Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

3
Yesterday on Thom Hartman's show a caller asked Bernie about his position on guns and his response was that he's not pro-gun because he got an F rating from the NRA. He also mentioned that he was from a rural state with a lot of hunters and target shooters and that crime was low there. He went on to talk about the bigger cities and the need for sensible gun control. Look for an update to his position on 2A issues as he stated he would be posting his ideas on his website in the next few weeks.
*DISCLAIMER* This post may have been made from a barstool.

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

5
Reading the comments made me sick to my stomach, main stream dems will use the 2nd amm argument to derail Bernie but what they really oppose is the fact that he is just a real liberal who will stand up to their financial backers, corporate America.
Any ways he doesn't have a chance against hilclin.
"Hillary Clinton is the finest, bravest, kindest, the most wonderful person I've ever known in my whole life" Raymond Shaw

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

7
eelj wrote:Reading the comments made me sick to my stomach, main stream dems will use the 2nd amm argument to derail Bernie but what they really oppose is the fact that he is just a real liberal who will stand up to their financial backers, corporate America.
Any ways he doesn't have a chance against hilclin.
I think so too. I'd love to see him disarm the republicans by not taking a restrictionist position on guns. I fear he'll take up the current democratic party plank and start talking about "common sense" and "reasonable" gun laws.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

8
The real sad thing is that when you take away the label and actually listen to what he has to say and his ideas, they should appeal to every working class person out there regardless of party affiliation. Unfortunately people are too stupid or afraid to make their own decision so they have pundits do it for them.
*DISCLAIMER* This post may have been made from a barstool.

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

9
whitey wrote:The real sad thing is that when you take away the label and actually listen to what he has to say and his ideas, they should appeal to every working class person out there regardless of party affiliation. Unfortunately people are too stupid or afraid to make their own decision so they have pundits do it for them.
Absolutely agree. :beer2:
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

10
Does this mean that HC will go more firmly anti-2A? It is a tragedy that the dems have gone knee jerk anti 2A. You don't see them discussing or considering the recent surgeon general report. Mere facts won't change their opinion. If Dernie is in the primary he gets my vote inspite of his "qualifying". I can not support HC it would be ordering Republican light POTUS with an anti-gun side.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Ben Franklin
Beto in wisconsin

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

11
I think the single issue Dem voters who are anti 2A are fewer than we think. I agree with sikacz that 2A truly is a a classical liberal vs. neo liberal issue. Supporting the 2A is a classical liberal position, a JFK liberal position.

I think Bernie will push the platform to the left.

He would agree about education on gun safety, I claim. Many non-single issue Dem voters would agree as well.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

12
They're afraid, so they're going after the one thing he's "weak" on according to their strategists.

If he just weathered this storm it would help him a lot in the early primaries. I don't think many rural Idaho voters are going to be OK with losing the ability to hunt.

It's sad how few on the left seem to understand that they're allowing Authoritarianism in under the guise of left-wing Liberal politics.
"No one can build his security upon the nobleness of another person."
-Willa Cather

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

14
To understand why, it’s important to realize that Vermont has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation, in large part because gun violence in the Green Mountain State is so low.
He's going to use the ISIS has people in states with strict gun control, making us potential victims. I've heard rumblings at work about increasing security measures and mandatory active shooter training related to "suspected threats". They still won't put armed security in our courts, but they will teach us how to lay down and die nicely.

I think this is going to be what he stands on, especially if there is some sort of a "attack". YMMV
First of all, let's call it what it really is...It's not a gun buy-back, because the government never owned them. It's a gun turn in.

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

16
i think that argument would appeal to neocon "patriots" who would never, ever vote for a social democrat - no matter what. he'd do better to stick to his current line (IIRC) that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and more anti-gun legislation doesn't seem to accomplish any good.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

17
lurker wrote:he'd do better to stick to his current line (IIRC) that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and more anti-gun legislation doesn't seem to accomplish any good.
That seems like a very good position for Sanders to take on gun legislation. Other Democrats, Greens, Socialists, etc. would do well to follow suit.

In other words, you don't have to embrace every NRA position, and you don't necessarily have to be a gun enthusiast yourself. Just recognize the Constitutional framework (with the implication that those who can't accept that can seek to amend the Constitution), and say that any proposed gun legislation needs to be evaluated not only on Constitutional grounds, but also on science/empirical grounds (is there any evidence it would do any good or advance its stated goals?), rather than just based on hysteria.

That stance won't win you an NRA endorsement, but nobody left of Attila would get that anyway for a national office. What it could do is defuse the issue on the left/liberal side, and (more importantly) advance the discussion nationally in a healthy way.
"To initiate a war of aggression...is the supreme international crime" - Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson, 1946

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

18
DDKinRDU wrote:why?

Reading this actually makes me support the guy even more!

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... _fb_maddow
Looks like a rehash by a political entertainer of the Slate article mentioned here: http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... 55#p457355

Sanders, will be skewered over this. The Slate article and the MSNBC piece reinforce the narratives that support for RKBA is equivalent to support for the NRA and the party stands firmly against gun ownership by the unwashed.

Sanders is running against the ordained candidate anyway. He is already running away from his alleged pro-RKBA credentials to affirm his alignment with the party whose nomination he seeks.
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/sen.- ... 1135683794
In my state of Vermont, we are a very rural state where guns are about hunting, target practice, antique guns, and we have a pretty low crime rate.
I do believe, obviously, that nationally, guns in Baltimore and guns in Los Angeles are very different. I have voted against the importation of assault weapons. And I understand not every part of America is the state of Vermont.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

20
wlewisiii wrote:
DDKinRDU wrote:It'll be one mighty cold day in Hell before the Hildabeast gets my vote!
Remember that when the next GOP president puts more Reactionaries on the Supreme Court.

There is such a thing as "worse".
Yep. The court is already bad enough.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

21
lurker wrote:i think that argument would appeal to neocon "patriots" who would never, ever vote for a social democrat - no matter what. he'd do better to stick to his current line (IIRC) that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and more anti-gun legislation doesn't seem to accomplish any good.
Pushing this will be better than starting to say other states are different.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: And this is a *bad* thing because...

23
sikacz wrote:
lurker wrote:i think that argument would appeal to neocon "patriots" who would never, ever vote for a social democrat - no matter what. he'd do better to stick to his current line (IIRC) that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and more anti-gun legislation doesn't seem to accomplish any good.
Pushing this will be better than starting to say other states are different.
i agree that saying "other states are different" is the wrong approach , but imo it subtly undercuts a broad federal-level restriction effort.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests