2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Last Thing Bernie Sanders Needs Right Now Is A Conversation About Guns
With every mass shooting, Bernie's gun control record is going to be scrutinized. There will be many more shootings between now and election day.
These questions aren't going away.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Last Thing Bernie Sanders Needs Right Now Is A Conversation About Guns
OCTOBER 02, 2015 2:02 PM ET
Jessica Taylor
President Obama passionately pleaded for stricter gun laws in the aftermath of yet another mass shooting Thursday. Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and others renewed their calls for stricter gun control measures.
But it's the more liberal Sanders who could find himself having to uncomfortably explain his past positions on gun control. Even though the progressive socialist is to the left of Clinton and his other primary competitors on nearly every issue, he's walked a delicate line as a lawmaker from Vermont, where 2nd Amendment rights are popular.
Sanders has had a mixed voting record on guns. He voted in favor of the 2013 universal background check bill and assault-weapons ban following the Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre, and he's backed ending the so-called "gun-show loophole."
He has also voted to allow guns on Amtrak, against the Brady Bill and against legislation that would have allowed lawsuits against gun companies. In fact, the NRA even helped Sanders win his first race for Congress.
Read more:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/02/445312778/the-last-thing-bernie-sanders-needs-right-now-is-a-conversation-about-guns
BlueWaveDem
(403 posts)A disaster in the making.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Haven't you even been on an Amtrak train?
Deer all over the place.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)"I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations and I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake."
His comments come in the wake of the shootings last month in Newtown, Conn. The killing of 20 children in the town has spurred gun-control advocates to seek restriction on the ownership of certain firearms such as military-style assault rifles.
"Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that.
"So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/27/170393072/gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more-obama-says
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
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/04/hillary-hits-obama-on-faith-guns-007747#ixzz3nRYLJKiQ
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I'm for a full Australian-style ban.
However, Obama and Hillary are far better on this issue than Bernie IMO.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)But we should still try, right?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You'll have to find and support a candidate who hasn't entered the race yet if that's what you want.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)just like I'm sure many folks think we shouldn't stop trying to get universal healthcare.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)There are a number of DUers who agree with my position that we should implement an Australian-style ban in the United States.
We will keep fighting, just like folks will keep fighting for universal healthcare.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Your candidate doesn't support a ban on guns or universal healthcare.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)See my post #20:
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Your candidate doesn't support either, which is why Bernie is the logical choice for someone who supports both.
Bernie = pro-2A/pro-universal health care
Hillary = pro-2A/anti-universal health care
Why is that so hard to understand?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Absolutely.
Both are nearly impossible to do politically, but advocates won't stop trying.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
There isn't a single major candidate who supports a full gun ban, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to vote.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)AWESOME!
It's an extremely important issue and we need a president who will fight for this basic human right!
Glad you came around, Cali Democrat!
Welcome aboard the Bernie bus!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)to help Bernie get elected.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Sorry that won't ever happen. Ever. Australia has far less people and far less firearms. 50 years ago you MAY have been able to do it, big maybe. These days you can just forget about it when there's more guns than there are people. I myself am a gun owner.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Conveniently forget that part, same as the airlines. Locked in a checked bag.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Instead of attacking the Republicans they're going after a Dem candidate who supports gun control.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And they have set a shadow discussion group to plot on DU members. Sickening.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Did you miss that or are you trying to convince everyone that Bernie supports carrying guns on trains?
TM99
(8,352 posts)and you statement attests to it.
The vote was not to allow guns to be carried by passengers on Amtrak trains. It was simply to allow handguns to be transported in checked baggage. All guns must be declared, be in a secure container, and unloaded.
This is exactly what has been allowed on airplanes for some time. No different.
So when an NPR article has this kind of subtle spin to it already, it is not worth reading or discussing beyond fact checking and correcting.
They're desperate.
with either NPR or these particular partisans.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,681 posts)He voted for the 2013 background check bill and assault weapons ban. But the Oregon shooting must have been his fault, right?
Hillary's position is, as usual, flexible, depending as always on which way the political wind is blowing on a particular day..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-makes-big-gun-control-pitch-marking-shift-in-presidential-politics/2015/07/09/4309232c-2580-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)if they don't support handing out free assault rifles to children.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Bernie positions can resonate with sensible gun owners so we can start taking steps to end this logjam. Calls for bans simply cause peopke who might listen to close their ears and feed the paranoia the NRA is stoking.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)This is such a lame argument, but I do realize their avenues of attack against Bernie are extremely limited.
So bring it on.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And he is pro-gun control.
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
This is just more fodder for Hillary supporters who are desperate to resurrect the gun nut meme.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)and a waiting period?
He did it for the hunters, right?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He's pro-gun control and like I said, his position is just fine with me.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)He preferred background checks at the state level. What a crime that was
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I was waiting to see if they replied.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)
n8dogg83 This message was self-deleted by its author.
riversedge
(70,197 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)It will most definitely be scrutinized.
riversedge
(70,197 posts)needs to be done. So, it will continue to be in the national spotlight.
I dunno
(31 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)An American Ambassador died on Hillary Clinton's watch. He was HER employee; MURDERED.
I don't hear much about Christopher Stevens. An American Ambassador is the face we as a country present to the world.
Time was, Ambassadors were serious business. Ambassadors. Liasons between US, and the fucking WORLD. They were not chosen by fiat, they were chosen because they had GRAVITAS. They were the kind of people who could, (without meaning any offense here) "sell snowballs to Eskimoes". They understood protocol. They were able to sit with People of Power in other countries and soothe their ruffled nerves.
Today they're campaign contributors. Caroline Kennedy couldn't speak a WORD of Japanese when appointed, nor had ever had the inclination to learn. Today an Ambassadorship is a gift.
Christopher Stevens didn't FIT that mold. He was truly enthralled with the people of Libya and people of the Middle East at large. He spent most of his adult life trying to make their lives better.
In the days before he died, he sent URGENT messages to the Department of State entailing the breakdown of security in Libya. He literally begged for an increase in security. Someone denied those requests, and in the end, Christopher Stevens and four brave men who endeavored to keep him safe died.
Hillary Clinton claims not to have seen his URGENT messages. Contemplate this: The Secretary of State, the person Christopher Stevens was DIRECTLY accountable to, claims NOT TO HAVE SEEN his requests, and because of that, he was brutally murdered along with four others.
We don't hear much about Christopher Stevens today. The MURDER of a US Ambassador somehow doesn't merit discussion.
It happened on Hillary Clinton's watch. It happened because she "didn't see" his URGENT requests for extra security in a deteriorating place.
Forget the bullshit about the "video" and the fact that when Ambassador Stevens was murdered only a few thousand people THE WORLD OVER had seen it. THAT'S not important.
What IS important (at least to me) is HOW an AMBASSADOR could reach out to the SECRETARY OF STATE in an URGENT manner before he was murdered, and NOT have his cables reach the Secretary of State's EYES.
If those cables DID reach Secretary Clinton's eyes; she's LYING. If those cables DIDN'T reach her eyes... there was a systemic flaw in the way her Department of State was run and as we all know: SHIT RUNS UPHILL, all the way to the top.
This bullshit spewed by Hillary's supporters... this "BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! EMAIL EMAIL" bullshit is insulting to the very core of my being. Sometimes I feel like screaming back "CHRISTOPHER STEVENS! MURDERED!" in response.
An American Ambassador was murdered. He reached out to the Secretary of State in an URGENT manner requesting extra security. The Secretary of State says she never saw his cables and within hours of his death blamed it on some dickhead in Cerritos, California and the Department of Homeland Security sent more people to his house than the WHOLE FUCKING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT sent to save an Ambassador.
She wants to be President? Not really. She wants to be the FIRST FEMALE President.
I could NEVER support her... thank goodness I don't have to. I live in California
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)You barely waited 24 fucking hours.
Next question.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I'm so disgusted with Libya I could puke. Christopher Stevens was there as a DIPLOMAT. His whole purpose in life was to promote PEACE. He was in Libya because he LOVED Libya and Libyans. It was his third fucking tour as Ambassador to their backward, third world country.
A hundred thousand people like Christopher Stevens, out of the six billion+ who inhabit the planet, could quite possibly turn this shitty place we call Earth into a PARADISE.
Hey Libyans? Those among you who enabled this atrocity just guaranteed that your shitty little piece of sand isn't going to be favored among nations any time soon. Good going. Those of you who looked the other way while the enablers did their thing deserve just as much of the blame as anyone else. May the fleas of ten thousand camels infest your fucking armpits AND your crotches, you stupid fucks.
You allowed and enabled the vicious murder of a man who came to your country because he LOVED you. He wanted to see you SUCCEED.
But I digress...
This isn't about YOU, Libya, it's about four HEROES that you in your backward way would call MARTYRS. They died for a CAUSE. The supreme irony here is they died for YOUR cause, and you fucking allowed it, nay, you FOSTERED it.
All day long I'm reading bullshit about 12 minute videos as if they were to blame in this whole thing and what seems to be lost in the cacophany is that this whole thing happened on 9/11. Any thinking person KNOWS this was pre-planned as an attack on anything that could be seen as "American" and had NOTHING to do with any stupid youtube video. Fuck the lot of you. And FUCK anyone who tries to use the video excuse as a way to deflect the true cause of your hatred of anything that doesn't elevate your shitty prophet.
To my DU brethren, I say this: The next time you see "sports hero", or "film hero" or "music hero", think of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty, and KNOW who the REAL heroes are.
Fuck Libya.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #49)
Post removed
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It was nothing more than an angry, racist, xenophobic screed one would see on message boards like Free Republic:
I'm so disgusted with Libya I could puke. Christopher Stevens was there as a DIPLOMAT. His whole purpose in life was to promote PEACE. He was in Libya because he LOVED Libya and Libyans. It was his third fucking tour as Ambassador to their backward, third world country.
A hundred thousand people like Christopher Stevens, out of the six billion+ who inhabit the planet, could quite possibly turn this shitty place we call Earth into a PARADISE.
Hey Libyans? Those among you who enabled this atrocity just guaranteed that your shitty little piece of sand isn't going to be favored among nations any time soon. Good going. Those of you who looked the other way while the enablers did their thing deserve just as much of the blame as anyone else. May the fleas of ten thousand camels infest your fucking armpits AND your crotches, you stupid fucks.
You allowed and enabled the vicious murder of a man who came to your country because he LOVED you. He wanted to see you SUCCEED.
But I digress...
This isn't about YOU, Libya, it's about four HEROES that you in your backward way would call MARTYRS. They died for a CAUSE. The supreme irony here is they died for YOUR cause, and you fucking allowed it, nay, you FOSTERED it.
All day long I'm reading bullshit about 12 minute videos as if they were to blame in this whole thing and what seems to be lost in the cacophany is that this whole thing happened on 9/11. Any thinking person KNOWS this was pre-planned as an attack on anything that could be seen as "American" and had NOTHING to do with any stupid youtube video. Fuck the lot of you. And FUCK anyone who tries to use the video excuse as a way to deflect the true cause of your hatred of anything that doesn't elevate your shitty prophet.
To my DU brethren, I say this: The next time you see "sports hero", or "film hero" or "music hero", think of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty, and KNOW who the REAL heroes are.
Fuck Libya.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,681 posts)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/
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
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Now wouldn't that be ironic?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)On April 17, 2008, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama referenced the song in gesture, in response to sharp attacks from his rival Hillary Clinton and a debate which was widely criticized for focusing on campaign gaffes rather than on candidates' policy positions.[1][2] Referencing his opponents' "textbook Washington" tactics, focusing on personal attacks and trivial issues, Obama used Jay-Z's hand signal to "brush the dirt" off his shoulders.[3] When asked whether Obama was deliberately referencing the song, a campaign spokesman said, "He has some Jay-Z on his iPod."[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirt_off_Your_Shoulder
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)He has stated over and over again that the time has come to have a meaningful conversation about gun control legislation. None of the previous gun control acts have done anything to prevent the tragedies this country has seen the last few years. He wants to bridge the gap between responsible gun owners and folks who want strict gun control by coming up with gun control laws that work for everybody. They would include a ban on assault weapons, instant background checks, and an overhaul of mental health care among other things. That's not an easy task, obviously, and it's why nothing gets done after these types of events. But of all people to lead this debate, Bernie is in the unique position of being a candidate who supports gun control while representing a state that has almost no gun control laws. He understands both sides of the issue and is willing to compromise, something that is desperately needed in this debate. Otherwise we're just going to keep spinning our wheels and get nowhere time and time again.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)And has repeated called for stricter gun control, background checks, and so on.
What exactly do people think that using this issue to smear Bernie during a national crisis will accomplish? Help Hillary??
Good luck with that.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)So it's not a surprise.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)more than a third of Americans own guns.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)Wouldnt change my vote, given the alternative is being complicit in dropping bombs on brown-skinned people and sending their children screaming through the night. When they can sue the arms manufacturers I'll worry about suing gun manufacturers.
valerief
(53,235 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Shame is dead.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Autumn
(45,060 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I know your other angles haven't been very successful, but I really wonder, what makes you think this will be "the one"?
Stellar
(5,644 posts)and I hope that doesn't cause trouble for him.
But it's the more liberal Sanders who could find himself having to uncomfortably explain his past positions on gun control. Even though the progressive socialist is to the left of Clinton and his other primary competitors on nearly every issue, he's walked a delicate line as a lawmaker from Vermont, where 2nd Amendment rights are popular.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Ron Green
(9,822 posts)You've even got Hillary supporters going after each other.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Unheard of!
Number23
(24,544 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Because he is talking about gun control
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Just like he did here on CNN about gun control.
And then there's this.
Now THAT is leadership!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And no weathervane required, lol