Traditionally, Sanders has been more pro-gun rights than Hillary. The NRA helped get him elected in 1990 in exchange for promising to oppose a waiting period on gun purchases. (His opponent, the Republican Pete Smith, had alienated the NRA after he cosponsored an assault weapon ban). Since then, even though he hasn’t voted lockstep with the NRA or anything, he’s tended to be more opposed to gun control than she has been.
Do you read your own citations? Liberals and Progressives hire other liberals and progressives to retrain unemployed coal miners to do what? Write algorithms? Go to beauty school? This article is a joke. There are no jobs awaiting them when they get retrained whatever that means. Someone has to start a business. 11 million dollars? They spend far more on Syrian refugees.
:dubious: Hey, I wish the Republican Congress weren’t so resolutely opposed to giving any support to Administration initiatives for spending money on domestic infrastructure, too. But I’m not falling for the conservative bait-and-switch of doing everything in their power to undermine and block the Administration’s policies and then sneering at the Administration for not accomplishing anything.
After all, it’s not as though the Republicans have any alternatives of their own to propose, beyond lowering taxes on the wealthy and gutting regulations and asserting that that will in some unspecified fashion be good for American jobs. It’s no wonder that even conservative working-class people despise their own party’s “establishment” almost as much as they despise the so-called “left”.
The reason is simple: The RW has a 23-year investment in Hillary-hate. Even when she was FLOTUS there was a cottage industry devoted to demonizing her.
IKR? I mean, look at this:
Of course, Clinton has been in no way extremist or radical in favor of gun control, and she’s not actually going to confiscate guns or repeal the Second Amendment, any more than Obama has.
So, on the basis of essentially a minor difference in policy position that is almost certainly going to make exactly zero practical difference in the actual experience of gun owners, we’ve got conservative voters like Bone declaring with a straight face that they have made up their minds that they would literally prefer to have no POTUS at all than Clinton, although they’d prefer the far more anti-conservative Sanders.
I mean, that’s not rationally explicable, except on the hypothesis that some people have just got this kind of logic-overriding “anything but Hillary” mantra embedded in their brains.
Again, you overstate your conclusion. Whether Clinton’s positions have been extremist or radical are subjective. And the idea that confiscation or repeal of the 2nd are the only things to be concerned about is shortsighted.
This is what Sanders has said:
So, taken at face value, is ending gun manufacturing in America a minor difference in policy?
I’m voting for Hillary for any number of policy reasons, but also because getting her elected will cause Bone and Lumpy and so many others around the country to absolutely shit their collective pants. Her supposed plan to end gun manufacturing in this country is just gravy. 
Cards on the Table I do not like Trump ( in the UK a trump is a fart) so he is well named rather like are PM Camoron.
People in Europe and America have lost faith in politics they have endured the left and the centre and they feel ripped off, so hence the drift to the right which is peopled mainly by the working class compared with the lefts Champaign socialist’s and the centre’s support of big business and strong dislike of the poor. I believe that if the UK does not leave the EU we are going to see a further drift to the right with another referendum in a couple of years
But what Clinton’s proposing isn’t anywhere near tantamount to “ending gun manufacturing in America”. Gun manufacturers hollering that it is are like auto manufacturers hollering that increasing fuel economy standards will drive the US auto industry into bankruptcy. Guess what: it didn’t, and it won’t.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Sanders supporter myself, but I don’t buy the myth that he’s some kind of legendary George Washington who cannot-tell-a-lie. Like any politician, he can misrepresent and slant facts to foster the image he wants to project, and one of the things he has misrepresented is the smallness of the practical difference to law-abiding gun owners between his gun-control position and Clinton’s.
Sanders has attempted to spread the scare myth that if PLCAA (Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act, a very broad 2005 law that grants unprecedented levels of shielding against litigation for negligence and misconduct specifically to gun makers and sellers) is repealed, any well-intentioned dealer who sells a gun that ends up somehow being used in a crime can be smacked with crippling lawsuits. But that’s bullshit.
And Sanders himself is aware that it’s bullshit, because his campaign has announced that Sanders too will work to repeal PLCAA:
Both Sanders and Clinton want votes from supporters of increased gun regulation. But neither Sanders nor Clinton is in the least interested in supporting legislation that would seriously interfere with law-abiding gun owners’ access to guns or actually destroy the US gun manufacturing industry.
If you’ve been conned into believing that the differences between the Clinton and Sanders positions on guns are really significant, you might consider watching a little less Fox News until you can get your bullshit meter recalibrated.
I’m not arguing about the veracity of any given statement - hence the comment “taken at face value”. So with that in mind, do you think the assessment by Sanders is a minor difference in policy?
I don’t accept your assessment of the likelihood of future events.
Focusing just on Clinton for a moment - she believes that SCOTUS was wrong on the 2nd amendment. If Heller is overturned, that would seriously interfere with law abiding gun owners’ access to guns. Do you agree?
First - I don’t watch Fox News, don’t even have cable. 2nd, I don’t think guns are a significant issue for Sanders, and as a result he wouldn’t be as persistent or effective in shepherding more gun control. Conversely, I think Clinton actually is interested in more gun control, and that she could be more effective. 3rd, I’m not a Sanders supporter by any means, never have been.
The gist of what you are saying seems to be that Sanders and Clinton are not that different when it comes to guns. Yet Hillary has been trying to use guns as an issue to differentiate between them. One of you is wrong.
In other words, if we pretend that bullshit isn’t bullshit, then should the bullshit be taken seriously?
:rolleyes: Come on, dude.
[QUOTE=Bone]
Focusing just on Clinton for a moment -
[/quote]
In other words, "Ignoring the explicit statement from the Sanders campaign that Sanders also advocates rolling back PLCAA, and therefore his position is not substantially different from Clinton’s - "
Yeah, no thanks, I’m not planning to ignore that aspect.
[QUOTE=Bone]
If Heller is overturned, that would seriously interfere with law abiding gun owners’ access to guns. Do you agree?
[/quote]
No. Law-abiding people had ample access to guns before Heller, and they’ll continue to have ample access to guns even if Heller is overturned, which seems to me very unlikely no matter who becomes the next president.
Gun ownership rates have been going down in the US since well before Heller, and they’ve continued to decrease after Heller. The Heller decision didn’t lift any kind of significant practical constraint on gun ownership in this country.
[QUOTE=Bone]
2nd, I don’t think guns are a significant issue for Sanders, and as a result he wouldn’t be as persistent or effective in shepherding more gun control. Conversely, I think Clinton actually is interested in more gun control, and that she could be more effective.
[/quote]
There I actually agree that you may have a reasonable assessment on comparatively small relative differences between the candidates, always bearing in mind that their absolute positions on gun issues are much closer than you seem to think. But what you appear to be resolutely ignoring is that neither of them is at all likely in realistic terms to make a significant difference to gun possession by law-abiding owners in this country.
[QUOTE=Bone]
The gist of what you are saying seems to be that Sanders and Clinton are not that different when it comes to guns. Yet Hillary has been trying to use guns as an issue to differentiate between them. One of you is wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Note also that, as you remarked earlier, Sanders too has been trying to use guns as an issue to differentiate between them. However, based on actual policy statements from their campaigns and their legislative records, their gun-issue agendas are not actually substantially different.
Hmmm, am I wrong, or is the candidates’ political rhetoric wrong? Which is more trustworthy, a politician’s soundbite or a reasoned analysis of the details of their policies and actions? My, that’s a tough call.
And here I thought you actually wanted to know. You said there is no rationale way to explain differentiating between Clinton and Sanders when it comes to guns. I have stated a rationale that you seem to want to dismiss. I could see how you would think that there could be no rationale when you seem to have a truth translator for candidate statements, believing the ones you want and disregarding others.
I think if you read Sander’s actual statements, he’s not talking about a wholesale repeal of the PLCAA. Your quote in post #89 had one actual quote from Sanders, and statements from two separate gun control groups. Sanders actually carves out gun stores. And the quote from the Time article that was linked in the Think Progress article you cited, it says this:
But the thing is, gun manufacturers who do what Sanders described can already be sued under the PLCAA. What he is quoted as saying above does not require any modification to the PLCAA.
Here you move the goal posts. I said that overturning Heller would inerfere with law abiding gun owners’ access to guns. You’ve switched that to “ample access”. I’m sure that you and I have a different interpretation of what “ample” means. But just to play this out, Heller and McDonald are cited as the basis in many of the ongoing litigation in CA. CA does not have any state provision for the right to arms in its constitution. Without Heller, those lawsuits would surely fail. So your disagreement that law abiding gun owners’ access to guns wouldn’t be interfered with if Heller were to be overturned is not based in reality.
Don’t forget the option where you and they are both wrong. Clinton voted against the PLCAA. Sanders voted for it. There’s sufficient daylight between those actions to illustrate a difference. Whether you think that’s substantial, a minor difference, or something else is up to you.
But you’re the one who’s “believing the statements you want and disregarding others”. I.e., you choose to believe Sanders when he says he doesn’t want to repeal PLCAA and disbelieve him when he says he does.
You know what else that Time article says?
Yeah, I’m not the one here who’s indulging in wishful thinking to cherry-pick a candidate’s rhetoric.
Uh, no, that’s you moving the goal posts, because what I said (quoting what you originally said) was that overturning Heller would not seriously interfere with law-abiding gun owners’ access to guns.
That may well be, but you don’t get to swap qualifying adverbs in and out of your statements at will and then claim that I’m the one moving the goal posts. :dubious:
I guess we’ll see. In the meantime, I draw your attention once again to the fact that law-abiding gun owners in this country have very easy access to guns, and have had over a long span of varying legislative and judicial history. That was the case before PLCAA and before Heller, and there’s no reason to expect things to be fundamentally different if PLCAA and/or Heller is ever rolled back.
You have made no remotely credible argument that anything any Democratic President may do in the near future is at all likely to change this country’s fundamentally gun-friendly status, any more than Obama’s alleged gun-confiscation “plan to disarm America” ever did.
Right-wingers always holler that whoever happens to be the front-running Democratic candidate will effectively destroy gun rights. Hasn’t happened. Won’t happen.
I’m not sure I’m following your disagreement. If you’d like to restate it I’ll read it; if not, not.
No, this wasn’t the case before Heller. Why do you think the Heller suit was brought in the first place? Dick Heller couldn’t buy a gun. Do you think Moore v Madigan would have gone the same way without Heller? Do you think Chicago would be basically shall issue without Heller? Do you think Caetano in Massachusetts would be the same without Heller? Do you think Palmer in DC would be the same without Heller? Texeria in California? Ezell in Chicago? That you believe there would be no fundamental differences if Heller were overturned is naive.
This wasn’t the case before the PLCAA either. Smith and Wesson capitulated under litigation that the PLCAA mooted. The goal of gun control folks was to bankrupt manufacturers through litigation before the PLCAA. Cities would use tax dollars to fund their lawsuits before the PLCAA. Thinking that there would be no fundamental differences if the PLCAA were removed is naive.
Do you remember not too long ago there was an Assault Weapon Ban that was passed under a Democratic President? The idea that no Democratic President could impact the gun-friendly status is again, naive. Is the fact that there was a sweeping ban not too long ago credible?
I’ve never made the argument that a Democratic candidate will destroy gun rights. There is no boogeyman there. I disagree with their policy positions though - and that alone is sufficient to vote against them.
What do you mean, “sweeping ban”? Every time the subject comes up, somebody points out how pointless the 1994 PSRFUPA was, because it actually banned very few specific models, excluded previously existing weapons, was very easy to evade by slight design modifications, etc. Now you’re trying to argue that it actually had a major impact and consequently foreshadows the possible major impacts of another Democratic administration? Nah, not buying it.
[QUOTE=Bone]
I disagree with their policy positions though - and that alone is sufficient to vote against them.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. What I’ve been questioning here is not why anybody would ever vote against a Democrat, but rather how anybody who opposed Democratic policies strongly enough to literally prefer a vacant Presidency to a Clinton one could conceivably imagine that they’d find a Sanders Presidency more congenial.
You’ve convinced me that your preference for Sanders over Clinton is based primarily on ignorance and wishful thinking, so that answers my question. Thank you.
I’d say a ban that impacted the most popular rifle in the country to be sweeping. Your mileage may vary. Do you realize that it banned standard capacity magazines that were able to hold more than 10 rounds? There are no design modifications around that.
What you’ve convinced me of is your ignorance of the topic. Your claim that there would be no fundamental differences if Heller or the PLCAA were overturned is spectacularly wrong. Your claim there is nothing a Democratic President can do that would impact the current status of gun laws in this country is laughable.
That and you seem to continually misinterpret the reasoning. Sanders is preferable mostly because he would be ineffective. It doesn’t matter what he proposes because he wouldn’t be able to achieve his goals. Clinton on the other hand may be effective. That’s worse. But under no circumstances would I vote for either.
I would suggest they learn something other than digging holes in rocks. The coal industry has been in a permanent decline for some time now. Here is an interesting article describing why:
Regardless of who is in office, demand for coal will continue to decline as competition from cleaner energy sources such as natural gas and renewables increases.
Or should we continue to prop up pre-18th century energy technology?
A similar argument might be made about abortion rights (the political view, not to compare or debate the relative merits of the issues themselves). The ‘pro life’ view of GOP candidates is used as rallying and fund raising cry for/against them in elections though it’s arguably no more feasible legally or politically to take decisive legislative action to ban abortion, and it hasn’t happened when/where GOP controls.
However in both cases legislative action can change things at the margin, particularly at state level though here we’re talking about national. And in both cases appointments to the federal courts from a pro/anti executive could eventually more seriously change or restrict those rights.
Whether that’s a sufficient reason to favor Sanders over Clinton (due to guns) is another question. I doubt it. I lean conservative and find Clinton a lot more palatable, given the terrible mistake IMO the GOP is making by choosing Trump, who I can’t vote for, just a basically unfit person to hold that office.
If the Secret Service could keep Obama alive this long, no POTUS needs to worry.
Depends on what “most popular” means. If it means that greater than 50% of gun owners owned that rifle, yeah, that’s pretty sweeping. If, on the other hand, the rifle took up something like 5% of the market share for fire arms, but no other single gun made up more than 4% of the market share, then I’d say it wasn’t a particularly sweeping change.