Shameful.

they will censor you

Bernie's position on gun control made sense...For Vermont.

Is he naive enough to believe that the position makes sense in NY or in LA? Of course not!

representing a rural state out of whack on guns with dem primary voters nation wide. and it is a ledit issue in this primary.

I'm amazed at all of the assumptions regarding how he thinks and how he may act. It's like so many Bernie supporter has turne into a mind reader or fortune teller.

Bernie owes it to his constituents to represent them, and that means taking a moderate approach that respects the freedoms of Vermont farmers and sports men while minimizing the dangers of gun violence.

the gun did not fire on its own now did it?

Well, this model can and after the lawsuit, they were recalled and repaired.

That is funny, I have been told it is imposable to sue a firearms manufacturer under a law Bernie supported. Must not be true.

do you have a list?

At least you did not say NRA talking point, lol

lets see if you can or is it anything you do not agree with?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/gun-research-harvard-nra

New Harvard Research Debunks the NRA's Favorite Talking Points
Surveys drawing on scores of experts reveal a clear consensus against the gun lobby.
—By Julia Lurie | Thu Apr. 2, 2015 6:30 AM EDT



More at the link!! The talking points can be found in the survey, if you're interested.....

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/this_is_the_nras_worst_nightmare_the_new_gun_safety_study_that_gun_nuts_dont_want_you_to_hear_about/
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://everytown.org

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

sense measures. I have no big issues with an FOID or possibly a license of some type. Training should be required. Secure storage should be encouraged. Liability insurance would be a joke as they do not cover illegal use and 99% of gun owners are not the problem. The NRA would love you. Why would I need a waiting period if I already have a gun or ammunition?Mental health screening will be unworkable.

let the states do it if they so choose, nothing is stopping you.

Talking point is not equal to lying, now is it?

The kinds of rifles that some of the DU membership likes to lose their shit over are used, at worst, in couple of hundred murders a year. And for this to even work, a have to make the ridiculous assumption that another gun or another method wouldn't have been used. Remember, the rifle used at Sandy Hook was not an "assault weapon".

When some 12,000 people are murdered a year and some 8,000 are with guns, then those couple of hundred (at best, mind) are statistically insignificant.

The misery, death, and illness of Republicans running things, though, are very significant!

Rifles are used in about 300 homicides per year. That's a cold hard fact, per the FBI's annual crime report.

Treating it as a hardware problem is doomed to failure, but it sure does put Republicans in office, doesn't it?

"Anyone who has any illusions that gun control will cause a significant dent in the very serious problem of crime is mistaken.” Bernie Sanders

people pull the triggers. I like the part where he admits he is not an expert on weapons and would seek them out prior his votes. I wish more people would do this, we might have actually gotten some good firearms safety legislation passed.

...or, as I suspect many politician do, they realize what their constituency wants and then actually do a little representation. To some adjusting (evolving) is a good thing even when Hillary does it.

Experts in the field. It is always better to be well informed on the subject you are voting on. It worries me when the representative does not even know the basics they are making laws on. You know like the winner who thought a barrel shroud was a shoulder thingy. The ones that do not know the difference between semi-automatic and a machine gun. Simple facts.

I don't own a gun, but the only gun control that would actually work would be a program to seize all guns in the united states, and that isn't going to happen.

And yet they have stopped mass killings and even brought gun suicides down 80% since they instituted their gun control measures. We can do the same here.

lets see your link to the suicide reduction numbers, sounds a little optimistic

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/

it was reduced, but only by 50%

Apparently that was an "acceptable" level of gun violence.

The 80% drop in gun suicides is particularly significant since most gun deaths are suicides.

So we should at least try what Australia did, no?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/

Gun murders are down over 50% since the mid 90's.

Gun suicides are becoming far more common than gun-related homicides, accounting for 64 percent of all gun deaths in 2012. So, reducing our gun suicide rate by 80% like Australia did would save thousands of lives.

There were 32,288 deaths from firearm violence in the United States in 2012, a rate that's remained relatively stable over the past few years. But since 2006, gun suicides have increased from 57 percent of all firearm-related deaths, according to research published this month in the Annual Review of Public Health.

Gun deaths by suicide have outpaced homicide-related deaths in the United States over the past 35 years. But since 2006, the decrease in gun-related homicides have almost been matched by the increase of gun suicides.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/14/many-more-people-are-dying-from-gun-suicides-than-homicides/

First off, the second amendment is not being repealed, we will never get rid of all guns.

I'm willing to have a genuine discussion on how to prevent suicides, but a total ban will never happen.

High Capacity mag bans, and assault weapon bans will do nothing.
One gun a month laws? Nothing.

I'll agree that a waiting period could help, but it should be waived if somebody already owns a gun.

Or optional? If mandatory, it wont work as the second admendment will never allow the banning of all guns.

For the record, I support optional gun buy backs.

I got rid of a rusted junk gun that wouldn't fire and got 150 bucks for it a few years ago. I used the money toward a new shotgun.

That $150 was offered to get a working gun off the street. Alas, you used it to get one onto the street.

Fortunately, most people who use gun buy backs aren't scammers, and it really does work--even optional buy backs. And it changes the culture. I think that is why the NRA and gun nuts are opposed to them.

The Los Angeles Police Department claims violent crime has decreased 33 percent since the city's buyback program began in 2009.

They wanted to give people 150 for a gun. I had a gun I wanted to get 150 for. Both parties are happy.

Sure, if there wasn't gun buybacks I would have took an Acetylene torch to it, then threw it away, but then the gun buyback wouldn't have had one less gun for the press release the next day.

Also, LA has had their violent crime rate decrease since the 90's. Or at least since 2001 depending on how you want to look at it.



So sure, you can say that violent crime has decreased 33% since the gun buybacks, but its also decreased 33% since we elected george bush president, and I doubt you want to give him the credit. There were a lot of factors at play, of which the gun buyback had a large impact, or possibly no impact at all. Who knows. I'm sure grandma has turned in her late husbands revolver. And thats good, but I doubt a lot of gang members were in the gun buyback lines.

Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2015, 12:36 AM - Edit history (1)

As far as you and I know it was never stated they have to be working. It must have meant the requirement as they gave him the money and took his weapon.

As just one example, from the NYC buy back:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/community_affairs/gun_buyback_program.shtml

How did you find out he used the NYC buyback, curious to know? I am sure every one is the same. A rusted gun that will not fire could pass the apparent operative condition standard. Could have had a bad or stuck firing pin, or the person tuning it in may have been cautious and not trusted it, but it still might have fired.

Stated he gamed the system and called bullshit when you admit you did not know the rules of the event.

If the gun is inoperable, that is not what a buy back targets. Even if not explicitly stated, that is the premise. You lied and said that operability is "never" the rule.

And I will correct my statement for you. I and you did not know the rules so it may have been perfectly OK for him to turn in his non-operational weapon.

They took his weapon and gave him the money, so apparently it was a targeted weapon and meant the premise as required for that buyback.

That says a lot about both of you.

just like firearms manufacturers are playing by the rules for NY SAFE compliant no-assault weapons. Functionally the exact same as the banned ones but cosmetically altered to be sold.

They took his weapon and paid him for it. The picture was required to prove a point on how stupid cosmetic bans are. I am sorry you are offended by a picture of a firearm.

"Bans based on gun cosmetics" was not at issue in this conversation. You seem to have brought it up just so you can post a picture a gun. Again, says a lot about you.

There are millions of guns in the US. A handgun costs around $600 on average, a high end one well over $1000. Is this voluntary, so that those who want to keep their guns can, or are you proposing that the government go door to door and seize guns?

The Los Angeles Police Department claims violent crime has decreased 33 percent since the city's buyback program began in 2009. It is well worth the money invested, whether it is private money donated to the cause or taxpayer money.

'buy-backs,' and I agree that they have value at the household level, but to attribute any quantifiable amount of violent-crime reduction--let alone 33%--is not something I've seen support for...

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/gun-buyback-charts

basically, it's "A happened, and at the same time B happened." What would be more interesting is anything quantifiable along the lines of "A happened, because B happened."

I think 'buy-backs' are a useful tool to remove unwanted firearms from individual houses, and to replace them with useful cash, but I strongly doubt that they have much if anything to do with violent crime rates, given the total number of firearms and the unlikelihood of a violent criminal disposing of the tool of his trade. The guns being turned in are unlikely to be the ones used in crime, and to the extent that they could have eventually been transferred to criminals there are plenty to take their place.

I really don't think, reading those quotes, that LAPD would stand behind a claim that violent crime dropped 33% (or any percentage) because of 'buy-backs'...

They banned shotguns in Australia. Try convincing rural America of that.

Unfortunately,suicidal people will always find a way. The gun is just a method.

I never intend to buy a gun, personally. I don't know any gun owners who would be willing to give theirs up.

If I wanted to get a gun without a background check, I could do it easily.

There are over 300 million guns already in circulation today. I just don't think that gun control is practical in this country.

And yet you think America will accept a self-described socialist?

The word "socialist" means nothing to the average American.

They have heard Republicans calling their President a socialist for 7 years.

After listening to Bernie, people are more likely to think that
socialism sounds pretty great.

Obama has denied being a socialist. He has never argued for government ownership of anything. The American people know that. The American people are not going to think socialism sounds pretty great just because Bernie said so.

they will be listening to his words

Especially when Bernie explains it after the Repugs call him "the Socialist Senator from Vermont" over and over

He will say of course I am, and let me tell you what I believe.

The attempt to turn "socialist" into a dirty word won't work any better on Bernie than they did on the President.

Never heard of that platform.

that is my point, that gun control will only have a limited effect unless it is ridiculously extreme.

That is why I believe that gun control is counterproductive.

Increments...background checks, removing and destroying aged or seized firearms. Buy backs.

I work in a local government office for a medium sized city. We get to read the PD reports weekly. Every single freaking week, every week minimum of two bozos leave a firearm out in a vehicle where it is stolen. That's one small town and there are thousands more, with the same thing happening 1000's of times over. I'm thinking careless people who have now armed another criminal should not be trusted with another gun. Its increments, as time goes on, less guns on the street, less need for guns.

And I don't care that the number of dead by firearms is remaining steady, the fact remains that per 1000 US deaths is out of control in comparison to other western nations.

I don't view background checks or buybacks as a problem, but I don't see them as effective either. The person who desperately wants a gun, but cannot pass a background check will buy it illegally.

You can't control guns in a society where 300 million are already in circulation.

When speaking to Jake Tapper today, in trying to defend his 2005 vote in favor of giving gun manufacturers certain tort immunities available to no other product manufacturer, he appeared to claim Vermont gun owners were more responsible gun owners than those in "Chicago" (African Americans?) and "Los Angeles" (Latinos?). As he states at 0:42-1:00 in this video:

By the way, those Vermont "hunters" seem to hit more people, per capita, than Chicago and Los Angeles gun owners. The number of gun deaths due to injury by firearms in Vermont is 9.2 per 100,000 population. In California, it is 7.7; in Illinois it is 8.6. http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/

And his supporters wonder why minorities aren't flocking to Sanders....

manufacturer for the criminal misuse of a legal product?

A gun explicit use is to kill.

it was against so called SLAPP suits that are designed to bankrupt a business that had no legal liability. This is the tactic used on abortion providers so they also had to be granted protection. Firearms manufacturers can still be sued for defective products like Remington was and lost. A hammer just like a a firearm will be sold to a retailer, then to the final user. Firearms are even more restricted. The manufacturer can not sell to the public but must sell to a government licensed dealer. The dealer MUST then conduct a federal background check as a minimum prior to the sale. O what grounds would you sue the manufacturer for selling a legal product to a federally licensed dealer?

since the republicans are in charge of most states. The big one is admitting rights and medical requirements meant to never be achievable.

So sensible white folk in VT can handle their guns. It's the African-Americans in Chicago and Hispanics in LA we need to worry about.

but more like population density and drug and gang violence. Those are pretty much colorblind. If we did something with the stupid drug laws, I think that would help a lot.

those Vermont "hunters" seem to hit more people, per capita, than Chicago and Los Angeles gun owners. The number of gun deaths due to injury by firearms in Vermont is 9.2 per 100,000 population. In California, it is 7.7; in Illinois it is 8.6. http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/

Its about 15 in Chicago, and 21 in Washington DC.

In California, it is 7.7; in Illinois it is 8.6.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/

In Vermont it's 95%.

"for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3924063

I'm not necessarily agreeing with Sanders 100% on this issue. Chicago has very strict gun laws, especially compared to Vermont. The question then is what is the difference. Vermont has very good social welfare, Illinois not so much.

creating modern day Al Capones.

Chicago, about 2.8 million.

Vermont population 620,000

Chicago has 4.5 times as many people.


Chicago murders in 2014- 407

Vermont murders in 2013 - 10


I couldn't find data on Vermont in 2014, so I decided to use 2013. In the interest of fairness, I looked up Chicago's 2013 murder rate and it was higher than 2014, so I used 2014 data. I also rounded chicago's population up a bit, and Vermont's down.

This point will go ignored.

Oh....I see it already has!

I really hate to be that guy because this is an issue that is personal to me (having been the victim of gun crime not once but three times, almost dying one time). But suicide makes up the vast majority of Vermont gun deaths.

As is their gun suicide rate. As noted in your link:

The more guns, the more gun deaths.

As per rate of ownership per person: http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2012Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm

And also explains why a progressive politician like Sanders has pandered to Vermont's gun owners.

Of proper use and control of the weapon. Let's get this passed. I would think the finger belongs to the holder of the guns.

but the initial response from the controller side was to over reach with bans and stir up the opposition to any legislation.

It is the exact same thing that has killed every ubc bill and the same thing that created the private sale exemption in 1994, the same thing which will never allow a federal ubc mandate of any kind....

Some states have mandated UBC

Wall Street reform and single payer healthcare as well.

It has nothing to do with the weapons available.

will never pass the commerce clause sniff test...states can pass a bg check requirement, the feds can't...

"Anyone who has any illusions that gun control will cause a significant dent in the very serious problem of crime is mistaken.”

with the exception of a few states.

Many more firearms have been sold and crime rates are down in the last 30 years

How much more correlation does gun crowd need??

Justifiable homicide was only 115 cases last year, compared to 33,000 gun homicides. Guns kill people. Lots of them. Every year.

So your numbers are bullshit. Have to pump those numbers and push untrue facts. Sad you have to deceive.

that keep violent criminals locked up. Unfortunately a lot of drug users also got swept up by those guidelines.

...of liberal, progressive social policies passed in the 70's.

The widespread availability of hormonal birth control ("the pill&quot and IUDs, the nationwide legalization of abortion, and the removal of lead from gasoline around 1970 paved the way for the next generation of criminally-prone youths to be much smaller.

Fewer kids born into bad family conditions, fewer kids with lead poisoning their brains, and moms having fewer children, later in life and in better circumstances.

The lack of replacement young criminals for aging and imprisoned ones is what lead to the crime drop.




Now, take a guess at what plank in the Democratic Party has the duel negatives of being virtually useless if enacted AND helps get Republicans elected. You remember Republicans, right? The ones that want to take away birth control and abortion rights, as well as let our air and water be poisoned by industry?

And he was going to consult with gun owners before voting in congress.

actually consulting with experts rather than banning senseless things like bayonet lugs and pistol grips and flash hiders.
This is what you get when you do not. NY SAFE compliant firearms.


functionally identical to this scary rifle

lets work on job opportunities, stop the stupid drug wars and enforce existing firearms laws.

Like I said the cause is colorblind

nice little dog-whistle yourself, bravo. Calling Bernie a racist, truly sad in my opinion

You will not get a reaction for a hide from me as much as you want it. I know the DU members are smart enough to read and understand my words.