No positive Hillary threads lately?

Nothing about her 88% burn rate on her cash raised?

Who gives a crap when dozens of innocent people are being slaughtered because legislators turn the other way?

that it's taken this long to share this article here.

Given the latest horrific tragedy, though, and the POTUS's angry comments, I expect the squawking to be a bit muted--perhaps hoping to let it sink, or say "But he doesn't mean it," or whatever.

Way back in May: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026633818

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026629372


There are other postings of the same piece as well...but it has been making the rounds for a while.

Sanders has the wrong position on this issue. He just does. He is dancing with the ones whut brung him, and the tune just doesn't resonate with most voting members of the Democratic Party.

But, hey, most of them aren't American.

Just human.

With families.

This has been covered here before, but since you're bringing it up again...

our military in harm's way without the proper equipment.

But, since that wasn't the point of my statement, I'll clarify: Clinton is a hawk. Period. So while you argue black and white issues about Bernie's nuanced stances, your girl wants to go kill more people in Syria.

Only thing is, war funding isn't carried under the personnel budget line--so that turd just doesn't float.

And "proper equipment?" Give me a break. Servicemembers were buying their own Dragonskin because too many were in country without body armor. GW Bush's body armor was STOLEN when he made the plastic turkey trip. Never saw Sanders on the House or Senate floor crying about that...


smh.

Yeah, it's ok for some to make excuses.....whatever.

I see your post went WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHing right over someone's head, though.

The gun nut meme has been beaten to death here and it still hasn't stuck but keep trying, George.

Did you see him Chris Hayes' show tonight?

All he talked about was "mental health" issues. If people didn't have such easy access to guns, we wouldn't have to worry as much about mental health issues. He votes in favor of the gun lobby and gun manufacturers and then drones on about mental health issues? Pathetic.

Bernie believes easy access to guns for people with mental illness and a violent background are both part of the problem, which part of that do you disagree with?

You can't spin this enough to change his legislative record and votes.

There is NO misrepresenting - just facts.

Sanders: "Well, we've got to make them stronger. We've got to make them more enforceable. That's what we've got to do." THEN FUCKING DO IT! DON'T TALK ABOUT IT, DO IT!!!!

As usual, he's all talk and rhetoric, no action. He's been in Congress and the Senate for 25 years, what legislation has he introduced that would make gun laws stronger or more enforceable? NONE!

He continually talks about his "hunting" constituency while people in cities and suburban areas are being slaughtered.

The supreme rest streamlines the ray.

• In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day waiting period for background checks, but the bill passed in the House.

• The Senate decreased the waiting period to five days and the bill returned to the House. In Nov. 1991, Sanders voted against that version. Though it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes. The Brady bill and its gun control stance remained in limbo during 1992.

• After some back and forth, a version of the bill resurfaced that reinstated the five day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted against that version but for an amendment imposing an instant background check instead (seen by some as pointless, as the technology for instant checks didn’t exist at the time).

• He also voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know why.

• The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.

or "pro gun" or "anti-gun control," just so long as they don't use the word "nut."

Gotcha. Mmm hmmm!

count?

I don't think you quite understand what a logical fallacy is, frankly.

characterizations. Then, I provide you a link to Rachel Maddow QUOTING FROM the article you are saying is 'moronic and delusional,' and you start moving goalposts and making it all about me.

I think you'd better take your little dino drawings to heart, there!

So we're back to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=640153


Not a fan of cartoons? Maybe you'll like this one better:

That makes it all "OK!!" It's not the same at ALL!! She only LINKED to it, and QUOTED it!!! But she didn't say the Magic Words....so THERE!!







You are too funny!

At least you're admitting it.

And you posted a picture meme that illustrates what's wrong with your posts in this thread, too!

Good for you!

At least you're learning from our little exchanges!




I'm on troll patrol tonight so I have to go, but it's been a real slice!

Good night!

Then realizing you're over your head, declaring a faux victory, and waving Good Night!

You sleep well, now!!!

I think the desperation might be a feeling that's coming from inside your own house, there.

And, ummmmm.....you might want to look up the word HYPERBOLE, too, while you're at it.

I have no idea "what happened to cali" but if it's so important to you, you go on and remember it.

Beam said that anyone who calls Sanders a "gun nut" is delusional or a complete moron. She also posted evidence that Sanders is not a gun nut.

You replied, "Rachel Maddow, delusional, complete moron . . .?"

Unfortunately, Maddow didn't call Sanders a gun nut, nor did she imply that Sanders is a gun nut. So your reply failed to show that Beam was committed to calling Maddow delusional or a complete moron. Naturally, Beam pointed this out to you.

Then you made many desperate attempts to avoid admitting your error. You pointed out, for example, that Maddow quoted from the gun nut article. The problem with that reply is that Maddow's quoting from the article doesn't mean that she thinks Sanders is a gun nut. The article does contain some facts about Sanders' record on guns. So I might quote from it too, but I don't think Sanders is a gun nut.

I think Sanders is a moderate on gun control issues. His record bears that out. That puts him to the right of me on the issue and so I wish he would move further to the left. But only someone who is delusional or a complete moron would call him a gun nut.

reading the headlines?

smh!

What's desperate is the attempt by Sanders supporters--in the wake of two recent, horrific tragedies--to mitigate his dumb-ass, bone-headed, flat out STUPID stance on guns. His views are incompatible with the party platform. We need gun control, and he's not for it. He weasels on the subject when he should stand up.

He wants to be a national politician? He needs to start acting like one.

Feh. You want errors? Look at Bernie's gun nut POV.

including what it says in the title. Surely you know that.

And he will always get the last word.

It's all about scoring points, not honesty.

Sure, whatever you say.

Surely I don't know that--and that wasn't my take-away at all.

Calling Bernie a "gun nut" is the epitome of hyperbolic claptrap.

The Republicans are the enemy here, not the pro-gun control Dems.

Thus we see this revolving slate of ridiculous attacks that you have archived so meticulously.

But I am not tone deaf either and it still confounds me how a large chunk of the constituency I am a part of does not seem to be aware that gun ownership and second amendment issues enjoy some strong support even among reliable Democrat voters.

It is anti-SLAPP suit. You want to sue gun manufacturers? Make guns illegal... which will require some significant tinkering with the 2nd amendment. Nothing in the PLCAA prevents anyone from suing a gun manufacturer for injuries from a defective firearm.
We can't sue companies for making legal products that work the way they are supposed to no matter how much we don't like them. We just can't.

You can sue any manufacturer EXCEPT the gun industry. As a matter of fact, even victims of drunk drivers can sue the bar that sold the liquor to the drunk driver.

The bar that sold the liquor to the obviously drunk person didn't manufacture the liquor. You are suing the bar for negligence in their sale, not the company that manufactured the legal product. If you could sue the manufacturer, then there wouldn't be any liquor manufacturers in business.

The PLCAA also took away incentives for the gun industry to create safer products, which companies like Smith and Wesson already had begun enacting. Until the PLCAA came along.

Just like the bad bar analogy someone's trying to use as well.

It would be akin to suing Ford because a Taurus was used in a drunk driving accident.

Using your logic you'd be in favour of suing car makers whose cars were involved in drunk driving accidents.

You're using Camp Weathervane talking points.

Why are you sticking up for gun manufacturers?

I'm not, I'm defending my candidate from opportunists who are exploiting a tragedy.

Here are the exceptions to immunity straight from the PLCAA:

(1) an action brought against someone convicted of “knowingly transfer[ing] a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence” by someone directly harmed by such unlawful conduct;

(2) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(3) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;3

(4) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;

(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

(6) an action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.4

Please cite that said talking point, and provide a factual link to it, please.

Thank you. Time begins now.

Its called Dram Shop laws.

This is literally an example of protecting a corporation. Numerous corporations.

Can sue a bar. But the gun industry is completely off limits.

Are you new at this?

And it was already explained yo you why. Bars can be held liable for damages caused by serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons. Why would you think the liquor industry should be responsible for that? They are selling a legal product.

sales go through licensed gun dealers. The law says that they can be sued if they break the law. What was happening was that people were suing the gun dealers even though they followed all federal and state gun laws.

I was WTF on that one.

You can sue gun manufacturers for defective guns. You're welcome to do some research and come back to admit your error.

From FFL dealer to the customer is where the problem is.

Wrong target, btw.

We are going to have to find other ways to combat gun violence. Suing manufacturers of legal products opens WAY too many dangerous doors.

You should NOT be able to go after people for legal devices that are working as intended. Change the 2nd amendment or find ways to regulate firearms within its parameters.

they cannot be sued if they follow all federal and state regulations regarding the manufacture, sale and marketing of guns.

wanted more.

And what exactly has Hillary done to prevent gun violence?

That would be intellectually honest but then HC supporters blamed Bernie for Sandy Hook and Gabby Giffords too.

So I'm not surprised that they're doing it again.

for members of the Dead Horse Beaters' Club

It's just a repeat of a lie however.

I didn't see one, anyway... ?

But the truth gets on the way of the narrative so they just keep lying.

Recycling the same 6 or 7 stories constantly for months on end, always expecting a different result. Is Bernie that untouchable?

using cluster bombs - Hillary, IMO, is the quintessential gun nut. I guess it doesn't matter, though, if the dead men and women and children are overseas, does it. That looks "tough".

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/03/13/cluster-bombs-are-not-good-children-hillary

The Umpqua shootings are coming at an inconvenient time for Bernie.