Clinton calls for new gun control laws, outflanking Sanders

[BainsBane]

In the wake of the Charleston, South Carolina massacre at a historically black church this week, Hillary Clinton vowed Saturday to fight for new gun control laws despite the overwhelming opposition. She also said America must address lingering racism exposed by the shooting.

By leaning into gun control, Clinton found a place where is squarely to left of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has energized liberal crowds across the country and gained steam in recent polls as her top rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

In a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco, Clinton said it “make no sense” that Congress has failed to pass simple gun control laws, like universal background checks. She vowed to keep fighting and promised to achieve reform if elected president.


“The politics of this issue have been poisoned,” she acknowledged. “But we can’t give up. The stakes are too high.”

Sanders hails from Vermont, a rural state that lacks virtually any gun regulations and he seems uncomfortable discussing the issue. At an event in Las Vegas, Nevada Friday, he was asked twice about guns, but declined to promise specific new gun control laws and said he didn’t want to get into the issue at the moment.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-calls-new-gun-control-laws-outflanking-sanders

Speech at link.

[Duckhunter935]

1. So what laws is she proposing?

Just UBC?

[peacebird]

3. Pfft... She is making noise, but it is all sound & thunder. There will be no action.

Pure theatre, nothing real.

[BainsBane]

15. As long as people like you dismiss gun control

and decide it doesn't matter nearly as much as the personality of politicians, no nothing will happen. The corporate gun lobby ensures it, and too many Americans allow it.

[peacebird]

22. Puhlease. Give it a rest Bainsbane. I have been for guncontrol forever. I do not trust HRC or You

[BainsBane]

34. If you cared about gun control

You would not make excuses for candidates who oppose it. You would put the issue first. Your personal nastiness doesn't change any of that.

I personally don't give a shit what you think about Clinton and especially not me. You clearly have nothing to say to contribute to this discussion and instead are doing everything to distract from the issue. It shows a clear absence of principle or concern for the issue. Spare me your politics based on personality. It's not worth my time.

I support any politicians efforts to promote gun control, O'Malley, Clinton, or anyone else. I do so because I place human life over my own personal likes or dislikes about personalities, which really amounts to nothing. I don't even think that way. I can't even imagine contorting myself to oppose position and actions over something as inconsequential as personal dislike for a politician.

You must be feeling desperate. You make it personal because you have nothing to say.

[peacebird]

40. LOL!

Nice. You have always made politics personal.

[beevul]

50. If you guys cared about gun control, you wouldn't...

If you guys cared about gun control, you wouldn't use a tragedy to push for laws which would not prevent that tragedy - AKA gun control for the sake of gun control.

Doing that just turns people away.

[Duckhunter935]

59. seems to happen all the time

ask them if it would have prevented it and they say no but we have to do something.

[William769]

95. Attacking Hillary is one thing but when you go after another DU member like that

people don't see what you wrote, they see the mean spiritedness in what you said. And I will just leave it at that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

113. "too many Americans allow it."

Stupid consent of the governed. What ever were the founders thinking?

[Sheepshank]

36. Factually, you are likely very incorrect.

But if we're going in the direction of the passage of legislation, I'm thinking Bernie is unlikely to be successful in any of his rhetoric. He tends to be big on pointing out problems, very short on a path for any reality based legislation that could actually fix anything.

[BeyondGeography]

61. If it's that easy, maybe Bernie can play too

[BainsBane]

5. listen to the speech. That's what I'm doing now.

[Duckhunter935]

10. I tend to avoid speeches

They rarely offer any specifics and mostly push just platitudes that sound poll tested for applause lines.

[BainsBane]

12. Then you will have to rely on what the media tells you about candidates

rather than what they actually say. Your choice, of course.

[Duckhunter935]

16. Nope

I look at their records, websites, position papers. I research many sources prior to them earning my vote.

[aikoaiko]

25. She wants to keep "guns out of the hands of those with hearts filled with hate."

She refers to the UBC and keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, mentally ill, and folks on the terrorist list as commonsense gun legislation and then commits to fighting for common sense gun legislation that does not tread on constitutional rights.

[pnwmom]

28. "just universal background checks"? That's a lot more than Bernie is proposing. nt

[L0oniX]

72. Same ones she's always been proposing for decades?

Oh well ...maybe not ...but hey ...why not take advantage of Charleston for political points.

[Hoyt]

78. She can start by shaming those who promote more gunz, lax laws, toting everywhere, etc.

[Duckhunter935]

82. heck, we have been doing that to the open carry knuckleheads

for years.

[Hoyt]

85. Yeah, gungeoneers cheer every time Republicans enact open carry laws. You guys promote more guns,

lax laws, and worse.

[Duckhunter935]

90. Not true but that does not matter

Most firearms owners here are against open carry and soundly criticize the ones that open carry long guns. Most do approve of concealed carry.

So what lax laws are we promoting?

How are we promoting more guns?

Let's see some links, you can type all you want but you will also be challenged to provide evidence of your accusations.

[Recursion]

109. UBC is the only decent idea I've heard nationally

Licensure would be better, and registration better still, but those are non-starters politically.

If the focus on UBC means the party establishment is finally dropping the AWBatross from around its neck, that's good news.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. MSM, I wish you wouldn't use Sports/Military speak when

talking about our Democracy .

[guillaumeb]

4. It would be nice if the Democratic Presidential candidates

would try to compete to see who could espouse the most progressive positions, and actually govern on them if/when elected.

Given that the US electorate, when polled on issues, is far more progressive than our Washington D.C. elected whores, this could actually energize the voters.

[BainsBane]

7. I wish you would consider

using language that isn't gendered and derogatory to women to talk about politicians, at least in my threads.
Thanks.

[guillaumeb]

14. Whe I use the term "whores" in my posts,

I am referring to any politicians who sell their votes. The term itself can be used, and is used, to refer to both sexes.

[orpupilofnature57]

8. Bernie Sanders.

[djean111]

9. Sad thing is, we cannot believe this of some of the candidates - "and actually govern on them

if/when elected." We have to look at what they have been espousing through the years, not just be swayed by campaign rhetoric that has been okayed by think tanks and advisers.

[guillaumeb]

17. The eternal conflict between rhetoric and reality.

But I am glad that the issue has been raised.

[Duckhunter935]

13. I would not use whores

But most of the politicians are indeed bought and paid for. They also tend to use a tragedy for political gain.

[guillaumeb]

20. I choose definition 6

1. A prostitute.

2. Often Offensive A person considered sexually promiscuous.

3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

intr.v. whored, whor·ing, whores
1. To associate or have sexual relations with prostitutes or a prostitute.

2. To accept payment in exchange for sexual relations.

3. To compromise one's principles for personal gain.

[Duckhunter935]

24. Do you mean 3?

[guillaumeb]

27. I do. My face is red. I meant the 6th definition in the series. eom.

[former9thward]

26. What polls are you looking at?

Americans are opposed to any more gun restrictions.

According to a March 2013 CNN/ORC poll, 55 percent of Americans thought there, "should be only minor or no restrictions at all on owning guns."

In the same December 2014 poll conducted by Pew, 57 percent of Americans said gun ownership in the United States protects people, while 38 percent said gun ownership in the U.S. does more to put people's safety at risk than protect them.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/gun-ownership-declines-support-for-less-gun-control-on-the-rise/

[guillaumeb]

32. I was not speaking of gun issues specifically. Polling on issues rather than labels

generally shows that the US electorate is more progressive than politicians.

Here is just one source:
http://www.alternet.org/guess-what-pot-government-spending-americans-are-far-more-liberal-politicians-assume

[pnwmom]

31. A President can't govern on the positions without a Congress as progressive as the President. n/t

[guillaumeb]

37. No argument there.

Which comes first, the progressive Congress or the progressive President? And can a progressive President use the public platform and attendant publicity of President to push progressive positions?

[Sheepshank]

41. ^^^^^this^^^^

Obama has pushed mighty hard for some controls.....I honestly thought Sandy Hook would have driven the RW to reconsider their stand and cooperate with some legislation. No luck. We need majorities in both houses to fix this problem. With Hillary, as with Obama, the heart is willing, but the senators and Congress are not.

[elleng]

53. Check these positions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281

[guillaumeb]

115. I read some of the posts.

Definitely progressive. But could a Sanders/ O'Malley ticket, or reverse order if you wish, overcome the money advantage that the post-Citizens United world presents?

[elleng]

116. I suspect that We the People would see to it;

quite a movement growing, imo.

[guillaumeb]

117. True. The media does not seem to know how to categorize either O'Malley or Sanders. eom

[elleng]

118. Right, and as to O'Malley, they fail MISERABLY.

[orpupilofnature57]

6. Bernie was soliciting donations for the victims .

[BainsBane]

11. That's nice

It would be even nicer to take action to prevent future victims. I also wish people here cared about gun control and racism even a fraction as much as they do about Bernie Sanders political fortunes.

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. "... nicer to take action to prevent future victims." Um, no. Care for the CURRENT victims first.

It's called triage.

While Hillary Clinton was out scoring campaign points off of a tragedy, Bernie Sanders was addressing the tragedy directly.

[wyldwolf]

23. Um, yes. How many victims have been CURRENT then became PAST while some avoid the issue?

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. Not sure how your cartoon changes the fact Bernie Sanders is trying to care for victims while

Hillary Clinton is using the same tragedy to score campaign points with hollow words.

[orpupilofnature57]

39. Doesn't change or clear anything, it's another ploy using media .

[okasha]

49. While Hillary was making legislative proposals,

Sanders was refusing to answer questions on gun control.

[BainsBane]

55. "Scoring points"

You taking notes from the NRA now? That's their stock position. Gun control matters. This situation is insane, and making excuses for failing to act on it is part of the problem.

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. Not the least bit interested in the NRA or their talking points. I say what I think.

And I think Hillary jumped on this train the moment it left the station.

I can just see the communications shooting back and forth about how to best put this to use. Let no tragedy go to waste I've heard said...

[BainsBane]

65. Your entire argument is exactly what they say

What you think on this subject is reprehensible. Any action that works to silence gun control is wrong, and entirely in keeping with the agenda of the right and the corporate gun lobby. I don't know if you are a conservative on gun issues or if you simply decide that Sanders' political fortunes means more to you than the issue. Either way, there is nothing to respect about what you have written. If it is the latter, I find that particularly noxious. It's one thing to have a strong 2a position and another to forsake principle in order to promote the career of a politician.

I see too many here elevate Sanders above the rights, concerns, and lives of the citizenry. I do not believe Sanders OR ANY POLITICIAN more important than the 32,000 Americans who die every year from gun violence. I do not believe the unfettered profits of the gun lobby more important than human life. And I especially do not put the political fortunes of politicians above the people they are meant to represent. That entire ethos is antithetical to democracy, equality, and an engaged citizenry. It runs counter to any conception of popular activism and social change. In fact, it actively works against it. One cannot promote 19th century views of the infallibility of great men and pretend to acting in the interest of the people. The two positions are entirely antithetical.

[Duckhunter935]

75. you argument is lost when you have to lump suicide

to boost the numbers and call them all gun violence. Is hanging called rope violence or an overdose called pill violence? The gun control side just has to keep overreaching to try and make a point.

[mythology]

96. Considering suicide by gun is successful about 85 percent of the time and

suicide by pill somewhere around 5% and more than half of all successful suicides are done with guns. There's no epidemic of people intentionally hanging themselves or intentionally overdosing on drugs.

And given that while the non-firearm rate of suicide is the same in states that have tighter gun control as in states without, the rate of suicides by firearm are substantially higher in those states that lack gun control laws. So you can't really argue that people will just find some other method as the numbers don't bear that out.

These facts brought to you by the smarties at Harvard:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/

So no, it's not wrong to include suicides in the death toll brought about by guns.

[Duckhunter935]

74. Funny as that

is an actual gun control talking point that has been posted many times. Use emotion and tragic events to push for "gun safety".

[BainsBane]

97. The next shooting has already happened

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026874339

and more will continue precisely because Americans lack the courage to address gun control. Because they allow the NRA to tell them that working to end violence is trying to score political points. Because they put property and corporate gun profits above human life.

No amount of money for the victims in Charleston will take back the lives lost tonight or in the next dozen mass shootings that will take place all too soon.

[Evergreen Emerald]

80. That is a nice idea for a social worker

But not for a Presidential candidate.

[Duckhunter935]

19. If you have followed us firearms

Owners that are DU members, we have been offering suggestions for years that would help. But we are not for feel good legislation that will do virtually nothing.

[BainsBane]

56. If you recall

I engaged in discussion for quite some time with you people about such legislation, which you claimed to support until it was voted on, and you cheered it's defeat. Then you filed to support subsequent background check legislation, extremely modest. I learned my lesson the hard way.

[Duckhunter935]

57. is that when they loaded it up with the new

AWB?

[beevul]

67. Yeah. You were a big proponent of the assault weapon ban, and magazine restrictions.

We told you then, that magazine restrictions wouldn't stop these things, and you didn't listen.

Do you believe us now?

Do you?


The so called "assault weapon ban" is equally worthless.

Will you listen to that this time?

[Duckhunter935]

76. Probably not

and if the weapon truly was a model 1911 series, it used a seven round magazine. Even fully legal under the NY SAFE act.

[orpupilofnature57]

21. Senior Senator, Presidential Candidate, Millionaire Before office

and he'll teach Hillary about issues at their first DEBATE.

[BainsBane]

60. like Obama, JFK, and FDR?

Funny how you all decided only now that having money is a problem for a presidential candidate. Strikes me as a lot like complaining about Oprah's wealth and not Elon Musk's, the Kennedy's or George Soros's. Women who don't stay in their place certainly do annoy some people.

[orpupilofnature57]

110. Having money and beg, borrowing, and charging ridiculous fees, isn't

the same, obviously your blind to those who are and those who will do and say anything to, Be .

[quickesst]

83. looks like you hit a nerve...

...Those saying that Clinton is using this tragedy for political gain. Well that's exactly what they're doing right now in this thread. Only in a derogatory fashion that is absolutely disrespectful of the people who were murdered. I believe they have reached the bottom of the cesspool. Pretty damn sad using those victims to fuel their need to slander Hillary Clinton.

[toshiba783]

92. I'm curious...

Did Bernie do this for the victims of Sandy Hook/Aurora/Isla Vista or other mass shootings?

[orpupilofnature57]

111. I know Hillary used that like this to spew Poetry & Platitudes .

[leftofcool]

29. She is way ahead on this.

[tularetom]

30. Obama said almost the same thing in 2007-08

He didn't mean it either. We're now almost 7 years into his term and he hasn't even proposed one successful gun control measure.

It's all bullshit to fool a few primary voters. She knows if she gets elected and actually proposes some draconian gun control measures, she will get her ass handed to her by congress.

But talk is cheap, and campaign rhetoric, generalities and platitudes are the cheapest talk of all.

So I'm not worried that she can follow through on this BS.

[BainsBane]

42. You clearly paid no attention to the legislative battles on this issue

Last edited Sat Jun 20, 2015, 09:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Your comment is completely uninformed, which shows you are part of the problem. Why weren't you calling your representatives when the bills were being voted on? You pretend a president just waves his magic wand and it counteracts the power of the most influential lobby in DC? You know nothing about this issue.

The reason the legislative package the administration proposed didn't pass is because the gun zealots overwhelmed their representatives with phone calls and letters in opposition to it. The NRA worked them up into a frenzy, while people like you ignored the whole thing and now two years later blame the president. He worked to pass it, spoke on it many times, formed a task force and got the legislation on the floor to be voted on. What did you do?

[tularetom]

47. You have clearly misunderstood my post. I'm glad Obama hasn't pushed any gun control measures

I own a few guns but I'm no fan of the NRA and I'm far from a "gun zealot". However I do understand that no outright "ban" on anything ever works. Remember prohibition? That didn't turn out so well. The "war on drugs" has led to if anything, more drug use.

You know what? If Obama had fought as hard for increased restrictions on gun ownership as he did for the TPP, it would probably have passed. Obviously it wasn't at the top of his "to do" list.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Indeed. Many fine words produced no buttered parsnips...

[BainsBane]

69. the legislation was about background checks

It is in fact unconstitutional to ban guns and was never even discussed.

Make up your mind? Is Obama at fault for not waving his magic fairy wand and making the NRA evaporate--without any help from you, since you clearly have no idea what the legislation was--or are you glad the gun lobby succeeded in defeating enhanced background checks? The other measures all fell before the final vote on background checks failed. The only prohibition was against extended magazines, but that wasn't even in the final bill. Again, you obviously didn't follow it and are repeating canned remarks that are entirely uninformed.

[tularetom]

73. Again, you are reading into my post a lot of words that are not there

I understand what the legislation was about - the point is that campaign rhetoric doesn't mean squat. After a lot of generalities and weasel words in 2007-08, Obama didn't fight very hard to get that bill enacted. He didn't twist arms like he did with the TPP.

Consequently, I'm not very worried that Clinton is taking advantage of a tragedy to make a speech full of the same kind of platitudes. If she gets elected, nothing will change re restrictions on private ownership of firearms. And that's probably a good thing.

What I'm trying to tell you, apparently with no success, is that you are in for a big disappointment if you actually believe Clinton will do anything to change things.

[Thinkingabout]

35. It was a very good speech, with compassion, just what we expect of a president.

Thanks bb for posting.

[Agnosticsherbet]

38. This is a point in her favor.

[BainsBane]

43. Indeed it is

None of the candidates are prefect. They have strengths in different areas. Rather than reverse engineering our principles and issue concerns to suit them, I submit we pressure them to support positions we favor. Sanders supporters, for example, could tell him that this issue is important to them, and he needs to respond to it. Clinton supporters could pressure Clinton to oppose TPP and similar legislation. I won't be changing my positions to accommodate Clinton or anyone else. We all have to factor in what is most important to us and move from there, but that doesn't mean we should abandon what we care about because a candidate doesn't support key positions.

[BainsBane]

44. O'Malley is also strong on gun control

has made some forceful, excellent statements in the wake of the killings. He also succeeded in getting gun control passed while governor.

[Agnosticsherbet]

45. Thanks. I will check out his record.

[elleng]

51. Yesterday:

Martin O'Malley says he's pissed.

I'm pissed.

I'm pissed that after an unthinkable tragedy like the one in South Carolina yesterday, instead of jumping to act, we sit back and wait for the appropriate moment to say what we're all thinking: that this is not the America we want to be living in.

I'm pissed that we’re actually asking ourselves the horrific question of, what will it take? How many senseless acts of violence in our streets or tragedies in our communities will it take to get our nation to stop caving to special interests like the NRA when people are dying?

I'm pissed that after working hard in the state of Maryland to pass real gun control—laws that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing standards, and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers—Congress continues to drop the ball.

It's time we called this what it is: a national crisis.

I proudly hold an F rating from the NRA, and when I worked to pass gun control in Maryland, the NRA threatened me with legal action, but I never backed down.

So now, I'm doubling down, and I need your help. What we did in Maryland should be the first step of what we do as a nation. The NRA is already blaming the victims of yesterday's shooting for their own deaths, saying they too should have been armed. Let's put an end to this madness and finally stand up to them. Here are some steps we should be taking:

1. A national assault weapons ban.

2. Stricter background checks.

3. Efforts to reduce straw-buying, like fingerprint requirements.

Not one of the GOP presidential candidates comes even close to being right on this issue—and some actually believe that things like background checks are excessive, or that high-capacity magazines are a basic right. Well, I believe we all have a basic right to safe schools, safe places to worship, and safe streets.

Are you with me?

Martin O'Malley

https://martinomalley.com/wemustact/

In the past:
Martin O'Malley:

1. Ended death penalty in Maryland
2. Prevented fracking in Maryland and put regulations in the way to prevent next GOP Gov Hogan fom easily allowing fracking.
3. Provided health insurance for 380,000
4. Reduced infant mortality to an all time low.
5. Provided meals to thousands of hungry children and moved toward a goal for eradicating childhood hunger.
6. Enacted a $10.10 living wage and a $11. minimum wage for State workers.
7. Supporter the Dream Act
8. Cut income taxes for 86% of Marylanders (raised taxes on the rich).
9. Reformed Maryland’s tax code to make it more progressive.
10. Enacted some of the nation’s most comprehensive reforms to protect homeowners from foreclosure.

Mother Jones magazine called him the best candidate on environmental issues.
Article here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk

More here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281

[4now]

62. Very powerful statement

I am going check him out.
Thanks for the links.

[elleng]

63. Good, I'm glad to hear it, 4now.

[Autumn]

46. A call for gun control laws is a nice campaign sound bite

She knows gun control laws will go no where. The votes for them are toxic as we sadly learned here in CO after two Democrats were recalled. Of course the two pro-gun Republicans elected during the recalls were handily beaten in the following election but the NRA pulled out all the stops for the recall.

[L0oniX]

71. Hillary is just taking advantage of Charleston IMO.

She could have been for tougher gun control laws before this and over a long period of time.

[Autumn]

91. Hillary making gun control an issue in this campaign will be interesting to see.

[Cha]

52. "Sanders hails from Vermont, a rural state that lacks virtually any gun regulations and he seems

uncomfortable discussing the issue."

That's too bad.. this isn't just about Vermont anymore.

From your link..

"Sanders voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993, arguing that waiting period for handguns could be better dealt with on the state level. And he was boosted in his 1988 run for Congress when the NRA attacked his opponent. In 2005, he voted for a controversial bill pushed by the firearms industry. Slate recently labeled Sanders a “gun nut” in a headline."

snip//

Nonetheless, Saunders’ record leaves enough room for Clinton – who has a long history of supporting gun control – to outflank her liberal challenger on his left. And with her visibility, Clinton can single-handedly ensure that guns become a major issue of the Democratic presidential primary, if she so chooses.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is also running for the nomination, sought to do the same Friday. He blasted out a strongly worded letter to supporters calling for strict new gun control laws.

Thank you, BB

[elleng]

64. Governor O'Malley said this:

I'm pissed.

I'm pissed that after an unthinkable tragedy like the one in South Carolina yesterday, instead of jumping to act, we sit back and wait for the appropriate moment to say what we're all thinking: that this is not the America we want to be living in.

I'm pissed that we’re actually asking ourselves the horrific question of, what will it take? How many senseless acts of violence in our streets or tragedies in our communities will it take to get our nation to stop caving to special interests like the NRA when people are dying?

I'm pissed that after working hard in the state of Maryland to pass real gun control—laws that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing standards, and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers—Congress continues to drop the ball.

It's time we called this what it is: a national crisis.

I proudly hold an F rating from the NRA, and when I worked to pass gun control in Maryland, the NRA threatened me with legal action, but I never backed down.

So now, I'm doubling down, and I need your help. What we did in Maryland should be the first step of what we do as a nation. The NRA is already blaming the victims of yesterday's shooting for their own deaths, saying they too should have been armed. Let's put an end to this madness and finally stand up to them. Here are some steps we should be taking:

1. A national assault weapons ban.

2. Stricter background checks.

3. Efforts to reduce straw-buying, like fingerprint requirements.

Not one of the GOP presidential candidates comes even close to being right on this issue—and some actually believe that things like background checks are excessive, or that high-capacity magazines are a basic right. Well, I believe we all have a basic right to safe schools, safe places to worship, and safe streets.

Are you with me?

Martin O'Malley

https://martinomalley.com/wemustact/


Hi, Cha.

[BainsBane]

66. That was fantastic

Bravo to O'Malley.

[elleng]

68. Thanks, BainsBane.

[Autumn]

84. Yes by all means let her ensure that guns become a major issue of the Democratic presidential

primary, if she so chooses. I hope she does just that.

[aikoaiko]

88. No, its not just about VT anymore.

But the rest of the nation is catching up to VT.

[bluestateguy]

54. I'm for Hillary

yet my position on guns is actually closer to Sanders.

[L0oniX]

70. She could have done that anytime before Charleston. What's her stance on all the cops killing blacks

[Purveyor]

77. Another 'fail' when it comes to the general election. eom

[Iliyah]

79. K & R

HRC and O'Malley are strong poponents of gun control. Get congress back in the hands of Dems and I believe progress for such will ensue.

[okasha]

86. And that's where coattails

and the ability to carry down-ticket races becomes crucial. All 111 sitting and former governors, Senators and Representatives who have endorsed a Democratic Candidate have endorsed Hillary. These are people who want to be seen campaigning with her not only to support her but to be recognized as having her support. That translates to more votes for both of them.

[Comrade Grumpy]

81. I will concede that Clinton is more pro-gun control than Sanders. Nobody's perfect.

[aikoaiko]

87. Its kind of strange that the author describes HRCs stance as outflanking Sanders...

...as if that is the reason she said what she said. Its almost an admission that it was strategic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. Everything she does or says is strategic. n/t

[BainsBane]

94. How would the author know Clinton's motivations?

Don't you think it at all possible that speaking at a mayor's association it would make sense she would talk to issues relevant to them?

Regardless, you have a candidate whose conservative views on gun issues suit you well, and two that have forcefully come out for more gun control in the wake of yet another bloody tragedy of the kind we see far too many of. I don't think one needs to be strategic to want to see it stop. In fact, I would think that would be the normal response of any human being seeking to reduce violence. That said, politicians act strategically. If they didn't, they'd lose. Yet coming up against the single most power lobby in DC and their cadre of gun obsessed zealots is hardly politically safe territory in a country that values guns over human life. I have no doubt the gun lobby is writing checks as we speak and preparing to wage yet another battle in their war on democracy and human life.

[William769]

93. She gave a powerful speech

She had the peoples attention and listening to what needed to be said without slamming her fists on the table. That's how a leader acts.

This was one of her finer moments.

[Bonobo]

98. More calculation. Not a BAD thing in a politician, but not terribly inspiring either.

You can feel the gears work in her well-oiled machine.

[frylock]

99. That's sure to draw independents and disenfranchised republicans

Hello President Sanders.

[William769]

100. I so hope you are still here come nomination day!

[frylock]

101. i've been here a minute

I don't plan on going anywhere.

[LAGC]

108. You mean when Hillary gives her equally powerful concession speech, just like in 2008?

Yeah, we'll all be here for that.

[BainsBane]

102. Yes, well

Not everyone wants GOP lite. Some actually care about human life, and doing something to stop this endless string of mass shootings, including another just tonight: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026874339

[frylock]

103. Yes, Bernie Sanders doesn't care about human life.

[BainsBane]

105. You have just argued that promoting gun control will lose the precious Republican

voters you think essential to winning the election (never mind they don't vote in Democratic primaries).

Gun control matters more than your reverence for great men, more than your insistence that Sanders is infallible. I don't have time for that pettiness. I get you care about nothing but his career. Go on. Work to ensure the gun lobby is protected and nothing is done to stop the epidemic of gun violence because YOU care more about reverse engineering your views to fit his. I'll be focusing on issues. I suggest you respond to people who share your unwavering focus on personality over principle.

The anti-gun control position is wrong, period. It costs lives. Ten more tonight. No amount of excuses on your part changes that fact.

[frylock]

106. this is hilarious..

depending upon who I argue with, I'm either a gun fucker, or a gun grabber. bbye.

[cascadiance]

104. Sounds like DiFi pushing for assault weapons ban after Sandy Hook AND helping Republicans filibuster

it at the same time by voting against Merkley's proposed rule changes against fixing the filibuster rules at the same time, therefore voting to doom her own bill at the same time as one of only 6-7 Democrats to do so. I wonder why! Maybe she didn't really want it to pass, but just put on a show for the voters!

Careful about this sort of thing. Appearances can be deceiving.

Still waiting for her to tell the Senate Democrats to filibuster the TPA laws next week to stop that mess from passing. THAT would be showing leadership in a timely fashion!

[leftofcool]

107. Uh, Hillary is not in the Senate. Did that little tidbit escape you?

[tularetom]

112. She's done a 180 on gun control since 2008 and she'll do it again

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/25549477/hillary-clinton-cant-shoot-straight-on-gun-control

These recent comments on gun control appear to be an effort to gin up the base -- and possible donors -- by throwing out these liberal nuggets now.

Six years ago, she aimed to the right when she was running a national election and needed western and southern states to beat Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Clinton saw an opening when Obama was caught at a private fundraiser in San Francisco saying that people in small towns “get bitter-- they cling to guns or religion.”

Suddenly Clinton’s campaign stops turned into pro-gun rallies.

“People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter,” she said. At another stop, she told supporters that her father taught her to shoot as a girl, then she waxed poetic about going duck hunting.

Obama felt the target on his back.

“She’s talking like she’s Annie Oakley,” said the first-term Illinois senator. “Hillary Clinton is out there like she’s on the duck blind every Sunday. She’s packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better. That’s some politics being played by Hillary Clinton.”

Do you really trust her to argue for stricter gun control measures once she has glommed onto the Democratic nomination? Ain't gonna happen. When she needs those "moderate" votes, she'll be Annie Oakley again.

[BainsBane]

114. I don't know if I trust her particularly

She's a politician, but I certainly trust her more than someone who has voted against gun control and in support of the corporate gun industry. I already know Sanders won't do shit on the issue. He's already voted against key provisions.
He's even managed to convince his supporters than gun control doesn't matter, so his influence on the issue has already been bad. Why would I want to empower more of that, to give more people and excuse to turn their backs on the lives of people in communities like mine? They are already far too comfortable doing that.