I wonder if all three candidates will have the courage to follow Obama on this

[pnwmom]

and urge the voters to reject pro-gun candidates?

I'm not talking about supporting Obama in his right to take executive actions, which all three candidates support.

I'm talking specifically about Obama saying he'll be urging people not to vote for pro-gun candidates.

I know Hillary and Martin will do that, but Bernie in the past has said that rural voters want guns. So what will he say now? Will he urge all voters, including rural voters, to vote against pro-gun candidates?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-guns-idUSKBN0UI1UQ20160105

Wiping back tears as he remembered children killed in a mass shooting, President Barack Obama on Tuesday ordered stricter gun rules that he can impose without Congress and urged American voters to reject pro-gun candidates.

Obama made it clear he does not expect gun laws to change during his remaining year in office, but pledged to do what he can to make gun control a theme in the months leading up to the November election to replace him.

[NurseJackie]

1. Hmmm. In my opinion, that's not likely.

It could happen. I'll be surprised if it does.

[nc4bo]

2. And why would he not?

[pnwmom]

4. He has said that guns are important to rural voters, and he has a mixed record.

For example, he voted against the Brady bill; and he voted to allow guns on Amtrak and in National Parks.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-voted-against-brady/

The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.

In July, when we first looked into the issue, Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver told us that Sanders voted against the bill because he believed a national waiting period was a federal overreach and because he was answering to his constituents.

SNIP

On the flip side, Sanders has also voted to allow firearms on Amtrak trains and in National Parks, though his most recent pro-gun vote was in 2009.

[JonLeibowitz]

27. Mixed record means different things to different people.

To your point about Amtrak, the firearms would need to be surrendered and locked away in order to be "taken on Amtrak". It would be like saying that a president is okay with allowing firearms on planes.

[pnwmom]

30. He voted against the Brady bill and for the bill that repealed

gun liability laws in 50 states.

He has a mixed record.

[restorefreedom]

3. a 2 second news google search indicates that all three have already supported him

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-obama-gun-control_568935b2e4b0b958f65be793

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/05/martin-omalley-praises-obamas-gun-actions-calls-critical.html

http://www.kwwl.com/story/30874266/2016/01/03/hillary-clinton-praises-president-obamas-planned-actions-on-guns

and yet you only mention 2 of the three dems running, leaving out bernie. i find that

[beam me up scottie]

6. Indeed.

[restorefreedom]

13. well done! always good to diversify the sci fi characters.

i like the different "franchises", as sheldon cooper would say

[beam me up scottie]

18. Speaking of sci-fi, I like to pretend ops like this are episodes of MST3K.

[restorefreedom]

24. eggggggscellent...that could help

with the ol sanity thing.....

oh the memories!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

49. In that case, I have a question of THE UTMOST importance:

Joel, or Mike?

[beam me up scottie]

51. Well duh.

Joel, of course!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. Wrong answer, Newt Hitler. I like Mike!

The Council of Great Punishment has decided that you must spend 3 days at Discussionist trying to reason with them.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Nooooooooooooooo!

[pnwmom]

7. That's not what I asked. I asked if the candidates will urge voters

not to vote for pro-gun candidates.

This isn't about Bernie saying something positive before he even knows what Obama was gong to say. Obama has said he's going to make gun control a big issue in the coming election. How will that work with Bernie, with his states rights views on the subject?

[restorefreedom]

20. not going there

bernie has repeatedly and vigorously supported gun safety, control, and regulation. i suspect all three candidates support obama on this one, but if you want to retread a dead argument, have at it!

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. That STILL isn't what Pwnmom asked ...

she asked:

if the candidates will urge voters not to vote for pro-gun candidates.

Which is very different from:

(being) repeatedly and vigorously supported gun safety, control, and regulation.

[restorefreedom]

45. as i said further downthread

most pro gun people are R. so any candidate telling voters not to vote R is ridiculously unnecessary. and what happens if a reasonable R runs against a gun nut? are dems to be in the business of endorsing one r over another? that could get very complicated and messy.

i think the support of the measure by ALL the dem candidates speaks for itself.

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. There are plenty of Democrats that are pro-gun ...

Hell ... we have a whole group dedicated to pro-gunship.

[restorefreedom]

65. in a d vs r race, the choice would appear to be obvious

even if both are pro gun. but what happens in a race with a moderate r and a very progun D? or a primary between two candidates of strong gun position? who gets endorsed by the president?

if the endorsement of candidates in such races is going to be a necessary feature for some voters, they might be disappointed. the whole thing seems to be a hornet's nest that the campaigners best stay away from.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. Not for those pledging to NOT vote, should the candidate of their choice not get the nomination. n/

[restorefreedom]

68. i honestly have not seen one post vowing to not vote

i have seen many posts predicting a low turnout, but have not seen an individual pledge not to vote next year.

and i think everyone realizes the importance of the downticket races.

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. Okay ... I doubt the veracity of your statement, as there have been far too many ...

but, Okay.

[restorefreedom]

72. individual people saying they won't vote?

like i said, i have seen many predict a lethargic turnout but have seen maybe a handful say they would be demoralized enough to stay home (but might not actually stay home)..

only time will tell i suppose

[beam me up scottie]

32. You mean like Hillary also favoured state's rights with regards to gun control?:

Let states & cities determine local gun laws

Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?

A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you’re referring to is before the Supreme Court.

Q: But what do you support?

A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?

A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else [should be able to] come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.

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 they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

[CharlotteVale]

44. Oopsie!

[beam me up scottie]

53. Those pesky facts again!

[CharlotteVale]

60. They never learn.

[questionseverything]

76. that was from her annie oakley period

lol

[beam me up scottie]

96. Yep, back when she mocked Obama for his gun control stance.

[pangaia]

36. I find it cowardly?

[restorefreedom]

48. that too. nt

[jeff47]

5. I wonder how many Clinton supporters will continue to ignore

that Sanders already announced support for Obama's actions, in their attempt to keep "Sanders is a gun nut!!1!!1!!!!eleven!!!!" alive.

[Ed Suspicious]

8. No shit. This OP had me scratching my head. It's like they ignore current reality and rewrite it

to fit their story.


So sick of it.

[pnwmom]

17. Bernie announced his support of Obama taking executive actions -- a different thing.

I am specifically asking if Bernie will now urge voters not to vote for pro-gun candidates -- which is a position Bernie has never taken in the past.

[pnwmom]

10. He didn't announce support for the idea of urging voters not to vote for pro-gun candidates.

He merely supported Obama in taking the legal measures he's allowed to take as President. Obama knows he's limited and wants the next Administration to go much further.

[jeff47]

14. Keep me meme alive!!!!!!! (nt)

[nc4bo]

19. !!!

[CharlotteVale]

33. Bwahahahah!

[beam me up scottie]

21. LOL!

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. are you actually implying Hillary will not support pro-gun Democrats from

parts of the country - particularly rural areas where much of the voting public including Democrats are pro-gun? You really think that?

Where I grew up in northwestern Pennsylvania - there are a number of Democrats who get elected - even to Congress sometimes - But, guess what. They are ALL pro-gun/anti-gun control. They couldn't get elected dog catcher if they weren't. That is reality.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Perhaps you should consider what congress would look like if ...

NO Democrat voted for a single pro-gun candidate.

If you did so, again, perhaps, you wouldn't view the question as an attack on Bernie.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

50. Or, maybe Jeff47 has a modicum of intelligence and could plainly see that the OP is an attack.

The claims of innocence buy you nothing. This is bloodsport. Don't go trying to act like it's not while you work out the best angle from which to shank someone. We're grownups here; let's do this thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. Okay. n/t

[jeff47]

75. You really need to get your story straight.

So, am I supposed to accept moderate Democrats, including those against gun control, because they are the only ones that can win in some places, or am I supposed to be demanding purity from Democratic candidates?

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. My "story" is straight ...

yours, on the other hand ...

[jeff47]

82. K, I'll happily bring this up the next time you complain about people not backing

"impure" candidates.

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. Please do! I have never complianed about "impure" candidates ...

I have, however, complained about people that demand "purity" of candidates, while explaining away the "contradiction" of their candidate.

[PyaarRevolution]

9. One of the biggest problems in terms of guns.

Is that they've been mythologized by Hollywood. Guns have become something magic in movies, making a problem go away. Now I believe most people are more sensible than to believe that bs; however, to really drive home the damage they can do. Black and white, etc., there should be school programs that encourage/require children in suburban and urban America to have to go hunting with professional hunters. When they see that animal drop dead that will kill any possible spec. of romantization that Hollywood has engendered with those movies. To see that beautiful, alive, moving animal gone will wake most of them up.
I mean explain to me why people in Switzerland are required to know how to use a firearm and they're not all nutty about using them.

[MeNMyVolt]

11. I think all three candidates agree with the Pres on this. n/t

[restorefreedom]

22. yea! logic and reason still exist!

its a miracle!l
lots of areas to disagree, i doubt this is one of them.

[pnwmom]

25. When has Bernie ever urged voters not to vote for pro-gun candidates?

[beam me up scottie]

41. When has Hillary?

[restorefreedom]

46. shhhhhh...don't bring up logical and factual counter arguments....l

it ruins everything!

[beam me up scottie]

52. And what the hell is a "pro-gun" candidate? Is Hillary "anti-gun"?

Does the op expect us to believe Hillary is now opposed to the 2nd amendment?

[restorefreedom]

63. only at this exact moment in time, for the purposes of this thread..

but don't blink...the forecast may change at any time!

[beam me up scottie]

64. No way is Annie Oakley opposed to the 2nd amendment.

She's the only candidate who bragged about going hunting.

[restorefreedom]

67. i thought that was caribou barbie...

then again, hunting is hunting, right?

[beam me up scottie]

69. Only one candidate is pro-death penalty as well.

Kind of blows that whole "she's a progressive" meme out of the water.

[restorefreedom]

71. yeah, the dp thing really bothers me

no progressive dem in 2016 should be pro dp imo.

[Live and Learn]

12. Bernie was the first to come out in support. But you already knew that. nt

[dlwickham]

16. rejecting pro-gun candidates?

that's what the OP is asking

[pnwmom]

23. He said he'd support executive action. He didn't say he'd urge voters

not to vore for pro-gun candidates.

[restorefreedom]

26. since most progun candidates are rabid republicans,

a request to not vote for them seems like it would be unnecessary, since most dem supporters would be unlikely to vote for them anyway.

[pnwmom]

28. Not all. Bernie voted against the Brady bill,

and he voted for the bill that repealed gun liability laws in 50 states.

He has a mixed record on gun control and has said that rural voters, as in Vermont, want guns,

[jeff47]

37. That's a whole lot of half-truths packed into one post.

I'm impressed!

So, you apparently ignored every vote Sanders cast after Brady, including the AWB and limits on clip sizes. Also, you seem to have not noticed Brady's passage and then repeal had no effect on the long-term gun violence trend.

Also, he did not "voted for the bill that repealed gun liability laws in 50 states", because there were no such laws in any of the 50 states. Turns out, manufacturers are not liable when their legal product sold to licensed dealers is used to commit a crime. Also, it turns out this evil, satanic no-liability law doesn't cover illegal sales, as demonstrated by the recent court victory against a dealer who sold guns to people he was not supposed to. He was found liable, despite this evil, satanic, gun-loving law.

But hey, who needs that pesky reality thing when there's a good story to tell.

[pnwmom]

56. The liability laws applied to gun SELLERS, too, and they were overturned

by the law. There is no reason gun SELLERS shouldn't be liable for selling guns to criminals.

[jeff47]

73. And yet again you're wrong.

Again, such liability laws did not exist, because the gun SELLERS were not liable for someone who used the gun to commit a crime as long as they followed the laws about selling guns (background checks, confirming age and residence, etc).

The case I cited above is a case where gun SELLERS were found liable, not manufacturers. According to your claims, this would be impossible...yet they were.

[pnwmom]

77. The gun dealer who sold the gun to James Holmes couldn't be sued for damages

under CO's law specifically because of the Federal law that had just repealed it -- which was voted for by Bernie Sanders.

[jeff47]

81. And you're wrong yet again.

The families sued the ammo manufacturers, not the gun dealer. In state, not federal court.

The families lost because a Colorado law shielded the ammo manufacturers. Not federal law.

For someone so interested in this subject, you sure do an utterly terrible job following it. Here, let me help you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/gun-shop-held-liable-for-purchase-linked-to-shooting-of-police.html

Gun shop held liable for selling a gun to a straw buyer. After the PLCAA passed. You claim this is impossible.

[pnwmom]

83. This does nothing to disprove what I said about the James Holmes case -- thanks to the

law that Bernie helped pass.

Not only has a judge dismissed their case as a result of the PLCAA, but to add insult to injury, he ordered the family of the victim to pay $200K in legal costs to the ammunition dealers.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/3/1408480/-Parents-of-Aurora-shooting-victim-ordered-to-pay-200-000-in-legal-fees-to-ammo-dealer

The parents of Jessica Ghawi, a 24-year-old woman gunned down by James Holmes in the 2012 Aurora theater massacre, tried to sue the online ammunition retailer who sold James Holmes the ammunition used in the attack. The case was dismissed before trial:

Thomas added that the case was dismissed before a trial could take place thanks to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, a federal law passed by Congress and signed by George W. Bush in 2005.

“What PLCAA does is it provides very broad, blanket immunity from civil lawsuits for both gun manufacturers and gun dealers,” she said. “This is one example of a situation where somebody has tried to address liability, to go after bad actions of a dealer or manufacturer and PLCAA kept them from being able to do so.”

Adding insult to extreme injury, a federal judge has issued an order that will likely bankrupt them:
The family of 24-year-old Jessica Ghawi, a victim in the 2012 movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, is faced with more than $200,000 in legal costs after a federal judge ordered them to pay attorney’s fees for four ammunition dealers the family attempted to sue.

[jeff47]

87. Yes, actually it does.

See, your claim is that it's utterly impossible to sue a gun manufacturer or dealer because of Sanders voting for the PLCAA. The Wisconsin case demonstrates that this is not true, despite your deeply held beliefs.

As for the Colorado case, let's try an actual news source instead of a Kos blog.
http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/03/27/judge-dismisses-ammo-suit-in-holmes-case/70579702/

Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch states in the order that Colorado and federal law restricts liability suits against ammunition sellers, and the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence upon the part of the defendants,

Hrm....how'd that Colorado bit get in there? Almost like the Colorado law shielding ammo manufacturers was relevant.

Oh, there's also that sentence about failing to prove negligence....almost like you actually have to prove the defendant was negligent when you sue for negligence! How terrible!!

[pnwmom]

88. It was impossible for the parents of the victims of James Holmes, and everyone

who voted for that law shares the responsibility for that outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Renewed interest

After the 2012 Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook, Connecticut shooting incidents, a renewed effort has been mounted to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to make it possible for victims of gun violence to sue firearms manufacturers and dealers on a broader array of grounds.[1][15][16]

[jeff47]

89. No, it was quite possible - they did it.

The lawsuit even went to trial. And during that trial, they failed to prove the ammunition vendors were negligent.

With or without the PLCAA, failing to prove the defendant was negligent is not very good for your negligence lawsuit. Kinda like failing to prove the victim is dead in a murder trial.

Also, if it actually was impossible, how'd the Wisconsin case happen? Not only sued, but won. You're claiming that's not possible, yet it happened. Almost like your claim is not true.

[pnwmom]

90. Don't you even read your own links?

The lawsuit was dismissed before even going to trial, because of the repeal of the CO law, thanks to the enactment of the PLCAA.

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/03/27/judge-dismisses-ammo-suit-in-holmes-case/70579702/

KUSA - The parents of a woman who was killed in the Aurora movie theater shooting have lost their bid to hold ammunition sellers liable for the attack.

A U.S. district judge dismissed Friday a lawsuit against multiple online ammo retailers that defendant James Holmes purchased bullets from.

The lawsuit was filed in September on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was shot and killed during the 2012 shooting.

The lawsuit alleged that several websites -- BulkAmmo.com, The Sportsman's Guide, BTP Arms and BulletProofBodyArmorHQ.com -- failed to screen the shooter to determine who he was or what he planned to do with the products. Twelve people were killed and another 58 were injured.

Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch states in the order that Colorado and federal law restricts liability suits against ammunition sellers, and the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence upon the part of the defendants,

[jeff47]

91. Apparently, you don't actually read the links.

Because once again, your claim that it was dismissed before trial, is not backed up by the link.

You also continue to avoid discussing the Wisconsin case. How'd they win that negligence case if your claims about the PLCAA were true?

You claim it's impossible to sue. They sued in WI and CO. They won in WI. How'd that happen if you aren't lying about the PLCAA?

[pnwmom]

92. It was DISMISSED. If there was a trial, I can't find it. All I can find is that it was dismissed,

which usually precludes a trial.

If a trial was conducted, please show me a link. I've looked and couldn't find anything about one.

[jeff47]

104. It was dismissed for failing to show any negligence.

Once again, the family failed to show any negligence in their lawsuit. If you don't show negligence, how exactly are you supposed to sue for negligence?

And you still keep ignoring the Wisconsin case where they not only sued, but won. You claim that is impossible. Do you really think pretending that case did not happen in your posts is actually a working strategy?

[beam me up scottie]

94. Outstanding research, jeff!

Well done, this thread didn't go the way the op planned.

[jeff47]

105. Not really research. It's just actually paying attention to the issue

instead of lying about it to suit one's political goals.

[Duckhunter935]

85. facts just do not matter for some

They prefer to post outright untruths and pass them off as being true.

[Vattel]

97. That is completely false.

Colorado law is much stricter than federal law in terms of limiting the liability of gun dealers and manufacturers. The Plaintiffs, as part of their suit, even tried to use PLCAA (the law that Bernie voted for) to override Colorado law so that they would only be subjected to the weaker restrictions of PLCAA.

Colorado had no liability laws that were "repealed" in virtue of PLCAA.

[Vattel]

98. Still completely false.

Colorado law is more strict than PLCAA in limiting the liability of gun dealers and manufacturers. And that is not because of PLCAA. The Colorado statute that limits the liability of gun sellers was passed in 2000, PLCAA was passed in 2005.

Facts are important.

[pnwmom]

99. Link please. I provided some and you haven't. n/t

[Vattel]

100. It is all in the judge's order of dismissal.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2187204-order-of-dismissal-phillips-v-lucky-gunner.html

Edited to add: By the way, I think Bernie's vote on PLCAA was a mistake. PLCAA is bad law that unduly restricts liability. Bernie does seem willing to reconsider that vote, though.

[pnwmom]

101. Thank you for the document. You failed to read it. Please see pages 6 - 10,

beginning with the sentence, "“The Ammunition Sellers are also protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act . . .”

And here is a news report on the topic:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/Family-to-Pay-Price-for-Trying-to-Sue-Ammo-Dealers-320224111.html

Thomas added that the case was dismissed before a trial could take place thanks to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, a federal law passed by Congress and signed by George W. Bush in 2005.
'

“What PLCAA does is it provides very broad, blanket immunity from civil lawsuits for both gun manufacturers and gun dealers,” she said. “This is one example of a situation where somebody has tried to address liability, to go after bad actions of a dealer or manufacturer and PLCAA kept them from being able to do so.”

The law makes the gun industry stand out from other industries, said Deep Gulasekaram, a second amendment expert and law professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law.


“It is certainly odd and unique,” he said. “There are very few, if any, other industries that have this sort of blanket shield.”

[Vattel]

102. I am trying to inform you of the facts here. You should be less careless

in what you say. I read the whole order and, unlike you apparently, actually understood what I was reading. Yes, the ammunition sellers were protected by both applicable state law and PLCAA. Duh! Who claimed otherwise? Not me. But the state law in this case was more restrictive than the federal law.

Thomas's claim that the case was dismissed before trial due to PLCAA is highly misleading because, as the judge explains in his order of dismissal, state law by itself provided sufficient grounds for dismissal. Thomas is a gun control advocate and may have let her advocacy influence her words.

[pnwmom]

103. And he spent 5 pages going over the PLCAA because it, all by itself,

could also have formed the basis for the dismissal.

You claim that then PLCAA was redundant. It could just as well be argued that the state law analysis was unnecessary because the PLCAA by itself was enough to decide the issue.

[Vattel]

106. Not quite. PLCAA all by itself could not have formed the basis for the dismissal

because the claim that appealed to negligent entrustment (which under PLCAA is an acceptable basis for a lawsuit if state law permits it) still requires the relevant state law to determine the actual standard for assessing negligent entrustment. The judge could also not avoid analyzing PLCAA in part because the plaintiffs appealed to PLCAA in an attempt to override Colorado law.

[pangaia]

40. yes, yes.

You have now said that at least, oh I don't know 75 times.

[restorefreedom]

47. he just said he will continue what obama does

if elected

thst is pretty cut and dried, imo. if we are on board with prez o, we will be on board with bernie.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/05/bernie-sanders-vows-continue-obamas-executive-orders-guns-elected-president.html

[MeNMyVolt]

29. I get your nuance on this, so I think the question is fair.

But, I think SBS has reshaped some of his previous stands in order to appeal to Dems outside of VT. I don't have a problem with that. Now, what he feels in his heart I can't answer. Doubt anyone can.

[pnwmom]

31. I agree.

I think he's realizing that a position that might work in most of Vermont won't fit the urban parts of the country. His position is a work in progress.

[beam me up scottie]

34. Hillary and Obama also noted the difference between rural and urban gun use:

Gun-Control Advocates Should Listen More, Obama Says

"I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations and I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake."

His comments come in the wake of the shootings last month in Newtown, Conn. The killing of 20 children in the town has spurred gun-control advocates to seek restriction on the ownership of certain firearms such as military-style assault rifles.

"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.

"So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/27/170393072/gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more-obama-says

Hillary hits Obama on faith, guns

Yesterday, Clinton hit Obama for calling Pennsylvanians "bitter," ground on which he fairly ably engaged.

Today, she's onto the other half of his San Francisco remarks, in which he linked economic frustration to clinging to religion and guns (the part he sought to walk back this morning in Muncie, Ind.).

"Sen. Obama's remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch," Clinton said. "The people of faith I know don't 'cling to' religion because they're bitter. ... I also disagree with Sen. Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration. People of all walks of life hunt — and they enjoy doing so because it's an important part of their life, not because they are bitter."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/04/hillary-hits-obama-on-faith-guns-007747

Hillary Clinton goes bold on gun safety — but she sounded a different note in 2008


But Clinton hasn’t 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 husband’s 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. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter,” she continued, in a dig at Obama’s remark at a fundraiser that disenfranchised Americans often “cling” to cultural symbols like guns and religion.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/10/hillary_clinton_goes_bold_on_gun_safety_but_she_sounded_a_different_note_in_2008/

[Vattel]

79. I don't know about you, but to me it almost seems like Hillary and Bernie

are not that far apart on gun violence issues--except when it comes to decisions about whether to use guns to invade other countries. Hillary has been way more pro-gun-violence in that sort of scenario.

[beam me up scottie]

95. They're not.

The op seems to think Hillary isn't pro-2A anymore but that's ridiculous, she's pro-gun control just like Bernie.

[fleur-de-lisa]

15. FAIL!

[pangaia]

35. Why don't you just come out and say what you REALLY mean?

"Humm.. I wonder if Bernie Sanders will have the courage to follow Obama on this, heh, heh?"

[jeff47]

38. Could you provide links to Clinton and O'Malley saying they will urge voters

to reject pro-gun candidates? Yes, you "know" they will, but where's their statements?

[pnwmom]

57. It would be consistent with their past gun positions and inconsistent with Bernie's. n/t

[jeff47]

74. So no, you don't actually have any quotes, you just wanted to bash Sanders again. (nt)

[Duckhunter935]

86. so no quotes

Sounds like you OP did not have any truth yo it then. You really might want to self delete. It makes you look petty at trying to attack senator Sanders.

[lovemydog]

39. It's a good and fair question.

It's also one of the reasons why I haven't yet endorsed, so to speak, a democratic candidate for the primaries. I'm leaning toward voting for Sanders but won't know for sure how I'll vote until I get into that voting booth and have actually voted.

I applaud President Obama's courage on the matter.

I believe more and more candidates and elected officials should stand firmly against the gun lobbyists who pander only to fear and insecurity for the sake of profits.

It's a difficult issue, I know. It's seen very differently in rural type areas than it is in urban type areas. But that doesn't mean we can't make significant headway toward sane regulations like those we have for driving cars.

[Vattel]

55. Obama doesn't want to take guns away from rural voters. So I see no conflict.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

61. Where does Annie stand on this?

[lovemydog]

78. Annie says it's a hard knock life.

Seriously, I don't know what other Annie you mean.