2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumleftofcool
(19,460 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Some of us are members of the NRA.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)more understandable.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,208 posts).
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!
.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)livetohike
(22,145 posts)👍
mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)time to send the NRA lobby to the trash with the GOP...
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I don't want to nominate someone who voted against the Brady Bill 5 times.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)dsc
(52,162 posts)really?
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)loophole I can get with anymore restrictions hell no.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)TheY are nothing but killing implements.
But even I know that isnt happening.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)I shoot targets.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)is meaningless, right?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)on DU.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)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.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Others may differ.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Keep up the good fight!
boston bean
(36,221 posts)And you want to use that example to try and get me to o change my mind?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Knowing the history behind why the PLCAA was proposed, I understand its purpose and support it.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)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.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Good day.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)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 individuals 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 dont 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, doesnt 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 youre 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 theyre going to try to impose, I think doesnt 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. Obamas 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. Its part of culture. Its part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because its 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/
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)LexVegas
(6,067 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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
But Clinton hasnt 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 husbands 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. Its part of culture. Its part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because its an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter, she continued, in a dig at Obamas 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/
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/
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 youre 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 theyre going to try to impose, I think doesnt 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
boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
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
....However, the Nation and the other reports like it dont shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They dont explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if theres a consistency to Sanders positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernies position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.
Yet there is an explanation. Its consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And its in Bernies own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. Housein 1990where 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 sportsmens groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle baneven 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 Sportsmens Clubs.
I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidatesas the Sanders campaign press secretaryand 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 huntinghe previously was mayor of Vermonts biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nations characterization, isnt open-minded.
As you can see, Berniewho moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960shas an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. Hes not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jockbeing 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. Its also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980sbefore he was in Congresswhich 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 Bernieto test his mettle after Smiths 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 Sportsmans 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. Its also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980sbefore he was in Congresswhich 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 dont know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasnt. 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 dont think the state itself, whether its 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?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Do explain how he's pro-NRA in light of those facts.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Hillary is a neocon and mired in corporate money as well as being the worst political opportunist I've ever seen.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)They do however decide social issues.
cali
(114,904 posts)But we sure don't need Madame CorpoCrony nominating Justices.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)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.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Remember Citizen's United?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)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)Okay I tried to keep a straight face when typing that but...
boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Past contributions mean nothing? Lack of proof means guilt?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's not even up for debate, you dance with the one who brung ya.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I assume you have some evidence.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)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)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)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)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)Or some entity that gave her a donation.
You got any? Besides some future event you predict.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Are you done trying to put words in my mouth, because you're not very good at it.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)In trum for a donation.
Lets stop pretending you werent talking about her.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Maybe you should read it again, if it's still fuzzy get back to me and I'll try to simplify it for you.
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
boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It is wrong and unfair to attack or critique candidates on anything but substance, policy, or record and Clintons 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 theyve influenced me on. Just name one thing. Im out here every day saying Im going to shut them down, Im 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 theyre supposed to but did not sign her name onto legislation that would have ended the tax break and closed the loophole.
Just as shes doing now, she was out [t]here every day saying Im 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 elses 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)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)Money buys influence and Hillary took plenty of it.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Link that please.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Again you're not very good at this.
But keep digging.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)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.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...the elitism among the middle class of supposedly "liberal" fashionable hipsters that dominate the downtown scene disgusts me.