his voting strategy wasn't his only problem.

Naturally, shooting people is a horrific crime.

That's why I'm in favor of gun control. Are you?

Which one of HRC's proposals would have done the trick?

... or Bloomberg's?

Domestic abuse should be a reason not to have a gun. The same GOP congress that just got shot at voted to give mentally ill people guns...and want to give everyone a silencer.

.. anyone convicted of domestic abuse, or under a restraining order based on domestic abuse, is ineligible to pass an NICS (background) check.

So.. next?

misdemeanor. You have to deny guns to people who are charged with domestic abuse period...and all such cases need to be prosecuted.

It doesn't have to be a felony.

And internet sales are already regulated, you can't just order a gun online.

Even if the charge is bogus. What's needed is taking domestic abuse seriously, and making sure there is a conviction where it actually exists.

... are all covered.

Next?

the guns from their murderous hands, the will continue to kill...if you are charged with domestic abuse...you should not be able to get a gun permit...done.

And if you are found guilty it's a fine deal.

If you are calling for a lifelong loss of rights just based on an arrest no matter what the outcome- that's insane.

The courts would toss it out so fast your head would spin. Due process is a bedrock of our legal system and of how we protect civil rights and quite frankly no real progressive would ever call for eliminating it.

Talk about a dangerous step in the wrong direction, a lifelong loss of right based not on a conviction but an arrest.

That would set a dangerous precedent. Allow that and then you set the stage to allow a loss of voting rights if you are ever just charged with "voter fraud". Or anything else.

Nobody should ever be stripped of any rights without due process. Period. Anything contrary his the way right wing totalitarians run things.

The courts exist for a reason.

Having worked domestic violence as a deputy, exclusively working only those cases for several years, I can tell you that a shockingly high percentage of accusations and protection orders come from spouses seeking an advantage in divorce or custody who just make things up, often on the advice of shady divorce lawyers. The idea of stripping a persons rights permenatly based on that is inconceivable.

.. so the answer to the original question is, "No, there are no proposed laws that would have avoided this crime."

Correct?

They can't help themselves, like I can't help feeling sorry for Steve Scalise

was removed. The man was violent for years.

So it's not new laws that are needed, its prosecutors and courts that won't let people off after they are arrested.

Note the ** for the last 2 on the list.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:
- convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
- who is a fugitive from justice;
- who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
- who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
- who is an illegal alien;
- who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
- who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
- **who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
- **who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

of the Brady Act. Those are the loopholes that need to be closed.

"A criminal offender's ineligibility to possess a firearm may be temporary. Nearly all States allow at least some offenders to regain possession rights by executive pardon, court order, administrative proceeding or the passage of a certain number of years after conviction or discharge from a sentence without further violations. Many States require several steps before rights are restored. For example, persons who obtain a pardon or maintain a clean record for a number of years may be required to petition a court for an order restoring rights. In some States, certain offenders cannot regain the right to possess a firearm."

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/ssprfs99.txt

The issue is he was let off without a conviction by courts and prosecutors who didn't do their job.

The laws already exists to prevent him from owning firearms but that requires others do their job and convict him.

some voters are motivated by what some dismissively deride as "identity politics".

...to solve a state by state issue is a waste of time?

IMHO, many gun issues need state level solutions. Often state level issues don't draw enough attention to ever get folks moving. Passing some grand federal law finds allies everywhere. There's national attention and media. We also have federal laws that sound nice but the money for enforcement is never allocated. The enforcement isn't funded. Those laws are worse than non-existent. They serve as distractions.

to finally pass the Brady Act, so I'm not sure that "grand federal law" necessarily finds allies that are as strong as the opposition.

Similarly, as we have seen with marriage equality, voting rights, and reproductive autonomy, state-by-state solutions frequently game the system with legalistic loopholes.

Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

so important.

Some even want to make silencers available too.

Someone can shoot up a whole household of people, quietly get away and the neighbors won't hear a thing.

Just fu_king perfect.

Draw from that what you like.

Most guns still end up in the 130-145 range which is louder than your average jet engine.

Hearing protection is a big one. Any industrial hygiene or industrial safety expert will tell you it's far more preferable to reduce noise at the source than try to mask it with ear plugs or muffs.

OSHA often recommends the use of suppressors for those who use firearms in the course of their job as a safety measure to prevent hearing loss.

It reduces noise pollution when people are shooting for sport or recreation.

It makes hunting safer. A hunter is faced with two choices, wear ear plugs and have less situational awareness of what is around you or do not wear them and damage their hearing. Use of a suppressor allows a hunter to be safer by hearing what is around them while not risking hearing damage.

In many parts of Europe they are not only widely available but they are considered the polite way to use your firearms.

And the odds of criminal misuse are negligible. A person can make a suppressor as easy as threading an oil filter on the end of a barrel and metal ones can be made from parts found at any hardware store. But despite them being so easy to make criminals don't, so the idea that if they can buy them with a background check will make them get used by criminals more when they can make them now without them is just illogical fantasy.

Wouldn't you be more comfortable in a less progressive site?

defending gun rights that lead to mass murder...most mass murderers have domestic abuse in their backgrounds.

You didn't write this piece, Hodgkinson was a nutjob, and is definitely
is not the reason Trump was elected.

The people who voted for Trump were responsible for electing Trump.

and the reason she didn't was that people who knew Trump would be a disaster don't understand what a "binary choice" is.

They wanted to make a point, now we all have to live with it.

Google Otto Wels, German election, 1932.

You see, Otto Wels was not too popular. He had been around for a long time. He represented the status quo in Germany. So, many voters drifted away and let a new leader take charge. Guess who that guy was.

Sometimes we may not like the choice we have, but the alternative is much worse.

That is the total number of votes he got--no other votes were added to his total. That is the only number Hillary had to beat. Blaming others are is just a circular firing squad exercise.

................but here are the results of the July, 1932 election in Germany.

Granted that this is a parliamentary election, so it is a different dynamic than the U.S., but the Nazi party, headed up by Hitler received the most seats and the highest percentage.

Link to Results:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932

that election. Hitler's ascension to the Reichstag required the assent of President Hndenburg, acting at the behest of that conservative putz Van Papen.

IOW, without Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler, he would have been kept outside to bay at the moon, as befits an Austran cur-dog.

His plurality made him a player and with the most seats in Reichtag, they had to accomadate him,
Kinda like May in GB. You have to defer to the most seats.

I concede that our system doesn't exactly match up to a parliamentary system, but the similarities between the eection that elevated Hitler in Germany and the election of Trump the are astounding.

Hitler received the most seats because the Germans felt the same way about Otto Wels in 1932 as Americans felt about Hillary Clinton in 2016.

As a result, we both got to reap what we sowed.

I voted for Hillary but the continued demonizing of independent voters at its worst...

On November 8, 2016, only Hillary Clinton or Donal Trump would become our next President. It was a very clear choice. Anyone that made some other choice, but hated Trump IS responsible for what Trump does, period. There are many events in life that can't be undone once they happen. Letting Trump become President is such an event. I saw a picture of Trump on a podium with the Presidential seal on the podium. I know he has spoke from podiums before after taking office, but this was the first time that I saw that image. I almost threw up.

Elections are about consequences and outcomes, not conscience. If your "conscience" lead you to vote or your actions enabled the worst outcomes, you had a hand in your fate. "Independents" own Trump as much as Trumpistas - and that's just stating facts.

And he may have cost us Georgia 6...these people are the gift that keeps on giving...so called independents...green spoilers.

not a very smart way of 'winning them over' .

Oh, and read the TOS.

Otherwise you may not be here that long.

You'd think all the millions of shitheads who voted FOR TRUMP had nothing whatsoever to do with his winning the Presidency. It's entirely the fault of people who DIDN'T vote for Trump. What a crock.

but sat out the election, voted third party or wrote in names in the General Election made up the marginal difference in the race.

That's just a fact in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

But that doesn't make them MORE responsible than all the Trump voters. I suspect most of them hated both candidates pretty equally. If they had been MADE to vote for one or the other, I think it's just as likely they'd have voted for Trump.

In NC, unaffiliated voter registrations are outpacing those for R or Dem... we don't win without them.

progressive...he was a green spoiler.

and green spoiler sounds right.

when the option includes election people like Trump, simply don't earn the right to claim the term "progressives."

They are not progressives, but regressives whose actions set back progress.

anyone. Illinois vote tallies.....

H. Clinton 55.4% 2,977,498 20
R D. Trump 39.4% 2,118,179
L G. Johnson 3.8% 204,491
G J. Stein 1.4% 74,112

that people who voted for Stein in solid red or solid blue states did not affect the outcome and all this broadbrush demonizing and attribution of blame is annoying and stupid.

However, I live in a swing state and would be far more pissed at a fellow Virginian voting third party than at a Californian or Texan. They can AFFORD a symbolic protest vote; I can't without risking the future of the planet.

against the Democratic nominee, he is helping the GOP and Trump. He is not and was not progressive.

We had a lot like that. In November they voted Stein or Johnson. They never believed in our core values as Democrats.

became a BOB'er...he was angered by income inequality which is not libertarian as you know. They are running ads in Georgia thus, this...guy could cost us another election...he and his sort sure helped elect the Donald.

They need to keep the race a local issue about who is best for the Georgia 6th. Handel is an evil asshole, she has proven that over and over. She will throw whatever shit that she can grab on to, Ossoff and his team must skillfully parry away her desperate attacks. One way would veto embrace the unexpectedness and suddenness of the Scalise shooting and point out how people without health insurance can be fine one day and in grave circumstances the next.

I voted Bernie in the primaries and Hillary in the General. But I'm in California. Clinton won by 20 points here. The friends I have who live here and chose to vote Green or not vote in the General- they're not why we've got Trump. They're also (and I'm also) not in any way in support of the type of violence this nutjob perpetrated. The op is a fucked up attempt to paint the millions who supported Bernie as being like the shooter.

I guess his conscience was killing him, and he had to do something about it.

We have a 2 party system. We don't have the systems that other countries have where there are lots of parties to choose from and they build coalitions to form a government in a parliamentary system, or instant runoff or ranked voting.

What bothers me is how many of these anti-Trumpers voted for Dems in other offices like Senator? Even someone who doesn't like Hillary should see the benefit from more Dems in congress.

Which means some votes are worth more than others. I live in California. I voted for Hillary in the General, but frankly since she won by 20 points here and anything over 50% +1 does nothing towards getting the Dem elected Protest votes here do not help the Republicans. Fix the fucking electoral system and you have a point. Until that happens millions of us live knowing our votes in the General are essentially worthless.

Trump had millions of fewer votes, it weakens his support to win the electoral college but lose the popular vote.

In a rational world i'd agree- and yes, part of why I voted for Hillary in a state where her win was a foregone conclusion was because I fully expected her to win and wanted her to have as much of a popular vote lead as possible.

That said, Obama had huge electoral college and popular vote wins and was treated by Republicans as illegitimate from moment one. They were never gonna give Hillary any kind of honeymoon or credit for a mandate.

I care about our popular vote win, and much of the world too. History is being made here and kids will learn about this in school some day.

This is much bigger than the republican party

Gun nuttery notwithstanding, there will always be people who vote third party.

that third party voters, those who stayed home, those who wrote in names, etc. would have voted for Hillary. If they had wanted to vote for her, they would have done so! It's just as likely they'd have voted for Trump, if they were forced to choose between one or the other.

Author of article does not understand how a US President is elected

It's people who voted like him. I know one single vote doesn't change an election. I'm not a dope.

He's an example of a mind set that was far more prevalent in the Dem. party than in the Rep. party that swung key battleground states to Trump.

For Christ's sake, Ted Cruz endorsed Trump after Trump accused his father of being part of a conspiracy to kill JFK.

Get the point now?

Jill stein.

While I see your point - I don't think this guy was wrapped too tight to begin with.

Anyone who can open fire on other human beings like that is not well.

and this guy not only gets paid for this shit he's a senior editor.

Divisive and pointless.

And she got about same number of votes as Obama did in 2012. And it's always more difficult for the party in power after 8 years.

The huge difference being court striking down voting rights and russian interference and comey.

"And she got about same number of votes as Obama did in 2012"

And Obama ran against John McCain and Mitt Romney, both respected public officials - not that I voted for either of the GOP candidates. Hillary Clinton ran against an over privileged, sexual predator, con-man and lost the electoral college. SMH

"And it's always more difficult for the party in power after 8 years."

Like GHWB after Reagan? The Democratic Party needs to stop looking for excuses to accept losing power and start looking for reasons to fight and challenges to overcome.

"The huge difference being court striking down voting rights and russian interference and comey. "

There were such differences between exit polls (which WERE accurate BEFORE touchscreen voting) and final tallies that they stopped doing exit polls. To me, the only difference between Russians altering the election results and the GOP altering the election results is that Putin and friends represent a foreign government - something that people have been warning the Democratic Party would eventually happen if they didn't take action.

Mccain and Romney didn't appeal to racists which trump did.

There are a lot of them in this country. Just look at all the republican members of congress like scalise.

Even though the GOP was following Reagan, they unfortunately kept trying and did win. If "Daddy" Bush had never said "Read my lips: no new taxes." he might have had a chance at being a two term President - Perot took more votes from Bill Clinton than he did Bush. Our Party needs to stop looking for excuses to lose. When our candidates stumble they need to recover and keep going. I still think it isn't being "too liberal" that costs elections, it's that a certain amount of voters like shallow judgments of how a "leader" carries themselves. They want elected officials that are like "leaders" in popular media - "strong" and "forthright".

"Mccain and Romney didn't appeal to racists which trump did."

Dog whistles is the preferred way for GOP candidates to appeal to racists, Trump is too stupid and ignorant to understand that the racism is supposed to be subtle (subtle by the standards of the GOP anyways).

the reason we have a difficult time is because many white people vote on race . Obama's approvals among white people went down after he talked about black/brown people being unfairly stopped by cops. Obama also had to hold back on talking about race and pretend with the whole post racial crap.

hillary was more open and accepting of diversity and it made many white people uncomfortable.

the fact they voted for someone like trump itself proves it.

and contend that people who hate Trump and voted for anyone but Hillary in the General elected Trump and only have themselves to blame.

It may have only affected Penn, Wisc and Mich, but it could have affected any stat. After all, Hillary only won NH by a couple of thousand votes. Before the count, on one knew what affect a blank, a write in ot a Stein vote would have.

If Bernie had won the Primary, you would have expected me to support him, and I would have. Because I know what a fucking binary choice means.

The Democratic Party has offered uninspiring campaigns*, but far worse has done almost nothing to fight election fraud. More Democratic voters were purged than voted third party or left their ballots blank.

"If Bernie had won the Primary, you would have expected me to support him, and I would have."

Actually I don't know you or how you felt about Sanders, or if you live in a red or blue state where one vote will literally not make a difference.


"Because I know what a fucking binary choice means."

I'm not sure that you or the DNC actually do. Our party IS in the minority at the Federal level as well as State governments across much of the nation and still our party leadership wants to keep doing things the exact same way they've done them since the 80's. If you ask our party leaders and campaign managers to try to win "Red" states, they think you mean throwing women, lgbtq, immigrants, Muslims and minorities under the bus and start talking about Gawd 'n' Guns 'n' Tax Cuts yee-haw!




*I was looking forward to casting my mostly symbolic vote for the Democratic candidate (most likely Hillary who I thought tougher and smarter than Bill) when campaigning started in 2015. By the time the general election came around, I was ready for my symbolic vote to be a protest vote. It wasn't because of the Russians (pizzagate, et al), or Comey, or Benghaaziiiii11!, her private server, or the vast right-wing conspiracy that labors against ALL Democratic candidates. For me it was Hillary Clinton's decisions. Especially some of her more dubious campaign choices - like getting an endorsement from Henry Kissinger. His endorsement is like a Klan endorsement: it shouldn't be accepted or even sought after by a Democratic candidate.

Welcome to DU, person I haven't encountered before



Really needs repeating:
"Our party IS in the minority at the Federal level as well as State governments across much of the nation and still our party leadership wants to keep doing things the exact same way they've done them since the 80's. If you ask our party leaders and campaign managers to try to win "Red" states, they think you mean throwing women, lgbtq, immigrants, Muslims and minorities under the bus and start talking about Gawd 'n' Guns 'n' Tax Cuts yee-haw!"

That's one of the biggest black political holes I've ever seen. Democrats assuming they had parity when Clinton, then Obama, were in office. All the while the right has been systematically trouncing them at every level.

I know by my own hidden posts that people want to hear Clinton campaign criticism about as much as I want to hear it's "the left's" fault that Trump won.

"It’s been a bit of a love fest between former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton the past week. They shared a stage at the groundbreaking of the State Department’s new Diplomacy Center, Clinton wrote a glowing review of Kissinger’s new book, and then President Richard Nixon’s foreign policy adviser on Saturday offered an (almost) endorsement for a Clinton presidency.

Kissinger, a controversial figure in American diplomatic history, was asked during an NPR interview whether Clinton would make a good president.

“I know Hillary as a person. And as a personal friend, I would say yes, she’d be a good president,” Kissinger said. “But she’d put me under a great conflict of interest if she were a candidate because I intend to support the Republicans.”

>>>NPR reporter Scott Simon asked whether, putting partisan politics aside, Kissinger would be comfortable with a Clinton White House.

“Yes, I’d be comfortable with that president,” Kissinger said. But then he added, “You’ve just lost me I don’t know how many friends.”"<<<

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/09/07/did-kissinger-endorse-clinton-for-president-almost/?utm_term=.7668b0c6552c

"Can Clinton corner Condi, Kissinger?

Winning more endorsements from wary GOP foreign policy experts presents a big opportunity.

By Nahal Toosi

08/08/2016 05:28 AM EDT

Updated 08/08/2016 05:00 PM EDT
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

As Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign reaches out to Republicans alarmed by Donald Trump's national security blunders, there’s a group of high-profile GOP hold-outs whose endorsement would be a major coup if the Democrat could win them over.

Condoleezza Rice, James Baker, George Shultz and Henry Kissinger are among a handful of so-called Republican “elders” with foreign policy and national security experience — people who have held Cabinet-level or otherwise high-ranking positions in past administrations — who have yet to come out for or against Trump.

A person close to Clinton said her team has sent out feelers to the GOP elders, although it wasn't clear if those efforts were preliminary or more formal requests for endorsement, or if they were undertaken through intermediaries. Clinton campaign aides did not respond when asked if they had solicited endorsements or tried to persuade the elders to speak out against Trump. "
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-republican-elder-statesmen-kissinger-226680

There was an effort in Clinton's campaign to get "serious" Republicans to if not endorse her, to at least say that Trump would be worse. Part of the Old Guard's endless chase after "Reagan-Democrats" and the "Sensible Middle".

and there are questions as to whether or not an endorsement was even sought, yet you cite that as an example of one of the candidate's "more dubious campaign choices" which led you to cast a "symbolic protest vote", whatever on earth that means.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-has-not-sought-henry-kissingers-support-but-so-what-if-she-had

also... SIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I was a strong Hillary supporter in 2008 and when she dropped out, I supported Barack. I gave money ($500), I campaigned for him and I knocked on doors in New Hampshire.

I certainly know what a binary choice is and I don't want to argue the point. When left with just one person or the other, you take into account what's best for what you stand for. Hillary's choice for the Supreme Court would have been far better than Trump's. Her appointments to all other judicial nominations would have been far better than Trump's. Her appointments to the Labor Board, would have been far better than Trump's.

Too often, people who think like you do make the perfect the enemy of the good and that's why we lose elections.

For the record, I am a Ward Chairman for the Democratic party in my City and have been a delegate at every biannual state convention for 20 years. I sit on Labor PACs and work to win elections in my home state of Massachusetts (we have a pretty good record here).

And if you must know me, here's the link to me and you can check out everything to see if I'm telling the truth.

Link:
http://archive.boston.com/lifestyle/specials/bill_brett/nov08seen2?pg=27

Maybe that's why Jill Stein was invited to Russia, a nice campaign donation so she can buy couple million dollars of her own books to hand out free to her fans. help shave off votes from Hillary for those FEW republicans who just couldn't vote for the pussy groupe(R).

So sick of posts that engage in demonizing other Democrats and progressives who don't think and do exactly as the majority do instead of blaming those who actually voted for Trump, or dog forbid, actually trying to figure out what is so wrong with our economy that people saw Trump as a viable option and then making efforts to fix it!

The shooter was about hatred for the other, that is republican or libertarian, not Democratic. Anyone that can't see that doesn't understand the core values that underlay being a Democrat.

And enemies lists shrink parties, not build them. Grow up.

Jill Stein.

The post isn't about the shooter. It's about blaming those who didn't vote for Trump for electing Trump.

Thanks

Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

But keep hating on your fellow progressives who don't measure up to your standards. That will fix everything!

Trump voters voted for Trump, but too many "Progressives" thought it was cute to write in a name or vote 3rd party.

That reasoning cost us the election.

Is all of us KNEW that poor people, immigrants, women would be hurt by the policies Trump wanted. Yet people that claim to be for the environment, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, minority rights wasted their vote when there was a clear imperative not to do that. I just got accused of hating progressives that voted third party. I don't hate those people, but I also have no respect for them and question why they call themselves progressives.

There was a very clear choice. They failed.

'Signs of a deeply disturbed family life kept surfacing from the well-kept house with the pale sun awning and the pretty flowerpots off a gravel road here.

One of James T. Hodgkinson’s foster daughters killed herself in a gruesome fashion: by dousing herself with gasoline and setting herself on fire. Another described herself as “more of a hindrance than a daughter.” And when Mr. Hodgkinson dragged his grandniece by her hair and tried to choke her, the police were called in, and he was charged with battery. In previously sealed court papers obtained by the local newspaper, she described him as an abusive alcoholic who hit her repeatedly.

Elsewhere in America, people learned this past week who Mr. Hodgkinson was: the seemingly deranged gunman who, fueled by leftist rage, opened fire on a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va., grievously wounding Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the Republican whip, and three other people. He was carrying a list with the names of at least three Republican lawmakers and had pictures of the ballpark on his cellphone, law enforcement officials said on Friday.

But here in Belleville, a quaint little city where flags fly on Main Street and the movie theater marquee is set off in lights, Mr. Hodgkinson, 66, who was killed when Capitol Police officers returned his fire, was known to some friends and neighbors as a volatile figure.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/us/virginia-shooting-james-hodgkinson-illinois.html

I think that how he voted, though regrettable, pales into insignificance compared with his violent actions.

In every violent crime motive is explored.

This perpetrator hated Donald Trump and Republicans.

yet, when it became a binary choice, he advocated for a third party candidate or a write in.

There is no question that in this narrow Hillary defeat, those voters cost her the three crucial electoral states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

The perpetrator hated Trump, but he inadvertently helped to elect him. He created his own motive.

I would wager Democrats who didn't vote at all had a much more severe impact.

Last edited Sun Jun 18, 2017, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)

that they let that override their ability to make good decisions. Thus, no bad decisions or actions by Stein voters surprise me.

I expect any and all kinds of self destructive and other kinds of destructive behaviors from them.

After all, they enabled Trump and they should have known better.

But it doesn't mean it's wrong.