...read it.

Lame attack on post. You're actually accusing a professed Bernie supporter cited in the article of a 'smear.' Good luck with that.


Let's see if the mods will let me get away with posting more from the article here:

"The overwhelming majority of people who hunt know about guns and respect guns and are law-abiding people. That's the truth," he said. "We will not succeed on this terribly important issue if we continue the cultural warfare between urban America and rural America."

But his answer on why gun manufacturers should be shielded from civil lawsuits is what really irked Laszlo.

"If somebody sells you a baseball bat and you hit somebody over the head, you're not going to sue the baseball bat manufacturer," Sanders said, to a smattering of applause among a mostly liberal audience. "I don't apologize for that vote."

I think removing "the huge areas of poverty" would be a better solution. Americans are being pitted against each other by the 1%. Wall St. goes on a rampage and then blames minorities when it goes sour.

Why aren't more Democrats calling out this racism?

Bernie addressed this in one of his recent speeches(politics of division) and we need more people to speak out about it.

but to reduce it, for everyone to have an acceptable minimum....that would be a worthy goal...and there would be much less violence

The bat manufacturer would not be liable for a third party criminal misuse of a legal product.

There has to be a middle ground, or extremists will become more extreme, and will pull more moderate sensible gun owners to take a more extreme position.

If there exists a sensible middle ground, I am confident Bernie's aiming for it. This does seem like a hit piece to me.

Sensible gun reform is one way he is going to connect with voters in the conservative strongholds -- and he will be campaigning long and hard in such places, I understand.

Kinda makes for a one trick pony after a while.

...that most supporters here haven't characterized as a 'smear.'

That tactic won't work. This isn't a Bernie opponent in the article. It actually quotes two would-be supporters.

How are you going to move beyond your base of support if you insult everyone (including those inclined to support him) with questions about his political record and stances? I'm amazed intelligent people here think this tactic of responding to criticism's as 'smearing Bernie' is productive or effective. I think it just stinks to high heaven.

I don't care for Bernie's stance on guns myself.

But do you personally really think that talking about his stance as 'boilerplate NRA' is NOT an insult or a smear?

...and it's a viewpoint expressed by this gun control advocate.

I do think the language Bernie used in his defense of his positions is geared mostly toward gun control opponents, like the NRA, who include defense of hunters in their rhetoric and employ the same 'baseball bat,' and 'hammer' defense against the lawsuit argument. That may not sit well with supporters, but the similarities in their arguments are indisputable.

...although I don't generally look to the opinion of the NRA to judge the progressiveness of politicians.

Also, let's not pretend that we don't know of the old NRA cliché: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people!” Which is inevitably followed by arguments of how dangerous baseball bats and knives can be, “yet no one is calling on banning them.”

share an idealogy - clearly, they do not.

I grew up in a small town and spent a lot of time hunting and shooting. What Sanders is saying about the difference between rural and urban attitudes towards firearms makes sense: rural gun owners see them as tools, whereas many urban gun owners see them as hobbies or magical Freedom fetishes or the last thin line of defense between themselves and those "inner city criminals".

My primary gun control issue is the lax standards for concealed carry permits. I don't believe any of the candidates have mentioned more stringent requirements for these.

I'd venture a guess it isn't even that big of a deal to most Democrats.

... but I'd be literally mute if I based my own advocacy on that premise.

Without this one attack, you'd have nothing left to say against him.

Enjoy O'Malley's 15 minutes of at least being mentioned nationally. I doubt he'll ever break out of single digits, and these attacks will have simply been a waste of time.

...although I suppose it's natural for supporters here to perceive it as one.

I do have other criticisms of your candidate, however, which aren't remotely relevant in this thread.

The O'Malley crack you made however, was out of line and not reflected in anything I've posted about your candidate. That's just poor politics and not something I'd think is particularly attractive to those, like myself, who have indicated they'd be willing to support him as nominee.

undeniable friendly relationship with Wall street, banks etc., as well.

And I believe putting food on the table, stopping the theft of our resources and money comes first.

When it comes to guns, there is NO bigger supporter of removing them than me, so it is a tough one for me to overlook, but if I have to I will

would stick it to the banks.

One can dream

Current Clinton versus Perfect Clinton

10 years younger, change the last name and skin color, use "Banksters" more often, no more emails?

Current Sanders versus Perfect Sanders

20 years younger, change sex and skin color, use "liberal democrat" instead of "socialist"?

Spoken as if theres no such thing as a "gun control extremist".

If someone supports suing gun manufacturers for the third party misuse of otherwise legally manufactured and sold products, then yes, that individual is a gun control extremist.

Such suits are supported only by the fringe when it comes to the nation as a whole.

If the misuse immunity was such a great idea, then obviously they should have passed a law protecting all corporations, not just gun companies. That would at least be honest, rather than a flat-out giveaway to the NRA and the gun industry. The legal system is already tilted in favor of corporations and against victims, and it's highly hypocritical for Bernie, of all people, to take this extra step to tilt the playing field even further for corporations and against individuals.

Obviously, gun nuts like it, but for progressives to make excuses for Bernie's vote in favor of corporate power is laughable.

Personally, I don't see why an industry who's products result in 30,000 deaths every year should get extra legal immunity. Obviously, they should play by the same rules as any other corporation, or if anything, they should be scrutinized even more, since they directly contribute to the gun violence epidemic.

Since your views are extreme right-wing when it comes to guns, you're gonna disagree -- I've been around enough to know all the NRA talking points, so you're not going to tell me anything I haven't heard before.

But this isn't the gungeon, and here I'm talking about people who are generally progressives but then twist themselves in knots to defend Bernie's NRA-supported giveaway to gun manufacturers. It's pure hypocrisy to claim to oppose corporate power, and then vote for a corporate giveaway like this.

support national gun registration. I don't imagine you belong to that group. In fact, from your far-right perspective on guns, you probably think that gun registration is "extreme". Obviously you think that not carving out a special legal exemption for gun manufacturers is "extreme". And you'd probably have a heart attack if you ever went to Western Europe and saw how guns were regulated over there.

And with a lot of other policies, a lot of what Bernie advocates could be considered "extreme" in certain circles. But, this being a progressive message board, people here generally support things that right-wingers consider "extreme".

Likely taken from the same sort of trickery that produced the 40 percent lie.

Your link leads to a known anti-gun org. The 'piece' you cite as evidence, is basically a stack of old polls sponsored by the brady bunch, MAIG, with creatively (the '60 percent lie' kind of creative) interpreted and extrapolated results.

Meh.

of course you're going to ignore them. Because they don't say what you want. The same thing that NRAers do with all of the peer reviewed studies. Extremism ultimately becomes like a religion.

2.American Viewpoint/Momentum Analysis, Momentum Analysis & American Viewpoint National Survey (for Mayors Against Illegal Guns) (Jan. 2011) at http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_poll_01_18_2011.pdf. [↩]
3.Penn, Schoen, & Berland Associates, Inc. for Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Post-Election Analysis: Sensible Gun Laws Builds Bridges not Burns Them to Moderates, McCain, and Even Gun Owners in Post-Heller World (Nov. 18, 2008), available at: http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/memo-11-18-08.pdf. [↩]
4.Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research & the Tarrance Group for the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Americans Support Common Sense Measures to Cut Down on Illegal Guns 6, (Apr. 10, 2008), available at http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/polling_memo.pdf. [↩]
5.Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research & The Tarrance Group for the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Strong Public Support for Tough Enforcement of Common Sense Gun Laws (Graphs) 19 (Jan. 23, 2007), available at http://www.greenbergresearch.com/articles/1849/2630_MAIGslides.pdf. [↩]
6.CNN/Opinion Research Corp. Poll, Most Americans Say the Constitution Guarantees the Right to Own a Gun, Latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll Shows (June 28, 2008), available at http://www.opinionresearch.com/fileSave/CNNPR_Gun_6_28_2008.pdf. [↩]
7.Penn, Schoen, & Berland Associates, Inc. for Americans for Gun Safety, Winning the Gun Vote (Oct. 16, 2003) at http://www.dlc.org/documents/AGS_Penn_1003.pdf. [↩]
8.Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates, Inc. Poll, Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (May 15-21, 2001), at http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0612-05.htm. [↩]


Like I said...

That's why you can maintain your strange beliefs. By ignoring data. It's a pretty common pattern.

Hi mister pot, I'm mister kettle.

You're still going to believe that most Americans oppose registration no matter how much data I present to you, because you are an ideological extremist. You believe that the rest of the country is as gun obsessed as you and your gun buddies, and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Believe, I know the type. I used to live in Texas.

But, as usual, you don't, and you don't care what the data says.

Yes, I get that your "real life" experience of hanging out with gun crazies around the country has convinced you that everyone thinks the same way. You're not the only one who thinks like that. There are also creationists who have only met a handful of scientifically educated people in their lives. You hear GOP congresspersons talking about how they haven't met a single person who likes Obamacare. And so on.

As for me, most people I know are well-educated liberals, and they support gun control. The difference is, I don't think that everyone in the country is just like me. If I'm wondering what the country at large things, I look at data. On some things most Americans agree with me (for example gun registration), but on many others they don't. And I'm fine with that. Unlike you, I don't have this strange need to pretend that everyone agrees with me when they obviously don't.

What a clever response.

And they launched a campaign to drive brewers/dealers out of business through an avalanche of lawsuits then you would see similar laws protecting those industries.

Gun controllers overreached and prompted a political backlash - they didn't apparently learn anything from the 94 AWB.

Fuck anyone who calls people who want more gun control "gun control extremists." That is directly out of the NRA.

Get this. The bodies piled up is what is extreme. As is the imagined fear that someone is going to pry your gun out of your hands. One of those is extreme and the other is an extremist position promoted by the NRA and yourself.

"culture war" A tv commentator has a whole segment devoted to your concerns with respect to culture wars.

We should do universal background checks and ban machine gun type things.

But some extremists are on the warpath to ban all guns. If they can't do it with laws then they're looking for a sneaky way, like suing manufacturers even when the products work correctly.

Funny, the NRA spouts the exact same concern. Keep calling people for sensible gun control extremists. That verbiage has been doing a great job of keeping the streets flooded with guns. Once you figure out these are people dying, you might not worry about offending the NRA as much and back off their talking points.

The bodies piled up and supporting that with NRA talking points is what is extreme.

You should simply stop joining with the NRA in labeling people who want to save lives as extremists.

"I support "sensible" gun control like banning machine gun type things and universal background checks."

Have a nice day.

Folks will soon tire of the NRA as they tired of the Dixie Swastika.

gun in the public, they would all be in well regulated militias as the amendment requires.

Is simply not correct. First, the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and the 2d Amendment itself is clear -- "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As the Supreme Court explained, a prefatory clause ("a well regulated militia&quot can't limit the operative clause ("shall not be infringed&quot . Second, it just isn't the Supreme Court that disagrees with you -- there are plenty of law review articles that establish that the 2d Amendment was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. A good starting point is "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," which can be found here - http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/70embar.pdf. Another good read is "The Commonplace Second Amendment," which can be found here - http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/90thec.htm.

Its time for a little constitution/bill of rights 101.

There are two documents at the heart of this.

The first is the constitution. The constitution is essentially a document of authorization, granting congress and/or government, certain powers. Congress IS actually granted certain powers regarding 'the militia', and if they 'intended' anything regarding the militia, that is where they most certainly would have said so (authorized it).

The second document, the one actually at issue here, is the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, is essentially a governmental "hands off" list. 'Congress shall make no law...", and so on. You can argue that no right is absolute, but that's beside the point. It is crystal clear, and no reasonable argument to the contrary can be made, that the intent of the bill of rights is to restrain exercise of power by government.

It very plainly says so in the preamble to the bill of rights itself, penned by the framers themselves:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://www.billofrights.org/

In short, if you're reading a restriction on government power contained within the bill of rights, as a blessing for government to restrict rights of people, you're reading it completely horribly and perhaps even deliberately wrong. And don't bother with the typical 'rw interpretation' BS. I'm interpreting the amendment in line with the preamble to the bill of rights itself, and theres nothing 'right wing' about that.

That is good enough for me.

It was Clinton or O'Malley that had this kind of view on guns, then what would you say?

Most gun owners are law abiding people. The point of gun control should be to stop tragic killings and crimes. Gun control shouldn't be a thing about trying to ban all guns. If that's what Hillary says then she's right.

...something indicative of support he might offer in the future, should he be elected.

I support what my former governor has advocated and accomplished in my state on guns.

but I do know what happened here in CO when gun control was attempted. Obama has talked about gun control, but that's as far as he has gotten. Personaly as a rural gun owner I would like to see stronger controls.

Briefly:

Further toughen the enforcement of our gun laws

We are taking our streets and neighborhoods back from violent crime. But better is not good enough. Since 2007, we have reduced murders in our state by 23%. The spate of homicides early this year reminds us of the urgency of work yet done. Better isn't good enough. Thirty-one kids were the victims of homicides in 2010. According to the State Police, this is the lowest number of juvenile victims on record. But how do we explain to the families and friends of those 31 kids that we consider this a statewide accomplishment? Two years ago, you took guns away from domestic abusers.
This year, I need your help to further toughen the enforcement of our gun laws. And while nobody believes we should criminalize poverty, there are things we can do--must do--to bring Maryland in line with what every other state does and expects when it comes to preventing the willful neglect of a child.
Source: 2011 Maryland State of the State Address , Feb 3, 2011
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology.

O`Malley adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":

against rural voters. It is truly tone deaf considering the acts of terror occurring all across this country with respect to guns aren't simply about gangs. As far as news is concerned, none of it is about gangs. It is truly an NRA talking point. Good white gun owners vs black gangs. I think it is simply his reference point and what he is comfortable with. Under most all circumstances, people on this site would be livid at him making this a black/white issue.

.., the defensive language he's using is little more than a nod to opponents of gun control; likely folks in his state of Vermont.

I can at least understand it as a senator from Vermont. I don't agree with it, but I fully understand politicians must pander to their constituents to a certain degree. But now he is on the national stage. To still be saying the problem isn't the good rural gun owners in Vermont, but it is the gangs in LA and Chicago, is truly tone deaf and continues a manta that needs to go by the way side. It is an NRA talking point. He said it as if it was the problem. Yet so many of these massacres have nothing to do with gangs in LA or Chicago.

...which actually answers the questions gun control advocates have about his rejection of some planks and initiatives on their agenda.

Then again, this may well be an area where he's just not amenable to their viewpoint.

areas."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/27/170393072/gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more-obama-says

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.

They all agee.

rural gun owners are white and not all gang members are black.

If you don't know what a white person means when they say it isn't their good rural gun owners, it's the gangs in Chicago and LA, then I can't help you.

Nice try.

gun owners are white.

It is just too obvious. He minced no words. The problem is gangs in LA and Chicago, not rural Vermonts love of guns.

And thank you for wishing me a nice day. A little hot out but that is Florida. Sunshine and afternoon thunderstorms for the weekend. Going to do my fishing in the early morning, then a party in the afternoon. Rest on Sunday.

When someone says it isn't their rural voters, it's the gangs in Chicago and LA, it is blatantly about race. One can come to no other opinion on it unless you support that type of rhetoric or have other less than honest reasons. I see it for what it is.

What did the SC shooter have to do with gangs in LA or Chicago?
What did Sandy Hook have to do with gangs in LA or Chicago?
What did VT have to do with gangs in LA or Chicago?
How did gangs in LA or Chicago shoot Trayvon?
The list goes on and on.

Not a damn thing and there is a chance some wouldn't have happened with sensible gun laws.

When a white man states that the problem isn't the good people in his back yard(almost one hundred percent white), it is gangs in LA and Chicago, we know what is meant. You can act like you don't see it.

Here are some people who support this verbiage:

http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=4521

Here is the exact issues being addressed and promoted by the NRA. It is racist deflection to hide the real problems. They are making the exact same point and it is truly based in racism and the scary black man.

http://www.nranews.com/ginny/video/ginny-simone-reporting-2015-chicago-america-s-deadliest-city?utm_source=Channel_Feature&utm_medium=Video&utm_content=nranews_com_ginny_video_ginny-simone-reporting-2015-chicago-america-s-deadliest-city-2015-07-10&utm_campaign=P2

...and Vermont doesn't, is racist? That's a stretch. Bernie is not being a racist, no matter how hard you try to convince us otherwise.

It's hard to form an opinion if you don't read what was actually said. And no, I don't think Sanders is racist. Never have. His rhetoric here is based completely off a foundation of NRA verbiage that is based in racist sentiment. Sanders isn't the only one who has bought into it. It is often where people go when they don't have a good argument for the gun crowd they cater to. Would you like me to list the pile of dead people in the last two years who could have possible lived if stronger gun legislation were in place? I can list an enormous pile of bodies that have absolutely nothing to do with gangs. Yet that was his go-to. It has been the NRA's go-to for a long long time.

I must say, I'm not surprised that some are now acting as if they have never heard of this tactic. People would be up in arms about this on any other day.

The reality is that gangs account for only about 10%-20% of all gun homicides, but that doesn't stop NRAers from insisting that gun violence is really about inner-city gangs. Even if we had no gangs at all, we'd still have a much higher homicide rate than any other wealthy country.

Frankly, I have no idea why Sanders falls into NRA talking points, and this isn't the only one. He thinks that gun control is elitist. He makes the sorry baseball-bat analogy to defend his legal immunity vote for gun manufacturers. He suggests that gun control is about cultural attacks on the rural lifestyle. And now the gang thing.

What's especially odd is that much of his campaign is about trying to do certain things more like Western Europe, where there is a better safety net and less inequality. Well, Western Europe also has a lot less gun violence, because they have much tighter gun laws. Somehow he missed that.

To date, it's really the only significant disagreement I have.

I don't mean that in an offensive way at all. I think their are a lot of people like you. His positions on economics are the best out there. I have always understood the interest and support of him. If he wins the primary, he will have my support in time and money. I'm not sure why some can't state they disagree with one issue of a candidate. When I was thinking about Hillary, I continued to go after her on a number of issues. The list of issues grew too large. I still think O'Malley is the top of the field. The polls tell me I am alone in that.

I actually think I somewhat agree with Sanders on this issue overall. I find the framing to be somewhat disturbing.

recognizing that Bernie has some flaws. I think it stems from the "zero tolerance policy" that some Bernie Sanders supporters have adopted towards issues where Hillary isn't as far left as they would like. There's cognitive dissonance in admitting that Bernie also lacks a perfect liberal record.

if Sanders was actually a 'gun nut'.

And he isn't.

He is not as extreme on gun control as a few loud voices here would like but I do challenge you to put his gun record up against the Democratic Party platform on guns and see how in sync they really are.

Gun control to the degree desired here by some is not going to fly with most rank & file Democratic voters.

"gun control extremist" (see above). It's also cognitive dissonance when people try to make excuses for his voting record, particularly the civil immunity vote which he still stands by.

The funny thing about playing the "extremism" card is that a lot of what Sanders advocates for would be considered "extreme" by many voters, including rank and file Democrats (about half of whom describe themselves as moderate or conservative). If you have a problem with the extreme left, then Sanders isn't your guy.

He is moderate on gun control. Period.

That doesn't bother me. It didn't before he ran. It doesn't now. I agree with his votes...all of them.

And actually most of his positions are traditionally Democratic. It is the Third Way neo-liberals who are the extremists in the party today.

Because the country just isn't far enough left, at this point, to turn into Western Europe, on either front.

But, yeah, you're right, Bernie is moderate on guns. Sort of like the Third Wayers who are moderate on economic policy. And some Dems, like apparently you, are moderate on guns as well. While others are moderate on economic policy.

Bernie's whole campaign is a rejection of moderation in favor of the far left. And yet, on guns, he's preaching moderation.

campaign. Because he's advocating straight Western-Europe style democratic socialism.

Except on guns. For some reason he wants us to hold on to our spot on the gun violence and homicide charts.

Except when I am. Has Bernie ever, EVER said while running for President that he wants the US to "turn into Western Europe"?

Surely that would be the death knell of his candidacy... but I expect you knew that.

You'll have to pull a better argument than that out of your nether regions if you want to be taken seriously.

He even talks specifically about becoming more like Scandinavian countries. I have no idea how you missed this. Very strange, you don't even know what your candidate is advocating.

Did you, just like, think it sounded clever?

They are Reagan Republicans on economics policies. They are for trickle down, free trade agreements that harm US workers, support SS cuts, worship bankers & the stock market, etc. That is hardly moderate.

You want so desperately to justify Sanders moderate gun control stance by rationalizing that Third Ways are moderate as well. They are not.

His campaign positions are extremely mainstream. Poll after poll reveals this to be true. Only those on the center right of the Democratic party believe that he is far left.

Decades of fixation on gun control has only proven that Republicans have accidentally stumbled on a bitter political truth that Machiavelli elucidated upon in "The Prince.". He specifically stated that people distrust those rulers that try to disarm them.

It has also gradually cost us rural votes that Democratic economic policy should easily win.

We are not going to make any serious ground with guns. Sad but true. We can win in the generals on economics. Making such a huge deal about a Senator who received failing or near failing grades from the NRA and how crazy a gun but he might be is absurd. This article is absurd primary season sophistry.