2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHoping for the best with Bernie and guns- finding his explanations polarizing as some on the right
from USAToday:
___As a lifelong Bernie Sanders fan, Honora Laszlo was hoping for the best when she came to a forum here Thursday night to challenge the Vermont senator and presidential candidate on his gun control position.
The avowed socialist Sanders voted in 2005 to prohibit lawsuits against gun manufacturers when crimes are committed with their weapons. In the wake of the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, he told a home-state media outlet that stronger gun control legislation wouldn't have prevented the shootings.
This bothered Laszlo, a member of the local chapter for Gun Sense In America, who agrees with Sanders on virtually every other issue. So she stood up to pointedly pin him down on the matter, seeking a conversion or at least a concession. Instead, she got a confrontation which illuminated Sanders' weakest spot with liberals in his long-shot quest for the Democratic Party nomination.
...Whereas Sanders posited that he had a balanced record on gun control that heeds to his state's culture but acknowledges the nationwide problem, Laszlo found his language as polarizing as some on the right.
"He reinforces the idea in people on the other side of the divide that this is about people hating them and about people hating guns. This is not. This is about safety," she says...
"A lot of us were super Bernie Sanders supporters before," she says. "We were all really disappointed to hear him talk about it in this way that is boilerplate NRA language."
read more: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/07/10/bernies-big-break-with-the-left-on-guns
related:
Haley Morris ?@haleymorris 2h2 hours ago
"@MartinOMalley supported an assault-weapons ban in early 2000s & then signed it into law w/ gun restrictions - among the nations toughest"
Haley Morris ?@haleymorris 2h2 hours ago
"In the Democratic field, frmr MD Gov @MartinOMalley has the strongest record in favor of gun control http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-makes-big-gun-control-pitch-marking-shift-in-presidential-politics/2015/07/09/4309232c-2580-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html #OMalley2016
Scuba
(53,475 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts)...read it.
Lame attack on post. You're actually accusing a professed Bernie supporter cited in the article of a 'smear.' Good luck with that.
Let's see if the mods will let me get away with posting more from the article here:
"The overwhelming majority of people who hunt know about guns and respect guns and are law-abiding people. That's the truth," he said. "We will not succeed on this terribly important issue if we continue the cultural warfare between urban America and rural America."
But his answer on why gun manufacturers should be shielded from civil lawsuits is what really irked Laszlo.
"If somebody sells you a baseball bat and you hit somebody over the head, you're not going to sue the baseball bat manufacturer," Sanders said, to a smattering of applause among a mostly liberal audience. "I don't apologize for that vote."
Qutzupalotl
(14,327 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)questionseverything
(9,659 posts)http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/
those include all murders (i think) but most are by gun
i am torn on gun control, i believe in the Constitution including the 2nd amendment but when you have huge areas of poverty and very concentrated living areas and then throw a gun into the mix...it is a recipe for disaster
i also can think of no easier way to turn illinois red than promoting an extreme gun control candidate....as i canvas for bernie (downstate) i down play his nra f rating
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)I think removing "the huge areas of poverty" would be a better solution. Americans are being pitted against each other by the 1%. Wall St. goes on a rampage and then blames minorities when it goes sour.
Why aren't more Democrats calling out this racism?
Bernie addressed this in one of his recent speeches(politics of division) and we need more people to speak out about it.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)but to reduce it, for everyone to have an acceptable minimum....that would be a worthy goal...and there would be much less violence
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The bat manufacturer would not be liable for a third party criminal misuse of a legal product.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)There has to be a middle ground, or extremists will become more extreme, and will pull more moderate sensible gun owners to take a more extreme position.
If there exists a sensible middle ground, I am confident Bernie's aiming for it. This does seem like a hit piece to me.
Sensible gun reform is one way he is going to connect with voters in the conservative strongholds -- and he will be campaigning long and hard in such places, I understand.
d_r
(6,907 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Kinda makes for a one trick pony after a while.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...that most supporters here haven't characterized as a 'smear.'
That tactic won't work. This isn't a Bernie opponent in the article. It actually quotes two would-be supporters.
How are you going to move beyond your base of support if you insult everyone (including those inclined to support him) with questions about his political record and stances? I'm amazed intelligent people here think this tactic of responding to criticism's as 'smearing Bernie' is productive or effective. I think it just stinks to high heaven.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't care for Bernie's stance on guns myself.
But do you personally really think that talking about his stance as 'boilerplate NRA' is NOT an insult or a smear?
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...and it's a viewpoint expressed by this gun control advocate.
I do think the language Bernie used in his defense of his positions is geared mostly toward gun control opponents, like the NRA, who include defense of hunters in their rhetoric and employ the same 'baseball bat,' and 'hammer' defense against the lawsuit argument. That may not sit well with supporters, but the similarities in their arguments are indisputable.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)So to claim that Bernie is "using the language" is misleading, as it implies agreement between the NRA and Sanders which clearly isn't the case.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...although I don't generally look to the opinion of the NRA to judge the progressiveness of politicians.
Also, let's not pretend that we don't know of the old NRA cliché: Guns dont kill people, people kill people! Which is inevitably followed by arguments of how dangerous baseball bats and knives can be, yet no one is calling on banning them.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)share an idealogy - clearly, they do not.
I grew up in a small town and spent a lot of time hunting and shooting. What Sanders is saying about the difference between rural and urban attitudes towards firearms makes sense: rural gun owners see them as tools, whereas many urban gun owners see them as hobbies or magical Freedom fetishes or the last thin line of defense between themselves and those "inner city criminals".
My primary gun control issue is the lax standards for concealed carry permits. I don't believe any of the candidates have mentioned more stringent requirements for these.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I'd venture a guess it isn't even that big of a deal to most Democrats.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)... but I'd be literally mute if I based my own advocacy on that premise.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Without this one attack, you'd have nothing left to say against him.
Enjoy O'Malley's 15 minutes of at least being mentioned nationally. I doubt he'll ever break out of single digits, and these attacks will have simply been a waste of time.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...although I suppose it's natural for supporters here to perceive it as one.
I do have other criticisms of your candidate, however, which aren't remotely relevant in this thread.
The O'Malley crack you made however, was out of line and not reflected in anything I've posted about your candidate. That's just poor politics and not something I'd think is particularly attractive to those, like myself, who have indicated they'd be willing to support him as nominee.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)undeniable friendly relationship with Wall street, banks etc., as well.
And I believe putting food on the table, stopping the theft of our resources and money comes first.
When it comes to guns, there is NO bigger supporter of removing them than me, so it is a tough one for me to overlook, but if I have to I will
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)would stick it to the banks.
One can dream
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Current Clinton versus Perfect Clinton
10 years younger, change the last name and skin color, use "Banksters" more often, no more emails?
Current Sanders versus Perfect Sanders
20 years younger, change sex and skin color, use "liberal democrat" instead of "socialist"?
randys1
(16,286 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Gun control should be to prevent tragic killings and other crime.
The gun control debate shouldn't be hijacked by extremists trying to wage some kind of culture war against all guns.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Spoken as if theres no such thing as a "gun control extremist".
If someone supports suing gun manufacturers for the third party misuse of otherwise legally manufactured and sold products, then yes, that individual is a gun control extremist.
Such suits are supported only by the fringe when it comes to the nation as a whole.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If the misuse immunity was such a great idea, then obviously they should have passed a law protecting all corporations, not just gun companies. That would at least be honest, rather than a flat-out giveaway to the NRA and the gun industry. The legal system is already tilted in favor of corporations and against victims, and it's highly hypocritical for Bernie, of all people, to take this extra step to tilt the playing field even further for corporations and against individuals.
Obviously, gun nuts like it, but for progressives to make excuses for Bernie's vote in favor of corporate power is laughable.
beevul
(12,194 posts)It doesn't seem to be done as you describe:
August 17, 1994
I am pleased to sign into law S. 1458, the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994." It is before me today as a result of bipartisan support in the Congress, and the hard work of many who have labored long to achieve passage of such legislation. The result is legislation that accommodates the need to revitalize our general aviation industry, while preserving the legal rights of passengers and pilots. This limited measure is intended to give manufacturers of general aviation aircraft and related component parts some protection from lawsuits alleging defective design or manufacture after an aircraft has established a lengthy record of operational safety.
In 1978, U.S. general aviation manufacturers produced 18,000 of these aircraft for domestic use and for export around the world. Our manufacturers were the world leaders in the production of general aviation aircraft. By 1993, production had dwindled to only 555 aircraft. As a result, in the last decade over 100,000 wellpaying jobs were lost in general aviation manufacturing. An innovative and productive American industry has been pushed to the edge of extinction. This Act will allow manufacturers to supply new basic aircraft for flight training, business use, and recreational flying.
The Act establishes an 18-year statute of repose for general aviation aircraft and component parts beyond which the manufacturer will not be liable in lawsuits alleging defective manufacture or design. It is limited to aircraft having a seating capacity of fewer than 20 passengers, which are not engaged in scheduled passengercarrying operations.
In its report to me and to the Congress last August, the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry recommended the enactment of a statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. The report indicated that the enactment of such legislation would "help regenerate a once-healthy industry and help create thousands of jobs." I agree with this assessment; this is a job-creating and jobrestoring measure that will bring good jobs and economic growth back to this industry. It will also help U.S. companies restore our Nation to the status of the premier supplier of general aviation aircraft to the world, favorably affecting our balance of trade. Therefore, as I sign into law the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994," I am pleased to acknowledge the bipartisan work done by the Congress and by all the supporters of the general aviation industry.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House, August 17, 1994.
NOTE: S. 1458, approved August 17, was assigned Public Law No. 103-298. Citation: William J. Clinton: "Statement on Signing the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994," August 17, 1994. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=48984.
I guess you'll be speaking out against this now too, right?
No, its just the guns?
Big words. Now lets talk about what was supposedly given away, instead of vague insinuations.
http://remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com/
Well, lookie there, it looks like manufacturers can be sued for a product that malfunctions.
So what was given away? Oh, protection from nuisance/death by a thousand cuts lawsuits where the mfg is sued for the misuse of an otherwise legally sold and manufactured product.
The rest of your post may well be characterized as 'gunzz bad', therefore Bernie bad.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Personally, I don't see why an industry who's products result in 30,000 deaths every year should get extra legal immunity. Obviously, they should play by the same rules as any other corporation, or if anything, they should be scrutinized even more, since they directly contribute to the gun violence epidemic.
Since your views are extreme right-wing when it comes to guns, you're gonna disagree -- I've been around enough to know all the NRA talking points, so you're not going to tell me anything I haven't heard before.
But this isn't the gungeon, and here I'm talking about people who are generally progressives but then twist themselves in knots to defend Bernie's NRA-supported giveaway to gun manufacturers. It's pure hypocrisy to claim to oppose corporate power, and then vote for a corporate giveaway like this.
beevul
(12,194 posts)My views on guns actually align with the American mainstream, and Your crude attempt to preemptively dismiss anything I say as 'nra talking points' is noted, and accepted for the cop-out that it is.
That's nice, but the rest of the America, and apparently Bernie, are closer to the classic liberal when it comes to guns, rather than the progressive.
But then, deep down, you know that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)support national gun registration. I don't imagine you belong to that group. In fact, from your far-right perspective on guns, you probably think that gun registration is "extreme". Obviously you think that not carving out a special legal exemption for gun manufacturers is "extreme". And you'd probably have a heart attack if you ever went to Western Europe and saw how guns were regulated over there.
And with a lot of other policies, a lot of what Bernie advocates could be considered "extreme" in certain circles. But, this being a progressive message board, people here generally support things that right-wingers consider "extreme".
beevul
(12,194 posts)Likely taken from the same sort of trickery that produced the 40 percent lie.
Most Americans would think gun registration extreme.
That's a nice way of trying to hide the fact that on an objective scale - with totally unrestricted gun rights on one end, totally restricted gun rights on the other, you fall very near the "totally restricted" end, and I fall somewhere in the middle.
Case closed.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)60% actually the percentage of gun owners that supports registration. Among the general population, it's 70% or higher.
So, yes, you fall on the far-right when it comes to guns, even here in America, which falls on the far-right as far as the world goes. Moderate would be something like Canada, in between the extremes of the US on one hand and Japan on the other. Basically, you are a gun extremist, and like any other extremist, you don't believe in data or polls that tell you things you don't want to believe.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Your link leads to a known anti-gun org. The 'piece' you cite as evidence, is basically a stack of old polls sponsored by the brady bunch, MAIG, with creatively (the '60 percent lie' kind of creative) interpreted and extrapolated results.
Meh.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)of course you're going to ignore them. Because they don't say what you want. The same thing that NRAers do with all of the peer reviewed studies. Extremism ultimately becomes like a religion.
beevul
(12,194 posts)2.American Viewpoint/Momentum Analysis, Momentum Analysis & American Viewpoint National Survey (for Mayors Against Illegal Guns) (Jan. 2011) at http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_poll_01_18_2011.pdf. [↩]
3.Penn, Schoen, & Berland Associates, Inc. for Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Post-Election Analysis: Sensible Gun Laws Builds Bridges not Burns Them to Moderates, McCain, and Even Gun Owners in Post-Heller World (Nov. 18, 2008), available at: http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/memo-11-18-08.pdf. [↩]
4.Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research & the Tarrance Group for the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Americans Support Common Sense Measures to Cut Down on Illegal Guns 6, (Apr. 10, 2008), available at http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/polling_memo.pdf. [↩]
5.Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research & The Tarrance Group for the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Strong Public Support for Tough Enforcement of Common Sense Gun Laws (Graphs) 19 (Jan. 23, 2007), available at http://www.greenbergresearch.com/articles/1849/2630_MAIGslides.pdf. [↩]
6.CNN/Opinion Research Corp. Poll, Most Americans Say the Constitution Guarantees the Right to Own a Gun, Latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll Shows (June 28, 2008), available at http://www.opinionresearch.com/fileSave/CNNPR_Gun_6_28_2008.pdf. [↩]
7.Penn, Schoen, & Berland Associates, Inc. for Americans for Gun Safety, Winning the Gun Vote (Oct. 16, 2003) at http://www.dlc.org/documents/AGS_Penn_1003.pdf. [↩]
8.Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates, Inc. Poll, Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (May 15-21, 2001), at http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0612-05.htm. [↩]
Like I said...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That's why you can maintain your strange beliefs. By ignoring data. It's a pretty common pattern.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Hi mister pot, I'm mister kettle.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You're still going to believe that most Americans oppose registration no matter how much data I present to you, because you are an ideological extremist. You believe that the rest of the country is as gun obsessed as you and your gun buddies, and nothing will convince you otherwise.
Believe, I know the type. I used to live in Texas.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Believe, I know the type. I used to live in Texas.
I believe what real life experience has taught me far more than what some anti-gun funded poll might be spun as representing by an anti-gun extremist peddling cites to anti-gun extremist groups and the polls they fund.
After travelling through 40 plus states, living on both ends of the country and in the middle, over the course of 45 years...I can count the number of actual anti-gun folks I have met personally, on one hand.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But, as usual, you don't, and you don't care what the data says.
Yes, I get that your "real life" experience of hanging out with gun crazies around the country has convinced you that everyone thinks the same way. You're not the only one who thinks like that. There are also creationists who have only met a handful of scientifically educated people in their lives. You hear GOP congresspersons talking about how they haven't met a single person who likes Obamacare. And so on.
As for me, most people I know are well-educated liberals, and they support gun control. The difference is, I don't think that everyone in the country is just like me. If I'm wondering what the country at large things, I look at data. On some things most Americans agree with me (for example gun registration), but on many others they don't. And I'm fine with that. Unlike you, I don't have this strange need to pretend that everyone agrees with me when they obviously don't.
beevul
(12,194 posts)What a clever response.
That's the tack you typically take toward people that don't buy into your anti-gun religion. I find your data suspect.
See, there you are doing it now. Anyone whos experience differs from your claims, has been "hanging out with gun crazies around the country". Nevermind that you know precisely nothing about me, or who I have or haven't hung out with...doesn't matter, right? Not when you can just make things up out of whole cloth about people you've never even met.
You want what you want, and to force it on everyone else, whether people disagree with you or not.
I don't.
hack89
(39,171 posts)And they launched a campaign to drive brewers/dealers out of business through an avalanche of lawsuits then you would see similar laws protecting those industries.
Gun controllers overreached and prompted a political backlash - they didn't apparently learn anything from the 94 AWB.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Fuck anyone who calls people who want more gun control "gun control extremists." That is directly out of the NRA.
Get this. The bodies piled up is what is extreme. As is the imagined fear that someone is going to pry your gun out of your hands. One of those is extreme and the other is an extremist position promoted by the NRA and yourself.
"culture war" A tv commentator has a whole segment devoted to your concerns with respect to culture wars.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)We should do universal background checks and ban machine gun type things.
But some extremists are on the warpath to ban all guns. If they can't do it with laws then they're looking for a sneaky way, like suing manufacturers even when the products work correctly.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Funny, the NRA spouts the exact same concern. Keep calling people for sensible gun control extremists. That verbiage has been doing a great job of keeping the streets flooded with guns. Once you figure out these are people dying, you might not worry about offending the NRA as much and back off their talking points.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)I support "sensible" gun control like banning machine gun type things and universal background checks. Of course I said that earlier but you're ignoring that.
What gun control are you talking about that you want besides that? I don't understand what kind of gun control you want.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The bodies piled up and supporting that with NRA talking points is what is extreme.
You should simply stop joining with the NRA in labeling people who want to save lives as extremists.
"I support "sensible" gun control like banning machine gun type things and universal background checks."
Have a nice day.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Someone saying the public should not be allowed to own any guns. Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=435571
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Folks will soon tire of the NRA as they tired of the Dixie Swastika.
randys1
(16,286 posts)gun in the public, they would all be in well regulated militias as the amendment requires.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is simply not correct. First, the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and the 2d Amendment itself is clear -- "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As the Supreme Court explained, a prefatory clause ("a well regulated militia" can't limit the operative clause ("shall not be infringed" . Second, it just isn't the Supreme Court that disagrees with you -- there are plenty of law review articles that establish that the 2d Amendment was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. A good starting point is "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," which can be found here - http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/70embar.pdf. Another good read is "The Commonplace Second Amendment," which can be found here - http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/90thec.htm.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Its time for a little constitution/bill of rights 101.
There are two documents at the heart of this.
The first is the constitution. The constitution is essentially a document of authorization, granting congress and/or government, certain powers. Congress IS actually granted certain powers regarding 'the militia', and if they 'intended' anything regarding the militia, that is where they most certainly would have said so (authorized it).
The second document, the one actually at issue here, is the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, is essentially a governmental "hands off" list. 'Congress shall make no law...", and so on. You can argue that no right is absolute, but that's beside the point. It is crystal clear, and no reasonable argument to the contrary can be made, that the intent of the bill of rights is to restrain exercise of power by government.
It very plainly says so in the preamble to the bill of rights itself, penned by the framers themselves:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
http://www.billofrights.org/
In short, if you're reading a restriction on government power contained within the bill of rights, as a blessing for government to restrict rights of people, you're reading it completely horribly and perhaps even deliberately wrong. And don't bother with the typical 'rw interpretation' BS. I'm interpreting the amendment in line with the preamble to the bill of rights itself, and theres nothing 'right wing' about that.
hack89
(39,171 posts)That is good enough for me.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)It was Clinton or O'Malley that had this kind of view on guns, then what would you say?
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Most gun owners are law abiding people. The point of gun control should be to stop tragic killings and crimes. Gun control shouldn't be a thing about trying to ban all guns. If that's what Hillary says then she's right.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts)...something indicative of support he might offer in the future, should he be elected.
I support what my former governor has advocated and accomplished in my state on guns.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)but I do know what happened here in CO when gun control was attempted. Obama has talked about gun control, but that's as far as he has gotten. Personaly as a rural gun owner I would like to see stronger controls.
elleng
(131,107 posts)Briefly:
Further toughen the enforcement of our gun laws
We are taking our streets and neighborhoods back from violent crime. But better is not good enough. Since 2007, we have reduced murders in our state by 23%. The spate of homicides early this year reminds us of the urgency of work yet done. Better isn't good enough. Thirty-one kids were the victims of homicides in 2010. According to the State Police, this is the lowest number of juvenile victims on record. But how do we explain to the families and friends of those 31 kids that we consider this a statewide accomplishment? Two years ago, you took guns away from domestic abusers.
This year, I need your help to further toughen the enforcement of our gun laws. And while nobody believes we should criminalize poverty, there are things we can do--must do--to bring Maryland in line with what every other state does and expects when it comes to preventing the willful neglect of a child.
Source: 2011 Maryland State of the State Address , Feb 3, 2011
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology.
O`Malley adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)against rural voters. It is truly tone deaf considering the acts of terror occurring all across this country with respect to guns aren't simply about gangs. As far as news is concerned, none of it is about gangs. It is truly an NRA talking point. Good white gun owners vs black gangs. I think it is simply his reference point and what he is comfortable with. Under most all circumstances, people on this site would be livid at him making this a black/white issue.
bigtree
(86,005 posts).., the defensive language he's using is little more than a nod to opponents of gun control; likely folks in his state of Vermont.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I can at least understand it as a senator from Vermont. I don't agree with it, but I fully understand politicians must pander to their constituents to a certain degree. But now he is on the national stage. To still be saying the problem isn't the good rural gun owners in Vermont, but it is the gangs in LA and Chicago, is truly tone deaf and continues a manta that needs to go by the way side. It is an NRA talking point. He said it as if it was the problem. Yet so many of these massacres have nothing to do with gangs in LA or Chicago.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...which actually answers the questions gun control advocates have about his rejection of some planks and initiatives on their agenda.
Then again, this may well be an area where he's just not amenable to their viewpoint.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)"I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations," Obama told The New Republic in an interview published Sunday. "And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake."
....
"Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that."
When asked if he's ever fired a gun, the president replied: "Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?
A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that theyre going to try to impose, I think doesnt make sense.
They all agee.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)rural gun owners are white and not all gang members are black.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)If you don't know what a white person means when they say it isn't their good rural gun owners, it's the gangs in Chicago and LA, then I can't help you.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Nice try.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)gun owners are white.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It is just too obvious. He minced no words. The problem is gangs in LA and Chicago, not rural Vermonts love of guns.
And thank you for wishing me a nice day. A little hot out but that is Florida. Sunshine and afternoon thunderstorms for the weekend. Going to do my fishing in the early morning, then a party in the afternoon. Rest on Sunday.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)When someone says it isn't their rural voters, it's the gangs in Chicago and LA, it is blatantly about race. One can come to no other opinion on it unless you support that type of rhetoric or have other less than honest reasons. I see it for what it is.
What did the SC shooter have to do with gangs in LA or Chicago?
What did Sandy Hook have to do with gangs in LA or Chicago?
What did VT have to do with gangs in LA or Chicago?
How did gangs in LA or Chicago shoot Trayvon?
The list goes on and on.
Not a damn thing and there is a chance some wouldn't have happened with sensible gun laws.
When a white man states that the problem isn't the good people in his back yard(almost one hundred percent white), it is gangs in LA and Chicago, we know what is meant. You can act like you don't see it.
Here are some people who support this verbiage:
http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=4521
Here is the exact issues being addressed and promoted by the NRA. It is racist deflection to hide the real problems. They are making the exact same point and it is truly based in racism and the scary black man.
http://www.nranews.com/ginny/video/ginny-simone-reporting-2015-chicago-america-s-deadliest-city?utm_source=Channel_Feature&utm_medium=Video&utm_content=nranews_com_ginny_video_ginny-simone-reporting-2015-chicago-america-s-deadliest-city-2015-07-10&utm_campaign=P2
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...and Vermont doesn't, is racist? That's a stretch. Bernie is not being a racist, no matter how hard you try to convince us otherwise.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It's hard to form an opinion if you don't read what was actually said. And no, I don't think Sanders is racist. Never have. His rhetoric here is based completely off a foundation of NRA verbiage that is based in racist sentiment. Sanders isn't the only one who has bought into it. It is often where people go when they don't have a good argument for the gun crowd they cater to. Would you like me to list the pile of dead people in the last two years who could have possible lived if stronger gun legislation were in place? I can list an enormous pile of bodies that have absolutely nothing to do with gangs. Yet that was his go-to. It has been the NRA's go-to for a long long time.
I must say, I'm not surprised that some are now acting as if they have never heard of this tactic. People would be up in arms about this on any other day.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)IMO Bernie is right, he responded about hunters and rural Americas usage of guns. Big difference in how people in LA or Chicago use guns and how hunters and rural people use guns. YOU made it about black/ white, not Bernie and that dog whistles is getting worn out. I repeat, all rural people and hunters are not white and all gang members are not black. I have no interest in responding to the rest of your post if you want answers to those questions or other peoples opinions on them I suggest you start an OP.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)The reality is that gangs account for only about 10%-20% of all gun homicides, but that doesn't stop NRAers from insisting that gun violence is really about inner-city gangs. Even if we had no gangs at all, we'd still have a much higher homicide rate than any other wealthy country.
Frankly, I have no idea why Sanders falls into NRA talking points, and this isn't the only one. He thinks that gun control is elitist. He makes the sorry baseball-bat analogy to defend his legal immunity vote for gun manufacturers. He suggests that gun control is about cultural attacks on the rural lifestyle. And now the gang thing.
What's especially odd is that much of his campaign is about trying to do certain things more like Western Europe, where there is a better safety net and less inequality. Well, Western Europe also has a lot less gun violence, because they have much tighter gun laws. Somehow he missed that.
beevul
(12,194 posts)What you call 'sorry' is what the rest of the world calls 'spot on'.
"Legal immunity".
As I said in another post:
http://remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com/
Well, lookie there, it looks like manufacturers can be sued for a product that malfunctions.
Calling it (the plcaa) 'legal immunity' is dishonest, disingenuous, deliberately deceptive, and intended to lead others to a conclusion which you desire, one which is far from empirical fact.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)To date, it's really the only significant disagreement I have.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I don't mean that in an offensive way at all. I think their are a lot of people like you. His positions on economics are the best out there. I have always understood the interest and support of him. If he wins the primary, he will have my support in time and money. I'm not sure why some can't state they disagree with one issue of a candidate. When I was thinking about Hillary, I continued to go after her on a number of issues. The list of issues grew too large. I still think O'Malley is the top of the field. The polls tell me I am alone in that.
I actually think I somewhat agree with Sanders on this issue overall. I find the framing to be somewhat disturbing.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)recognizing that Bernie has some flaws. I think it stems from the "zero tolerance policy" that some Bernie Sanders supporters have adopted towards issues where Hillary isn't as far left as they would like. There's cognitive dissonance in admitting that Bernie also lacks a perfect liberal record.
TM99
(8,352 posts)if Sanders was actually a 'gun nut'.
And he isn't.
He is not as extreme on gun control as a few loud voices here would like but I do challenge you to put his gun record up against the Democratic Party platform on guns and see how in sync they really are.
Gun control to the degree desired here by some is not going to fly with most rank & file Democratic voters.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)"gun control extremist" (see above). It's also cognitive dissonance when people try to make excuses for his voting record, particularly the civil immunity vote which he still stands by.
The funny thing about playing the "extremism" card is that a lot of what Sanders advocates for would be considered "extreme" by many voters, including rank and file Democrats (about half of whom describe themselves as moderate or conservative). If you have a problem with the extreme left, then Sanders isn't your guy.
TM99
(8,352 posts)He is moderate on gun control. Period.
That doesn't bother me. It didn't before he ran. It doesn't now. I agree with his votes...all of them.
And actually most of his positions are traditionally Democratic. It is the Third Way neo-liberals who are the extremists in the party today.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Because the country just isn't far enough left, at this point, to turn into Western Europe, on either front.
But, yeah, you're right, Bernie is moderate on guns. Sort of like the Third Wayers who are moderate on economic policy. And some Dems, like apparently you, are moderate on guns as well. While others are moderate on economic policy.
Bernie's whole campaign is a rejection of moderation in favor of the far left. And yet, on guns, he's preaching moderation.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)campaign. Because he's advocating straight Western-Europe style democratic socialism.
Except on guns. For some reason he wants us to hold on to our spot on the gun violence and homicide charts.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Except when I am. Has Bernie ever, EVER said while running for President that he wants the US to "turn into Western Europe"?
Surely that would be the death knell of his candidacy... but I expect you knew that.
You'll have to pull a better argument than that out of your nether regions if you want to be taken seriously.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)He even talks specifically about becoming more like Scandinavian countries. I have no idea how you missed this. Very strange, you don't even know what your candidate is advocating.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Did you, just like, think it sounded clever?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)They are Reagan Republicans on economics policies. They are for trickle down, free trade agreements that harm US workers, support SS cuts, worship bankers & the stock market, etc. That is hardly moderate.
You want so desperately to justify Sanders moderate gun control stance by rationalizing that Third Ways are moderate as well. They are not.
His campaign positions are extremely mainstream. Poll after poll reveals this to be true. Only those on the center right of the Democratic party believe that he is far left.
Decades of fixation on gun control has only proven that Republicans have accidentally stumbled on a bitter political truth that Machiavelli elucidated upon in "The Prince.". He specifically stated that people distrust those rulers that try to disarm them.
It has also gradually cost us rural votes that Democratic economic policy should easily win.
We are not going to make any serious ground with guns. Sad but true. We can win in the generals on economics. Making such a huge deal about a Senator who received failing or near failing grades from the NRA and how crazy a gun but he might be is absurd. This article is absurd primary season sophistry.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And the other thing that isn't going to happen is Bernie Sanders being president. Basically for the same reasons.
If you want to talk about political reality, the first step is to acknowledge that Hillary is a much better GE candidate than Bernie, for a lot of reasons, fundraising, more appeal to moderates, not a self-described "socialist", etc. The whole thrust of Bernie's candidacy is being a non-compromising liberal. And yet, when it comes to guns, he's anything but.
Thank you for your honesty in this matter. You admit this is going nowhere as an issue but it seems to be issue worth pursuing because it might do damage to a candidate that the NRA has given a failing grade to.
Now onto the meat.
Bernie has a very refreshing voice and a stance on the issues and policy that is direct and to the point. He puts forth ideas and policies that are completely in keeping with that and will excite more people in the general election than tons of Hillaries platitudes.
Republicans generally call anyone to the left of Reagan a socialist. Hell, they call anyone with a D next to their name a socialist. I seriously doubt that is going to have any real effect.
Hillary does a hell of a lot more to excite the Republican base than the Democratic base and in that way she is sort of the perfect candidate for them. A lot of the progressive left didn't favor her last time and really aren't on board this time either. Meanwhile the Republicans are salivating so much to run against her that they keep having to weld side cars onto the clown car. They are doing this because many of them think they have a real shot.
Time for some awful truth. Moderates don't exist. There are people that call themselves moderate but their positions on the issues define where they are on the spectrum. There is no magic middle. There are no centrists (outside of Wallstreet and they are truly amoral).
If you present the issues and policies people will vote that direction. A lot of pundits make their bread obfuscating that point or mystifying the process with an unending parade of bullshit, but those candidates that are clear and direct on the issues do fairly well.
As to fundraising. If we agree income disparity is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) issue of this election and decade than how can we go with the most wealthy funded candidate? I personally have trouble imagining a candidate that cashes Wallstreet and banister checks on Tuesday being willing to get tough on them on Thursday.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I admit that it's going nowhere as an issue (which is the same place that single payer and the rest of the stuff Bernie stands for is going). But I am not pursuing it because it might do damage. I am pursuing it because, despite the fact that it's not going anywhere, it's an important issue.
If we're going to play the game that issues that aren't politically feasible don't matter, then throw out Bernie's entire campaign. None of it is going to happen. Not single payer. Not the 0.5% financial transaction tax. Not the free college. Nothing.
You find Bernie's stances refreshing because you agree with them. But most Americans aren't as far left as you. And, yes, moderates and centrist do exists. And winning a general election requires winning them over. Which is much easier for Clinton than for Sanders. Sure, the GOP will call anyone a "socialist", but it's not nearly as easy to make that stick when the candidate isn't actually saying "yes, I am a socialist."
And fundraising also exists. Again, it's the "awful truth", but it's the truth anyway. Getting outspent 10-1 by the Republican attack machine is the quickest path to a Republican president.
The difference is that the majority of Americans are for a financial tac. They are for going after the banks. They are for a healthcare system that guarantees care without being enslaved by the insurance companies. They are for free education to help people find jobs.
The real difference for Bernie is that his Policies will have down ticket impact and change what this election is about. Making him our standard bearer frees Democrats to be Democrats. Hillary will hedge and try to straddle and try to play moderate which is about as exciting down ticket as Maypo.
A Sanders presidency will force a different starting point with negotiations with the Republicans. Instead of compromising on compromised compromised we can walk in and say "This is where we are starting. Put forth your policies and lets work on this.". Attempting to chase some imaginary middle ground before you walk into the room is like Zeno's paradox. Every time you move halfway closer to their position they will demand you meet them halfway again.
Hillary will play that game and we will lose.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Is it going to happen? No. Because the gun lobby is too powerful. So really, it's not very different at all from, say, a financial transaction tax.
In reality, not only is Bernie going to lose, but even if he won the whole thing, unless the House swings Democratic and the Senate gets 60 Dems, he's not going to be able to accomplish much more or different than what Hillary would.
Bernie is going to activate voters downticket and get the base out to vote. He is far more likely to take back more seats in congress and thus be able to get more done.
If compromising with the republicans were somehow magic then why does our healthcare reform so resemble Bob Dole's plan from 1996 and still manage to get no republican support and 40 some odd stupid attempts to undo it?
Seriously, I don't understand why people seem to think that trying to be moderate is somehow inspiring or magical. You get what you are seeking by taking a stand. The positive accomplishments of president Obama were not when he found middle ground with the Republicans. It was when he decided to stand up and go with his convictions and take the case to the American people.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)In the same thread, you praise Bernie's moderate stances on gun control (quoting Machiavelli, no less), and at the same time say things like "I don't understand why people seem to think that trying to be moderate is somehow inspiring or magical".
I guess it's OK to be a moderate on some issues, but not others?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I never even said I agreed with any of that. Now who is putting words in peoples mouth.
I paraphrased Machiavelli and pointed out that the republicans accidentally seemed to have understood that. I neither said I opposed gun control nor did I say Machiavelli was a frigging role model.
I can see this is going nowhere fast. I can tell you if we continue with moderation ubber alles we, as a country, are going nowhere fast.
The most important issues of the day right now regarding corporate power and the division of wealth are not going to disappear with a magic 'moderation wand.' Power (and wealth, by abstraction) concedes nothing. As long as we continue on our current course nothing will change.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If moderation is bad, then why defend Bernie when he does it?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Seriously.
I am done with this thread. You already admitted that gun control legislation is probably (and unfortunately) going nowhere. This is just a vain attemt to try to chip off a few progressives from Sanders to throw into O'Malleys vote count to aid in the "inevitable."
I am done.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The "F" grade means nothing, because the NRA has evolved into a partisan organization that gives everyone an F unless they are pro-gun extremists.
Yes, I did admit that gun control is probably going nowhere. For the same reason that Bernie Sanders is going nowhere. The country is more conservative than either of us would like.
Koinos
(2,792 posts)Bernie's limited perspective (Vermont hunters) on this issue is indefensible from my point of view.
I think he should listen more attentively to those who believe as I do. Our opinions matter too. He might learn why people feel as strong as they do about this issue.
And it's not about rural hunters versus urban gangs.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)You should be doing your damnest to convince voters Hillary's private server wasn't hacked by the Russians and/or Chinese because if it was you've got a candidate on your hands who's more ripe for blackmail than any before.
Can't wait to hear once more about how it was protected by the Secret Service.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What's next, Benghazi? Whitewater? LOL.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)So unlike you.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)But I think his vote here was fine. And no, that doesn't make me a gun nut. I'm all for more gun control. But allowing manufacturers to get sued for the misuse of their products is a terrible precedence to set. Just because you don't like what they manufacturer doesn't mean they should be open to law suits for legally selling their goods. Next if I get drunk and do something stupid, I'll be able to sue budweiser because they made the beer. Explain how that is any different?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Misuse does not automatically absolve manufacturers of responsibility in civil lawsuits. Sometimes it does, but other times it doesn't. And specific cases are decided on their own merits by courts, based on precedent, and so on. And, of course, if you file a frivolous lawsuit, then you will not only lose, but also have to pay the defendant's legal fees.
Now, if you want, you can argue that all lawsuits related to product misuse should be thrown out of court. The Koch Brothers would love that: it will make life much easier for corporations. In general, conservatives under the banner of "tort reform" have been fighting hard to make it harder to hold corporations responsible.
But this particular law is a giveaway to the gun industry specifically. The question is, why do you believe that the gun industry deserves special immunity? I wonder what the supposed "progressives" defending this would think if it were say the investment banks that got the special immunity. Or the oil companies. What makes gun manufacturers so noble that they get a special legal pass of their own?
The answer is very simple. They have a highly effective lobby. The NRA rammed this through congress by making it their top legislative priority. Gun companies were facing lawsuits, they were afraid that they were going to lose money or maybe even be forced to change some of their business practices so as to not contribute so much to gun violence. And the NRA had to put a stop to that.
This is precisely the opposite of everything Bernie is supposed to stand for. A corporate lobby pressures congress to make special laws for them so they don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)I like Bernie Sanders because most of what he says strikes me as common sense. And this is a case of that, it seems like common sense that a manufacturer shouldn't be held liable for someone misusing their product. That said, I know that a lot of things that seem like common sense on the surface can be downright stupid, so maybe I'm missing something here. I'd like to know what that is.
You asked what makes gun manufacturers get their own special pass against this kind of liability, but it seems to me, they're the only ones really getting sued for things like this right now, so it would make sense that they'd try to protect themselves. I would imagine if a bill came up regarding any other kind of manufactured product, it would get the same kind of vote, it just probably hasn't been necessary at this point.
I get the whole, let the courts decide part of it, but if you sue the company, doesn't it have to go before a judge anyway to determine if this law applies or not? This law would just make it possible for a judge to strike down a frivolous lawsuit before it got to a jury.
I'm not sure how a similar bill would apply to investment banks or oil companies? I mean the oil spills were directly related to the oil companies themselves, so that wouldn't apply here, it would have to be a case of a person who purchased the oil and did something crazy with it on their own. Maybe I'm just not seeing the bigger picture here.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)First of all, yes, manufacturers can be liable for people misusing their products. You'll have to ask a lawyer for what the exact conditions are, but from what I understand if someone uses a product in a way that isn't exactly the way the instruction manual says but still is somehow a reasonably expected use, the manufacturer can still be held liable.
One example of how this law has been used was given in the article. One kid shot and killed another kid by accident. The victim's family sued the gun company arguing that the way the gun was designed made it too easy to shoot people by accident. Now, IMO, this is the kind of thing a court should be deciding, whether a gun's safety features are adequate (same for any other product). Problem is, the kid who fired the shot got charged as a juvenile with something, manslaughter I think. This made it an "unlawful misuse", and so the case was dismissed due to the law we are talking about (PLCAA).
There were also lawsuits that were filed by local governments against gun companies claiming that the designs and marketing practices they used increased crime rates, and that the companies either knew about this or should have known, that they were essentially profiting by arming criminals. Some of these lawsuits were making progress. In one notable case, Smith and Wesson decided to settle and agreed to add some gun safety features into their guns. All of these lawsuits were halted by PLCAA.
As for parallels with banking, there's one obvious one: money laundering. If banks create products that they know or should know are being used for laundering money, they can be held liable for it. It doesn't matter that it's "unlawful misuse" of their services. And I think it should be this way. One could argue, as the NRA did, that the banks aren't responsible for what people do with their money, that it's a "don't ask don't tell" situation where as long as the banks can pretend to not be aware that they are profiting by helping people launder money (even though they design services that are particularly useful for money laundering), they are off the hook. But I don't think Bernie Sanders would see it that way.
Finally, there are already laws against filing frivolous lawsuits. If the lawsuits in question were frivolous, they would have been thrown out of court, and the plaintiffs would have had to pay the defendant's legal fees. But that wasn't happening. The reason the NRA fought so hard for this bill is specifically because the lawsuits were not frivolous.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)I'm going to have to do some research for myself, but based on what you're saying here, it looks like a pretty shitty bill. In the first case, it seems like PLCAA shouldn't apply, but if it is being used to block what looks like negligence by the manufacturer, then it is definitely overreaching. I'm not sure I totally get the banking thing, but if I grasp what you're saying, its sort of like pirate bay, they're being used for pirating, but could be absolved of any wrong doing since they're not directly responsible.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Like all analogies, it's imperfect, but the basic idea is that, if you are facilitating criminal activity, and either you know about it or it's so obvious that you should reasonably know about it, and you are making profit from it, then you can be held accountable.
I actually don't know the details of all the lawsuits of this sort that were filed against gun manufacturers, but you can probably find more info about them online. But it definitely wasn't just "some criminal used a gun, I'm gonna sue the gun manufacturer." And this is obvious: totally frivolous lawsuits go nowhere, and the gun industry doesn't need any special laws to defend against them.
The question was whether the business practices of the gun industry contributed to crime rates. I think this is a legitimate question for courts. And it is true that Smith and Wesson settled a lawsuit and made some policy changes. Of course, what happened after that is the NRA organized a boycott of Smith and Wesson to punish them for caving in, which almost killed the company. Then Bush got elected, and the PLCAA got passed and the whole push to try and get gun manufacturers to act responsibly through the courts ended. But without PLCAA there was a real chance that the gun industry at large would be behaving differently today.
As for the lawsuit example I mentioned, I should point out that it's not clear that the manufacturer was actually negligent in this case. But the issue I have is that that lawsuit should have gone forward, and the court should have decided whether it was negligent, based on the product design, and whether the kid was charged with manslaughter should have nothing to do with it at all.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)point which is not true. All candidate has to work with the records they have. The gun votes is an issue with lots of people.
askew
(1,464 posts)She attacked Obama from the right in 2008 on gun control. This is another issue she has flip-flopped on:
[link:http://www.salon.com/2015/07/10/hillary_clinton_goes_bold_on_gun_safety_but_she_sounded_a_different_note_in_2008/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow|
But Clinton hasnt always been so forceful in her fight for gun control. As the Post highlights, Clinton has dramatically shifted her tone on gun control since the 2008 campaign. While Clinton touted her husbands record record on gun control (former President Bill Clinton signed into the law an assault weapons ban that has since lapsed) she also heralded personal memories of learning to shoot with her father and defend gun ownership, saying, there is not a contradiction between protecting Second Amendment rights and the effort to reduce crime.
You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl, Clinton said while campaigning ahead of the Indiana primary, where white working class Democrats propelled her to a narrow victory over then-Sen. Barack Obama. You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. Its part of culture. Its part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because its an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter, she continued, in a dig at Obamas remark at a fundraiser that disenfranchised Americans often cling to cultural symbols like guns and religion.
Clintons campaign even attacked Obama during the primary by sending out a mailer questioning his stance on gun control from the right.
Hillary will say anything if it helps her win the presidency. I don't agree with Sanders on guns but at least he is consistent. I agree with O'Malley about guns and he's been a consistent voice calling for more gun control.
frylock
(34,825 posts)but if Clinton wins the nomination, you won't hear a peep about gun control in the general election.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)idea that we should protect the arms manufacturers to be weak.
The bottom line is that if they were held liable since their product is not
the equivalent to other benign products, they would regulate themselves
more aggressively to ward off lawsuits.
With that said, it is the goal of Sanders to work toward ending Citizens United,
more aggressively than any other candidate, in my opinion. The NRA and their
affiliates who are even more militant than the NRA would eventually lose their
stranglehold on the congress.
On edit to add: Keep in mind the ultimate goal is public funded elections.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Combined with his populist economics may actually make him a viable general election candidate where I am.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)I have heard that
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Uh huuuuh.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...the person cited in the article, is 'smearing' him by expressing her viewpoint?
That's a remarkably short-sighted defense. Good luck with that.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)if it weren't, you wouldn't be bringing it to us.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...and I pointed out this similarity in his language to that of gun control opponents, including the NRA, long before this article was published.
This account of a SUPPORTER of Sanders making that observation just reaffirms my view. That's the motivation for 'bringing' it; that and my longtime support for gun control and rejection of memes which suggest advocates don't care about hunters; or that baseball bats are comparable to guns.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And if you really think that Bernie Sanders sounds like the NRA, then you are staggeringly ignorant about what the NRA says.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...both quotes in agreement with opponents of gun control, including the NRA.
It's always interesting how defenders distort critics' comments to suit their argument. I don't think Sanders 'sounds like the NRA.' I agree with the Sanders SUPPORTER cited in the article that his replies are defenses used by the NRA and others opposed to gun control; polarizing, ridiculous, and boilerplate.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Here are some quotes from Wayne LaPierre
2. We have blood-soaked films out there, like American Psycho, Natural Born Killers that are aired like propaganda loops on splatter days.
3. And throughout it all, too many in the national media, their corporate owners and their stockholders act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.
4. But since when did the gun automatically become a bad word? A gun in the hands of a secret service agent protecting our president isnt a bad word.
5. With all the foreign aid the United State does cant we afford to put a police officer in every single school?
6. Politicians pass laws for gun-free school zones. They issue press release bragging about them. They post signs advertising them, and in doing so, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.
7. How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them with wall-to-wall attention and a sense of identity they crave?
8. There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people through vicious and violent video games.
9. We cant lose precious time debating legislation that wont work.
10. I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed officers in every single school in this nation.
Here's some from Ted Nugent:
Every study on crime and or firearms proves time and time again, that 99.99999% of American gun owners do not commit crimes or use our firearms in any dangerous or improper way.
There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country, and not one of them will have an accident today. The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period.
The war is coming to the streets of America and if you are not keeping and bearing and practicing with your arms then you will be helpless and you will be the victim of evil.
Americans have the right to choose to be unarmed and helpless. Be my guest.
Decked out in full-on camouflage hunting gear, Nugent wielded two machine guns while raging, "Obama, he's a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary," he continued. "You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch." Nugent summed up his eloquent speech by screaming "freedom!"
Can you please show me where Bernie Sanders sounds like this?
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...and they are similar to defenses used by gun control opponents, including the NRA.
You're doing what most defenders here do when faced with criticisms of their candidate; deflect.
'nuff said.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You claimed something.
What you claimed was evidently false.
That's probably frustrating for you.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...no one said that...except you.
Hard to defend against what I actually stated. I understand. Watch for cramps, contorting like that.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You're wrong here.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's already been beaten to death.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...so who knows how much he'll be confronted on it. I don't think he's helping himself with progressive supporters who advocate for gun control, as much as he's appealing to those opposed to those safety protections.
I think the political defense is interesting, in that it's a curiously dismissive view of advocacy in a primary campaign. If I based all of my advocacy on the premise that it has little political traction, I'd be stifled on many progressive issues I'm looking to elevate into the national debate in this campaign and others.
Response to bigtree (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)with Democrats in the House and Senate who do not vote for stronger measures?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Explaining that the 2d Amendment protects an individual right. There is zero chance that will be reversed or the 2d Amendment eliminated so the question is what reasonable restrictions can be enacted at the federal level.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That represents institutional racism, slavery and treason and is reviled by many in the U.S. to the NRA is silly. And what happens if the NRA disappears? The 2d Amendment, which limits government interference with the private ownership of firearms, is still in place, and many states have a majority of citizens who vote out of office a candidate who proposes draconian restrictions on gun rights.
Koinos
(2,792 posts)From San Antonio Express News, no less.
Many people in Texas are very concerned about what gun deregulation is doing to their state.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Sanders seems to have faint interest in stronger gun control laws. I certainly agree with him there. We have a constitutional amendment that makes it very difficult to enact and enforce any effective gun control laws. Our best bet is universal background checks, and I don't know where Sanders comes down on that. I do not support the idea of suing gun manufacturers out of business.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Nope, no spinning there!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Liberals are at their best by being -- voila! -- liberal.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)By Lee Drutman and Alexander Furnas
As the Senate prepares to take up the first major gun control debate since last December's shooting massacre in Connecticut, a Sunlight Foundation analysis of the political pressures on 26 key senators paints a pessimistic picture for passage.
Absent a major pressure campaign to push senators to support gun control legislation, the political calculus points against the Senate passing any reform.
The infographic below details the various pressures senators face on a gun control vote. We've collapsed the factors into a single Gun Reform Index, where 10 is most likely to support gun reform and 0 is least likely. The index ranks each senator relative to other key senators within their own party. More details and explanation follow the graphic.
To better understand how a vote on gun control legislation might play out, we collected relevant data on 26 senators (19 Democrats, 2 Independents and 5 Republicans) who we saw as potentially conflicted on a gun vote. (For this, we include any Republican who didnt get at least an A rating from the NRA, and any Democrat who didnt get an F rating.)
As a start, we note that 40 Republicans either have an A or A+ rating from the NRA, and 34 Democrats get an F. We are pretty sure we know how these 74 senators will vote on any gun reform legislation. That puts gun rights supporters one vote away from the 41 votes they would need to filibuster any legislation. This is not a great starting point for advocates of gun control.
In order to assess how likely the remaining 26 senators might be to support gun control, we collected data on several additional factors we thought might be relevant to their vote. Our assumption is that the following things contribute to a higher likelihood of opposing gun control legislation:
More contributions by gun rights groups to the senator in the senator's last election (and fewer contributions to the senators opponent in that race).
A lower Obama vote share in the 2012 election in the senators state.
More registered firearm and destructive device dealers, manufacturers, importers and exporters per 100,000 residents in the senators state.
The more a senators value for one of these factors deviated from the average for our set of swing senators, the more weight we gave it in our overall score. By combining these factors into a single score, ranging from 0 - 10, we accounted for both senator specific influences (campaign finance, and NRA support), and state state level influences (partisanship, prevalence of gun business) on each potential vote.
These scores rank senators relative to other members in their party in regards to the various pressures they face on gun control legislation (we treat Independents Bernie Sanders (VT) and Angus King (ME) as Democrats, since they caucus with the Democrats)
The Democratic swing senator with a score of ten, Mark Udall of Colorado, is the most likely YEA vote, while Max Baucus of Montana, at zero, is the most likely Democratic NAY. On the Republican side of the aisle, Mark Kirk (R-IL) is the most likely gun control ally, while John McCain (R-AZ) seems the least likely to break with the Republican Caucus and support gun control. (Kirk is the only Republican Senator who has publicly supported an assault weapons ban)
Since our baseline assumption is that Republicans will tend oppose gun control, and Democrats will tend to support it, the scores we provide are not comparable between parties. A Democrat with a score of five and a Republican with a score of five are unlikely to have the same probability of supporting gun control legislation. Rather, we offer the scores as a way of comparing between members of the same party. Our scores are summarized in the following tables:
in full:https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/02/04/gun-control-senate/
Trajan
(19,089 posts)You will find everything wrong about Bernie, but they have been such piddling complaints ...
You piddle while Rome burns ... Tis a pity ...
Vinca
(50,303 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts)...and stifle that advocacy in favor of whatever politicians choose to say about them.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Disappointing.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)He's a different kind of politician.
Koinos
(2,792 posts)What about Bernie Sanders' support of the Lockheed Martin F-35? Was some special interest at work in his support of that trillion dollar failure?
To his credit, Sanders acknowledged that the program was wasteful in his defense of it. The contention over the F-35 in his home state of Vermont is that the program is now responsible for jobs in his hometown of Burlington, where he served as mayor before running for Congress. Some front doors of homes in the Burlington area are adorned with green ribbons, signifying support for the F-35. Sanders, like his colleagues in 45 states around the country, doesnt want to risk the wrath of voters angry about job losses related to F-35 manufacturing, assembly, and training if the program were to be cut. And thats where Lockheed Martins political savvy comes into play.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion
Was Sanders equally unwilling to take on anti-gun control factions in Vermont?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I do think the Lawful Commerce bill was a bad one, but I can understand why people supported it.
I'd very much like my party to rethink its favored solutions to gun violence, but we probably won't for a while. So, should Sanders win, this is likely an area he won't get much traction with his own caucus.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Which recognizes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms?
BooScout
(10,406 posts)His stand on guns is weak. How many people have to die before someone is willing to take a stand.
djean111
(14,255 posts)One reason I prefer Bernie to Hillary.
Plus there is really no way to stop the killing of people with guns except to stop making and selling guns.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)For some posters on DU, but not Democrats generally. First, I think that gun control is towards the bottom of the issue totem pole for most Democrats. Second, I think that a large minority (at the least) of Democrats agree with Bernie with respect to his gun control stance.