Another mass shooting and the election

[BainsBane]

Can we quit making excuses for politicians who defend gun proliferation and grant immunity to gun manufacturers?

How about you folks who support Sanders contact his office and tell him you want him to rethink his position, quit making excuses for corporate gun manufacturers and their rich and powerful lobby. Sanders says his movement is about you, the people. Do you the people want the status quo in regard to guns to continue? Or do you want him to move left on the issue?

[AtomicKitten]

1. Your manufactured hizzy is duly noted. Snaps for drama.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. How long do we have to put up with this shit for?

I'm tired of the gun deaths in this country.

Something needs to change!

[Agschmid]

8. Snaps for snark.

[AverageGuy]

89. I do not own any guns, but

I know people who enjoy hunting (and eat what they shoot). Making gun companies responsible for what crazy people do with guns would put them out of business. It makes no sense, but common sense regulation such as Burnie supports (Background checks, limits on assault weapons) makes a lot of sense.

[Agschmid]

92. Guns make it a whole lot easier to kill people...

No one needs them, and that's IMHO.

[beam me up scottie]

94. Hunters need them to provide food for their families.

[Agschmid]

96. Nope it's 2015, we have grocery stores.

I literally have no interest in having guns as part of my society sorry. People hunted before their were guns right... Or were we all extinct?

[beam me up scottie]

97. Poor people in rural areas count on venison to feed their family.

How can you not know this?

[Agschmid]

101. They have relied on venison for a while, probably before guns...

How can you not know this?

The only people I know who hunt, hunt for fun. I have no interest in that and thinks it's a waste. I have lived (ironically) in deep red areas in VT where there were guns everywhere. I never want to have to live near that again.

No legitimate reason for guns in our culture, IMO.

[beam me up scottie]

107. So they should use spears? Wtf?

I'm a Vermonter who grew up surrounded by poor people who filled their freezer every fall.

The only people I know who hunt, hunt for fun.

So poor people who hunt for food don't exist?

[Agschmid]

111. IMO... There is no legitimate reason for guns.

There are tons of grocery stores in the Northeast Kingdom...

There is no reason for guns, IMO.

We disagree here... That's just it. And we are both democrats so we both have to support the candidate.

[beam me up scottie]

120. And meat is expensive.

The people I know butcher their own meat so it costs very little.

[Agschmid]

121. Yes it is, we were a mostly vegetarian society before we developed

tools to kill.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. Why don't you go hang out In a Commercial slaughterhouse for a few hours, find out

How long it took for your breakfast sausage to bleed out on a hook, hanging from it's leg, throat slashed. You'd be surprised how long it can take.

When I take an animal, it's by a means with so little suffering, I can live with it. I couldn't work in a slaughterhouse. I'm not that cruel. It's pretty much *lights out* when I take a deer.

[Agschmid]

136. No need for me to do that.

It's not about that for me, it's about the people who have been killed by people with guns...

We can't get rid of people.

But we sure can get rid of guns.

And IMO that's the right thing to do.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. Well, we disagree.

And a rather large percentage of my fellow democrats agree. Not just agree, but own firearms directly.

We'll be arguing about high wattage lasers and other directed energy weapons long before anyone 'gets rid' of guns.

[Agschmid]

141. Yes it's a big party you are bound not to agree with everyone.

[passiveporcupine]

104. Teach them to use snares

Just kidding.

But a lot of poor people do hunt for rabbit and other small critters with snares.

[beam me up scottie]

112. Ikr?

Just when you think you've seen everything on DU...

[Agschmid]

122. Hey maybe as a society we can do a better job providing for the poor...

AND eliminate guns.

IKR?

[beam me up scottie]

124. Or maybe we can provide for them without taking away their right to provide for themselves.

Those people I grew up with?

Most of them too proud to take food stamps.

[Agschmid]

126. Who said anything about food stamps...

How about more jobs, more manufacturing, or maybe a society guaranteed income.

So far the reasons you have given are not that impressive... IMO there is no reason for people to have guns.

[beam me up scottie]

131. "providing for them" implies giving them something.

I prefer to let them provide for themselves, and that includes creating more jobs where they can earn a paycheck.

So far the reasons you have given for taking away their right to hunt for food are not impressive at all.

[Agschmid]

138. I'm not taking away their right to hunt...

Tons of people hunt without guns...

How can you not know this?

[beam me up scottie]

140. Really? How do you think they kill deer without them?

Dig a big hole at the bottom of a cliff and drive them off it?

[Agschmid]

143. With a crossbow.

Hunting with a gun requires little to no skill, again living in VT I've known people who have hunted like this and have been quite successful.

Again humans hunted before guns, and it certainly wasn't by pushing them off a cliff... What a rediculous thought.

[beam me up scottie]

145. "Hunting with a gun requires little to no skill"

Killing an animal with a bow take great skill, if my family was going to go hungry because I missed the shot I'd use a gun.

Which is why it's an inexpensive and efficient way for people to hunt game.

Most folks I know who hunt for food do it with both bows and guns so they can take advantage of both seasons.

[Agschmid]

146. And there you have it.

Thanks for that, you clearly don't need a gun to hunt.

[beam me up scottie]

147. You do if you can't hunt with a bow.

And if you want to bag more than one deer a season.

In other words if you hunt for food you need to be accurate and successful.

[AtheistCrusader]

153. You know deer aren't the only thing people hunt, right?

Taking an arrow shot at one wild boar out of a pack sounds like an un-fun day to me.

Do you seriously think that we need to go back to pre-revolutionary war tech to solve violence in this country?
Pass.

I'm a tool using mammal, and tools evolve along with us. Society is solving this, albeit slowly, already.

[Agschmid]

154. Meanwhile I'll just watch the body count continue to climb.

Ain't no thang.

Better get hunting, while you can.

[AtheistCrusader]

155. That body count will climb even if you snap your fingers and all 300+million firearms vanish.

We're an exceptionally violent society among our peers, with nothing more than fists and feet.

But we're getting better.

It might happen, some day, I'll look an animal in the eyes and decide no more. Not by my hand and not from the abattoir of commercial farms. I could stop eating meat. (I'm surprised no vegans have spoken up yet, doubly so since I think they have a place at the table in this conversation, and an important voice)

That could happen. I'd still keep all but my purpose-built hunting firearms. The issue at hand isn't just about hunting, hunting is simply one of many non-human purposes for firearms.

[beam me up scottie]

161. I'm a vegetarian.

I've never killed an animal, hell I won't even kill a pregnant Black Widow spider.

But I know good people who hunt for food and I refuse to condemn them.

Hunting for sport is a whole other matter...don't even get me started...

[passiveporcupine]

167. "hell I won't even kill a pregnant Black Widow spider"

You're a better man than me Gunga din.

[beam me up scottie]

168. :) I relocated her.

Lots of abandoned buildings on the property, more room for her and the kids, too.

[passiveporcupine]

170. I'm afraid I let fear get the best of me with poisonous spiders

but I will relocate a rattle snake. I think it's because they are easier to see. Spiders are too small and easy to miss when hiding in a dark place. I do rescue lots of non-venomous spiders though (and lots of other critters). My house is overrun with Jerusalem crickets right now, but sometimes it's scorpions and I always just take them outside to hide under a rock.

[passiveporcupine]

166. Something to think about

&quot I'm surprised no vegans have spoken up yet, doubly so since I think they have a place at the table in this conversation, and an important voice)"

How many vegans have pets like cats or dogs? They eat meat. They have to buy food containing meat to feed their pets a healthy diet. So...unless you give up everything made of an animal, you are really not a true vegan (if you are calling yourself that because you no longer kill animals or eat their meat).

[passiveporcupine]

128. what, you don't understand jokes?

I said just kidding. You cannot snare a deer (well maybe you could, but it wouldn't be easy).

[beam me up scottie]

132. I know you're kidding, silly!

Sorry if that came out wrong?

[passiveporcupine]

135. Sorry about that

Gotta run to the vet so I'm off, but just wanted to let you know I didn't get your post because I didn't know what IKR meant. Had to look it up. DOH!

[beam me up scottie]

142. Hope everything's okay with your family.

Vet bills take up a big chunk of our income.

Lucky for us we've got two of the best in the business taking care of our animals.

[passiveporcupine]

162. Yeah, I'm in a bad spot right now.

I have a house full of rescue animals and I am dealing with a bacterial upper respiratory infection the moves from cat to cat and I can't treat them all at one time, as I need to, to stop it from reinfecting, so I'm spending a fortune now taking them in, one a month and buying shots to bring home for the ones that have already been in. I can't treat the ones that haven't been in because the vet can't give out a prescription to an animal they haven't seen in the last year. I got a break from the vet today of about $60 but I need a solution because this is going to break me very soon, and I haven't even gotten them all in yet. And pretty soon I need to take them all in again, because my "year" will be up for the first ones that went in. I have dental issues myself that are not being treated (very serious and expensive issues) and critical home repair projects that are waiting for me to save up enough to start them, and now all my money is going to the vet. But I love my kids and I'm not going to put them down or try to find homes for them (they are too old now and who wants an old sick cat?). So they come first.

What is your vet story?

[beam me up scottie]

163. That's awful, I am so sorry to hear it.

Can you find a cheaper source for antibiotics?

Maybe the people in the Pets group can help you with advice, they were very kind to me.

We have horses, dogs and cats - one of whom has insulin resistant diabetes. His insulin in $200 a pop but it's the only thing keeping him alive.

One dog has arthritis, the other has dental problems and everything a horse needs is expensive.


Thank you for being a rescuer, passiveporcupine, it takes a special kind of person to dedicate their life and all of their resources to helping animals.

You rock.

[passiveporcupine]

164. Hey, I'm no different than you

Anyone who loves animals rocks.

[R B Garr]

184. Yeah, like poor people can afford an $800 rifle and time off from work

to go out and shoot a rabbit to put in the stew pot! .

You are hilarious! Yes, just when you've seen "everything" on DU. How ridiculous can you get!

[George II]

183. Do you know of any poor people in rural areas who hunt to feed their families...

....that use AK-47s to do so?

[beam me up scottie]

191. Where did I mention anything about using AK-47's in my post?

That's right, I didn't.

I referred to poor people who hunt for food.

When you want to have an honest discussion about what I actually posted, get back to me.

[George II]

193. Just read the progression of posts, okay? We're talking gun control...

...control of ALL guns, AK-47s included. You defended poor people who need guns to put food on their tables. No one uses AK-47s to hunt for food.

When YOU want to have an honest discussion about the topic at hand, get back to me. Sorry I can't read your mind and figure out what parts of these discussions you want left out.

[beam me up scottie]

194. Let's get something straight, first you responded to this post by me:

beam me up scottie (29,765 posts)

94. Hunters need them to provide food for their families.

Which was in response to someone who claims no one needs guns.

Second your obfuscation and bullshit attempt to introduce another topic into the discussion I was having with that poster is neither relevant nor welcome.


The topic at hand was HUNTING FOR FOOD.


If you really wanted to talk about AK 47s you would have asked my opinion about them.

Instead you decided to make it look like I approve of their use by asking a stupid question.


It's dishonest and further discussion after such an attempt is beneath me.


You're not as clever as you think you are.

[R B Garr]

182. LMAO, that's the kind of crap Sarah Palin said!

Your spinning is absolutely hilarious!

[AverageGuy]

119. Believe what you will

But in a rural state like VT there are many hunters. Bernie's job is to represent his state, and he understands them. There is a sizable number of people in rural states who share this view. Bernie believes in common sense regulation, but he understands how people in rural areas view guns. And as he says, it is different from city folk, and helps make him a president for all the people.

[Agschmid]

137. I'm not a "city folk" I lived in VT for 8 years.

I despise gun culture and guns IMO there is no reason for them to be part of our society.

[passiveporcupine]

134. I believe hunting should be legitimate

Just not a lot of other guns.

But some hunting is necessary to help with wildlife control. That's why permits are issued with different limits and seasons all the time...to control bear populations and deer populations, etc. And if people are eating what they hunt, I really don't have a problem with hunters (although I could never do it, nor would I ever want to see an animal shot).

But we don't need all the different kinds of automatic weapons that are sold now, and all the pistols in urban areas (where long guns aren't as easy to hide).

I think Bernie has some sensible ideas toward gun control, and I suspect if it was up to him to help the whole country on this issue, not just Vermont, he will gradually change with the tide, or help push ideas that will work without trying to take all guns away.

Australia really cracked down on guns, but they still allow the ownership and use of guns for hunting. We don't need to be all or nothing on this issue.

[peacebird]

176. I need them to protect my animals from predators. We have fox, bear, coyote, possum, and coon here

All of which like tasty chicken snacks.

[Thinkingabout]

188. Do you protect your animals with an AR15?

[Thinkingabout]

98. Like the Brady Bill?

[petronius]

114. The most important part of the Brady bill, IMO, is the background checks, and

as far as I can tell Sanders was always in favor of that. His objection was to a waiting period, and he voted against the bill due to the interim waiting period (which is no longer applicable anyway since the instant-check system is now in place).

Also, Sanders voted in 2013 to support background checks that would have been more extensive than what is currently required due to the Brady bill.

This criticism of him for voting against the Brady bill may be truthful, but it's pretty disingenuous in light of his other votes and his reasoning in that particular case...

[Thinkingabout]

116. Yes he voted against the Brady Bill, they can always declare a statement which is not sensible.

[beam me up scottie]

118. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

[bvf]

125. How on earth did you manage to parse that? n/t.

[beam me up scottie]

127. Previous discussions with that poster.

They claim Bernie has rape fantasies.

Some people aren't worth it.

[passiveporcupine]

169. Oh God!

Yeah, I can really picture Bernie with rape fantasies.

Hell lI am a woman and I have rape fantasies. It does NOT mean I want to be raped in real life.

[beam me up scottie]

172. Some people are shameless.

I won't post smears like that against Hillary because I like and respect many of her supporters. They have legitimate concerns and stick to the facts.

Others not so much.

[Thinkingabout]

189. Previous post with me did not say Bernie has rape fantasies, he wrote and published an article about

women having fantasies about rape. I also provided you with links to the truth. If you think Bernie has fantasies about rape then say you think this, say you think like this.

[beam me up scottie]

190. Thinkingabout: "Still waiting for whom was Bernie defending in his rape fantasies"

Thinkingabout (14,807 posts)

232. Still waiting for whom was Bernie defending in his rape fantasies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=445576

Now that I've proven that your version of the "truth" is anything but we're done.

People who smear Democratic candidates on DU and then deny it to my face aren't worth my time.

[PatrynXX]

75. Not gonna do much

Republicans are actually anti gun ... Democrats are not. Actions speak louder than words.

[George II]

77. Explain please.

[George II]

76. Four Americans shot dead and its greeted with flippant remarks. Sweet.

[AtomicKitten]

83. Turning tragedy into a cheapass political shot.

Skeezy.

[beam me up scottie]

93. Four Americans shot dead and its greeted with a flippant op by a Hillary supporter.

When will the shameless abuse of victims end?

[George II]

95. It wasn't flippant in my eyes, just a sincere request for a candidate's followers.....

....to ask him to reassess his position on gun control.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Tying a Dem candidate to this tragedy and Charleston is swift boating at its finest.

In my eyes.

[George II]

105. He/she mentioned Charleston? Where?

[beam me up scottie]

109. :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=449838

[R B Garr]

178. You are right. That poster you're responding to just likes to spin.

It wasn't flippant and is a very valid point.

[randys1]

2. He is wrong on this issue as Hillary is on Glass Steagall if what I read today is correct.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/07/16/hillary-clintons-mistake-on-glass-steagall/



Both can be and are wrong here and there, I will still gladly vote for either

[Thinkingabout]

110. Because the Glass-Stegall would not be strong enough to have prevented the

Meltdown, there has to be a stronger bill. Bringing back Glass-Stegall is not the answer either. Enhancing Dodd-Frank to regulate more would be a better answer.

[Scuba]

4. It's not my favorite part of Bernie's record, which is still miles better than Hillary's.

[BainsBane]

5. Not on gun control

But that is not the point here. The question is do you care enough to contact him about it or are you going to make excuses about it? I have seen people turn their backs on gun control because of Sanders views. That is not okay, IMO. I would like to see his supporters express their concern over the issue: revoke liability for the corporate gun industry and promote gun control measures.

[Scuba]

6. I've made no excuses. I said it's not my favorite part of his record.

Have you contacted Hillary about her vote on the IWR?

[JaneyVee]

7. Have you contacted Bernie about guns, F-35s, and no vote to close GITMO?

[BainsBane]

16. You just made an excuse, right now

for failing to do anything to move your candidate off a bad position on an issue. You brought up a vote from 13 years ago. If I had been her constituent in 2002-3, I most certainly would have contacted her, as I did my own senators at the time. Guns are a current and ongoing issue. I had hoped people could find it in themselves to care about more than the career of a particular politician, that the lives of the people killed today, killed in Charleston, and the ones who continue to be killed every day in this country with the complicity of our congress would matter enough to get you to express your views to the candidate you support for president. Instead, you prefer excuses for why you will not. Point made. I'm sorry I suggested you might care enough about the domestic war to pick up the telephone. Evidently making jabs at another candidate who does stand up to the gun lobby is more important. I suppose you live in a nice safe neighborhood where people aren't shot on the street as they walk their babies to the park anyway.

[RoccoR5955]

17. So with that logic

If someone is killed with a hammer or a baseball bat, the hammer manufacturer or the bat manufacturer should be liable.
Sorry it doesn't make sense to me. The individual that used the implement of destruction should be responsible.

[zappaman]

43. Great NRA logic.

[London Lover Man]

72. So if I beat you down with a Louisville Slugger (now Wilson)

you want to go ahead and sue Louisville Slugger for damages because the bat was not used the way it was intended

That's what you are saying and you're calling it a NRA talking point - please provide link stating so.

BTW, NRA has rated Bernie Sanders a D- and a F respectively, so Bernie is not on NRA's side.

[George II]

85. Can you beat four people to death in a matter of minutes (spread over two sites this morning)....

....with a baseball bat?

Or can you slaughter 20 little children in a matter of about six minutes with a baseball bat?

[Agschmid]

102. I got this one...

No.

[London Lover Man]

106. Sure, I can think of at least 6 different ways to kill with a bat.

Within 6 minutes or less. It involves blades, a wedge and duct tape.

[Agschmid]

84. This.

[JaneyVee]

49. Can we get a list of mass murders committed by hammer?

[gcomeau]

61. FFS...

One of these things:

1. Hammer.
2. Gun.

Is made for the *express purpose of killing other human beings* and is designed to maximize it's efficacy at performing that task.

The other is not.

The manufacturers of each are, obviously, aware of this when they distribute them all over the country.

If you cannot grasp that difference there is no hope for you.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. That's amazing.

I guess all of my guns are broken. Who knew?

[gcomeau]

81. You mean they don't fire?

Because otherwise your snarky attempt to, I assume, pretend like just because you've never employed them for their designed function as a deadly weapon that somehow makes them not expressly designed deadly weapons is noted, and dismissed.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. Some of them are designed for use on humans, being military in nature.

One of them likely once was, being from WW1. Many of my firearms are not suitable for use on humans, and were never designed or intended for use on humans.

Can I presume you were talking about high cyclic rate firearms directly descended from military weapons, often referred to as 'assault weapons' then?

[gcomeau]

117. Meaning what?

One of them likely once was, being from WW1. Many of my firearms are not suitable for use on humans, and were never designed or intended for use on humans.

They're too small caliber to kill one? Tell you what, any gun you have that that can't kill a human when you fire it at one I'll give a pass.

Can I presume you were talking about high cyclic rate firearms directly descended from military weapons, often referred to as 'assault weapons' then?

No.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. one of my two U.S. Model 1917's bears the armorers marks of having been shipped to the European

theater, and was quite likely used on the Germans before returning to the U.S. And being retired to the Ogden Arsenal.

I'm not saying there are firearms too mild to hurt a human. I'm speaking to the primary 'purpose' and utility, which you have simply decided is, whatever you want it to be.

My .45-70 Government was made LONG after the government decided it was a total piece of shit for shooting at humans. Works really good on the largest mammals found in North America though. And you probably won't find one used in too terribly many crimes.

To contrast to your absolute, there is no deer hunting rifle mild enough to not serve as an excellent sniper rifle against humans. Deer often weigh more than we do. And there are a lot of purpose built hunting rifles most criminals would never try going on a shooting spree or bank robbery with.

[George II]

80. Oh crap, here we go again! Horrible analogy that has been used and riddled with holes....

.....dozens of times

A hammer is designed and manufactured to drive nails into wood to build things.

A baseball bat is designed and manufactured to hit a baseball during a game.

A gun is designed and manufactured to kill and destroy things.

How long before we hear "guns don't kill people, people do" or "the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"?

[passiveporcupine]

173. But George, you are not taking into account that there are different guns for different purposes

Hunting rifles were intended to hunt game, not man.

Military rifles were intended to kill men in war.

Are you seriously saying that if a gun manufacturer sells a hunting rifle to a hunter and someone uses it to commit murder, that is the fault of the manufacturer?

Now I do not have a problem with holding manufacturers accountable for selling military grade weapons to non-military citizens who then use them in crimes to kill other humans. I think that is where the distinction lies.

We don't need to eliminate all guns, but there are certainly some that have no business being on the street.

[mikehiggins]

86. Don't you just hate it when you see a bogus post?

"I have seen people turn their backs on gun control because of Sanders views."

I don't think I have to look that up on Snopes to find it is ridiculous.

Sheesh...

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. You do realize that not everyone in the Democratic Party agrees with your position on gun control?

Probably including some Hillary supporters, too.

[JaneyVee]

12. Gun control has big support among gun and non gun owners:

And both Democrats and Republicans.

[TeddyR]

19. Correct

Democrats and Republicans support universal background checks. Some support reasonable licensing requirements that are not left to the whim of a government official. There is little support in any party for gun bans or confiscation, which I've seen advocated here.

[DanTex]

13. There's not much that everyone in the Democratic Party agrees upon.

Other things that not all Democrats agree on: the Iraq War, banking regulation, TPP, etc.

But gun control is an important issue nevertheless.

[iandhr]

91. It all depends on how you phrase the question

If you ask do you favor gun control? You get a very poor rate for a yes response.

If you ask do you favor a mandatory background check for all firearms sales? you get A yes right in the mid to high 80s.

[William769]

10. Kick & highly recommended!

[aspirant]

11. "Immunity"

Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2015, 06:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Does the US government have immunity or implied immunity when its Drones kill people at an innocent wedding party, an American Citizen overseas, thousands and thousands of innocent women and children in a phony war, etc.

When our bombs, assault rifles and drones kill innocents, do we indict Bush, Obama, Secretary of Defense, DEFENSE CONTRACTORS, General in charge of the arena, the local commander or the guy just taking orders.

How about the TPP and its tribunal that is free and Immune from our judicial system and any appeals on environmental pillage and governmental laws restricting profits. Do we strip out any and all forms of immunity from the Trade Deals?

[beam me up scottie]

14. Way to use a tragedy to stump for your candidate.

Keeping it classy as usual, BB.

Quit making excuses to smear a good Dem candidate.

[99Forever]

21. Yup, classy to the end.

[beam me up scottie]

24. Using the deaths of 4 Marines in a personal vendetta against Bernie and his supporters.

Saw it coming a mile away.

[99Forever]

42. A shining example of Everything Hillary.

It's how they roll.

[beam me up scottie]

46. They use victims like toilet paper.

Revolting.

[truebrit71]

48. Indeed.

Despicable.

[HooptieWagon]

51. Typical Hillary supporter.

[840high]

47. +1

[appalachiablue]

60. +1

[BainsBane]

26. Shielding from discussion an issue that he publicly takes a position on

is more important than doing something. Sanders position on the issue is public, and he recently defended it on a Sunday news show. You insist any discussion of issues is a "smear" because no issue, no principle, could possibly matter compared to the political fortunes of one man. I can't even begin to imagine what it is like to hold such views.

Sanders clearly doesn't believe his record on guns is a smear since he openly defends it. What I hoped is some might contact him to express their concern about that position.

Clearly you're learning quickly. Here you are invoking the NRA trope of "using a tragedy." They use it to maintain the deadly status quo. And now you use it for the only thing that matters: Sanders political career. I don't happen to believe Sanders more important than the people who died in Charleston or those who died today, or the rest of the 32,000 who die every year from guns. I also believe there are Sanders supporters who will support him to the end yet care enough about doing something about the insane situation of guns in this country to contact him and let him now what they think. Clearly you are not among them, though at least one responder to this thread is.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Tying Sanders to this tragedy and Charleston is a smear worthy of Karl Rove.

Clearly you're learning quickly. Here you are using the NRA trope of "using a tragedy."

Accusing me of parroting the NRA is also something I'd expect from people who use right wing tactics against liberal Democrats on DU.

I don't happen to believe Sanders more important than the people who died in Charleston or those who died today, or the rest of the 32,000 who die every year from guns. I also believe there are Sanders supporters, who will support him to the end yet care enough about doing something about the insane situation of guns in this country to contact him and let him now what they think. Clearly you are not among them, though at least one responder to this thread is.

Pathetic personal attacks, strawman arguments, lather rinse repeat.

I am liberal on gun control and I agree with Bernie about frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers because they're not responsible for how illegal use of their product.

And I agreed with him before he was a candidate.

So get some new material, BB.

You aren't the authority on liberal issues.

Stop abusing the memories of gun victims to vilify people who disagree with you.

It's disgusting.

[JaneyVee]

54. And his vote against Brady Bill?

[petronius]

66. Sanders voted against the Brady Bill based on the interim waiting period

that was part of the compromise (a waiting period that now doesn't apply because the instant check system is in place).

The more important aspect of the Brady Bill (in my opinion) is the background check aspect -- and in 2013 Sanders voted in favor of background check requirements that would have been more extensive than what are currently required by the Brady Bill...

The Brady bill imposed a five-day waiting period for would-be purchasers of handguns. Between 1991 and 1993, Sanders voted against it five times. He did, however, vote for a version of the bill that imposed instant background checks, and against an amendment that repealed state background checks.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

[Cha]

129. "Sanders clearly doesn't believe his record on guns is a smear since he openly defends it."

Thank you, Bains.. defying logic to call his position on guns a "smear".

And, yes.. the nra always whines about using "a gun tragedy" to talk about common sense gun laws.. like anyone is trying to take their guns away. When that's not the reality.

[HappyMe]

175. Yeah, very classy.

[beam me up scottie]

192. The NRA likes to politicize the deaths of victims to promote their agenda too.

The talking points may be different but the tactics and abuse of victims' memories are the same.

[RoccoR5955]

15. I have been in touch, but I do, to some degree

agree that guns are different culturally in different parts of the country, and that the local governments could do a better job of enacting laws, as well as enforcing laws that were drawn up according to the locals.
What is wrong with that?

[BainsBane]

18. The problem with that is that the gun lobby has nationalized the issue

by waging law suits in local jurisdictions to remove gun control laws. Examples include DC and Chicago, where courts struct down gun bans because of NRA-led law suits.

I don't disagree with the premise you lay out. Guns definitely are different in rural vs. urban areas. However, the gun lobby refuses to allow local jurisdictions the right to maintain laws that reflect that.

Thank you for getting in touch with him. That really is awesome!

[TeddyR]

23. Gun bans were struck down

In DC and Chicago because the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Whether the lawsuits were "led" by the NRA (and I'm not sure they were, at least in DC) doesn't really matter. The ACLU might "lead" a lawsuit that strikes down a law that violates the First Amendment, but the law was overturned because it violated the First Amendment, not because of the ACLU.

[BainsBane]

27. And thus the NRA has ensured the issue be nationalized

including making concealed carry the law of the land. Yes, I know gun proliferaters will insist the Second Amendment ensures that every American, regardless of training or past behavior, should be able to carry a gun to buy a quart of milk or get gas. It doesn't make it right or sensible.

Corporations and billionaires buying elections has also been ruled to be protected by the First Amendment, yet it is the cornerstone of Sanders' campaign. That SCOTUS or another court decides something doesn't make it right.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. "That SCOTUS or another court decides something doesn't make it right."

That sounds an awful lot like the noises coming from the Republican Primary Clown Car after the Supreme Court decision in the Obergefell case.

Careful who you side with, you never know what ancillary positions you might end up sharing.

[beam me up scottie]

55. "That SCOTUS or another court decides something doesn't make it right."

Wow. That's exactly what the right wing religious wing nuts said about the SCOTUS same sex marriage decision.

[R B Garr]

186. Wow, are you really going to spin that you're confused

about Citizens United and that SCOTUS decision, because that's what was referenced. Wow. How dishonest of you to exploit the recent ruling you referenced. Let me use your own word: shameless. And, wow, I guess that Bush/Gore SCOTUS decision worked out for you okay, too? Wow.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The NRA tried to KILL the Heller vs. DC case. They didn't fucking lead it. Way to eat NRA post-hoc after lawsuit fundraising rhetoric.

Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[53] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[54] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[55] He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."[6]

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said.[citation needed] Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy's team were now on good terms

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Having no grasp whatsoever of the history or facts of the case, you have zero credibility on this issue.

[BainsBane]

31. The fact is they celebrate the decision

and have used it to counter the gun laws in Illinois.

Your point is a minor one. The main issue is that the gun lobby has nationalized the issue so that local jurisdictions are impaired. They are furiously working to expand concealed carry. That you can't deny.

I am sorry I besmirched a beloved Republican institution so unfairly.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. I see, the fact that you're wrong, again, is a minor one.

Don't play it off like I'm defending the NRA, fuck the NRA. The cynical of us might assume the NRA opposed Heller VS. DC because a win threatens their 'they comin to git your guns' fundraising rhetoric.

Heller was a win for civil rights, not the NRA. That they crassly moved to capitalize on the victory after the fav, should not be surprising to you, as we probably share the same opinion of the NRA.

My state has had concealed carry for 30 years, and I personally carry. We also have state preemption, and it's awesome.

[TeddyR]

53. The issue is "nationalized"

And local jurisdiction "impaired" by the Second Amendment, which applies to the federal government, the states and local municipalities. Do you think that the ACLU "nationalized" First Amendment protections? I can't stand the NRA, but it is silly to blame them for every setback suffered by the controllers. Concealed carry is permitted in one form or another in most states now, and has been the law of the land in that conservative bastion of Vermont since forever.

[Prism]

20. Well, this is shameless

Kind of want to go grab a garden hose and wash down just from reading it.

BTW, the manufacturer law was always intended as a backdoor way around the 2nd Amendment. It was transparent and would have never held up in the Court system. Especially not after Heller. Pretending otherwise is pointless and disingenuous.

And I say that as someone who hates guns, has never owned one, and would dearly like to see increased restrictions, longer waiting periods, and more thorough background checks.

[beam me up scottie]

22. +1

[AtheistCrusader]

29. +1

Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2015, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Even the background checks and waiting periods. I couldn't +1 your post any harder without plagarizing it.

Edit: wait, I don't hate guns, but I agree with literally everything else you said.

[arcane1]

35. +1, every word.

Never fired a gun, never will, and I agree with your post 100%.

[BrotherIvan]

87. AMEN!

I am a gun control hardliner, but this whole "controversy" is so transparently desperate. Sanders voted against one bill and that's all that counts. All his other votes for bans and background checks must never be mentioned.

[WillyT]

149. Proof-Positive... They're Worried...

[99Forever]

25. So, precisely what has President Obama done about it?

The same thing Hillary will do. Not a fucking thing. And you KNOW it.

[BainsBane]

40. No, actually

I would prefer to have effective gun control without Clinton as president than no gun control with her as president. Anyone who knows my history on DU knows I have posted about gun control the entire time. Her position is among the key reasons I support her. I don't discuss the issue because of her. She's only a politician. I do not build my political consciousness around politicians. Nor do I pick up or abandon issues because of a position a politician takes. I believe it's possible to support Sanders and communicate to him displeasure with his position on guns. That, however, depends on wanting to see something done on the issue enough to bother.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Dude. That's offensive and over the line.

I don't believe BB is for Hillary because of her "plumbing".

I do disagree with how she uses victims in her crusade against Sanders.

[99Forever]

160. I didn't your opinion.

I asked for THE FACTS.

But when THE FACTS don't fit, talk a big line of bullshit, right?

It really pisses you off that you suck at convincing other people to agree with you , doesn't it.

[arcane1]

32. Pimping those victims awfully soon, aren't you?

[BainsBane]

34. Wow, that's exactly what the NRA says

How sad. Truly.

[beam me up scottie]

39. I guess it's true about a stopped clock and all that.

How sad that you accuse other DUers of parroting the NRA because they disapprove of your shameless use of a tragedy to promote your candidate.

Who was called "Annie Oakley" by Barack Obama for her pandering to gun owners in 2008, btw.

[R B Garr]

179. Yeah, Sarah Palin was a big advocate for hunting and guns.

Remember? Nice company you're keeping there, btw. How sad you're parroting RW talking points to score message board points over 2008.

[Go Vols]

185. Obama 2012

OBAMA: We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We've got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

[R B Garr]

187. Obama 2015: Obama calls for gun control in wake of tragedy:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/18/charleston-church-shooting-obama-calls-gun-control

[CTBlueboy]

36. okay

Sen.Sanders will have to explain to American people his reasoning for his vote but you and HRC supporters riddle me this:

When is Hillary Clinton going to visit/apologize to the families of dead Iraqis for the war she voted for ? and no saying her vote was a mistake is not a good enough answer.
or do their lives of don't matter ?

Did she not have the courage enough to stand up against Bush &co?

[petronius]

37. Here's a list of Sanders' gun-related voting record

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

I see no reason for him to move toward a more restrictive position (if anything, I'd like to see him drop his support for an AWB). Overall, I'd say he has the best and most correctly-balanced firearms position among our primary candidates...

[daleanime]

41. Considering the grade the NRA gives him...

his closer to the left then we are now, but why do I feel this isn't real about gun violence?

[BainsBane]

50. At one time he had a C-

which is a high rating for a non-Republican. The NRA also ran ads against his opponent. He just defended his vote on granting immunity to corporate gun manufacturers on a Sunday news show a week and a half ago.

I post about gun control ALL the time. Supporting Sanders doesn't mean you need to adopt his position. He is running for office to represent you and the rest of the American public. Why would you contort yourself to conform to his views on gun control, when you can support him for other reasons and let him know you find his position on gun control troubling?

[daleanime]

56. Well, if you're looking for a issue where I really disagree with him....

I would suggest drones. There's a clear cut difference between us on that issue. I never have a problem discussing where I disagree with the candidates.

How about yourself?

[Aerows]

62. It isn't about guns

It's about dinging him on an issue that frankly, most progressives, liberals and sane people understand.

He's from a rural state. So am I. 90% of the people preaching about this have never seen a wild animal that can kill you, your pet, your relatives or your kids.

It isn't something they can conceive of. They think it doesn't happen. You are trying to explain that you can talk down the wild pig or an alligator - to a wild pig or an alligator that isn't in their damn yard.

[Alittleliberal]

150. In rural NY

I have bears walk by my front door 10 times a month during the season. We get packs of Coyotes that walk down the streets. I don't even really like guns and I am a huge supporter of hard gun control, but the people where I live need them.

[daleanime]

159. I know, just find that being honest in those kind of conversations...

makes it easier for me.....and kind of fun.

[Aerows]

63. I have to ask

Are you the artist that created that image? In your avatar?

[hack89]

44. His position on guns is perfectly in line with the Democratic Party platform

he thinks the 2A protects an individual right but allows strict regulation like an Assault Weapon Ban, universal background checks and magazine size limits.

His views on gun control correspond with most Democrats.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Not just with the party platform, but with members too. There's only a 20% delta in gun ownership

between people who identify as Democratic party voting or Republican party voting.

(I don't recall the PEW's precise wording, but essentially it was between people who identify D/R)

[840high]

45. People who want a gun will get it - no matter

if legal or illegal.

[Aerows]

57. If you want to disarm everybody

that lives in the sticks, has to contend with alligators and wild pigs, well, you will do that by yourself.

Do you live in the sticks? No. I understand this philosophy in an urban environment, but in a rural area?

Mind you, I would prefer we keep it to rifles. Long guns are necessary in certain places. They aren't hidden. They are used for a specific purpose.

But let's not act like you wouldn't be thrilled as hell if somebody showed up with a gun if there is an alligator on your front lawn or a wild pig in your back yard, because you sure as hell would be.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Might as well blame muslims for this too while you're at it.

Bernie's so far to the left of Hillary he lost sight of her years ago.

Right about the time she was fiercely campaigning against same sex marriage and voting to give Bush his war with Iraq.

[CanadaexPat]

64. Bernie voted against invasions in the Middle East.

Politicians who supported all those excursions should probably be contacted.

[Aerows]

78. Indeed they should

and they should be excoriated long before you tell people that live in rural areas how awful they are to have a rifle.

[frylock]

68. What do we know about the shooter? Where did he get his gun?

How would the Brady bill have prevented this action? What will suing the manufacturer of the weapon accomplish?

[BrotherIvan]

88. You are questioning someone for whom logic and facts are malleable

Screaming into the wind would be more productive.

[London Lover Man]

69. So back to the gun control meme?

What will change your mind about Bernie's gun control issues? I personally think Bernie is correct because each state is different in terms of what gun control should be.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

70. Cue the testosterone!!!

[ms liberty]

73. You are welcome to do that yourself...

If it's something you feel strongly about, you're a citizen, he's running for President...ask him! He's on Thom Hartmann every week, taking calls, unscreened for an hour. He'll give you a pretty direct answer.

[PatrynXX]

74. they will continue to make excuse because of one thing

Abortion.. So long as it exists they'll support the worst evil you can imagine to get rid of it...

ie anti abortion people and frankly it's offensive to say that if they are anti abortion we are pro abortion... I don't think anyone is for abortion. However the issue is forced when they bar birth control pills devices latex. Clearly Bristol Palin knows this.

So long as that subject exists. The'll support the worst killers.. So we really need to push birth control as something akin to anti abortion. I mean real birth control T device for sure the pill for sure not sure about the other pill. However the other pill is used more for cancer and ironically to protect the reproductive organ so it can have a child. This is what we on the left should do. Not stooping to their level via attacks. I'm too connected to friends on the right so it'd have to be higher up. But you can do anything logical you want but they only understand one thing. Abortion #1 evil.. everything else second. Jobs second. etc I've mentioned this before and I'll keep saying it.

[MicaelS]

79. The PLCAA was enacted because ..

Personal Injury Attorneys were attempting to create a de facto ban on guns, by suing companies out of business. Anti-gun advocates could not achieve what they wanted though the proper Legislative process, so they tried an end run through the Judicial. Don't pretend it was any else than that.

[ancianita]

82. I want him to move left by debate time. I want to hear his evolved stand on controlling handgun

manufacturers along the lines of banning lead bullet manufacturing, banning current lead bullet inventory sales, raising ammo costs, supporting universal background checks and taking back his vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which immunizes gun manufacturers from lawsuits.

This will make him lose the culture war with working class gun owners, probably, but he could cite high gun ownership and low gun death rates from Vermont to bolster his credibility. You're right, it's in the people's greater interests that he address his voting record. To me, for every gun owner who he might alienate, there's lefty who left him over his gun record who might replace them at the polls.

I want him to at least try, but perhaps he wants the NRA vote; but so do all the other candidates, probably. As imperfect candidates go, he's the least imperfect, overall. Taken on balance with the rest of his voting record, this is not a single issue problem in his keeping my vote, though. Yours is a straight forward question, and relevant to ask, given recent events. So I'm glad to share my position here.

[ibegurpard]

90. how about no?

If you can succeed in making firearms illegal then we can go after manufacturers.

[BainsBane]

158. That isn't what the law does

No one is trying to make firearms illegal. People would like to hold gun companies responsible for funneling guns to illegal arms dealers, but alas the law Bernie voted for makes that impossible.

[ibegurpard]

174. you misunderstood me

I support Sanders on this. I do not support making the manufacturers of legal devices responsible for what people do with them. If you can manage to make firearms illegal then you can have a discussion about this. And no I would not support that either. I would support universal background checks, stricter controls on who sells arms and possible bans on certain guns. That's as far as I would go. Sanders' views align with mine.

[MisterP]

99. he's got an actual (not partisan) F from the NRA and doesn't really block Senate action on it

supporters may mouth NRA talking points on this thread, but Clinton blows with the money, and the NRA has nothing but money

[Maedhros]

103. I have no problem with Bernie's position on guns.

I heartily applaud his position on wars of choice, financial regulation, education, the economy and civil rights.

While you're up there on your almighty high horse, maybe you should direct your outrage to someone a little better-positioned to do something about gun control:

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-has-given-up-on-gun-control-2015-6

Even in the wake of the murder of nine innocents in an historically black church in Charleston, SC last week, President Obama has given up on the possibility of any sort of gun control legislation getting through Congress. The National Rifle Association’s control over Congress when it comes to gun control issues, he said, is just too strong.

[BainsBane]

144. Clearly you didn't follow the legislative battles on gun control

Or you wouldn't make that comment. What do you want him to do that he didn't when the background check bill failed, while the Democrats still controlled the Senate? You clearly paid no attention to any of it. It doesn't affect the lives of the white upper middle class, so what do they care if communities like mine are riddled with gun violence? Why should they care if drive by shootings go on out my front door and mothers are killed while walking their babies in carriages. What could possibly matter compared to the white middle- and upper-middle class regaining what it sees as its birthright atop the capitalist order? People like those in my community don't count, so why should any of you care about the genocide taking place in cities throughout America?

I guess corporate accountability only holds to those who don't profit from murder as opposed to usury. The way people have embraced such a conservative view on guns is the part of Sanders' candidacy that disturbs me. Giving gun corporations civil immunity holds corporate profits above citizens. 32,000 people die every year from guns, more Americans have died from guns since 1968 than in all the wars in US history. I have seen people on this site go from outrage over the grip the gun lobby has over this country to justifying it. I have watched how quickly people abandon principle in order to accommodate themselves to a politician, when it is politicians who should be representing the people.

I will NEVER stand with the corporate gun lobby over the rights of citizens, over the lives of my fellow citizens. I will NEVER contort my views to accomoddate any politician, and when I see people do so I question whether they care about anything at all.

[AtheistCrusader]

148. That's an amusing title given the contents of your post #18.

[beam me up scottie]

151. Yes, because everyone who disagrees with you is either an uninformed rube

or they don't care about The Issues™.

You clearly paid no attention to any of it. It doesn't affect the lives of the white upper middle class, so what do they care if communities like mine are riddled with gun violence?

More personal attacks, when are you going to stop telling people what they do and don't care about simply because they disagree with you?

What nerve.

[R B Garr]

180. Yes, Sarah Palin was a big defender of guns and hunting, too.

When are you going to stop telling people to agree with Sarah Palin? What nerve.

[SoapBox]

108. How nice...you use this incident to attack Bernie Sanders.

That's really low...even from a HRC supporter.

[Alittleliberal]

152. No it's not

It's been months of this shit. I imagine we are in for many more. Brace yourself, the bullshit continues.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. Who else remembers when Hillary frantically dove to the right when Obama said that thing about

Clinging to guns and religion during that primary, and it polled controversial?

Hillary will adopt any position that polls well and wedges her apart from competitors.

I won't say it's the wrong thing to do as a politician, but it stands in stark contrast to Bernie's record, that's for sure.

[Alittleliberal]

157. +1

[Autumn]

113. I wrote the White House and asked Obama to push for stronger gun control.

I see no need to contact Bernie's office and ask him to rethink his position, I want Bernie to speak his conscience, even when I may disagree. Bernie's a Senator running for the Presidency. As a sitting President Obama's words would carry more weight if he came out and pushed for more gun control, just like it did with fast track.

[bluestateguy]

123. Oh here we go

If you want to use a shooting massacre to push political agendas that is your right, but you may want to get all the facts of what happened first, and you also may want to wait just a little while for the bodies to dry before beginning your demagoguery.

[sadoldgirl]

165. Just keep this up and you divide the party

even more. I live in a purple state. Any dem candidate,
who is talking about gun control, will turn the state totally
red. The majority of the two liberal cities will be happy,
but that is not the state.

Think twice, before you want to make this a front
issue for the campaigns.

[BainsBane]

171. How is it that issues that are "divisive"

Are always about the lives of people besides those on this site? Discussing race is divisive, but calling people neoliberals and corprorate sells outs isn't. Gun control is "divisive" but treating our parties leading candidate and the president as the enemy isn't. Promoting GOP arguments about Clinton and Obama, and insulting their supporters, isn't divisive. Insisting people won't vote for the nominee if they don't get their choice isn't divisive, but working to prevent genocide in urban communities is. I will not condone domestic war because peace makes you uncomfortable, because you think the 32,000 killed every year not important enough to serve as an issue in the campaign. O'Malley and Clinton have already spoken out on the issue. O'Malley has gotten gun control measures passed in MD. Sanders has the most conservative position on the issue, and that isn't even a concern for you or many others here. Yet polling shows over 60 percent of Democrats support Clinton, and only some 15 percent Sanders. Arguing for gun control clearly hasn't hurt her.

Polls after Sandyhook show 90 percent of Americans back increased gun control. The only division is between the corporate profits of the gun industry, their billion-dollar lobby, and the majority of the citizenry. Even the majority of gun owners support increased gun control. The only reason it hasn't passed is because the powerful and filthy rich gun lobby has overriden the will of the people. So spare me your rhetoric about "division." I am a Democratic who will support a Democrat for President, and I will not vote for people who adopt GOP/NRA positions on gun control. People on this site are at war with the Democratic party AND the majority of Democratic voters, yet you claim concern about the unnecessary loss of life through gun violence is "divisive." Truly incredible.

[hack89]

181. Americans supports some gun control proposals

I seriously doubt that they support your personal agenda. You get too far beyond UBCs and support for gun control rapidly falls off.

[peacebird]

177. I don't need to contact him, I agree with him on this issue. See my link inside

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

I agree with his votes here. The NRA gives him an F also, according to this, so he can't be but so much of a 'gun nut'