptable. Not only because they have been infected, but because they actually ENJOY it. There is too much weight already over the edge of the pacifist to pull back up. It’s gonna get nasty. The question is no longer if, but when, and that will be determined by my original question. How much are you willing to loose before you reach your limit? How much can they take, until the people acknowledge there is nothing left to loose?
Speaking as one from a country that has never HAD your Second Amendment (although here, there is no real need to constantly have a handgun upon your person), I can tell you that, once the gun grabbers have had their day, it will not be the end of the world. We in New Zealand have a fairly sane set of rules, where we can own semi auto shotguns and rifles (unlike Australia), but where the AR/AK class of rifle needs a higher class of license and more expensive storage and restricted range usage, and membership of a pistol club is necessary to own a handgun (barrel over 4″ only), along with the (you guessed it) more expensive license and storage facilities. So it is still possible to do most of what you currently do, but it will cost much more money. This is your Democrat future, if the Aussie option doesn’t go all the way. Sad that you need Trump to beat Hillary, but that’s American politics for you. I feel your shame.
No thanks, Martin. 2nd Amendment Rights only for the wealthy, and the elite, is why our forefathers founded these United States of America. Man is endowed with certain inalienable rights (Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness), including the right to defend oneself, and the innocent from death or bodily harm. This is not a privilege reserved for the wealthy.
Furthermore, our forefathers were wise enough to amend the U.S. Constitution to include a provision called, the 2nd Amendment, which guarantees us the right to bear arms to defend our Country, and its’ Constitution from those who would usurp the power from, “We the People.” Thanks, but no thanks.
P.S.
Martin, I’m afraid it would be, “the end of the world,” for many of our finest Americans, who have adopted the creed of their American ancestors to, “Live Free, or Die,” including many current and former U.S. Military Personnel, who have sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, as written by our Forefathers, and not some bastardized version pushed through by Hillary, and the global, One World Order agenda.
I shall follow no unlawful order and bow to no man
This is America, not New Zealand, or any other country. We’re different, and we like our guns. Guns are part of Americana. We like our constitution and bill of rights, too. We do not much care about opinions of how it is in other countries. You like how it is where you are at? Fine, stay there.
It’s imvrtaeipe that more people make this exact point.
This Kiwi loves living in America and being able to own handguns with a simple background check. I also want to defend my brother above – he was just saying “Watch out or you will end up like us”.
Tell me, what is the FUNCTIONAL difference between an AR/AK rifle, and any other auto-loading firearm, that requires a “higher class of licence”?
I can look down the road and see a civil war erupting over the Constitution. It won’t necessarily be Democrats vs. Republicans, but people who believe in our rights vs. those who would take them away. I’m not speaking just about the Second Amendment either. The 1st and 4th are under constant attack as well. Americans are being detained and threatened by Border Patrol agents miles away from any border. Just youtube it if you do not believe me. Laws have also been passed in D.C. prohibiting protesting at certain locations too. Now we have secret lists where Americans can lose their right to Due Process. At some point, the people are going to become enraged and seek to take back their country.
To be succinct, this is going to be a fight to the death between people who want to control us and the rest of us who just want to be left alone.
Essentially the border patrol can waive your rights within 100 miles of the borders. I have not heard of any complaints in my part of North Idaho. It is a concern. I understand the southern border regions get much closer scrutiny and more violation of rights.
Essentially the border patrol can waive your rights within 100 miles of the borders. I have not heard of any complaints in my part of North Idaho. It is a concern. I understand the southern border regions get much closer scrutiny and more violation of rights.