Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

So, Paul Ryan and Hillary have both picked up the "YOU DIDN'T DENOUNCE DAVID DUKE!" line against Trump. Is this a case of them trying to say a lie so many times it makes it true in people's eyes, or is there something that was missed?

I think they just smell blood in the water.


On the other hand, there's this.
Dog whistling, anyone?



Meanwhile, HRC is holding a fundraiser co-hosted by lobbyists for the NRA and Goldman Sachs.
But please, tell me some more about how Bernie isn't tough enough on gun control, and how Clinton isn't close to big money.

Receiving contributions from lobbyists or ex-lobbyists for the NRA highlights the difficulty in promoting a progressive message on guns and many other issues while accepting money from registered lobbyists. Clinton declined to extend President Barack Obama’s ban on contributions from lobbyists to her own campaign. The Democratic National Committee has also stated it is ending the Obama ban on lobbyist contributions.

Everytime I start to become resigned to voting for Shillary in November, something like this reminds me why I'd need the airsickness bag to do so.

[nenjin]

She's so for gun control.

Except when the biggest opponents of it are waving a fat stack of cash in front of her face.

*cue Maniac explaining why that's totally ok and why I'm [something] for not liking it.*

[mainiac]

BREAKING NEWS.  Member of democratic party holds views outside party norm.

[SirQuiamus]

Killary is also very gun, much control, in the context of international arms trading.

Further research done by Sirota and Perez of International Business Times and based on US government and Clinton Foundation data shows that during her term the State Department authorized $165 billion in commercial arms sales to twenty nations that had given money to the Clinton Foundation. These include the governments of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, all of whose records on human rights had been criticized by the State Department itself. During Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state, arms sales to the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation ran at nearly double the value of sales to the same nations during George W. Bush’s second term. There was also an additional $151 billion worth of armaments sold to sixteen nations that had donated funds to the Clinton Foundation; these were deals organized by the Pentagon but which could only be completed with Hillary Clinton’s authorization as secretary of state. They were worth nearly one and a half times the value of equivalent sales during Bush’s second term.

But meh, who gives a hoot at this point? The American people have spoken and the Queen has been crowned – Hail Hillary! Long live partisan politics!

And just in case anyone thinks I'm biased (I'm not, it's none of my business anyway), here's a merciless exposé of Bernie's shameful past as a racexist pigbro.

[RedKing]

Nice non-sequitur.

So who's outside the norm? Clinton? The lobbyist? nenjin?
What is the party norm on gun control? I thought it was fairly pro-regulation.

Spoiler: #HillarySoBlack she got that dolla dolla bill, y'all (click to show/hide)

EDIT:
I've just started watching Rick and Morty, but this was too good to pass up.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[mainiac]

And just in case anyone thinks I'm biased

The following shouldn't be taken as criticizing you, just something this made me think of.

In statistics, a model is considered unbiased when additional information gets us closer to the actual value.  I.E. if you have a poll sampling voters that will be more accurate with 2000 responses then with 500 responses your poll model is unbiased.  In politics, unbiased means you are willing to throw poop at both sides.  It seems to me like the second type of unbiased makes the first type impossible.

Spoiler: #HillarySoBlack she got that dolla dolla bill, y'all (click to show/hide)

Thanks for the new avatar pic.

[Rolan7]

How is Hillary even anti gun control?  I hadn't heard anything.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm
From what I can find she's for removing manufacturer immunity, and otherwise says typical nonspecific Democrat things like "illegal guns are bad" and "Not everyone should have guns".

Meanwhile Sanders apparently wants gun stores to keep some measure of immunity?  (Seems absurdly backwards but okay)  Maybe she does too, I just don't see any significant difference between their stances.

[mainiac]

It's because people assume someone they trust holds views they consider admirable.

[i2amroy]

Meanwhile Sanders apparently wants gun stores to keep some measure of immunity?  (Seems absurdly backwards but okay)  Maybe she does too, I just don't see any significant difference between their stances.

As I understand it it's that he doesn't want gun stores from being blamed when they sell to someone who checks out fine otherwise and then goes out and kills people. For example with the recent Kalamazoo shooting even the police agreed that there were no real indicators that the guy would go on his rampage, and Sanders doesn't want gun stores being blamed for selling to someone like that when they did follow all the laws (since there are always going to be some people you just can't catch, and any missed ones that you could of should be handled by fixing the laws, not by randomly punishing people/groups who were following them). It would be sorta like how car rental companies aren't held responsible if somebody rents a car and then crazily plows it through a crowd on purpose to kill a bunch of people.

[RedKing]

How is Hillary even anti gun control?  I hadn't heard anything.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm
From what I can find she's for removing manufacturer immunity, and otherwise says typical nonspecific Democrat things like "illegal guns are bad" and "Not everyone should have guns".

Meanwhile Sanders apparently wants gun stores to keep some measure of immunity?  (Seems absurdly backwards but okay)  Maybe she does too, I just don't see any significant difference between their stances.

She hasn't been particularly anti gun control. But when you start cozying up with NRA lobbyists, the assumption is some level of quid pro quo, since that's pretty much the entire reason for lobbyists. Would be quite easy for Clinton to propose a sweeping anti-gun bill that she knows is doomed to fail in Congress, and then say "Oh well, I tried. Blame Congress."

I also don't see what the issue is with not supporting lawsuits against gun stores and manufacturers. Neither a manufacturer nor a gun store has any control over the use of a weapon once it leaves their premises. By analogy, when someone goes nuts and drives their car into a crowd and kills people, should the victims' families be allowed to sue the automaker? Or the car dealership where they bought the car?

Now, suits against gun stores who knowingly sold weapons to an ineligible individual, who didn't run necessary background checks, sold under the table, etc. should totally be allowed, and those are typically brought by the Federal government as a violation of Federal law.

EDIT: Not only ninja'd, but even the same counter-example. Daaaaamn son.

[mainiac]

Would be quite easy for Clinton to propose a sweeping anti-gun bill that she knows is doomed to fail in Congress, and then say "Oh well, I tried. Blame Congress."

What would you say if that exact thing happened in a Sanders presidency?

By analogy, when someone goes nuts and drives their car into a crowd and kills people, should the victims' families be allowed to sue the automaker?

If a car is made unsafe and a COMBINATION of manufacturing unsafety and driver error results in death they would have an extremely strong case in a civil case against the manufacturer.

[Rolan7]

The more I look into this immunity thing the more it surprises me.  Apparently the "immunity" for manufacturers already has several important exceptions.  Basically they're still liable if they make a sale knowing the gun will be used in a crime, or if the product is defective.
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-industry-immunity-policy-summary/
Seems perfectly reasonable, but both candidates are trying to tear it down.  (With Clinton bashing Sanders for supporting it in the first place)

Apparently because of Sandy Hook...

Families of the Sandy Hook massacre filed a lawsuit in response to the 2012 shooting attempting to hold gun manufacturers liable for the deaths of school children and faculty. That shooting involved Adam Lanza using a rifle his mother, Mary Lanza, had legally purchased. The lawsuit charges the gun manufacturer, gun distributer, and local gun shop that sold Mary Lanza her rifle with “unreasonable and egregious risk of physical injury to others,” and seeks damages.

The site's super conservative, but still...  Buh??  How could anyone expect that to legally work?  I don't understand the issue at all.

It seems like a bunch of hot air when they ought to be talking about the gun show loophole or something.

[mainiac]

The gun show loophole is hard to address.  This is somewhat straightforward, polls decently some of the time and would have some deterrent effect even if the enforcement was anemic.  Hardly a first choice policy, more of a might as well policy.

[Karnewarrior]

Nobody mentioned that he's an ex-NRA lobbyist?

[RedKing]

Would be quite easy for Clinton to propose a sweeping anti-gun bill that she knows is doomed to fail in Congress, and then say "Oh well, I tried. Blame Congress."

What would you say if that exact thing happened in a Sanders presidency?

Difference is that I don't expect Sanders to give up on policies if they fail the first time. I fully expect Clinton to raise certain issues once, maybe twice, purely as token efforts.

By analogy, when someone goes nuts and drives their car into a crowd and kills people, should the victims' families be allowed to sue the automaker?

If a car is made unsafe and a COMBINATION of manufacturing unsafety and driver error results in death they would have an extremely strong case in a civil case against the manufacturer.

I'm not sure how a gun could be made "unsafer" than a gun, by definition, normally is. Sure, if a firearm manufacturer made a semi-automatic weapon completely lacking a safety and somebody tripped while walking and hit the trigger and gunned down people, then yes that is a liability. Though more of a product safety liability than a gun-law liability.

Moreover, mass shootings hardly constitute "operator error".

Look, I think most people here know my stance on gun control and mass shootings. I am hardly an NRA apologist. I would love to see far less firearms in our society. But going after manufacturers for product misuse is just ridiculous, and it gives the pro-gun lobby a strawman to use when they claim that liberals are crazy about guns and just lashing out wherever they can to try and stifle the 2nd Amendment.

The suit after Sandy Hook is an example of that. I understand that the parents filed it because they're angry and they're frustrated by the utter lack of action and they're looking for away to do something, ANYTHING to address the problem. But that is not the right way to go about it.

Nobody mentioned that he's an ex-NRA lobbyist?

As of about a month ago. Certainly nothing stopping him from registering as a lobbyist with them again. I don't think this is because he had some sea change in his opinions on gun control.

The gun show loophole is hard to address.

Umm, no it's not? If I sell my car to somebody privately, I have to transfer the title to them as well. If I sell a house, I have to transfer the deed.
Register all firearms (they already have serial numbers), associate a "title" with the gun, and make it so that when a firearm title is transferred, it triggers a background search.

I realize there will be pushback on the registration portion because "OH NOES BIG BROTHER CATALOGING GUNS" but seriously, fuck those tards.