The Democratic Party does not officially support repealing the Second Amendment, although there are likely members of the party who would very much like to do so since it is a large group of people with differing values and motivations.
It does seem apparent, however, that high-profile individuals within the party want to subvert, obfuscate, and ultimately diminish the meaning of Second Amendment which would make repealing it unnecessary. The most effective form this takes is in the invocation of emergencies. Invoking emergencies, often while actively creating, or passively enabling, the conditions for emergency to materialize, to call for and pass increasingly strict gun laws to combat the emergency (politicians use this strategy to great effect often, the Bush-era Patriot Act is a great example). The most common (as opposed to effective) method is typically used with the above strategy, which is to apply the interpretation that is convenient to the end goal on the amendment. This is another common political tactic that is used everywhere that politics exist. The usual interpretation is that the right to bear arms is coupled to a militia. This cascades to other arguments such as the amendment was written in a time where there was not a professional federal military and therefore is not necessary, or that the states are to regulate militia's and the firearms are limited to the militias which is irrelevant since we have a professional military. Another weaker argument that appears often shares the 'that was way back then, and we're smarter and cooler now' ethos is that it was written in a time of muskets and horses and now we have nukes so the right to bear arms must be limited.
These are all arguments used by high profile Democratic politicians (and the media organizations that support them) to limit the ability of citizens to purchase firearms. The goal of these arguments is effectively to make the phrase 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' meaningless, which in practice makes the second meaningless and unnecessary to repeal.
Democratic candidates historically have paid lip service to the idea of the second amendment while passing stricter gun laws, but it is becoming more common to see politicians outright saying that they intend to have people volunteer to have their firearms confiscated.
Here are examples of current high profile Democrat politicians that shed light on their positions regarding the second amendment:
Beto O' Rourke answering a question from David Muir, indicates that he would prefer state-enforced, compelled buyback programs for certain types of weapons, outright saying that he intends to have people volunteer to have their firearms confiscated if the state classifies them a certain way.
David Muir: "Are you proposing taking away their guns? And how would this work?"
I am, if it's a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. If the high-impact, high-velocity round, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body, because it was designed to do that, so that you would bleed to death on a battlefield and not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers.
When we see that being used against children, and in Odessa, I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15, and that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour because so many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa and Midland, there weren't enough ambulances to get to them in time. Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.
Following the Uvalde shooting (classic move trying to us an emergency to limit the rights of law-abiding
Here Joe Biden packs the sentiment that weapons are far more dangerous now then when the amendment was written in his first paragraph.
Weapons are more dangerous now, therefore we need more governmental control over them.
Enough enough. We need to limit the number of rounds a weapon can hold. Why the hell would a commoner buy an assault weapon with magazines of 30 rounds that would allow mass shooters to fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of minutes? The damage was so devastating in Uvalde that parents had to do DNA swabs to identify their children’s remains. Children aged nine and ten.
Enough. We need to increase background checks to prevent criminals, fugitives and people with restraining orders from getting their hands on weapons. Tighter background checks are something the vast majority of Americans, including the majority of gun owners, agree on.
I also think we should have safe storage laws and personal liability for not locking up your weapon. The gunman in Sandy Hook came from a house full of guns. They were too easily accessible. That’s how he got the guns. The weapon he used to kill his mother and then kill 26 people, including 20 first-graders.
If you own a weapon, you have a responsibility to keep it safe. Any responsible gun owner would agree. So that no one else can access it. To lock it up. To have trigger locks. And if you don’t, and something bad happens, you need to be held accountable.
We should also have national red flag laws so that a parent, a teacher, a counselor can report to a court that a child, student or patient has violent tendencies, threatens classmates or has suicidal thoughts – it makes them a danger to themselves or to others. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have red flag laws. The Delaware law is named after my son, Attorney General Beau Biden.
Following the Uvalde shooting (classic move trying to us an emergency to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens)
We, of course, hold the people of Tulsa in our hearts but we, of course, reaffirm our commitment to passing common sense gun safety laws, No more excuses. Thoughts and prayers are important but we need Congress to act.
Paying lip service to the Second Amendment while advocating to limit it.
I see no conflict between saving people's lives and protecting the Second Amendment,
After visiting Columbine
we had to do more to try to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal and of the mentally unstable. And during the Clinton administration, that was a goal -- not to, in any way, violate people's 2nd Amendment rights, but to try to limit access to people who should not have guns.
Barrack Obama's, former Democrat POTUS, plan to reduce gun violence: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence
Joe Biden, current Democrat POTUS, was the author of the 1994 Assault Rifle Ban as a Senator.
On the party platform, Ending the Epidemic of Gun Violence: https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/healing-the-soul-of-america/#:%7E:text=Ending%20the%20Epidemic%20of%20Gun%20Violence
This is the most obvious use of invoking emergency to gain more power over constituents. Gun violence is an epidemic therefore you need to grant us more power that we will never relinquish to protect you. Ignore us selling guns to drug cartels. https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2012/s1209.pdf
New York, and other Democrat majority states fund buyback programs: Gun buyback program: https://www.nysenate.gov/issues/gun-buyback-program
The cities and states with the strictest gun laws are Democratic strongholds.
Cities: New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Law Vegas, San Francisco.
States: California, Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Hawaii, Maryland, and Massachusetts
Democratic politicians also want gun manufacturers to be liable for what people use their products for.
Here is a quote from the official platform:
. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.
Does this mean Ford should be liable for the Waukesha Christmas parade attack?
TLDR: Not officially, but officially in practice.