it's simple. if gun control is a vitally important issue to you

[cali]

then Bernie probably isn't the candidate for you. His record is pretty lousy when it comes to gun control. Having said that it's not because he's cozy with the gun industry. To the best of my knowledge he's never taken a dime from it. And, yeah Vermonters are pretty dubious about gun control, not just the hunters or gun owners. Probably has a lot to do with Vermont having the lowest per capita gun murder rate in the country, one of the lowest gun violence rates, and not a lot accidental shootings.

To me,federal one size fits all states gun control is not desirable. It's virtually impossible, and pushing for that spells defeat for democrats. I don't excuse bernie's vote to protect gun manufacturers from liability except in the case product defect. I think it sucked.

Gun control is not and never has been a a top 5 issue for me. I believe the type of gun control that could prevent a Newtown, is impossible to pass and would be difficult to pass constitutional muster- and not just with this congress or this SCOTUS. Sure, I think there should be background checks for all gun purchases, band there are other measures I support, but hell, Vermont has no license needed open and concealed carry and that doesn't bother me at all. I think that's a state issue.

One more point: How on earth is someone who doesn't even own a gun, a "gun nut"?

Bernie doesn't own a gun.

[arcane1]

1. The smears are as transparent as they are desperate.

And he's been running for less than a week!

[cali]

4. I think it's absolutely fair to criticize him on this

It is not fair or accurate to suggest that he's a gun nut or cozy with the gun industry. That's just crude lying and pretty transparent.

[arcane1]

14. Agreed 100%!

[Eleanors38]

58. I agree. And I welcome the discussion, even if in GD...

We can get the measure of not only the man, but how gun control stacks up as an issue on this web site. If some in these threads want to blare about Sanders' "pro-gun positions" and how they will hurt him, then Blare away!

Blare it to the border states.

Blare it to Florida (Obama carried twice, Jews and Crackers all over the place).

Blare to New Mexico.

To to the Western states.

Blare to others in DU.

Please throw him into the goddam briar patch.

[AtomicKitten]

2. Same for Howard Dean - both probably because of the states they represented.

[cali]

6. same state

[AtomicKitten]

7. derp

thanks

[PeteSelman]

3. Gun control is a losing issue anyway.

Even the most basic background checks and the like simply cannot pass and ultimately hurt our candidates. It's time to give that one up as a loss the way the Republicans have to give up the fight against marriage equality.

[cali]

5. yep.

[bvar22]

70. I agree, Cali.

A "One size fits all" Gun Control law is not workable,
and is a losing issue for Democrats.

Most of my neighbors NEED the deer meat to make it through the Winter.

[sabrina 1]

114. Upstate NY is the same. Rural areas are different from other parts of the country. No one will win

a race here where I live, on gun control issues. Dems in this part of the country probably own guns like everyone else, even if it's only to scare away coyotes from going after their livestock.

Not much crime where we are either, so it's not really an issue, UNTIL someone tries to pass a bill like that, then people, Dems and Repubs are up in arms. No pun intended.

[stillwaiting]

72. +1; Background checks is something most Americans overwhelmingly support though.

I believe we can still lobby for that without suffering negative consequences for it.

We can perhaps reassess things after we get a strong background check bill passed one day hopefully.

[beevul]

83. We have background checks for every retail sale of a firearm.

The issue, is background checks on private sales.

The issues to those that oppose background checks on privately owned/sold firearms are several

First, its private property. A lot of anti-gun folks might say "so what", but then, that's awful easy to say about someone elses property, particularly when its property you think they shouldn't have in the first place.

Second, a whole lot of people believe, and rightly so imo, that selling a privately owned firearm to another person, does not constitute "interstate commerce", and so they see a federal mandate which claims authority under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution as unconstitutional, again, rightly so IMO.

Third: Registration. Registration is out of the question, but also happens to be what most anti-gun folks would consider the holy grail.

[Maedhros]

8. Yes - Bernie could do more RE: gun control.

However, on the overwhelming majority of issues of concern to me - and, I suspect, ordinary voters - Bernie's record is sterling.

[BainsBane]

9. It's a deal breaker for me

and I don't understand how he is able to reconcile it. How can one claim to be against war when he votes to arm a domestic war, gun violence, that has killed more Americans since 1968 than all wars in US history? How can one claim to stand up for the people against corporate interests while immunizing gun manufacturers from tort liability? If I have to choose between Wall Street and the merchants of death, I choose Wall Street. Guns ravage my city and have caused personal havoc in my own life. I don't live in some bucolic little Vermont hamlet. I live in the inner city, and guns are killing us. No, I can't deal with his position. I'm truly shocked by it. I can't believe he can justify such positions.

[KittyWampus]

12. It's his constituency. They are rural and they hunt. Just like Hillary is from NY where Wall St. is.

Just like Warren is from MA that gets money from the MIC.

[BainsBane]

13. Are the gun manufacturers based in VT?

because that vote on liability does nothing to protect VT gun owners.

[KittyWampus]

15. no, that position has me perplexed.

[HereSince1628]

62. It doesn't perplex me...sales and manufacture of fireams is legal

Remember when legality was a BIG issue a couple of months ago defending HRC about a private email system?

It's the same legality.

Anyway if a person -legally- buys a -legally- manufactured firearm from a -legally licensed seller, and then the buyer who or someone the buyer gives access to the firearn uses it in a criminal manner...why would the manufacturer or seller have liability?

I think there are open questions about what should be legal to own and manufacture for sale to civilians, but I do understand the rationale of the argument in its simple form.

I'd argue we no longer have any enforcement of 'militia' as it was known and so the 2nd amendment should be struck down as it is now redundant. But, until it -is- struck down it requires recognition.

On a different issue brought to the fore by this...it's clear that urban/suburban and rural gun use and concerns are quite different. In another thread, I postulated that Sanders may appeal to white rural liberals. I suspect that appeal includes different orientation to the gun-issue

[cali]

24. no gun manufacturers and he's never taken a cent

from them.. I think that was a bad vote,and I can't seem to find an explanation of it- not that I can imagine a good explanation

[BainsBane]

25. That is the toughest one to get past

I'd like to see him address it.

[Thinkingabout]

80. Since his vote was to shield the gun manufactors and there isn't any manufactures in

Vermont gives doubt as to why he voted for the manufactures to be protected. It would make sense if he was protecting companies in Vermont.

[X_Digger]

110. Perhaps it's the principle. You know, occasionally, a politician does actually abide by principle.

Not every act has to be about 'what does this get me?'

[Thinkingabout]

112. That is a common question for politicans.

[cali]

18. there you go.

I think that effective federal gun control is a political and constitutional impossibility. Not just now,but we'll into the future

Just like for me, voting for the IWR, advocating attacking Syria, supporting attacking Libya are deal breakers for me, as is supporting wall street over main street and not leading on vital issues like the tpp and keystones. And those are just a few of the issues that are deal breakers for me.

[BainsBane]

21. What then did you do in 2004?

I've noticed a lot of people have deal breakers on that vote now when they didn't have soon afterward. I have always been anti-gun. I didn't vote for someone pro-gun and then declare it a deal breaker 12 years later.

[cali]

26. in the primary.

Nd I've never been invested in gun control. Are you actually saying if Bernie was the nominee, you wouldn't vote for him? Surely not

[BainsBane]

29. You're right

and if he can explain his gun position convincingly, I still might caucus for him. But yeah, I see your point. Kerry was my last choice for the nomination in 2004, the very last. I still spent twenty hours a week for two months volunteering for him because I wanted Bush gone. I even convinced myself I liked Kerry, when I never really did.

[cali]

46. yep. did the same thing in 2004

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. Wall street sympathies are are a deal breaker for me.

I've never been involved in a bank holdup - except by bankers.

[Aerows]

44. Bam!

Now that was a mouthful!

[awoke_in_2003]

87. +1000. nt

[L0oniX]

104. ^^^THIS^^^

[840high]

108. Winner!

[Koinos]

39. Deal breaker for me too, unless O'Malley does not run.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. But the Iraq War vote isn't

Ok then.

[LittleBlue]

45. 30k people dead per year from guns: deal breaker

200k brown people dead in Iraq from guns and bombs: no deal-breaker

Conclusion: hypocrisy

[Andy823]

64. You said once that you voted for Kerry

Why if the Iraq war vote is so important to the way people vote?

[MannyGoldstein]

100. One always compares to the alternative

No?

[BainsBane]

79. Considering I voted for the Democratic nominee in 2004

I can hardly claim that to be a deal breaker. For me, the war that claims the most lives is the worst one, and that is the domestic war of gun violence.

I'd wager you've voted for politicians who voted for the Iraq war as well.

[imnew]

42. Does anyone know what his vote was to go to war?

That would be my deal breaker for sure.

[darkangel218]

47. He voted against. nt

[cali]

48. against both Iraq wars. against the patriot act

[imnew]

50. He's the man then

Anyone who voted for Bush's wars is disqualified to be President .

I would think ALL Democrats and Progressives would Agree ?

[PowerToThePeople]

54. Like you were EVER not going to vote HRC.

[BainsBane]

77. I remain undecided

and have said so publicly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026557489 Now, I know I diverge from the site orthodoxy in refusing to despise Clinton on command. I find these efforts to root out crypto-Clinonianism pretty funny considering you all search for signs of heresy rather than confronting the site owner who has publicly come out for Clinton.

But you keep it up. You need to make sure you insult every undecided Democrat to sink Sanders campaign for good. If anyone can do it, it's people on DU, where leftist credentials are not determined by proximity to Marxism but instead by who emotes the most and rages most loudly against the Democratic party. Then there are extra points for insulting the poor as allied with Goldman Sachs and the 1 percent. On DU, where people think liberal represents the furthest left of the political spectrum and Karl Marx is dismissed as "centrist" and "Third Way." The valiant and noble struggle of the upper 10 percent against the 1 percent trumps all.


"

[MicaelS]

56. The Tort Protection for Gun Manfacturers makes perfect sense.

Just like it did when Congress passed Tort Protection for General Aviation (light aircraft) back in 1990 under President Clinton.

General Aviation Revitalization Act

The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, also known by its initials GARA, is Public Law 103-298, an Act of Congress on Senate Bill S. 1458 (103rd Congress), amending the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.

It was intended to counteract the effects of prolonged product liability on general aviation aircraft manufacturers, by limiting the duration of their liability for the aircraft they produce.

GARA is a statute of repose generally shielding most manufacturers of aircraft (carrying fewer than 20 passengers), and aircraft parts, from liability for most accidents (including injury or fatality accidents) involving their products that are 18 years old or older (at the time of the accident), even if manufacturer negligence was a cause.

While GARA is considered a landmark event in the modern history of America's general aviation industry, debate continues over the effects and ethics of GARA.

And it is simple how he reconciles it. If a legal product is misused by small percentage of the populace, then suing the manufacturers out of business (which is what the Anti-Gun people want) is simply an attempt to do an end run around the Legislatures, who are supposed to the ultimate arbiters of what is supposed to be the Law in the country.

Because Trial Lawyers are like Prostitutes or Drug Addicts, they will never say no to suing someone witrh deep pockets, so someone (the Legislatures) have to rein them in.

And to put it quite harshly, businesses staying open so they can make money, pay taxes and dividends, create jobs for people, and so people can exercise certain freedoms is more important than the 1% or so that get hurt.

[BainsBane]

81. Translation

Moar guns.

[MicaelS]

89. Real Translation

Freedom is more important than Safety.

[cherokeeprogressive]

73. Deal breaker even in the absence of an explanation of his reasoning?

Your mind wasn't made up...

[Travis_0004]

86. I live in a rural area

I assume the vast majority of my neighbors own guns. Most people have a shotgun they can quickly get to at home. (Bears are a bigger threat than humans.)

I see people open carry all the time. Usually a very large gun (bears).

0 murders in since 2012. One armed robbery in 2009. None since.

If guns cause crime, where I live should be much more dangerous.

This is why one size does not fit all.

[BainsBane]

88. That's ridiculous

There are more guns in the city, and people live much more closely together. Of course guns kill. That is their purpose and what they are designed for. Denying they do is a bizarre disconnection from reality that ONLY Americans engage in. We have the highest homicide rate in the developed world for a reason. Now, I understand many people simply do not care. Those lives mean far less to them that their stuff. I can't do anything about how others think, but I do get to vote based on issues I care about, and human life ranks number 1.

[beevul]

92. Some times killing is necessary...

Some times killing is necessary to protect life.

Anyone to whom "human life ranks number 1" would acknowledge that.

"Human lives rank number 1, except when defended with firearms" really just doesn't have a nice ring to it.

We have the highest homicide rate in the developed world for a reason.

10000 a year in gun homicides. Out of a population of 300 million. That's 300,000,000.


Every life lost a tragedy to be sure, but its hardly the epidemic you and so many others make it out to be.

[Travis_0004]

106. Gun ownership as a percent of population is far higher where I live than any city

I realize that a lot of people may have a few acres and are spread out, but we have a small town, and there are 1/4 acre lots where people are close together. If guns kill, why has there not been a single homicide in over 10 years where I live. Yes, the sample size is small, but there just isn't any major crime out here.

[KittyWampus]

10. He might not take money from gun manufacturers but it's too bad he protects them. THAT SAID-

coming from a rural state where many hunt won't hurt him in the general election.

[Eleanors38]

68. There is an extensive history of plaintiffs' attorneys sueing firearms manufacturers...

well before the passage of the law in question. Virtually all of the suits have ended in failure. The law is needed to prevent abuse of the legal system; to wit, trying to "wear down" gun manufacturers with expense to effect prohibition "by any other name..."

One can sue manufacturers for product liability which leads to consequential damages, like faulty tires (Firestone), runaway acceleration (Toyota), faulty rifle safeties (Remington). Same as it ever was.

[VScott]

78. The only misgiving I have about the 'Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act'

is that it lacks a provision that requires any plaintiffs to pay legal expenses and any and all
costs to the defendants.

Just a few weeks ago, a plaintiff/parent of one of the Aurora, CO shooting victims (and whom is also the
operations manager for the Brady campaign), was ordered to pay $220,000 to the defendants that legally
supplied James Holmes with the ammunition and equipment to James Holmes.

But, that was made possible by CO state law, not federal law.

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/parents-lost-daughter-mass-shooter-now-owe-220000-suppliers/

Another pending case involves some Sandy Hook parents that are maliciously attempting to sue
Remington/Bushmaster for Adam Lanzas criminal misuse of their product.

Should they lose (and they will), or have the lawsuit tossed, they should be ordered to pay any of
Remington's/Bushmaster's legal expenses.

Maybe when others realize that these bogus lawsuits are going to hit them in their bank accounts,
the nonsense will end.

[LittleBlue]

11. I don't care about gun control

Not one iota . Gun control is a loser anyway

[aikoaiko]

16. It shouldn't surprise people that Bernie is a good defender of all civil liberties.

[Mnpaul]

111. and it shouldn't surprise them

that a liberal would be against an overreaching, authoritarian gun control bill. Do they even understand the origins of the word "liberal" or the definitions

Liberal:

of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression

[beevul]

117. You'll find that many who claim they are liberal...

You'll find that many who claim they are "liberal", have a great deal of disdain when it comes to these principles:

of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression


Coincidentally (probably not), they're usually the first and the shrillest when it comes to questioning the "liberal" bonafides of others. Examples abound in the guns forum, and in so many gun threads.

[Autumn]

17. Gun control isn't important to me at all.

Gun control will not pass. I know what happened here in CO when it was tried.

[DanTex]

19. That's great. You don't live in an area with a gun violence problem, so gun control isn't a big

deal to you. Those other people who do, meh. There are bigger fish to fry than the 30,000 gun deaths every year.

I can see where you are coming from. For example, almost nobody I know belongs to a union, and they are mostly doing just fine financially. Why should I care about unions?

Probably has to do with the fact that many highly-paid occupations -- lawyer, Wall Street worker, etc. are not unionized at all. Hmm, is this a pattern? And the only real problem I've seen with free trade or globalization is that Russian billionaires keep buying up all the best apartments here in Manhattan. Seriously, if bond traders can do fine without unions and social security, what's everyone else complaining about?

[cali]

32. what part of I believe it's nigh on impossible

to pass effective federal gun control and almost surely unconstitutional, don't you understand?

[stevenleser]

33. But it's heroic to submit break up the banks legislation that's "nigh on impossible to pass?"

Various other Bernie supporters are swearing to me that it's so.

[DanTex]

37. Exactly. The irony of Sanders backers advocating for pragmatism and realism.

[DanTex]

36. Of course not. The second amendment has nothing to do with civilian gun control, and never did

until a 5-4 decision with only the right-wingers on the court deciding that the "militia" clause should be ignored. Constitutionally, gun control is on exactly the same ground as, say, campaign finance reform.

Now, politically, I agree, that effective gun control is probably impossible. But then so is everything else on Bernie Sanders's wish list. In fact, if we're arguing political realism, then Bernie Sanders shouldn't even be part of the conversation, because he's at best going to squeak into double digits for a few states before conceding to Hillary. On the other hand, if we're really going to chase after, say, single payer healthcare, then we shouldn't throw gun control out the window either.

[hack89]

61. The Democratic Party platform and the president would disagree

both say the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[DanTex]

67. And they would be wrong. Any half-decent historian knows that it was always about militias.

And the whole point of the Sanders candidacy is to move the Democratic party to the left, not to capitulate to right-wing revisionists.

[hack89]

76. Go read the British Bill of Rights of 1690

You will see that that founding fathers enjoyed the individual right to bear arms absent any militia requirement. The 2A is based on English common law - they did not start the BoR with a blank slate.

[DanTex]

93. I've seen Fox News. I don't need you to repeat their talking points for me.

[hack89]

96. Wilful ignorance of history to maintain a pov

Is nothing to be proud of.

[DanTex]

97. You should heed that advice.

[hack89]

99. I showed you the English model for the US BoR

A BoR that should look remarkably familiar you. A BoR that codified their rights as English men - the rights they fought to regain through revolution. A BoR that contained an individual right to bear arms.

And you dismiss it as Fox news talking points. Can't you at least pretend you are open minded and willing to consider new facts?

[Township75]

20. I think someone who votes to provide access to mental health treatment is going to do more to lower

gun violence than someone trying to pass gun control to lower gun violence.

The mass shootings are almost always done by someone with mental health issues. I think Bernie knows this is a better approach and easier approach to reducing gun violence than traditional gun control measures.

[darkangel218]

49. This!^^

[Neoma]

91. People with mental health issues are only as likely as the rest of the population to be violent.

Do some actual research before you smear an entire population with a scapegoat the NRA keeps pointing to, eh?

[gotj90]

23. I just checked in for the first time in awhile

So this is the big attack? Says a lot. I've noticed the initial laughing at Bernie in the media has died down as well. It seems someone is doing better than expected...

[KittyWampus]

30. For the first time since April 11th. Well, welcome to DU. And welcome back.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

27. He's wrong on gun control and voting for weapons systems. But there is a reason why he does

that, if he doesnt, he isnt around to run for President, he is drummed out of politics.

[JoePhilly]

28. This is how it starts ...

... "well ... my candidate is awesome, except for this one, little tiny thing, that's not really all that important anyway".

Next thing you know ... DU's high priests of liberalism are calling you a 3rd way paid shill.

[cali]

35. bzzzt. no. an issue that is important to.you, is not

necessarily important to me and visa versa. In case you haven't noticed gun control is not an issue that all duers agree on- anymore than voting for the IWR is or the tpp or other issues.


And I have never called other duers third way.

[JoePhilly]

38. Did I say YOU called people that?

Or do you just self-identify as a "DU high priest of liberalism?"

I just find it funny. You are now in the position of trying to explain away a weakness for your latest preferred candidate.

DU regularly explodes about some single issue that Obama (or now Clinton) did not speak about correctly. Its endless.

And now, the perfect Bernie ... not quite so perfect. And were he to become President, and then COMPROMISE to get something done ... BOOM!!

THAT's what I'm pointing out.

And THIS, is how it starts.

[Autumn]

51. I knew Bernie's stand on this before I supported him.

I don't think he's perfect, I just think he's the best candidate running for the office of the Presidency. I wrote and I called his office asking him to run. And I will work my ass off and donate every cent I can to get him elected. Boom, THAT'S how it starts.

[JoePhilly]

57. Sure ... THIS is the easy part ...

... he's not President yet. DU will turn on ANY Dem President who does not have an iron clad filibuster proof majority. We've already seen that.

I absolutely think you should do everything you can do to help Bernie win, seriously.

He holds most of the correct positions. Awesome. So did John Edwards. Ooops.

In many areas of life, I can be idealistic. But the reason I've been successful, is because I can also be practical.

Obama did not win me until a week before the NC primaries. Bernie has exactly that long, unless he falls before I even get to vote.

Being President isn't just about being "correct" on every policy, or even about any one policy. Its about being mostly correct on most policies, AND being ready and able to move the chains (football analogy).

DU is going to be unhappy one year into the Presidency of Hillary or Bernie. Remember, Obama was a bastard here on DU for giving a RW jerk 30 seconds at the inaugural. He was not even one DAY into his first term.

Some here talk of the "cult" of personality ... even as they search for this perfect candidate, or see Bernie as such.

[Autumn]

63. I caucused for Hillary, I voted for Obama, twice. I don't care if

DUers get pissed off at a Obama,a President Bernie or Hillary. That's their prerogative. Obama deserved any heat he got for as you say "giving a RW jerk 30 seconds at the inaugural", that hurt a lot of people. I'm pretty willing to bet that there is not a single DUer who expects any President to be correct. No politician is perfect, not even Bernie. I don't worship any politician I just think Bernie will do a hell of a lot better than Hillary as President.

[JoePhilly]

69. You miss the point ...

Its easy to not be President. So many things you'd have done ...

And as for DU "accepting" a non-perfect Dem President ... sorry, not going to happen. The greatest page on DU a day after Obama took office, has almost always been dominated by attacks on Obama. That's not changing no matter who wins next time. Hillary or Bernie won't be doing it right or fast enough.

DU will crucify the next Dem President.

As for Bernie doing better than Hillary ... you can't just make the claim ... you need to explain WHY and HOW. Because that's what will be necessary for Bernie to beat Hillary in a Dem primary.

Hillary is has been under attack from the GOP for 25+ years. Dems know that. And they know she will fight against the GOP. Why will Bernie be a stronger force against them? And pointing at his message won't be enough. Its going to take more.

[Autumn]

75. I didn't miss the point. You didn't make one,other than it bothers you to see a President picked on

Oh my god it's a hard job! Hillary can fight the repugs she's experienced she's done it for 25+ years ! Those aren't points that's bullshit, that gives me about as much reason to vote for her as "She's a woman and it's time for a woman President." Bernie addresses the issues that are important to me, Hillary addresses the issues that you find important. You are saying that Bernies actions on this issue will cause DUers to not support him. I think most DUers already knew this.

That's about all the explanation I need to give.

[pasto76]

82. " DU will turn on ANY Dem President who does not have an iron clad filibuster proof majority."

DU will turn on ANY Dem President who does not have an iron clad filibuster proof majority. We've already seen that.


boy did you hit the nail on the head with that

[cali]

55. except im not trying to explain it away

Duh. I say his vote on the gun manufacturer bill sucked. I say if this his record on gun control is lousy if you're strongly pro fed guncontrol. I say if it's a big issue for you than he probably is not the candidate for you.

I've never claimed Bernie was perfect- just that he's great on issues that are important to me and has a great record and no ugly entanglements with corporate money.

Try to argue with at leas a modicum of honesty,Philly.

[JoePhilly]

60. Please ...

... the reason ANYONE says an issue is not so important for them, is to suggest that others see it the same way.

Now ... let's pretend ... Bernie wins the nomination ... and then GASP ... takes corporate money.

I'm sure you will be the first to attack him ... ooops, no ... you, and many others will say its OK because he'd have to do it to win (which would be true).

I could be wrong, maybe he won't take it. And he'd lose, no?

[cali]

65. lol. sorry Charlie,I'm a rural vermonter

And I have never seen gun control as a big issue. You sure as fuck won't find posts of mine about it.

Please stop wildly making shit up.

Bernie has pledged not to take corporate money. Unlike your candidate who has a history of breaking her word. If he became like her, damn straight I'd attack him.

[JoePhilly]

74. America is not rural Vermont.

Without money, including some corporate money, Bernie can't win the General.

And we can't let the GOP win the general.

By necessity, Bernie will need to expand his target beyond rural VT. You already explained how he "compromised" on the gun issue based on who is constituents were. If he runs for President, his "constituent group" gets much bigger. He'll probably have to compromise some more.

I'm actually comfortable with this reality. The constituency for the President is "all of us" ... even those of us on the RW that I disagree with.

[m-lekktor]

31. His position on the I/P issue is more troubling to me than this.

The gun issue was never a priority for me, usually I am agnostic on it though I despise the gun lobby. I will still vote for him in the primary no problem.

[upaloopa]

34. I don't think being a one issue voter is very smart

New gun legislation will come from Congress if at all. I doubt Bernie would veto it if he were president.
I don't think guns is high on anyone's issue list.

[magical thyme]

41. I live in a state where a lot of people hunt to eat

and I do not want my neighbors going hungry.

I agree that gun control is a losing issue. I have other priorities.

[840high]

109. I'm with you.

[darkangel218]

43. Well said, thank you.

[Cheese Sandwich]

52. I would politely disagree. Bernie supports gun regulations. He has an F rating from the NRA.

It's a big error to tell Democrats that they should not vote for him if they consider gun control a vital issue.

He supports the common sense gun regulations that most Americans support.

Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

[cali]

59. please post that as an op

His vote re gun manufacturers is still lousy, but that's a Damon good statement

[PowerToThePeople]

53. Can't have everything.

Last edited Wed May 6, 2015, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

He is my candidate. I do want to see gun regulations enhanced, but I do not think they will get traction on a national level.

Bernie 2016!

Ban All Guns!!

[ileus]

66. Well this is disappointing to read/hear.

I thought there was finally a reason for not voting Hillary until this thread. If he's not a strong supporter of the 2A then I'll stick with H16.

[TheKentuckian]

71. That is a feature not a bug for me, just means he aligns even closer to my beliefs.

Of course I'm not in the anti civil liberties caucus.

[Shrek]

98. +1

This makes him a more appealing candidate, not less.

[Capt.Rocky300]

84. The NRA and Gun Owners of America gave Bernie........

a D- and F respectively in 2013.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/17/where-the-senate-stands-on-guns-in-one-chart/

Interestingly, the article was written 3 days after Sandy Hook.

[kentuck]

85. Bernie is not a "gun nut".

He is an "independent" when it comes to gun rights. A lot of Democrats are like that.

[darkangel218]

90. +1

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

94. I'm wondering if somebody sent out a talking point.

Haven't seen this mentioned before, and suddenly several OPs out to do a hatchet job on him for not being 'pure' enough on gun control or Israel? The only people talking about magic wands and perfect candidates are the centrists. Over here on the left, we KNOW we're never going to get our perfect candidate. We just want the best one from those we're offered.

[grntuscarora]

95. After Newtown,

gun control seemed like a vital issue to many on DU. Not so much now. Until the next massacre, when we'll all be righteously outraged again.

I'm pro gun regulation, and anti NRA. Have been for many years. Guess I'll take another look at HRC.

[NYC_SKP]

107. Take a look at HRC. We'll still be here for ya.

Sanders had a pretty good explanation on cable this evening, MSNBC.

I accept his explanation.

[grntuscarora]

120. If you have a link or transcript,

please share. I would truly like to hear his explanation.

[ibegurpard]

101. yup

That will only help him somewhere like Montana. and many other places as well.

[DCBob]

102. Its a big issue for me and most Democrats.

We should never give up on this issue no matter how difficult or hopeless it may seem..

[cali]

116. not and never has been a big issue for me

And I don't believe it's a top issue for most dems.

[L0oniX]

103. F rating by the NRA. "gun nut" is just an immature smear against a ...Democratic candidate.

[Agnosticsherbet]

105. I am not a one issue voter

I will compare his history on gun control to the other Democratic candidates in the primary. The one who has the better record will have an advantage in this issue.

If he wins the nomination he has my vote.

It is now only a maybe in the primary.

[MisterP]

113. yeah, and so's our constant war

y'know what makes people here in Toronto so happy? the fact that they can buy a theater ticket without having to consider how they'd have to cast themselves over their lover to save their lives with theirs, or how long they can survive after stuffing their guts back into them: after Aurora, Central Americans were feeling sorry for us Americans--at least they have the excuse of having poor economies and inefficacious governments

guns bring the war home

but Bernie could easily split the difference by just saying he supports changes that 90% of Americans and 80% of NRA members want--now, who could disagree with that?

[awoke_in_2003]

115. What is vitally important

is keeping a job. I need to put food on the table, keep a roof over my family's head, and not have my job outsourced to cheap labor. Satisfy that, then we can start talking about guns.

[U4ikLefty]

118. Bernie voted for gun control...in Iraq.

Hillary didn't.

[joshcryer]

119. Single issue voters are the worst.

They have no civic responsibility at all. All they care about is their pet peeve. If you wouldn't vote for Sanders because he represents his pro-gun state (with Vermont's own Democratic platform saying nil about gun control, though it is a party plank) then your vote is one of many wasteful single issue votes that are really noise in the overall electorate. It's cancelled out by the other single issue voter who is for gun control.