I support the 2nd Ad, and only support controls on crew served weapons, such as howitzers, heavy machineguns and the like. Background checks, too.
But *mild gun controls *include waiting periods, background checks, and limitations on sales of certain guns.
Flamethrowers? Heave machine guns? Howitzers?
How about background checks?
Do you draw the line anywhere?
Maybe that’s true, maybe not. I don’t think there is evidence that would convince you. Perhaps this is a good lesson for future politicians - if they don’t support confiscation, don’t speak favorably about programs that involved confiscation. It tends to give people the impression that they support confiscation.
She didnt.
Yes. Absolutely. I think gun control is a losing issue for democrats, largely because even if my previous description didn’t describe you personally, I know enough people who will blindly vote for whoever they think is less likely to take their toys away.
That’s because that’s what your direct quote SAID.
It’s pretty amazing that you’re arguing against the direct quote you produced to support your argument. And taking that quote at face value is ‘weasel wording’ it. Yeah.
Bone - the extremism we’re talking about would allow people to sue gun manufacturers the way they could up to 2005? That’s Hillary’s radical anti-gun stance? Whoa, come see the violence inherent in the system!
Did you just make up that “mild gun control” catch-phrase? You did, didn’t you. Clever boy.
I don’t see why it’s necessary to mischaracterize this in a hyperbolic way. You asked, “what attack on gun rights?” Then you mention background checks and asked about things that were more radical than that. Repealing the PLCAA is a concrete position that she campaigned on that fits both your criteria. Whether it’s extremism or violence inherent in the system is irrelevant.
Are you saying Clinton didn’t speak favorably about programs that involved confiscation?
My direct quote was her stating her opposition to the Heller decision, which did not affect anything that is reasonably termed ‘state-level safety laws’, but rather overturned a complete ban on handguns and a complete ban on having guns in condition suitable for self-defense.
[quote]
It’s pretty amazing that you’re arguing against the direct quote you produced to support your argument. And taking that quote at face value is ‘weasel wording’ it. Yeah.
[quote]
You guys can deny reality all you want, but it doesn’t change that she explicitly supported a complete ban on handguns and ban on having any gun available for self-defense. Trying to call it ‘mild gun control’ or ‘state level safety laws’ doesn’t change that basic fact.
I disagree at least that this should be what Democrats and even anti-Trump conservatives like myself should be thinking about, largely because energy invested in the electoral college debate is 100% wasted, always will be.
For the liberals out there, I’d take heart–a candidate a little more likable than Hillary probably would’ve won in a walk with no change to your messaging or strategy, and since Hillary was a historically unlikable candidate (only person worse than her was Trump–and unfortunately for Hillary her unlikability was poorly distributed geographically for this match-up), a lot of Obama voters stayed home in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. At least enough to have changed the outcome. Look at the vote totals in places like Detroit and Milwaukee, these aren’t voters who changed from Blue to Red, these are voters that didn’t show up, and they’re voters (blacks/minorities/urban people) who if they do show up, aren’t ever voting for a Republican.
But for the broader view, even for conservatives like myself who are tired of seeing “far right lunatics” with so many seats in the House and Senate, I do think a messaging shift is required to get some sane people back into the Congress. As a Republican I’m in no great hurry to see the Republicans lose control of Congress, but putting myself in a Democrat’s shoe, you guys need to figure out how to win outside of urban districts. Our system of Federalism gives every state two seats in the Senate regardless of population–which means there’s a detrimental strategic outcome to just ignore small rural states, and even in the House which is supposed to be population-based, the fact that every state gets a bare minimum of one House member despite its population, and the artificial cap at 435 House seats, means as a share of the total, again, these small rural states are having a disproportionate say.
If these states combined with the “rural Rust Belt” trend more and more red it gets harder and harder–regardless of your total national support numbers, to control Congress. Obama’s eight year Presidency being followed up by a Republican in the White House and with GOP control of the House and Senate is very quickly going to teach you guys the impermanence of any presidential policy based on executive actions and not legislation (which requires control of Congress.)
You can try to fight a war against the “unfairness” of the Senate and the way we do House districts, a process war you’re likely to never win, or you can start figuring out how to win in these districts again.
Yeah, literally the only way coal employment even rebounds to 1995 levels (an era at the tail end of decades of job losses to automation), he’d need to implement a program in which the Federal government bought excess coal production at inflated rates and then paid people to bury said coal under the ground in storage caverns (and maybe later they could pay people to dig it back out.) Even if you disband the EPA, the simple fact is plain dollar and cents economics is by a vast margin the reason the mines are closed.
Hillary Clinton knows very well that the Australian gun buy back program was mandatory, and that it was preceded by a wholesale ban on private gun ownership in Australia. So when she used it (and, as pointed out before in this thread, pre-Heller DC gun bans, as well as the blanket restrictions in Canada and the UK) as an example of “common sense” gun laws that are “worth looking at”, what makes you think she didn’t mean it? Did she have her fingers crossed?
For the nth time, it was clearly just bad wording. As cited before “*“It was an unforced error that she will never hear the last of. From how Clinton phrased her answer, though, it’s pretty clear that she was thinking of a voluntary buyback. She compared it to Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” program and cited voluntary programs done in various cities.””
*
[QUOTE=Bone;19852758
Are you saying Clinton didn’t speak favorably about programs that involved confiscation?[/QUOTE]
That’s correct, she did not. She was taken out of context.
Would you care to answer my question?
Do you support bans on howitzers? Do you support background checks?
I saw the entire debate. She was asked about Australian gun buy backs and responded positively, saying they were worth looking into. That’s not taken out of context.
She also repeatedly criticized Heller, which was nothing more than the judicial branch reiterating that gun bans are unconstitutional.
So she had glowing praise for another country’s gun bans, and nothing but criticism for a ruling that said only that “wholesale bans aren’t constitutional”.
Be sad that she lost if you want, support her gun control stance, or say “I’m with her, except for on gun control”, but don’t willfully ignore reality, her 2016 campaign, and 30 years worth of statements she made on the topic.
I am not an NRA member, but I am a gun rights supporter and I wouldn’t be opposed to joining. I have never voted for a Republican for any office in my life.
But that’s because Democrats (except for you?) over the last thirty years have realized that gun control is a losing issue. Do you want your party to lose? Did you enjoy watching the Pubs sweep the 2016 elections? You want Trump again in 2020, and his son or daughter or pal Bannon in 2024?
If not, you might want to reconsider encouraging your party to keep this termite-infested plank in their platform. It wasn’t the only reason her ship sank, but it was one of them. No need to build the next ship out of the same rotten wood.
Bad wording, or revealing her support for confiscation? Feel free to interpret it however you’d like, seeing as she is not going to be President. Like I said, if she didn’t want to give that impression, she shouldn’t say things that give that impression. People claim that she is a savvy politician but if that was bad wording then it was not an example of being savvy. Even if your interpretation is correct, voluntary buybacks are a pretty abysmal way of reducing gun violence so even offering that as a solution is rather inept.
As this thread is about the margin of loss in 3 key states, I think it’s possible Clinton’s position on guns however interpreted were in part responsible. I hope in large part.
It was one quick question, which she apparently didnt fully hear, and the rest of her response makes it super clear she was talking about a voluntary program.
““It was an unforced error that she will never hear the last of. From how Clinton phrased her answer, though, it’s pretty clear that she was thinking of a voluntary buyback. She compared it to Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” program and cited voluntary programs done in various cities.””
Ok, about half of Americans want some form of Gun control and about half are against it.
The Rabid “take my guns from my cold dead hands” will never vote for a Democrat today.
So, what you are saying is the the Democrats should ignore the half of the country that wants some form of gun control, in order to chase a few moderates?
As can bee seen here, hundreds of thousands abandoned her as she wasnt liberal enuf.
You say this as if it’s factual. It’s not. Yes it was written as you’ve quoted, in the editorial.
Do you think gun motivated Trump voters and gun motivated Clinton folks who chose not to vote or vote for someone else was less than 10K?
Off topic:
I am not attacking the poster, since if a mere mistake I make too many to criticize myself, but is this a new American style ? I’m asking because I’ve seen it elsewhere, leaving out verbs for people, and I am genuinely concerned this is an evolution of language one needs to keep up with. ‘she explicitly a complete ban’ is understandable, but disconcerting ( and as said, a construction getting common ).
That’s the dear old Hillary we’ve grown to love and expect !
I don’t know how this ‘Aeronautic Wooden Go-Cart’ works, but get in, and we can launch it together from this cliff.