Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
97 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We need a democratic nominee who gives the NRA no quarter! (Original Post) boston bean Feb 2016 OP
Yes! leftofcool Feb 2016 #1
YES!!!!!!!!!!! boston bean Feb 2016 #2
I do not. JRLeft Feb 2016 #3
I figured there was some !! Makes your support of bernie boston bean Feb 2016 #4
That's why I support him, he's for an assault weapons ban I am not. JRLeft Feb 2016 #6
Some? In my NJ middle class Democratic hamlet of 60,000--50% of households own firearms. TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #56
Thank you, by the NRA is a place where you can get discounts on ammo and weapons. JRLeft Feb 2016 #67
Yes. Long overdue. n/t livetohike Feb 2016 #5
exactly...FIRE THE GOP, SINK THE NRA, GUN CONTROL IS COMING, COMING TO THE USA mgmaggiemg Feb 2016 #7
Yes! Cali_Democrat Feb 2016 #8
Yep. We need scalia's literal reading of the constitution overturned. boston bean Feb 2016 #9
No, we don't. JRLeft Feb 2016 #11
So you think Scalia was a good justice dsc Feb 2016 #13
No, but our guns should not be taken away. Background checks and the closing of the gun show JRLeft Feb 2016 #19
Who wants to take away the guns you own?? boston bean Feb 2016 #23
It's been mentioned many times on this board. JRLeft Feb 2016 #25
I mention it sometimes because I wouldnt shed a tear if no one on this country had a gun. boston bean Feb 2016 #48
It's a hobby of mine, I love going to the range. I do not consume animals or animal byproducts. JRLeft Feb 2016 #54
No matter how you use it its use is to kill. boston bean Feb 2016 #59
Good luck with your dream, it's never going to happen. JRLeft Feb 2016 #61
Right. So your argument to not have a no quarter for NRA litmus test boston bean Feb 2016 #64
this getting fun. Never expected this kind of disagreement from liberals boston bean Feb 2016 #17
Disagree. Let me elaborate. JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #10
I find it intelligent to recognize the NRA has no good ideas. boston bean Feb 2016 #12
I find it the most unintelligent form of politics to declare opposition to an unknown quantity. JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #16
Maybe if you like the NRA. Do you? boston bean Feb 2016 #18
Nope. I disagree with them on most things. I just prefer a more intelligent politics. JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #26
"I just prefer a more intelligent politics." beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #28
Why thank you! JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #40
Back atcha, friend! beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #49
So the fella ultimately made an intelligent decision? boston bean Feb 2016 #29
Did I say I disagreed with the PLCAA? No, you seem to have assumed that. JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #32
You never said. But your responses were leading both ways. boston bean Feb 2016 #34
So in the face of what appeared to you to be conflicting information, you simply picked one? JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #35
I based my responses on both. boston bean Feb 2016 #37
Okay, that is just funny. JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #38
. boston bean Feb 2016 #52
Others clearly do differ. Good on you though. Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #51
And there you have it. ^^^ Eleanors38 Feb 2016 #73
Let's hope Hillary can honor the position she UglyGreed Feb 2016 #14
Is Hillary out of the duck blind with her six shooters now? Political expediency demanded it. Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #53
Rec. nt LexVegas Feb 2016 #15
Is that this year's Hillary or the 2008 version who bragged about her history with guns? beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #20
What were Bernies pro NRA votes again? What were Hillary's? boston bean Feb 2016 #22
The guy with a D minus rating from the NRA? Let's look at his history, shall we? beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #24
The guy who voted for the most important legislation for the gun lobby. boston bean Feb 2016 #31
The guy who stood up to the NRA repeatedly and got an F grade 5 years in a row because of it? beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #33
Who voted five times against the brady bill. boston bean Feb 2016 #41
Who still stood up to the NRA. Repeatedly. And faced a backlash when they backed his opponents. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #42
Who voted to allow guns on trains? boston bean Feb 2016 #43
In checked baggage. Try to stick to the facts, your desperation is showing. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #45
Who never owned a gun. Or hunted. Or bragged about it when pandering to gun nuts. Like Annie Oakley. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #44
We need a president who isn't a neocon on FP even more cali Feb 2016 #21
The supreme court doesnt decide foreign affairs. boston bean Feb 2016 #27
And the goddamn SCOTUS is not the only issue. cali Feb 2016 #46
I understand that it isnt the only issue. boston bean Feb 2016 #50
Agree 100%! MoonRiver Feb 2016 #30
We need a Democratic nominee who gives the financial industry and lobbyists no quarter! beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #36
I do actually. And I understand who was the reason for that case. boston bean Feb 2016 #39
Sure she would. Those millions she took from them won't affect her decisions at all. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #47
You want to point to an instance of quid pro quo? boston bean Feb 2016 #55
That doesn't usually happen until after they're elected. Are you new to politics? beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #57
So, its just this campaign we should ever discuss. boston bean Feb 2016 #60
Are you new to politics? Money buys influence. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #62
I want to know precisely what influence was bought. boston bean Feb 2016 #66
Re-read post #57 and figure out which part you got wrong, then get back to me. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #68
I understood it perfectly. You got nothing. No proof. boston bean Feb 2016 #69
Keep trying, you'll get it eventually. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #70
I'm barely making an effort. You have no proof of any quid pro quo. boston bean Feb 2016 #71
Wow, you are a novice. You probably believe lobbyists are voluteers. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #72
I'm someone who requires proof for allegations. boston bean Feb 2016 #74
You need proof that money buys influence? Google: lobbyists. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #76
I need proof that hillary provided quid pro quo to someone boston bean Feb 2016 #77
Well then you should go ask someone else because I never made that claim. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #78
I'm confident I made my point. boston bean Feb 2016 #79
Not really but if you want to think you did go for it. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #80
I have. boston bean Feb 2016 #81
Seriously, google lobbyists, it's quite eye opening. You'll see why we oppose money in politics. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #82
Seriously provide some prrof Hillary has given quid pro quo boston bean Feb 2016 #83
Let's see proof that I made that claim first. I thought I was quite clear in post #57. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #84
Believe post number 6 starts it off. boston bean Feb 2016 #85
What does that even mean? Post 6 is about an assault weapons ban. See post #24: beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #86
Excuse me. Post 36. boston bean Feb 2016 #87
And? beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #89
I thought you had no proof and we could only base your boston bean Feb 2016 #90
Bupkis because you don't like it? I'll take Elizabeth Warren at her word, thanks. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #91
Elizabeth Warren said Hillary gave quid pro quo to someone who gave a donation?? boston bean Feb 2016 #92
Read my post again and show me where I made that claim. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #93
So your post meant nothing. Good. boston bean Feb 2016 #94
You're going to need a bigger shovel. Here: beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #95
You might need an excavator. LOL boston bean Feb 2016 #96
Those of us in Flyover Country disagree. Odin2005 Feb 2016 #58
+1. You are not alone. Some of us moved to the big city and can't stand the rhetoric here. JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #88
Hell, I just moved to Fargo and... Odin2005 Feb 2016 #97
All of DU can and may agree with you but, I don't know if ALL of America will agree with you. Hiraeth Feb 2016 #63
Couldn't agree more, Annie Oakley would be a bad choice Fumesucker Feb 2016 #65
Hell, this pro-2A lefty Democrat doesn't give the NRA a dime, let alone a "quarter." Eleanors38 Feb 2016 #75

TheBlackAdder

(28,208 posts)
56. Some? In my NJ middle class Democratic hamlet of 60,000--50% of households own firearms.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:28 PM
Feb 2016

.


I love how people pretend that owning firearms is a Republican thing.

The only thing that is Republican are teflon-coated bullets, assault-style weapons, and open-carry.


Sure, the NRA sucks... But, ignorance to the fact that firearm ownership is a reality is worrysome.



I used to own a farm in a small upper-middle class NJ town that had nighttime State Police coverage.

If you called for an emergency, it would be 20-60 minutes before a trooper would arrive.

A lot can happen in that time. And we're not even talking about PA, or the hilly roads of NH or VT.


And you know who knows this? The crooks who steal or vandelize your farm equipment, the weirdos who want to kill or injure your farm animals, the jerks who want to perform a smash and grab in your house. They know the police response sucks in certain towns and during certain times of day and they take advantage of it.


If you want to alienate a lot of Dems and Independents... come out Guns-A-Blazin' over firearms!


.

mgmaggiemg

(869 posts)
7. exactly...FIRE THE GOP, SINK THE NRA, GUN CONTROL IS COMING, COMING TO THE USA
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:47 PM
Feb 2016

time to send the NRA lobby to the trash with the GOP...

 

JRLeft

(7,010 posts)
19. No, but our guns should not be taken away. Background checks and the closing of the gun show
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:54 PM
Feb 2016

loophole I can get with anymore restrictions hell no.

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
48. I mention it sometimes because I wouldnt shed a tear if no one on this country had a gun.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:19 PM
Feb 2016

TheY are nothing but killing implements.

But even I know that isnt happening.

 

JRLeft

(7,010 posts)
54. It's a hobby of mine, I love going to the range. I do not consume animals or animal byproducts.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:27 PM
Feb 2016

I shoot targets.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
10. Disagree. Let me elaborate.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:49 PM
Feb 2016

I questioned a U.S. Representative (Seth Moulton, D-MA) about his position on the PLCAA a few months ago. He did not know what the PLCAA was, but when informed that the NRA supported the law he immediately declared he was against it. This while he still did not know the details of what the law is.

Such knee-jerk reactionary politics is not statesmanship nor governance.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
26. Nope. I disagree with them on most things. I just prefer a more intelligent politics.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:58 PM
Feb 2016

Others may differ.

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
29. So the fella ultimately made an intelligent decision?
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:00 PM
Feb 2016

And you want to use that example to try and get me to o change my mind?

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
32. Did I say I disagreed with the PLCAA? No, you seem to have assumed that.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:03 PM
Feb 2016

Knowing the history behind why the PLCAA was proposed, I understand its purpose and support it.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
35. So in the face of what appeared to you to be conflicting information, you simply picked one?
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:06 PM
Feb 2016

That doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

My opinion on legislation is independent of the NRA's position on the legislation. In this case, they happen to align. But I would bet all of the money in my pockets that I differ with the NRA substantially in the reasoning for my support of the PLCAA.

UglyGreed

(7,661 posts)
14. Let's hope Hillary can honor the position she
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:52 PM
Feb 2016

holds at this moment in time.

Hillary Clinton: Balance lawful gun ownership & keeping guns from criminals

Q: Both you and Sen. Obama, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual’s right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns. Why don’t you emphasize that now?
CLINTON: I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns, but I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands. And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn’t reflect the common sense of the American people. We will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right but to give people the feeling & the reality that they will be protected from guns in the wrong hands.

Hillary Clinton: 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

VALPARAISO, Indiana (CNN) - Hillary Clinton appealed to Second Amendment supporters on Saturday by hinting that she has some experience of her own pulling triggers.

“I disagree with Sen. Obama’s assertion that people in our country cling to guns and have certain attitudes about trade and immigration simply out of frustration,” she began, referring to the Obama comments on small-town Americans that set off a political tumult on Friday.

She then introduced a fond memory from her youth.

“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,” she said.

“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.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/clinton-touts-her-experience-with-guns/

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
20. Is that this year's Hillary or the 2008 version who bragged about her history with guns?
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:54 PM
Feb 2016
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/




Clinton's Hunting History

WAUSAU, WIS. -- At a campaign stop this afternoon, Hillary Clinton's focus was on the economy and health care but some in the crowd had other things on their minds. Clinton was asked to discuss gun control which prompted Clinton to talk about her days holding a rifle in the cold, shallow waters in backwoods Arkansas.

"I've hunted. My father taught me how to hunt. I went duck hunting in Arkansas. I remember standing in that cold water, so cold, at first light. I was with a bunch of my friends, all men. The sun's up, the ducks are flying and they are playing a trick on me. They said, 'we're not going to shoot, you shoot.' They wanted to embarrass me. The pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck and they were surprised as I was," Clinton said drawing laughter from the crowd.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clintons-hunting-history/



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





beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
24. The guy with a D minus rating from the NRA? Let's look at his history, shall we?
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:57 PM
Feb 2016
Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns. In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.

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


I want to shield gun shops from lawsuits, not manufacturers

Q: For a decade, you said that holding gun manufacturers legally responsible for mass shootings is a bad idea. Do you want to shield gun companies from lawsuits?

SANDERS: Of course not. This was a large and complicated bill. There were provisions in it that I think made sense. For example, do I think that a gun shop in the state of Vermont that sells legally a gun to somebody, and that somebody goes out and does something crazy, that that gun shop owner should be held responsible? I don't. On the other hand, where you have manufacturers and where you have gun shops knowingly giving guns to criminals or aiding and abetting that, of course we should take action.

Source: 2015 CNN Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas , Oct 13, 2015

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


Bernie Sanders’ critics misfire: The Vermont senator’s gun record is better than it looks

....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/


Alternet: Bernie's Gun Control Critics Are Wrong—His Stance Has Been Consistent for Decades

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


Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

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

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

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

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

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:

In 1994, however, Sanders voted in favor of the final version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a bill that expanded the federal death penalty. Sanders had voted for an amendment to the bill that would have replaced all federal death sentences with life in prison. Even though the amendment failed, Sanders still voted for the larger crime bill.

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-/


If he's a pro-NRA/pro-gun industry shill why did the NRA give him a lifetime D- rating?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
33. The guy who stood up to the NRA repeatedly and got an F grade 5 years in a row because of it?
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:04 PM
Feb 2016

Do explain how he's pro-NRA in light of those facts.


 

cali

(114,904 posts)
21. We need a president who isn't a neocon on FP even more
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:55 PM
Feb 2016

Hillary is a neocon and mired in corporate money as well as being the worst political opportunist I've ever seen.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
46. And the goddamn SCOTUS is not the only issue.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:17 PM
Feb 2016

But we sure don't need Madame CorpoCrony nominating Justices.

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
50. I understand that it isnt the only issue.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:23 PM
Feb 2016

It just happens to be yuuuuuge to those who find social issues to be very important and how much he SC decides our fates each year.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
36. We need a Democratic nominee who gives the financial industry and lobbyists no quarter!
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:06 PM
Feb 2016

Remember Citizen's United?

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
39. I do actually. And I understand who was the reason for that case.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:11 PM
Feb 2016

And I believe she already said she would have a litmus test for SC nominees regarding that. In fact one of her first speeches in this campaign made that quite clear.

So a differentiator in my view would support the premise of my OP.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
47. Sure she would. Those millions she took from them won't affect her decisions at all.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:17 PM
Feb 2016

Okay I tried to keep a straight face when typing that but...


boston bean

(36,221 posts)
60. So, its just this campaign we should ever discuss.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:30 PM
Feb 2016

Past contributions mean nothing? Lack of proof means guilt?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
62. Are you new to politics? Money buys influence.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:33 PM
Feb 2016

That's not even up for debate, you dance with the one who brung ya.

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
71. I'm barely making an effort. You have no proof of any quid pro quo.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:41 PM
Feb 2016

And you want to cast allegations basd on some future event you are sure will happen.

Do you read tarot cards. Is that how this is done?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
72. Wow, you are a novice. You probably believe lobbyists are voluteers.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:45 PM
Feb 2016

Maybe you should read some more about the subject, or listen to some Bernie and Elizabeth Warren.

If you don't want to believe that money buys influence in politics then I can't offer you any more guidance than that.

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
74. I'm someone who requires proof for allegations.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:52 PM
Feb 2016

You have repeatedly stated something as fact. When in fact it isn't the truth.

You cannot point to a past action on Hillarys part of quid pro quo. She was elected senator. We have a record to look at. And that record shows no such thing.

But you want to make an allegation that some future event will prove your allegation out. That is just ridiculous.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
76. You need proof that money buys influence? Google: lobbyists.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:57 PM
Feb 2016

You seem to be confused, I never said Hillary was paid millions before she was elected. She's been paid millions since she left office and is now backed by Wall Street.

You're the only person I know who thinks money doesn't buy influence.

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
77. I need proof that hillary provided quid pro quo to someone
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:59 PM
Feb 2016

Or some entity that gave her a donation.

You got any? Besides some future event you predict.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
78. Well then you should go ask someone else because I never made that claim.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:01 PM
Feb 2016

Are you done trying to put words in my mouth, because you're not very good at it.


boston bean

(36,221 posts)
83. Seriously provide some prrof Hillary has given quid pro quo
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:12 PM
Feb 2016

In trum for a donation.

Lets stop pretending you werent talking about her.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
84. Let's see proof that I made that claim first. I thought I was quite clear in post #57.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:15 PM
Feb 2016

Maybe you should read it again, if it's still fuzzy get back to me and I'll try to simplify it for you.

beam me up scottie

57. That doesn't usually happen until after they're elected. Are you new to politics?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1226728

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
89. And?
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:27 PM
Feb 2016
Clinton Last Night: "Name Anything (Wall Street Has) Influenced Me On" -- OK, I Will

It is wrong and unfair to attack or critique candidates on anything but substance, policy, or record — and Clinton’s statements last night definitely fall underneath this umbrella. The following is not an unbridled attack against Clinton, but a response to a statement she made last night that went unanswered, and should not have.

--

While being questioned about her Wall Street ties, Clinton said to Anderson Cooper, the moderator—

“But you know anybody who knows me who thinks that they can influence me — name anything they’ve influenced me on. Just name one thing. I’m out here every day saying I’m going to shut them down, I’m going after them.”


Challenge accepted.

In 2007, while running for president, Clinton made campaign speeches attacking the tax break for hedge-fund and private-equity executives — one of the infamous loopholes that allows rich people to pay way less in taxes than they’re supposed to — but did not sign her name onto legislation that would have ended the tax break and closed the loophole.

Just as she’s doing now, she was “out [t]here every day saying I’m going to shut them down,” but did not actually use her elected-official power to keep her word, and follow through with the simple act of signing her name onto someone else’s bill.

As Politico reports,

When [Clinton] had a chance to support a 2007 bill that aimed to curb a tax break she publicly decried for hedge-fund and private-equity executives, she failed to sign on.


Clinton said one thing in public, but did another behind closed doors. She attacked Wall Street to voters, but helped them as a senator.

Why?

Because Wall Street executives were the biggest donors to her 2006 Senate campaign and her 2008 presidential campaign.

Clinton got millions from the financial industry while also protecting them — she is most assuredly influenced by her Wall Street donors.

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/4/1479904/-Clinton-Last-Night-Name-Anything-Wall-Street-Has-Influenced-Me-On-OK-I-Will


You're welcome!


boston bean

(36,221 posts)
90. I thought you had no proof and we could only base your
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:29 PM
Feb 2016

Allegations on some unknow future event nlike after an election.

Your proof that you now claim exists is bupkis.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
91. Bupkis because you don't like it? I'll take Elizabeth Warren at her word, thanks.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:31 PM
Feb 2016

Money buys influence and Hillary took plenty of it.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
93. Read my post again and show me where I made that claim.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:34 PM
Feb 2016

Again you're not very good at this.

But keep digging.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
58. Those of us in Flyover Country disagree.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:29 PM
Feb 2016

No love for the NRA, who have degenerated into an arm of the GOP, but I have no love for Big City gun-grabbers, either.

The bashing of rural gun owners as dumb hicks is part of a strategy by Urban corporate elites to demonize poor rural whites as "white trash".

Fuck that.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
97. Hell, I just moved to Fargo and...
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:07 PM
Feb 2016

...the elitism among the middle class of supposedly "liberal" fashionable hipsters that dominate the downtown scene disgusts me.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»We need a democratic nomi...