General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton Goes THERE: "Gun control laws have grown too lax and need to be tightened"
Last edited Tue May 6, 2014, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)
May 06, 2014, 12:37 pm
Clinton: Gun laws too lax
Gun control laws have grown too lax and need to be tightened, Hillary Clinton said Tuesday during a conference in Washington, D.C.
Were way out of balance, said the former secretary of State. We have to reign in what has almost become an article of faith that anybody anywhere can own a gun.
Clinton didnt call for any specific new legislation, but said that it should be possible to make gun laws that protect society yet still support the vast majority of people to own guns.
The early favorite to win the Democratic nomination for the White House in 2016 made the remarks at the 2014 National Council for Behavioral Health Conference.
.........................
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/205324-clinton-gun-laws-too-lax#ixzz30xQsd1uD
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Quick, let's all run to the gun store before....
And that was This Week In Gun Nuttery presented by the NRA and dead kids.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Laugh all you want, but this is a problem. A non-specific call for more gun control by Hillary will inflame the ardent pro-2A crowd like nothing else. I know full-well that most of this crowd would never vote Hillary anyway, but it certainly makes convincing our neighbors to vote Democratic that much harder for pro-2A Democrats like myself.
It doesn 't have to be this way. Hillary could come forward with concrete proposals toward expanding background checks without creating a back-door gun registry, and many gun folks might be persuaded to sign on. But she seems to be choosing otherwise and I believe, choosing poorly.
The Supreme Court and so many other issues hang in the balance at present,and Hillary chooses to expend political capital on ill-defined open-ended calls for gun control? Not smart.
Hillary's hawkishness on international policy and pro-TPP, pro-Wall St. stances alienate the left. Her gun grabber reputation and many other aspects alienate the right as well as those of us progressives who take the Bill of Rights seriously. Who exactly does she hope to vote for her? Her math does not add up to a candidacy that can win here in the south. Hillary should know better.
-app
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)You sound vapid. Care to argue with my reasoning, or do you prefer only to sling thinly-veiled insults?
-app
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)oneofthe99
(712 posts)Warren 2016
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I highly doubt you be able to look back on today and say May 6th was the day she lost the primary, but hey bookmark the thread just in case.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I think the "concern" on this thread is overstated.
oneofthe99
(712 posts)oneofthe99
(712 posts)Nobody trusts Hillary , she speaks from both sides of her mouth as always....
She is the epitome of a Washington politician , tells you what you want to hear depending on the crowd
she has in front of her , she even changes accents .
Warren is the real deal and I hope she runs. I will do what ever I can to see her elected phone banks , door to door etc..
We need a change from these Washington bought and paid for politicians.
If you're a Hillary fan sorry but I can't stand her.............
GOPee
(58 posts)She didn't say anything of substance, nothing that anyone could hang their hat on. It wasn't a proposal, or even a deeply held belief, or maybe I've missed her prior anti gun proclamations. If so I stand corrected.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)which party's primaries are you familiar with?
FSogol
(45,525 posts)Anything she proposed, no matter how sensible would create the same condemnation that this announcement did. That's what your crowd does.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)FSogol
(45,525 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I've yet to see any evidence of gun nuts that are just waiting to vote Democratic if not for gun control. They are a bunch of paranoid lunatics.
Time to stop trying to please right-wingers by trying to out-Republican the Republicans, and instead take a stand on progressive issues like gun violence.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)They may well be ( and many are ) paranoid lunatics, but it really is a wedge issue for people who are economically center-left. I'm familiar with many of them: friends, family, co-workers, acquaintances. They may be wrong-headed, but the gun issue is the only thing making them vote for the GOP. If she's economically center-right on top of that it just makes it all the more difficult to grab the center by being by sucking somewhat less than the republicans.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Not in the polls, not in person, not anecdotally, nothing. Even when I lived in Texas, I counted a total of zero people I knew that would be Democratic voters if not for gun control.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)I don't doubt your own observations, not do I hold my own anecdotal evidence as a microcosm of what's what. I know these same people used to hurl f-bombs at Bush left and right for being a clueless doer of plutocrat's biddings, yet still remained loyal due to the gun issue ( and in some cases religion ). It's crazy.
Brainstormy
(2,381 posts)Truer words were never spoken.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)control. When any Dem candidate says things like that I hear ka ching in the Republican's campaign coffers. It may be that comments that are open-ended like that are designed to push Wayne LaPierre over the edge (since he's so close already) and show how people like LaPierre work for the gun manufacturers and don't have much of an interest in regular gun owners. I think LaPierre is the worst thing to happen to the NRA and he's one of those guys who just needs enough rope and one day he'll hang himself.
Let's hope there is a bigger plan at work here.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)In fact, just being a Democrat riles up the conservative base. I vote we stand up for progressive policies like gun control and corporate regulation, rather than staying away from them because of fear of Wayne LaPierre and the Koch Brothers.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)should be more definite in what she wants done. I realize it's typical political campaigning to be vague at this point, but when she leaves blanks psychos like LaPierre tend to fill them in.
hack89
(39,171 posts)knowing Hillary, her actual proposals will be middle of the road and not too radical. If she comes out soon with specific proposals then the RW will not be able to paint her as a gun grabber.
groundloop
(11,522 posts)That's just what they do to rile up their base, whether there's an ounce of truth to it or not.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)This won't hurt her, might win her a few votes from those disgusted with her other policies.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)In fact she did not call for anything specific. Thus allowing anyone to project their views onto her.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)While I hope I'm wrong, she could end up being regarded as the worst of both worlds regarding right/left in the minds of many centrists.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)It seems to me that the Democratic Party has the forward momentum to swing more than a few Republicans. I'd hate to see that tempered by taking a hard stance on the gun-control debate and making it part of the campaign platform.
I live in Utah. For Republicans, gun-control is a deal breaker. (Not that Utah has any chance in hell of turning blue, any time soon...)
TYY
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)is a Republican anyway. She can represent the other ninety percent of the country that favors greater gun control.
derby378
(30,252 posts)Go ahead, call me a Republican. I dare you.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)If a person's most important issue they vote on is opposition to gun control, they don't vote Democrat. I have to assume there are other issues you care about besides guns.
hack89
(39,171 posts)So it is irrelevant to who is president. There are many good reasons to vote Den that I never consider the views on gun control unless I am choosing between two Dems.
derby378
(30,252 posts)I have addressed our city council regarding my opposition to fracking. I've started phonebanking for Wendy Davis because of the hatchet job Texas legislators have performed on women's health care. And many of the old-timers on DU know how much Shrub's invasion of Iraq sickened me.
But my own activism in gun rights since 2005 has been to help the fence-sitters take a fresh look at Democratic policies and principles so that they'd be less likely to default to Republican candidates. I also wanted to galvanize Democrats who think like I do on gun issues, and I still try to do that so they don't sit out elections. I just don't want gun owners being dismissed as a monolithic lost cause trapped in the lint of Ted Nugent's pocket. (Ew.) Maybe you're not trying to do that, but some people are, and they remind me why I'm such a hardass on gun issues sometimes.
The right-wing gun lobby is beginning to crumble from the top down. There is a difference between "pro-2A" and being "pro-NRA," and Democrats are at the forefront of making that distinction.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Response to BainsBane (Reply #112)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Do they control the Senate? When was the last time Republicans got the most votes in the nation? It's been decades. The only reason they win is gerrymandering.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #138)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)of some kind or another. The only reason it didn't pass is because the fear-mongering, corruption peddling NRA bought, threatened, and cajoled congress into voting against it. They bear responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths and are the single greatest source of evil in this nation.
So you be proud of that your corporate allies subvert democracy in favor of the blood-drenched profits. Murder is big business, and we can't have anyone trying to save human lives and messing up the greater purpose of enriching the robber baron gun companies.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Paladin
(28,272 posts)It wasn't as if any of the gun militants were going to vote for her.
Lasher
(27,637 posts)Maybe she's forgotten about the 1994 midterms.
One year after signing the Brady Law, White House lobbying also played a role in the passage of the 1994 Crime Bill, which included the assault weapons ban. The law banned certain semi-automatic firearms with two or more specific design features, and also prohibited the manufacture of ammunition magazines that held over ten rounds.
Although initially heralded as a victory for Clinton and Democrats in congress, it proved costly. The bill energized the NRA and Republican base, and contributed to the Republican takeover of both houses in the 1994 mid-term elections. Many Democrats who had supported Clinton's gun control measures were ousted, including Speaker Tom Foley. Clinton acknowledged that he had hurt Democrats with his victories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_policy_of_the_Clinton_Administration
If you don't mind losing the Senate this year, then by all means cheer her on.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Lasher
(27,637 posts)Even a weak argument would be better than that. It's not even an argument.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)former9thward
(32,077 posts)Ive had many sleepless nights in the many years since, Clinton said. One reason? I never had any sessions with the House members who were vulnerable, he explained saying that he had assumed they already knew how to explain their vote for the ban to their constituents.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bill-clinton-warns-democrats-against-overreaching-on-gun-debate/
But yeah Clinton is a NRA guy ....
DanTex
(20,709 posts)former9thward
(32,077 posts)Thanks for enlightening me. I learn something everyday on DU.
derby378
(30,252 posts)forthemiddle
(1,382 posts)But as late as last year, in Colorado when 3 Democrat lawmakers were recalled out of office because of their gun control votes.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)smooth.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Lasher
(27,637 posts)Some people have always lacked the courage of their convictions and some always will but this is just sadly at DU these days. I don't know why I even bother to try.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)We are accused of only caring about attacking gun proponents and not doing anything worthwhile in life. When we present evidence in black and white, it is systematically ignored. It is clear that the mere idea that people have the nerve to even suggest something like a background check is seen as entirely illegitimate. The gungeon crowd claims they support reasonable measures until it comes time to vote or contact a representative to support a measure, then all but a tiny few oppose it. I learned several months ago that there is no interest in compromise of any kind. The gungeon crowd cares about two things: promoting their gun propaganda and, as one admitted to me, getting their kicks out of screwing with people like me who support gun control. I decided I would no longer serve as their amusement. Debate needs to be in good faith. When that doesn't exist, it is pointless.
As for 1994. recent studies by political scientists have demonstrated that NRA meme to be false. Naturally those studies are rejected as being by librul academics. The pro-gun crowd systematically denies every study that doesn't conform with what they want to hear and takes others and claims they say the precisely opposite of what they actually do. Anyone here who has tried to discuss these issues has been through it all a thousand times. It is a pointless exercise that serves no purpose. We don't share common values, common goals, or even common respect for evidence or knowledge.
Lasher
(27,637 posts)Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)
While it is true to say that some others are guilty of bad conduct, this does not rationalize that same behavior in this very thread. Your stereotypical judgment of the gungeon crowd is intellectually lazy but perhaps justified. But I am not a pro-gun crowd, I am a person.
You don't need to call my argument an NRA meme. It is insulting because it implies I am not capable of independent thought, and this labeling does not promote fair debate.
You say debate needs to be in good faith. I will give you an opportunity to practice what you preach. You have seen a source that supports my argument about the 1994 midterms. You say recent studies have proved my argument is false, but you have done nothing to explain why this could be so. Make your argument and link your sources.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)I didn't characterize you or your arguments in any way. I simply pointed out why I no longer participate in debates with pro-gun posters as a way of suggesting why others may likewise choose to avoid them. That your response is to insult me for engaging in bad behavior only further reinforces the futility of such discussions.
Lasher
(27,637 posts)Have a nice day.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Next up: flag-burning amendment.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)on the Iraq War Resolution...
Setting that aside, what DO you have against the Bill of Rights, huh?
Beacool
(30,251 posts)Let them all carry muskets. The type of arms that exist now weren't even a remote dream in the late 18th century. We are drowning in gun deaths, more than any other first world country. I'm shocked that someone who has Liz Warren in their sig would think that calling gun laws lax is a bad thing.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)helping her become an also-ran.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)As for also-ran, that's the funniest thing I read all day.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because that is the type of media they had at that time.
derby378
(30,252 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)Beacool
(30,251 posts)I don't see why civilians need the kind of armament that could take down several people without even reloading.
hack89
(39,171 posts)so you can certainly try to repeal or modify the 2A.
Packerowner740
(676 posts)Beacool
(30,251 posts)Why do we need the kind of weaponry that is easily available to civilians nowadays? We are a violent society. How many gun deaths do we have per year?
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)Especially those two words "well regulated".
-
I am sick of gun nuts trying to hide behind the Constitution. Either left or right. The Constitution is not on the side of gun-nuttery. We can't make progress on gun control because the same 1% that owns us needs us terrified.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)not behind the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or anything else.
I support the right to bear arms. No, it's not an absolute right, but one as important to me as any of the other ones relating to speech, press, unreasonable search & seizure, etc.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)Let's talk about gun control then. Usually the conversation stops before it gets started by someone holding up the Bill of Rights and saying it protects their gun ownership. It does no such thing.
So what type of regulation can you live with?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I'm essentially fine with the status quo in terms of the regulations we currently have.
If you are not fine with it, then the burden is upon you and those of you who wish to change things to advance and defend ideas about solutions.
I'm curious, though - are you the type of gun control proponent who wants civilians to be restricted from gun ownership, without applying the exact same restrictions on law enforcement officers?
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)I think we need many more regulations. Cops too. At least as many as we have pertaining to automobiles or refrigerators even.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)in order to change Americans' attitudes, and/or get the regulations implemented. Cheers.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)certainly not an evangelist. I know a hopeless cause when I see one. America will lose its religion before it loses its guns.
meanit
(455 posts)is helping to change American's attitudes all right.
One shooting at a time.
hack89
(39,171 posts)both say that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)Neither party thinks individuals should own nuclear weapons. I'm opposed to armor-piercing bullets for starters. Did I lose you there?
hack89
(39,171 posts)So are nukes - the 2A only pertains to small arms.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)I remember a huge uproar when they tried to ban them. I guess it passed a second time. How about identifiers in gunpowder?
I'm ok with small arms and rifles. Are we friends?
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)The regulations on armor piercing ammo are among the strangest of the federal firearms regulations. The first is that AP ammo is rather odd in its definition. The ATF defines it as handgun ammunition, but theres a catch. If any handgun has ever been made in a specific caliber, then ATF considers that the AP ammo regulations then apply to that caliber. Thats why you cant buy AP ammo for cartridges like 7.62×39 and several others. The 5.56x45NATO is specifically exempted from this, even though there are pistols made for it.
Its perfectly legal to possess, purchase, sell or shoot armor piercing ammunition. Its not legal to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition.
-
I saw this on the web, so it must be true.
http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/07/29/armor-piercing-ammo/
I got a lot of other hits too. Wanna backtrack on that?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Licensed dealers are prohibited from willfully transferring armor-piercing ammunition. An exception exists for ammunition that was received and maintained by the dealer as business inventory prior to August 28, 1986, which may be transferred to federal, state or local law enforcement.13 Federally licensed dealers, to the extent they can transfer armor-piercing ammunition, must keep a record of any transfer.14
The existing ban on armor-piercing ammunition can be made more effective by adopting performance standards that require ammunition to be tested for its ability to penetrate bullet-resistant vests and body armor, as opposed to the existing standard based on the bullets content.
http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-ammunition-regulation/
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)Restricted, but not outlawed. Every gun-nut that wants APA has got APA, and there's nothing the ATF can do about it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You can't legally buy it.
You can't legally buy it in some places, but that doesn't stop anybody who really wants it. The DEA can arrest people though, the ATF can't.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)
since we both now agree that you have to break the law to obtain APA, what is your point? Make it doubly illegal?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Google "can the ATF arrest people" if you don't believe me.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)The ATF can't arrest anyone for obeying the law.
In some parts of this country, if I have two joints in my pocket, I can be arrested and thrown in jail for years for intending to sell marijuana. Someone wearing one of those western belts with the little sleeves for bullets, all of them filled with armor-piercing ammo, can safely walk the streets of any city or town in America, its territories, or any protectorate without any fear of the ATF arresting them.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Can you provide a single link to show it is a problem?
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)The problem is in trying to control gun violence without insane obstruction by the NRA. Whenever a sensible approach is put forward, the cries of "they're coming to take our guns away!" ring out across the land. APA is indefensible, yet even here there are people who defend it.
Sensible solutions:
1) Background checks
2) Waiting periods
3) Registration
4) Safety training
Not one of these solutions involve the taking away of guns, yet anyone who pushes for them is called a gun-grabber.
I am now removing myself from this conversation as it is apparent that arguing gun control with gun nuts is like arguing politics with a Freeper.
hack89
(39,171 posts)A 20 year losing streak can be discouraging. The good news is that during that time gun violence has steadily declined and is at historic lows. We have cut our murder rate in half. You have never been safer and next year you will even more safe.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)They are a Federal Law Enforcement Agency with all the powers of arrest.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)please, be specific on both, thank you.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)It was spelled out in an earlier post, then shortened.
To me, opposition is a no-brainer. To the NRA, taking away their AP ammo is the first step to taking away their guns.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)they are most likely different, and therein lays many of our problems and Democrats arguing with each other over guns...You hit it spot on when you adressed the capricious and arbitrary nature of so many of the laws concerning firearms...
Just about any hunter in America has lead non AP rounds that can defeat level IV body armor.
An actual hardened true AP round in a common pistol caliber is far less effective... No brainer?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The reason that the NRA opposed the initial law and then helped write the law that was passed is that the initial law would have banned virtually ALL rifle rounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fluzwup/APHA
Almost all rifle cartridges invented after 1894 will penetrate the standard police vest, which is classified as IIA or II
A list of levels are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletproof_vest#Performance_standards
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)in areas like corporate capture of government, privatization, supporting unions, the environment, resource wars, reflective representation, enhancing and expanding the safety nets, protecting the homeless, progressive taxation, and lifting up the poor and working folks too.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Next up: flag-burning amendment..."
Or re-instating the CDC's research on gun-violence in America denied us by the gun-lobby. The horror... the horror.
(insert distinction without a difference here)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Mugu
(2,887 posts)Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)This was nothing but a combination of "thank you, Captain Obvious" stuff (the bit about it being possible to make laws that are both effective and not an infringement on anyone's rights) and bullshit (twaddle about "...anybody anywhere can own a gun" .
Let's have some substance on this issue, Hill.
LuvLoogie
(7,027 posts)and seeing what drops. It's 2 years out, and she/(Democrats) is beating the GOP on almost every other issue. Given that high majorities are in favor of increased regulation (background checks, registration, licensing etc.) she is going to slowly build momentum against the NRA and their footmen.
It's an issue that can further bog down the GOP and illustrate right wing support of antisocial extremes. They will not be able to help themselves.
One can corner the paranoid without ever touching them. She is the front-runner and people are reacting to her. As much as the GOP tries to dictate the dialogue, they got nuttin'.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Seeing a rock-star politician speak even this specifically and knowing she will win anyway dilutes the all-guns-all-the-time culture, and calls it into question.
Clinton can't accomplish much alone. Her statement is only useless if she and her felliw Dems are too compromised to push some legislation. Or if enough Republicans are elected to halt it.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That presupposes that there is any such thing as an "all-guns-all-the-time culture." Dubious at best...
THAT was perhaps my biggest objection to her statement, not its vagueness (which I simply expect from politicians, regardless of party). While I don't doubt that there are "no restrictions whatsoever on guns" lunatics out there, they are not remotely representative of gun owners and thus do not define the culture.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but a quick glance in their direction will confirm that the all-guns-all-the-time culture still exists, pushed by the same lobby that kills most meaningful legislation.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm an avid shooter (competition...I don't hunt). I've grown up shooting and despite my goth-y appearance and outspoken far-left political views, I'm quite welcome in that community. I know it pretty well (or at least my little niche within it...obviously I'm extrapolating). I don't know a single person I've ever met in all those years that advocates zero regulations on firearms. Lately, the pronounced majority favor universal background checks, lowering the boom on straw purchasers and other people who conduct illegal transfers, and other reasonable, rational measures.
It seems to me (and I'm emphatically not directing this at you) that for the most part, we have two sides in this debate talking past each other while actually desiring much the same thing: fewer firearms in the hands of criminals and other unsuitable persons and a reduction in violence.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)The money (including lifetime NRA memberships) is what powers the lobby, and the lobby is what pushes the all-guns-all-the-time culture.
I suspect that we agree on a hell of a lot.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,437 posts)That is essentially what the NRA wants. In fact, they want other states to recognise the laws of other states as it relates to guns.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...Georgia still prohibits convicted felons, etc., from possessing firearms. You know of anyone trying to change that? Not even the NRA (and don't get me wrong: I can't stand that organization) is advocating otherwise.
Sorry, but "anybody anywhere can own a gun" remains hyperbole of the the most obvious sort, and I'm disappointed in Clinton for that kind of pandering.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,437 posts)that she was NOT referring to people already legally prohibited from owning firearms but rather being critical of the general push of states like Georgia allowing guns in just about any conceivable place without any real legitimate reason. It wasn't too long ago that legislators in South Carolina were (and possibly still are) looking at the possibility of doing away with just about all gun restrictions in the state. Frankly, I don't disagree with her sentiments. If you want to parse her statement with a fine tooth comb and declare it "hyperbolic", fine but I'm pretty sure that that's not what she meant. And if anybody is not living in reality, just look at the NRA leadership and their recent convention in Indianapolis and how they portrayed what living in the US is like (to them). Sound hyperbolic, much?
Beacool
(30,251 posts)The Right will be apoplectic.
Incoming!!!!!
PubsFU
(34 posts)sometimes called moderates or centrists the DINOS who fuck everything up time and time again.
Paladin
(28,272 posts)Right here and now, on this thread. Very predictable.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Paladin
(28,272 posts)And let's have no blowback on this from you DU Gun Enthusiasts: when virtually the only subject you talk about on DU is firearms policy, when your responses read like something Wayne LaPierre babbled at the recent NRA convention, and when you go after Democratic politicians non-stop and exclusively (like you're doing in this thread), then "The Right" is an appropriate label to hang on you.
derby378
(30,252 posts)Texas' next governor.
FTW.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Paladin
(28,272 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Even with her anti-gun past and current rhetoric.
hack89
(39,171 posts)all of my elected representatives support gun control so what's wrong with another? She represents no threat to my guns.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Thank you for some common sense.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)Same old crap here, different day. If a Clinton says something, no matter what it is, some feel compelled to come out of the woodwork to trash it.
Might as well be at a RW site.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)You know, 'if everyone is pissed off at you, you're doing something right'? THAT is what you consider Democratic?
So let's see if I got this - Democrats want a stronger Social Security. Hillary proposes weakening it, just not as much as Republican want to. Thus, DU should support her?
You are just a barrel of laughs today.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Since I was a kid politicians have been doing this "We need to fix x!" but they don't give specifics on how they will fix it.
She DID though say something more common sense than a lot of knee jerk emotional reactionaries "support the vast majority of people who own guns" - which is better than crap like 'y'alls be some gun humpers, everyone with a gun ain't got no penis, you is just upchucking nra talking points, ban all them guns but let government employees and the wealthy have them'.
It is refreshing to hear an adult talk about the issue, even if she left out how she wants to achieve it.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)It's pretty much a given that a candidate has to move to the left or the right, to win a party's primary, but without going so far as to alienate the percentage of voters in the middle during the regular election.
Pushing gun control too hard could flip one or more of the following FL, PA, OH, VA, NH and IA red
Reter
(2,188 posts)Here it costs $300 or so just to apply for a permit to keep a handgun in your house (and you pay whether or not you're approved), and it could take up to 6 months. They can also take it away for a simple speeding ticket. How about changing these laws?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And I haven't met many (any) people here who disagree.
oneofthe99
(712 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)oneofthe99
(712 posts)The best thing that ever happened for gun sales was Obama being elected.
Profit and sales went through the roof , I guess Hillary wants to follow suit
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gun goofs, etc. Who cares what the ignorant, callous, bigoted gun profiteers do?
oneofthe99
(712 posts)You run in a primary calling for more gun control you lose those Democrats.
If Warren decides to throw her hat in she will let Hillary carry the torch on this one.
Hillary owns this now .....
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)The only reason it was kept is because the third Dem targeted for recall stepped down and another was appointed.
The PEOPLE don't trust the government on this issue. If Hillary runs on further gun restrictions, she will lose, and not just in the South.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I don't think most reasonable people would vote against her, simply over gunz. I'm sure a bunch of right/white wingers will, but they will anyway.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)People don't like their rights being screwed with.
What are gunz, exactly, anyway.
And what does the race of the voter have to do with anything?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)over guns are right/white wing, bigoted gun owners. That group is also the majority of gun owners who have more than a gun or two in the home.
"Gunz" should be obvious, but I realize you have such respect for the dang things it ticks you off when someone does not bow to them.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)it is not like the president has some magical power to pass laws. She is no threat to my guns and I understand that she has to say the right things to get elected.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Will you support pro-gun Dems?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Go to any gun show, gun store, militia maneuver
, gun lover protest, Bundy ranch style appearance, etc., and report on the lack of diversity.
If you are talking about gun culture, you are talking primarily about white wing bigots. Irrational fear of minorities is the main reason these folks are arming up.
Clear enough?
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)oneofthe99
(712 posts)I'm hoping that Warren doesn't pull this same blunder if she decides to run.
I don't think she will though , she's going to let Hillary be drilled on this issue now.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)I'd like to know where all candidates honestly stand on the important issues.
Not that that will ever happen.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,437 posts)Six years in and "gun rights" have EXPANDED at almost all levels and the only thing that has been put forth has been expanded background checks that most people support. I feel sort of sorry for people whom sunk a small fortune into guns and ammo for the day (that will never come) where the Obama Administration starts grabbing people's guns. I've always wondered what people are going to do with all of it when the apocalypse never comes. The gun industry is laughing all the way to the bank, however.
oneofthe99
(712 posts)he would have attempted to push a AWB through his first year in the oval office.
He knows now he would never get the votes but it could have been possible his first year
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,437 posts)Not sure that I agree that it would have been at the top of anybody's agenda in 2009 but he has been plenty (and unjustifiably) vilified nonetheless by the NRA but I'm not surprised given that the NRA leadership that any Democratic Presidency means that gun grabbing is just around the corner no matter what actually happens or what is/isn't proposed. It almost seems like the NRA leadership is just a RKBA version of the rapture right cultists worrying about armageddon around every corner.
oneofthe99
(712 posts)going on but I don't for minute not think he would have liked one of his legacy's to have been
an non-sunset AWB
As to the NRA , that's how they drive up membership , fear mongering but some of it happens to be true
in many state elections , Governor , senator , congressman etc..
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,437 posts)I don't recall that gun control- of any sort- was a major part of his campaign (or even something that he spoke about much at all).
oneofthe99
(712 posts)He knew this and so did his advisor's they advise him correctly to go low key on it.
He knew even after New Town it wouldn't be possible to pass another AWB
so he tried to opt for the next best thing , mag ban , back ground checks etc..
If you like think he wouldn't have liked a part of his legacy signing a permanent AWB
that's fine and I won't spend time trying to convince you of it...you believe what you want to believe.
like I said , The only chance he had was when he had both houses . On top of that , there's is always a republican
or two that would have also supported an AWB .
But at the time there were other pressing matters .
And now he knows as bad as he wants it , it will never happen ...
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And neither is Hillary, while we're on the subject.
oneofthe99
(712 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)people who actually think a Democratic President is a legitimate threat to their guns. I highly doubt very many of them vote Democrat.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)My guess is we'll see her posing with a shotgun by next year.
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)Politically it makes little sense for Clinton to go there. Proposing stricter gun control measures is not going to win her many new votes, most who support stricter gun-control are not single issue voters and would already be supporting progressives but there are a whole lot of blue collar union members that lean center left, in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. who may balk at supporting someone calling for stricter gun-control and who could easily be swayed to vote for the opposition over this single issue. All that raising this issue on a national basis will accomplish is increasing Republican campaign donations, IMHO.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)in either a primary or a general election. The hazy lack of specificity is a persistent flaw in how Democrats address issues; the gun issue makes it even worse. Maybe it's the insular nature of the Beltway which gives her a tin ear, as if no one will notice a public discussion among elites. Frankly, it's discouraging when Democrats have a such a precarious purchase on power to begin with.
hack89
(39,171 posts)BlueJac
(7,838 posts)just checking the ground out!
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)She still not my first choice, but it does show that she's not afraid of the gun fetishists.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)it makes me nervous. The NRA cost Gore Tennessee and the Bush years happened.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)would be beneficial for independents and those who support both the 2A and gun control. Some people will denounce/cheer all calls for stricter laws on gun ownership, but I currently believe many people are more likely to support a gun policy if they have some idea what it will entail.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)fried eggs
(910 posts)Fuck the idiots who don't.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I am sorry to see that Hillary Clinton "went there."
-Laelth
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)I still think this is a losing issue for Democrats.
-Laelth
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,437 posts)but I don't think that most people are opposed to having a safer society with fewer guns that are in the hands of more people whom are better trained to handle them responsibly and keep themselves and others safe at all times around them. There is far too much "gun fail" out there to convince me that being a "law abiding" citizen is enough to ensure a safe society. I also doubt that many people subscribe to the NRA's paranoid fantasies about what life in this country is really like.
Response to kpete (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
closeupready
(29,503 posts)and is using the "will she? won't she?" media scrutiny she is now enjoying (in the run-up to the proper timing of an official announcement) to publicize her ideas about controversial issues.
otohara
(24,135 posts)from the polite society.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Gray areas are disappearing. Pragmatic stances seem harder to maintain.
Our presidential candidate will either be FOR strict gun control or AGAINST it.
Anyone on DU critical of Clinton's stance here will be made a hypocrite when other potential candidates agree with Clinton - or take it steps further.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)is if Schweitzer runs. With an "A" rating from the NRA and serious rural America cred, I'd put money on him to walk away with Iowa and New Hampshire, dealing Lady Inevitable two black eyes right out of the gate.
SevenSixtyTwo
(255 posts)she intends to propose. I'm most likely to vote for the candidate who's most likely to leave me the fuck alone. That includes my 2A right to carry as well as my 1A right to union representation. If it's universal background checks and firearms licensing, I'm already there. If it's banning certain firearms because they look scary, she needs to ask Bill and Herbert how that worked out for them.
Paladin
(28,272 posts)You people aren't fooling anybody, we know exactly why you want such information.
And to you newbie 2nd Amendment types, rest assured you're part of an established (if not respected) tradition here at DU: in the run-ups to both the 2008 and 2012 elections, our Gun Enthusiast cadre never tired of telling us how badly Obama was going to get trounced because of his position on guns. Didn't happen---and that was back when the gun rights movement had a lot more admiration from the general public. Back before rooms full of kids were getting slaughtered by well-armed psychos at schools, back before dumbfucks with assault rifles were showing up at burger joints, back before "militia" jerkoffs were fixing their sights on government employees in the desert in defense of a drooling old racist, and back before the last few throw-ups of utter lunacy from Wayne LaPierre/Ted Nugent/Larry Pratt et al. That's an awful lot of baggage to drag into election season. Happy lifting.
Hillary has my vote should she get the nod, and I do not even factor in 2A for my Presidential hopes, there is nothing the POTUS can really do in terms of it.
I do look at my state and local races in that light however. I am unapologetic about it and will vote with it as ONE of my criteria, and will help fund legitimate 2A Democrats nation wide.
Paladin
(28,272 posts)SQUEE
(1,315 posts)Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)
your point?... oh wait you have none, as usual... Enjoy your progress on the gun issue.
I am so glad the people I surround myself with find you and others like you to be the loony extreme of the party, and see your agenda, and completely disregard it.
Paladin
(28,272 posts)....spewing 24/7 NRA talking points on gun policy. And you accuse me of being "...the loony extreme of the part" (whatever the fuck that means)? Thank you for completely disregarding me and my agenda---and for confirming the point I made.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)but ... >>>SHOCKER<<< I actually know people off this board, have a life away from the purity tests that abound here, and talk to regular, working people in my community. and they find you and your push against firearms as extreme, but recognize you are not the actual voice of the party.. They think grabbers and prohibitionists are dippy disconnected and foolish... sorry but in this part of the country, your agenda is making no headway, and is actually destructive, you put your idea ahead of the Party, and you stand against progress...
I meant to say party not part, my mistake.. as in loony extreme of the party.
Paladin
(28,272 posts)I've owned and used firearms for over 50 years, and for many of those years I hunted, so I have a pretty good idea of what a bullet can do. I have never, ever advocated the elimination of all guns from society. I believe that people have the right to resort to armed self defense when conditions warrant it. I'm alright with concealed carry, so long as it is conditioned on a rigorous, reviewable training and licensing system. And spare me the feeble Voice Of The People bullshit, OK? There's clear and growing evidence that most people in this country are in favor of the sort of measures I would like to see, as far as proactive restraints on guns. And last time I looked, it was people on your side of this issue who were phoning in death threats to gun dealers who were foolish enough to try to sell pistols with safety features, so any snotty accusations you make regarding a "stand against progress" aren't going to be very convincing.
Enough, this isn't getting us anywhere. I gave up on any expectation of progress being made on the gun issue by debates a long time ago, and I bet you've done the same. I'm in it for the entertainment value now, and this conversation isn't challenging enough to be entertaining anymore. Adios.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)I have advocated most of the exact things you have, how does it feel to be an NRA shill?
Paladin
(28,272 posts)BootinUp
(47,186 posts)Sorry, but thats the way it is.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Packerowner740
(676 posts)And I still support her.