n/t

against racial violence.

The few who would vote against her for this would oppose her for other reasons anyway.

And support for new restrictions on lawful ownership is lower now than it was then.

The coalition that elected Obama will be there for Hillary, too. And her speaking out against guns and racial violence certainly won't hurt her with those voters.

will help if and when we do have a better Congress.

... staying home in a snit during Presidential elections or sitting on the couch during Midterm elections. The Midterms especially just kill the Democratic agenda.

For the thousandth time: it's CONGRESS that writes the LAWS.

Barack Obama, September 9, 2008:

these days understand the need for gun control. Unfortunately, we've been stuck with a do-nothing Congress.

While the numbers vary from poll to poll, it's been decades since even a simple majority of Americans have supported anything but the most toothless of gun control laws. Last I checked, fewer than a quarter of Americans supported any kind of seizure.

About half are more concerned with gun rights, and slightly fewer are bigger proponents of gun control.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/07/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/#all

The insanity of carrying in public is what needs to be addressed. Guns belong in places where people do not congregate for peaceful purposes.

or make new gun restrictions a priority, and went so far as to tell a gathering of gun owners that he couldn't push for a new AWB even if he wanted to. So did the progressive American Hunters and Shooters Association, which campaigned hard for Obama explicitly stating that he would NOT push the "assault weapon" fraud anymore, and that lawful and peaceable gun owners were not threatened. In fact, 2008 was probably the first national election since 1994 in which the Dem candidate didn't promise to fight hard to outlaw popular civilian guns, and he also promised to rein in the Surveillance State, which helped him among the half of gun owners who are Dems and indies. I was heavily involved in this debate and defended Obama on the gun issue pretty vigorously, and up until his second term he was pretty good on gun rights if you look at what he did (legalized National Park carry, guns in checked baggage on Amtrak, etc.), rather than what he said to smooth the feathers of the prohibitionists. That changed after 2012, of course, when he went full Third Way on the gun issue, but up to that point he seemed to focus on the root causes of violence, rather than attacking lawful ownership.

As to the current discussion, speaking out against racial violence/racism/intolerance is fantastic, and helpful. Signaling to a quarter of Dems and a third or more of independents that you despise them and are going to take cherished rights from them---or allowing your words to give that impression, even if you didn't so intend---isn't. The message of racial harmony is getting buried by the "you gun owners are evil and we're coming after you" theme, here on DU and in the media at large. Heck, read any gun thread in GD or LBN and see what I mean. Death wishes, sexual insults, promises to ban and confiscate people's guns, promises to resurrect the "assault weapon" fraud (after a shooting that involved a low-capacity pistol), personal insults, what have you. You typically see more hatred and anger directed at lawful and peaceable gun ownership than you do against racism, racial hatred, and white supremacy, and that is extraordinarily counterproductive on both fronts.

Its about time we move on this issue.

She's a gun grabber!---Say the gun fanciers.

A very clear statement of her position. She stated what the majority of Americans support but our elected government failed to act on.
She also took racism head on.
Nothing she said infringes on the 2nd amendment. Should we be afraid to deal with the gun part of gun violence?

I do like what Clinton has to say on this issue, I think it is the only issue that I think she is better than Bernie on. While I think Bernie is much better on the gun issue than his detractors try to pretend, he is certainly not perfect. I am glad he has supported an assault weapons ban, magazine size limits, and background checks but I also acknowledge that he made a mistake in opposing the Brady Bill.

I am not a purist however so I won't tear him down over not being perfect on this issue, he is the best candidate overall by a pretty big margin so he is the one I will be voting for.

There is very little I can disagree with Bernie about. She is a hair breath smidge more appealing to me. Both of them would get my vote.

And would be grateful to have either.

Get out our pitchforks. I honestly think it will take all of us to finally stand up to the powerful NRA and their $$. When is enough enough?

We have let them bully politicians into supporting their agendas--even tho those agendas are killing our citizenry. We are not powerful if we don't stand together. And the politicians who are sacrificing our citizens for their own personal power should be voted out of office.

Perhaps she needs to practice some gun control on herself if she is elected President.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm#Iran

.

And if Bernie is so perfect, why is it that he has supported every single legislation that deals with going into Iraq and Afghanistan since?

And Bernie, unlike Hillary, opposed the war in Iraq.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/video/flashback-rep-bernie-sanders-opposes-iraq-war

I haven't ever heard Bernie apologize for his vote against the Brady Act, or for his vote on the PLCAA, protecting gun manufacturers from product liability lawsuits.

that would be an interesting twist on reality. Sen. Sanders is not going to win the nomination, and he is not going to run as a third party. He is going to have a strong influence on the direction of the Democratic primary and the positions that he, Sec. Clinton and Malley set out.

I'm happy Sanders is running for the nomination. I'm pleased by some of his supporters. He does appear to have a number of supporters who are not so much for his policies, but rather running snipes at Clinton. I'm pretty sure that those posters are anonymous Republican astro-turfers.

Read this: http://www.businessinsider.com/no-room-for-hillary-in-obamas-inner-circle-2014-12

And by the way, if you are insinuating that I am a Republican troll, I resent the implication.

For the right tone of commentary on this OP, I mean seriously. Can't we all just get along?

not a troll. A troll does it just for fun, and you clearly are not having fun. Serious question, are you a paid shill?

.

"As secretary of state I think that her relationship with the president was cordial, but never close," says Senator John McCain, who served as the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and observed her up close.

McCain's a foreign policy hawk—one more aligned with Hillary than Obama, so it is with a tinge of regret the former Republican presidential nominee makes this observation on morning in his Senate office.

"I don't believe that when crucial decisions were made that she was necessarily in the room ... [W]hen it came to some crucial decisions I don't think that Mr. Donilon (national security adviser to Obama) was swayed by her opinion. I'm not saying she wasn't consulted, but I think it's very well known she was not in the inner circle of decision makers on national security."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/no-room-for-hillary-in-obamas-inner-circle-2014-12#ixzz3ddi6ezJu

inner deliberations.

The President chairs the NSC and there are only four other statutory members: The Vice President and the Secretaries of State, Defense and Energy.

But if were running her campaign, I'd repeatedly put out the narrative that she was too busy to ever attend to those duties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council

Statutes/schmatutes. Hillary was dis-included in Obama's inner foreign policy circle. She was only appointed Secy of State for one term to pacify her supporters in the Party.

pretends that WH staff can "send" cabinet officers off on their whims.

Says the "expert."

funding the war you say he opposes.

He has also supported throwing a couple trillion bucks down the black hole of the F-35 fighter because it will be based in his state.

Hope you're enjoying your stay on DU.

Besides, I am not a big fan of Bernie, although I think he is marginally better than Hillary, who will be a disaster.

"The politics on this position have been poisoned."

HELLO! ALL our politics have been "poisoned". Corporate MONEY is THE death cocktail of genuine constituent representation.

For firearm and ammunition manufacturers if she wins. They are probably already planning on it with all therefore sales years they have had under the Obama Administartion, they consider him gun salesman of the year since 2009.

Gun control is high on my list.

(Others are a path to citizenship, education, and transparency/equal pay for women).

She may not be the "rousing" speaker that some desire, but she is dead on target with the problems and real solutions.

So specifically what did she propose about gun control?

Bernie, for example, has the problem of going off with unrealistic proposals and wild schemes. Obama, Hillary and Martin don't usually do that. That's why Hillary gets not only the important issues that can be changed, but also the way to go about change.

If you set up a bunch of artificial targets - like "I'd get rid of all the 9mm handguns!" all you do is give the GOP (majority) talking points for a billion dollars of attack ads. She clearly will address gun control more forcefully than Obama has so far, and likely will have a zillion mothers on her side when she does.

Hillary has spoken out on gun control, a path to citizenship, and childcare. She will deal with the Congress she has to work with to pass whatever can be passed. No "magic wand", fancy speeches, or rainbow dreams will get anything passed.

Hillary understands the gun issue is also a race issue and, frankly, an issue that is important for women! She also has the legal training and background to pick SC justices that will back her, and put together laws that will actually make a difference. She has echoed Obama on the need for effective checks or licenses to possess guns, and I'm sure she would support stronger federal restrictions on some locations that were gun free.

No good candidate would set themselves up before the actual campaign without careful thought. Principles become specific when the law is signed or vetoed. Everything else is just values and a pulpit.

Of course everyone is for it. Right up to the point you put ink on paper. Then many start saying that is not what the supported! It is too (weak/strong) on the issue.

Let's hear one specific idea

I love that she's speaking about this.

n/t

A deliberately vague statement which everyone agrees with because they project their views on it.

Last edited Sun Jun 21, 2015, 02:06 AM - Edit history (1)

course before being allowed to own guns again. More specifically, those who have been convicted of 3 or more felonies within a 10-year period involving gun violence or threatening violence with a gun.

No candidate would have said that eight years ago. Obama didn't say it till after Newtown.

She must know the public support is there.

duck duck goes it, nothing...any links so I can hear the speech?

. . . she will just talk . . . a LOT.

Primo politician.

The vast majority of Americans like the concept.

The devil is in the details. The reason the previous federal UBC bill failed was due to a bad implementation, not due to a rejection of the concept.

Hillary's problem regarding gun legislation is the same as most politicians at that level: a lack of knowledge on the topic. If she was knowledgeable about guns and their current laws, she would be able to have intelligent conversations on the topic.

High level politicians are good at paying lip service to concepts. Doing do is easy. Actively seeking to solve problems with facts and logic is hard and often avoided by politicians.

I also have no idea what Hillary proposes as a UBC implementation.

in communities across America.

But unlike Sanders, she's calling for stronger gun control, including universal background checks.

This is Democratic Underground, so within these hallowed walls there is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner". Unless of course that gun owner is willing to give up all their guns and crawl on their hands and knees across America to personally apologize to everyone who has ever been affected by gun violence for the past three generations.

At that point, some of the gun control advocates here will deign to look down their noses with barely disguised disgust and allow said "responsible gun owner" to lick their boots.

"Common Sense" gun control laws won't stop shootings like this.


The promotion of racist thought , both directly and in code by the right wing media and Repub politicians is the cause. They are constantly whipping up hatred.

They need to be publicly shamed for this.

Making this about the gun, just allows the right wing to "logically" point out any flaws in the prevention of these attacks.

Instead of focusing on laws, she should be attacking Huckabee for stating that we should arm Pastors. She should be attacking the ridiculous unwillingness of Repubs to even admit that this attack was a racist attack.

the need to deal with what you call "the promotion of racist thought" as well as all the other challenges faced by African Americans in our society.

This was a great speech by Hillary. Not a mistake at all.

it distracts from the real problem. The headlines are all about gun control, not about Repub exploitation and promotion of racism.

Then the discussion devolves into which gun you can own, who can have one, etc.

Then the Fox news discussion is about the practical details. This gun was illegally obtained, so no law or background check would have stopped this. So they win the argument.

If Hillary focused on the coded and explicit racism of Fox and Repubs she could put them on the defensive, rather than allow them to wrap themselves in the 2nd amendment.

connected with racism and the disadvantages faced by African Americans in our society.

you can't mention gun control without it becoming THE topic.

simply because the media talks in sound bytes.

if she wants to win this election, she has to control the conversation.

Not just the corporate media, which is very communitarian/Third Way in outlook on that particular issue and will cheer any new gun control proposals to the moon even if merely mentioned in passing, but in the shooting sports and gun rights media as well. The moment new bans are on the table, it becomes THE issue to those who would be the targets of such restrictions. When you consider that 80+ million people of voting age own guns, with at least a third owning "assault weapons" or over-10-round magazines and as many as two thirds owning handguns, it can have a huge impact on the discussion. Heck, I've had gun control activists blowing up my Facebook news feed since Charleston, and I don't even subscribe to political/news sites on FB!

At this point, gun owners don't seem too worried---after all, the coward in SC used a low-capacity, very ordinary looking pistol, so there's no hysteria to outlaw particular guns/ammo/magazines right now like there was in 2012, and hence no buying rush---but there are productive things to say, and unproductive things to say, and "We need new restrictions and new bans" is in the latter category, IMO.

what is 'common sense gun safety'?

she would sign anything that Congress passes?
something else?
................

is anyone that posts on DU?
a psychic?

instead of a patchwork of state checks. Is that such a riddle?

It must have been a terrible shock for everyone involved.

Then you can expect her to show her true colors.

to fold up because Hillary needs full lockstep, this is an example where the fact that was a left flank allowed her to move. Do you think her handlers and ye men would allow her to go this far left if not for bernie and martin?, hell no, they would be busy making sure that she stayed no further right than Lood Blankfeld and Alice Walton allowed her to be.

I wonder who wrote that headline.

And she only wants to address the CONCEPT not the DETAILS, From the article:

The educators and community leaders were brilliant. They were clearly pleased that someone came to listen. Hillary's past experience ties directly into their concerns and belief that there has to be a "whole person" type of approach. I have to say that Hillary was great during the Q&A....what a fine mind she has and an incredible deptth of knowledge at her fingertips.

These meetings are a great idea. It was very interesting to watch it all...CSPAN 3 carried it...

....there will always be someone trying to diminish it, deny it, say it's not important because she said it, and that she was speaking hypocritically. What do they get out of it, I wonder? It doesn't make them better people, and it doesn't add to their preferred candidate's luster.