2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPeople who criticize Bernie's "opportunistic" approach to gun controil are missing a basic point
His critics claim he is eitehr a "gun nut" and/or is simply a hypocritical politician who is pandering to his rural base.
In defense of his positions on gun control, Bernie says he is representing his constituents, and trying to develop a consensus solution that balances the concerns of gun owners and the desire for effective gun control laws.
Bernie is being totally straightforward and honest about the issue, as usual. He personally clearly strongly supports gun control and has actively voted for that a large majority of the time. His overall platform on this is very close to that of Obama, Clinton and MOM.
Let's assume that the characterization of Vermont as a rural state that is generally skeptical of gun control is accurate.
If Bernie were truly hypocritical and opportunistic, he would simply do what Republicans (and some Democrats from red states) do, and simply take the positions of the NRA, and pander to his state's gun culture....Or conversely, if he were to pander to the Democratic base -- or the blindly ideological socialist radical his critics also claim -- he'd thumb his nose at his constituents.
However, instead, he has honestly worked to thread the needle in a responsible way.
It is fair to disagree with all or some of his specific views or actions (such as the manufacturers liability limitation). He has not followed the total gun-control party line, and on occasion has deviated for specific reasons related to specific bills and proposals.
But it is wrongheaded -- or opportunistic -- to claim he is either a gun nut or an NRA sell out.
He is doing what politicians should do, which is balance the concerns of his constituents, while pursuing his own beliefs and values. He also does have a a balanced perspective, because he knows his constituents and understands their concerns. He recognizes that not everyone who is concerned about gun control and favor "gun ownership" are all right-wing whackos. He knows first hand that many favor guin control, but do not want it to go too far in the limit of their rights.
Bernie is actually in a very good position to actually help move beyond the polarizing aspects of the issue and resolve the gridlock, and lead a successful movement to actually implement stronger gun control that reflects a national consensus.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)opportunistic on SO MANY issues throughout her career deserves nothing but to be mocked. Period.
It's just not even close how much more opportunistic HRC is when compared to Bernie on so many issues that are important to liberals/progressives. Repeatedly. Throughout her career.
She, and they, really should let the "opportunistic" thing go. It's fucking laughable.
Nyan
(1,192 posts)She's been opportunistic about guns. Period.
Just compare her position on guns in 08 and 16.
When she saw an opportunity to gain on Obama in 08, she went pro-gun.
And when she saw an opportunity to gain on Bernie this time around, she's anti-gun. And she won't stop roaring about gun safety even if she's being held down by her sexist opponent.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)if you're HRC or an HRC supporter.
They should hope and pray that her name recognition gets her past the hurdle that is Bernie Sanders.
It's their only hope. They do have the entire Establishment on their side and that is certainly a huge benefit.
ANY attack from HRC on ANY issue can only end up poorly for her. You almost have to feel sorry for her. But, not really since so very much is at stake here.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)[img]
[/img]
Armstead
(47,803 posts)[img]
[/img]
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
Cary
(11,746 posts)This is a favorite Bernie Sanders supporter tactic. Do you even realize it's a concession?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
BooScout
(10,406 posts)[img]
[/img]
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
[img]
[/img]
randys1
(16,286 posts) uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... just as long as there are some common sense votes to go along with it.
Can't say the same for Sanders
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)opportunism, I don't know what does!
We've got her infantile attack mailer that trashed Obama in 08. Obama's response was to mock her and call her "Annie Oakley." <snicker>
Now, she's found a new tack, when it comes to guns.
I agree. She needs to stop responding in ways that make her look ridiculous.
"I'm tougher on Wall Street" was laughable (notice that she stopped saying that), but accusing Bernie of being "opportunistic" is a fall-on-the-floor knee slapper.
Keystone, TPP, gay rights, the Iraq War--anyone???
Hillary is a fine campaigner when she is ahead. But look out when her support erodes. She appears to come unglued with strategies that make her look more worse than her opponent.
It appears that the great unraveling has begun.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 11, 2016, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)
I've apologized to BooScout for making an untrue accusation. So I'm editing out the accusation, but not trying to hide the fact that I said it--ergo the edit instead of the self-delete.
It sucks to be so publicly wrong, but I was.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)[img]
[/img]
Response to BooScout (Reply #21)
DisgustipatedinCA This message was self-deleted by its author.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)[img]
[/img]
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)BooScout
(10,406 posts)I never advocate violence. 
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'll be glad to self-delete the original post, or I'll be glad to leave it in place so that people can see it, along with the admission I screwed it up. Please let me know.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)And again, your apology is accepted and appreciated.
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)That's how I see it.
dsc
(52,161 posts)she is called a sell out and a whore.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)zigging and zagging on positions, and expressing different opinions based on what seems politically expedient at the moment.
Clinton is currently trying to portray herself as a crusader for gun control, and erroneously punching at Sanders for being opposed to it. In 2008 she tried to punch Obama or being a liberal who disrespected gun owners and wanted to impose draconian gun control laws.
Sanders has been consistent all along, basing his actions on specifics, and not pretending to be one thing one day, and something else on another day based on where the winds seem to be blowing.
Also, it all matters who you consider "constituents" and who you represent. If one considers their constituents to be Wall St., well....
dsc
(52,161 posts)He opposed Brady but then favored back round checks later. He ran in opposition to an assault weapons ban, and got the NRA's endorsement for having done so, and then voted for it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He had specific objections to certain parts of the original Brady Bill. Along the line he modified based on changes, and even perhaps changed his mind on occasion. . That's called governing.
Consistency does not mean that you ignore specifics and nuances, and make course corrections along the line. It means overall consistency of goals, values and basic policies and the direction one moves in.
Those alterations are different than portraying oneself as a strong supporter of gun rights in one election and calling their opponent a liberal gun hating weenie in one elction, and then taking the totally opposite position in a different election, based on what one thinks is most salable.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... now gives money to HRC then she's a horrid person.
dsc
(52,161 posts)which Sanders opposed to get that sweet NRA money, and then he stabbed them in the back and voted for it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)which Sanders opposed to get that sweet NRA money, and then he stabbed them in the back and voted for it.
See my post below, he openly supported the assault weapons ban and the NRA never gave him money.
Stop misrepresenting his record.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=994579
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's part of the gun nut meme.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)uponit7771
(90,336 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie stated at the time he favoured background checks at the state level:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
Bernie openly supported a ban on assault weapons in 1988 and 1990:
....However, the Nation and the other reports like it don’t shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They don’t explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if there’s a consistency to Sanders’ positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernie’s position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.
Yet there is an explanation. It’s consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And it’s in Bernie’s own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. House—in 1990—where he was endorsed by the NRA, even after Sanders told them that he would ban assault rifles. That year, Bernie faced Republican incumbent Peter Smith, who beat him by less than 4 percentage points in a three-way race two years before.
In that 1988 race, Bernie told Vermont sportsmen that he backed an assault weapons ban. Smith told the same sportsmen’s groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle ban—even bringing an AK-47 to his press conference. That about-face was seen as a betrayal and is the background to a June 1990 debate sponsored by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.
I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidates—as the Sanders’ campaign press secretary—and recorded it. Bernie spoke at length three times and much of what he said is relevant today, and anticipates his congressional record on gun control ever since. Look at how Bernie describes what being a sportsperson is in a rural state, where he is quick to draw the line with weapons that threaten police and have no legitimate use in hunting—he previously was mayor of Vermont’s biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nation’s characterization, isn’t “open-minded.”
As you can see, Bernie—who moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960s—has an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. He’s not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jock—being captivated by ideas and a high school miler who hoped for a track scholarship for college. But like many people who settled in Vermont for generations, he was drawn to its freer and greener pastures and respected its local culture.
“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”
That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/
Next, the 1990 debate turned to gun control. The moderator, who clearly was a Second Amendment absolutist, went after Bernie—to test his mettle after Smith’s about-face.
“Do you support additional restrictions on firearms? Do you support additional restrictive firearms legislation?” he asked. “Bernie Sanders, explain yourself, yes or no?”
“Yes,” he replied. “Two years ago, I went before the Vermont Sportsman’s Federation and was asked exactly the same question. It was a controversial question. I know how they felt on the issue. And that was before the DiConcini Bill. That was before a lot of discussion about the Brady Bill. That was before New Jersey and California passed bills limiting assault weapons.
“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”
That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.
“I said that before the election,” he continued. “The Vermont sportspeople, as is their right, made their endorsement. The endorsed Peter Smith. They endorsed Paul Poirier. I lost that election by about three-and-one-half percentage points, a very close election. Was my failure to get that endorsement pivotal? It might have been. We don’t know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. All I can say is I told the sportspeople of Vermont what I believe before the election and I am going to say it again.
“I do believe we need to ban certain types of assault weapons. I have taked to police chiefs. I have talked to the police officers out on the street. I have read some of the literature all over this country. Police chiefs, police officers are concerned about the types of weapons which are ending up in the hands of drug dealers and other criminals and our police oficers are getting outgunned.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-gun-control-critics-are-wrong-his-stance-has-been-consistent-decades
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.”
In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:
A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."
Sanders reiterated his opposition to capital punishment in 2015. "I just don’t think the state itself, whether it’s the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people," he said on a radio show.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He wanted the states to perform the background checks, instead of the government. There were also other parts of Brady he opposed.
False.
False. The NRA has never endorsed Sanders.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Here we go again with the fundie nomenclature.
Every time one see the word "haters"... you can pretty much ignore the entire post.
No one "hates" Clinton.... unless they know her personally and don't like her. Some just would not prefer her to be our candidate and perhaps don't like her political act.
And I think she's been called a "media whore".... but not a "whore". And we all know these terms do not mean the same thing...right?
Making things personal is a sign of cultish behavior. And I suppose there are conservatives who really "hate" her. But that's just as silly and illogical as goo-goo eyed adoration.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Thank you.
The rest of what you wrote.... I have no idea where you got that from. I certainly never implied anything like it.
You guys love to make things up!
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)with a command/understanding of how things are supposed to work in the this representitive....
What kills me is the way they pretend that his efforts on gun control trump all the negatives from Clinton they can't otherwise defend. Whatever protections he supports by vote for gun manufacterers in no way facillitates or increases the deaths by guns we suffer, whereas her vote for the Iraq War did what?
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)The notion that the savior Bernie is somehow not a politician is ridiculous.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)simply silly
bigtree
(85,996 posts)...at the expense of those caught in the crisis of gun violence around the country.
I don't believe hunters and enthusiasts are risking anything significant in the legislation proposed and advanced over the years. I find the argument that opponents of gun safety legislation are merely supporting the interests of their own states - at the expense of victims of widespread gun violence and deaths elsewhere - a shallow and unconvincing excuse.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)bigtree
(85,996 posts)...when those rights (or privileges) infringe on what's determined to be the public safety.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)bigtree
(85,996 posts)...isn't making your argument. It's (deliberately) distracting from one.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The argument is junk because the constitution didn't say "these restrictions on government powers only apply when the public safety allows them to not be an inconvenience".
The fact that it is the same argument the neocons use the same tired excuse for walking over the constitution is just the cherry on top, and really should give the one using the argument pause before doing so.
That is what I mean.
bigtree
(85,996 posts)...I don't believe the laws enacted infringe unnecessarily on the rights of gun owners. Maybe you can spell out where, for instance, you believe the Brady Act infringes on constitutional rights?
I don't believe the Constitution is meant to be a loaded gun pointed at our heads. There are reasonable arguments in favor of curtailments of gun ownership rights - in defense of public safety - which don't invalidate the constitutional right to own and use guns.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Let's look at the Brady Bill provisions for rejecting an applicant through a background check. Wikipedia has a compiled list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act#Provisions
There are a few provisions which stand out to me as clearly in violation of the constitutional right to bear arms.
#1: Notice that the requirement is not that of a felony, only as determined by prison sentence. Tons of low-level recreational drug offenses end up here. Therefore, you lose your right to defend yourself? Uh....
#6: This is a huge issue. Because of DADT and those discharged before the advent of DADT the discharges due to being LGBTQ resulted in less than honorable or even flat-out dishonorable discharges. The Brady bill considers those individuals as unfit to carry firearms as civilians. WTF? (This will only stop being an issue once the Restore Honor to Service Members Act is passed)
#7: Clear violation of the 14th amendment: the 14th amendment implies all persons receive those rights, regardless of citizenship status. Also, what if the person regains their citizenship?
#9: misdemeanor? That's a low bar to deprive someone of a constitutional right. Not to mention that the person may not even be involved with the person anymore. In the case of a romantic partner, the party might not be married anymore. But this law applies even after the fact.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)who agree with him. So, when making decisions on an important issue - say, gun control or abortion or war or civil rights - where a majority of his constituents may disagree with him, will he compromise his principles in order to "thread the needle?" If so, that sounds very different than the Bernie Sanders we're being sold - the guy who stands up and fights for what is right, regardless how many people line up on the other side against him.
You rightly say that he is a politician doing what politicians do - trying to find common ground and compromise in order to get to a solution that works for everyone. I don't see anything wrong with that - and you don't seem to, either - but to many of Sanders supporters, that makes every other politician who does it a sell-out, a whore, a corporatist, etc. But it somehow makes Sanders even more appealing.
How do you think those Sanders' supporters will reconcile the Bernie Sanders' they are working so hard to get elected with the Sanders that you are describing?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You make some good points.
However, ultimately, supporters of any candidate have to take a leap of faith and assume that the person they support will overall represent their own values and policies and goals. And, such trust also extends after an election, with the pattern of what an office holder does on balance.
People who support Sanders have that trust in him, and unless he were to screw the pooch in office, would give him the benefit of the doubt when he had to compromise or do something they disagree with.
I suppose Clinton's supporters have that same faith in her. That's what makes politics.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)They are claiming that the very act of compromising is damning - and the fact that they do compromise is the essence of WHY they don't trust Hillary Clinton and other politicians. But on that basis, if compromise is the problem, then they shouldn't trust Sanders either.
But it sounds like what's really happening is that they have two sets of standards - one for Sanders and another for everyone else. And under the first set, Bernie Sanders can do no wrong, regardless what he may do or how similar his approach is to the very same actions that have generated scorn and disdain when done by others.
I appreciate your honesty. I wish more of your folks were like you - this would be a different place.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)it is the history of her past "compromises" and their terrible outcomes for us that is the problem
i put compromises in quotations because, looking back it seems like those outcomes were exactly what the 1% wanted
i can only speak for myself but it seems even when bernie compromises he gets something for the 99% out of it
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... Sanders has or will not ever throw stones crowd is delusional
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"His critics claim he is eitehr a "gun nut" and/or is simply a hypocritical politician who is pandering to his rural base."
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... picked another type of vice.
Their Sanitation of Sanders is obsurd
Armstead
(47,803 posts)uponit7771
(90,336 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)constitutes, she also represented her constitutes on the immunity bill, also received donations from her constitutes who are employed on Wall Street just as Lockheed Martin employees contributes to Sanders.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)it's okay when Bernie does it because he can be trusted! He's pure. And he only did it to help create a few hundred or so jobs for his constituents in Burlington (with a price tag over ONE TRILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS) who, in turn, donate heavily to Bernie's campaign. But, um, he's not a politician and truly believes that the failed and flawed F-35 is a good investment for the MiC.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)publically traded on Wall Street, can't have a double standard here.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Yep. Publicly traded in Wall Street - but not a bad corporation. Not like the ones supporting Hillary Clinton!
bvf
(6,604 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)to a SUBTHREAD. Don't you know the difference?
bvf
(6,604 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)unless you want to argue that a discussion can go from gun control legislation to F-35s without anyone changing the subject.
Would you like me to self-delete my response to you, then? Ask nicely.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)But you know as well as I that an error remains an error until it's corrected.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How much money did Bernie make giving speeches to the gun industry or Lockheed Martin?
"Bernie's a corporatist"?
That's as hilarious as the "Bernie's a bankster" meme!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)funding bills over a trillion.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
bvf
(6,604 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
You're killing me!
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)HRC will not mention gun control when she is campaigning
in the West, in Ohio, in Florida.Should she win the nomination
that issue will be pushed into the background.
Any takers?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and I don't want a President who thinks it acceptable to accommodate himself to the concerns of that demographic to the exclusion of the majority of Americans.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this primary election season is how Sanders has pushed so many "progressives" to the right on guns. We don't need any more pro-gun excuses in this country.
I understand most of his supporters don't live in communities racked by gun violence. We all, however, don't benefit from that kind of privilege, and I am sick to death of hearing about how those concerns or lack thereof mean so much more than mine. The lives of people in urban areas count too, even if we are "corporatist sellouts" for failing to rake in $80k plus a year from some corporation and not living in some gated suburban community or bucolic rural hamlet.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)but genuine. He could actually believe that gun corporations are special, deserve a favored place in American capitalism.
He himself, however, is not a gun owner so his positions were formed in the political climate of VT.
That isn't the issue for me. The problem is his voting record is unacceptable. That is the point you want to avoid at all costs, but it isn't going away. I don't care how it's justified or twisted. I care what his positions have been, as manifested not simply through random statements but through his votes in the House and Senate. That tells me where he is on guns, and it is way too far to the right for me.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I look at his record somewhat differently. He has consistently supported gun control.
Problem is that the devil is frequently in the details.Questions are always raised about such specifics, like whether enforcement is responsibility of state, federal or some balance. One can support the basic goal of a bill, but oppose the way it would implement those goals.
The other problem is that gun control is too frequently placed in the eitehr/or category that one has to be for or against. In real;ity it's a matter of how, and what steps would actually move in the best direction.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)experience with gun violence. The question is this:
Do you want to win the WH or not? Our state is a
swingstate (still), but red leaning. If this issue is
brought to the front all the time, the dems here will
lose, as we have seen not long ago.
Leave that issue until after Nov. 2016, if you want
to get a dem. WH.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Clinton supports gun control so do Bernie and OM. That's been established.
No need to hand the GOP a wedge issue. It can be dealt with after the election.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)That one is a far-reaching Federal and outright shitty bill for victims of gun violence. He should have NEVER voted for it. He should apologize for that vote just as Hillary Clinton apologized for her 2002 AUMF Against Iraq bill and he hasn't to date.
His vote to help push the bill through gave the gun industry - as the only American industry - immunity against civil lawsuits when victims of gun violence want to sue due to negligence by gun manufacturers (Bushmaster), gun dealers (like the Bulls Eye Shooter supply store that 'lost' 238 high powered rifles of which one ended up in the deadly hands of the DC Shooter), and gun sellers.
The PLCAA effectively usurped all State laws that allow for suits against the above. And until he apologizes for that vote and promises to overturn it should he become president, he is approving it and he'll be in NO position to "actually help move beyond the polarizing aspects of the issue and resolve the gridlock". Anyone who believes that nonsense is living in la-la-Land.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If that's not good enough for you, there's nothing more to say.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)isn't enamored with him despite him being there for twenty five years.
If anyone can alter the PLCAA, it's Hillary Clinton. Instead of castigating Democrats, she's worked hard to build strong ties with them, and she, unlike Bernie, knows where her opponents' skeletons are hiding and where the bodies are buried - and she'll have NO QUALMS using this leverage to get good policy through.
wouldsman
(94 posts)"Bernie is actually in a very good position to actually help move beyond the polarizing aspects of the issue and resolve the gridlock, and lead a successful movement to actually implement stronger gun control that reflects a national consensus. "
While Hilary has currently positioned herself nicely, and in tune with current polling and sentiment, I fear she is such a polarizing figure that no matter how right she might be on this issue she will not be able to move any agenda.
I think Bernie is the one current politician who could actually get something done on this issue.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They do false choices.
Either you want to flood the streets with guns including giving criminals access or you want to do a gun grab and take great grampa's squirrel musket from over the mantelpiece.
Then there are the people who use these drama queen fantasy scenarios invoking the image of the huge hulking attacker argument in favor of a 100 round clip,....adding: "Why do you want to take away my wife's ability to defend herself?"
That's the level of discourse.
To think that we used to talk about banning hand guns.
This is a National Security issue as far as I'm concerned. More people die from guns now than cars. It's gotten so bad I read where first aid kits should be updated to include small sponges to stuff in the holes.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
lark
(23,099 posts)Look, no one is perfect and on guns, to me, he leaves a lot to be desired. I think the "national consensus" is just BS. When will the rural gun nuts ever form a consensus with big city gun controllers? NEVER and he knows it so this is just a total cop-out. Note he's not waiting for consensus on the minimum wage, college, war machine, voting, only on guns. Sorry, Bernie's wrong on guns. That won't stop me from voting for him because he's still better than any of the Repugs on guns, just wish he'd be more progressive on this one issue.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I got no problem with honest disagreements with his positions and handling of the issue.
I'm more addressing the misleading use of it by an opponent and others for opportunistic reasons.
Personally, I'm kind of "Meh." I agree with what he is trying to do overall, disagree with him on some specifics and -- in all honesty -- don't envision any changes happening under anyone to an extent that will curb the level of violence.
MrChuck
(279 posts)people cannot comprehend the nature of drafted legislation?
Really. Imagine you're a congressman and a really nice bill hits your desk.
You're reading it and enjoying all the freedom and liberty it provides when all of a sudden you read a line item that totally stinks, like "Freedom freedom freedom, liberty liberty liberty, and a giant raise for congress...or, in addition we will cut benefits for veterans. "
Those are hypotheticals but they're very common.
Nitram
(22,800 posts)I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Nitram
(22,800 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)will send you all the guns any tyrannical dictator babarian could need! Plus Jets and bombs and a whole host of WMDs.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... where he took similar stances on guns that Bernie had when representing his state constituents, but adjusted his campaign as president to take more gun control friendly stances when running for president. He was attacked in similar fashion then as Bernie is now.
http://factcheck.bootnetworks.com/article115.html
If we want decent candidates to rise up the ranks in a state like Vermont, we need to see how the need for does or doesn't need to be implemented in various ways in a state like Vermont to be someone who works responsibly for most of his voters in that state.
When you don't have a lot of cities with gun violence, and guns are mostly used for hunting in that state, to take a very restrictive stance on guns in states like that works against getting elected. Bernie and Howard Dean have both taken responsible positions over time to help with gun control when needed, but not also be too restrictive in a state where responsible gun owners can support them.
Yes, there are many gun nuts that don't feel any laws regulating guns are needed, and there are also some who feel there's no reason for anyone to have guns at all too (in response to a lot of horrible violence in their communities). I and many others think that there are responsible politicians that don't need to follow either of those extreme positions, and if one works intelligently, they can work for decent regulations that prevent gun violence, and still allow people to hunt for dinner in rural communities, where that's a practical way to live off the land and feed one's family cheaply.