Reading the large percentage of snarky comments here just makes me sad. Regardless of your opinion on this issue (and even if you completely support the status quo), your representatives, elected and otherwise, will have zero input unless they can speak sanely to each other about compromises on your behalf. Stop whining, stop name calling, and stop resorting to childish straw-man arguments. If you want to learn about effective honest persuasion and difficult compromise in public discourse, read that magnificent legacy of our democracy, The Federalist Papers. All of it. Seriously. Better use of your weekend than "The Weekender". And if it bothers you that is was written by by a particular out of fashion ethnic group without addressing yours- that's fine. Just use what you've learned to formulate your own serious political dialogue addressed to those of us of good faith from. Lastly, if you are fundamentally unable to, at the very least, attempt to be actually sincere, as opposed to adeptly faking sincerity, then shut up and get out the way.
5
if we were to carry on the logic of the second amendment(clearly put in because of the abuses of George's government against the people), then citizens should be able to own anti-missiles, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, landmines, and anti satellite weapons, for the the 2nd amendment was passed at a time of muskets and primitive hand pistols. Artillery existed but for all out war use only. Why not make the 2nd amendment hip? Yesterday it was muskets, today it's helicopters, jets, and tanks, just don't restrict those weapons to the gov't let the people have them too!!!! The more destruction the better!!!
6
Actually the second amendment is silent on what we can own. The second amendment is strictly about what government can not do, which is infringe on any way our right to bear arms. So yes, if I could find a supplier and had the cash, I should be able to own any of those things you mention. But where would I put them? I don't have that much storage.
1
correction: "... able to own anti-missiles..." should instead read, "anti-Tank missiles". my apologies.
2
Joe- i disagree with you regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Why put in a pretty straight forward sentence if you then expect it to be debated for then next 2 centuries? Ambiguous , it is not. But I'm glad you mention, "... where would i put them"? The Oregon shooters mother was a gun advocate, even for the mentally ill like her son. She supported and i think enabled her son and should be held accountable, even arrested for accessory to murder. i mentioned this in my posting about a Times article the day after the shooting. Finally the Times reporters have done some digging, for she must at least have known that her kid was stockpiling weapons in her apartment.. "Where would you put them?", to that i suggest you find a trigger happy relative or friend with an extra bedroom, who would be happy and honored to store those weapons for you.. Cheers!!!
1
First off -- there has been no one running for president in the 38 years I have been of voting age with whom I have agreed on everything. This is the issue I don't see eye to eye with Sanders on. But I'm still a staunch Sanders supporter.
That being said -- the sad truth is that he is right when he says that many of the additional restrictions we could enact, within existing levels of political reality and interpretations of the Second Amendment, would not help as much as we might like. Background checks will not catch many of the just plain vengeful such as the Roanoke shooter. Mental health record checks will not help when gun-happy parents keep their disturbed kids in a bubble and away from treatment, and worse yet actually help them get guns and learn to use them (Sandy Hook, Roseburg). There are things we could do that would work, but they seem to be entirely off the table.
That being said -- the sad truth is that he is right when he says that many of the additional restrictions we could enact, within existing levels of political reality and interpretations of the Second Amendment, would not help as much as we might like. Background checks will not catch many of the just plain vengeful such as the Roanoke shooter. Mental health record checks will not help when gun-happy parents keep their disturbed kids in a bubble and away from treatment, and worse yet actually help them get guns and learn to use them (Sandy Hook, Roseburg). There are things we could do that would work, but they seem to be entirely off the table.
4
All the Democrats are Anti-Gun. Obama and Clinton are finally admitting what gun owners knew all along. They want to take our guns away like they did in Austrailia and the UK. Gun owners and the Constitution will not let that happen, and Obama and Clinton know this. They are hoping for a distraction from the e-mail scandals and the fact that we have the lowest labor participation rate in 40 years.
2
Bernie Sanders Supports Mental Health, Gun Control Measures
Bernie Sanders has voted in favor of expanded background checks for commercial sales with an exemption for sales between “family, friends, and neighbors”. He has also voted in favor of a national instant background check system.
“We need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it. But some people think it’s going to solve all of our problems, and it’s not. We have a crisis in the capability of addressing mental health illness in this country. When people are hurting and are prepared to do something terrible, we need to do something immediately. We don’t have that and we should have that,” Sanders said.
Watch Bernie talk about gun control on Youtube: https://youtu.be/BM-VVSIRvEQ
Bernie Sanders has voted in favor of expanded background checks for commercial sales with an exemption for sales between “family, friends, and neighbors”. He has also voted in favor of a national instant background check system.
“We need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it. But some people think it’s going to solve all of our problems, and it’s not. We have a crisis in the capability of addressing mental health illness in this country. When people are hurting and are prepared to do something terrible, we need to do something immediately. We don’t have that and we should have that,” Sanders said.
Watch Bernie talk about gun control on Youtube: https://youtu.be/BM-VVSIRvEQ
1
Senator Sanders, I was surprised that you only got a D- from the NRA. You need to work harder and get an F-.
I was in Vermont a couple of years ago and got to shoot guns. There were some assault type weapons, but I stuck with the big handguns. What power! What fun!
In Cambodia a year before my Vermont experience, for $150 I was offered the opportunity to shoot a rocket launcher and a 50 calibre machine gun. Special tourist attraction, down a dirt road in the baking countryside. I passed, figuring that safety measures might not even be up to US standards. Way scary.
Guns are fun, yes. For the few and diminishing number of hunters in the US, guns can serve as a tool to keep the deer population under control and to get some good food.
But Bernie, this fun isn't worth the tradeoff in the United States. Maybe the populations of Vermont and Canada are sane enough not to slaughter themselves and others with firearms, but most of the US is not that sane.
Bernie, please take a strong stance on lowering gun violence! Experts tell us that better mental health care won't do it (though I'm all for better and more humane mental health care). We need strict gun laws. The "rights of law-abiding citizens" can still be maintained: just obey the new laws.
I was in Vermont a couple of years ago and got to shoot guns. There were some assault type weapons, but I stuck with the big handguns. What power! What fun!
In Cambodia a year before my Vermont experience, for $150 I was offered the opportunity to shoot a rocket launcher and a 50 calibre machine gun. Special tourist attraction, down a dirt road in the baking countryside. I passed, figuring that safety measures might not even be up to US standards. Way scary.
Guns are fun, yes. For the few and diminishing number of hunters in the US, guns can serve as a tool to keep the deer population under control and to get some good food.
But Bernie, this fun isn't worth the tradeoff in the United States. Maybe the populations of Vermont and Canada are sane enough not to slaughter themselves and others with firearms, but most of the US is not that sane.
Bernie, please take a strong stance on lowering gun violence! Experts tell us that better mental health care won't do it (though I'm all for better and more humane mental health care). We need strict gun laws. The "rights of law-abiding citizens" can still be maintained: just obey the new laws.
8
David says, " Guns are fun, yes". I can think of a hundred other things that are fun, especially for adults. David, grow up. Time to cast the "Boys with toys" identity aside and truly become a man and use your brain not brawn for excitement and fun. If others can do it you can too, start a trend, it will save lives if you and others set peaceful examples on how to have fun in adulthood, even kids will get the idea.
2
Most gun violence is restricted to urban areas with large black populations. Why would Bernie care about? In his Lilly white state killing animals , watching them die, for sport is fun. I for one think that is inmoral. We used to be hunter scavengers. That in no longer the case. Hunters should be frowned upon in an advanced Soviet.
Bernie is wrong.
Bernie is wrong.
5
Bernie Sanders represents the the feelings of his constituents on this subject
5
One of the great moments in movies is when Lawrence and the Arabs capture Aqaba and Anthony Quinn is furious there is no gold. He screams at Omar Sharif - "He said there was gold. There is no gold. He is not perfect."
Apparently, neither is Bernie.
Apparently, neither is Bernie.
5
Sanders is a coward. You know why the NRA has so much control? Money. Money for politicians from gun manufacturers. They don't care about anyone's constitutional rights. This is about manufacturing an item that will last forever, that will never be obsolete. So if that is what you are making you need a constant stream of new customers. That's what the NRA stands for: a money stream for gun manufacturers. Where's that analysis from Sanders? So astute about economics but not about this, huh? He actually got elected originally through deceit and silence by omission on gun control. He's as much an opportunist and a white male insider as any of them.
6
Did Hillary get to you? This really sounds like the "Swift Boat" scenario. Only this time we are smarter and learned our lessons from past elections. We are not buying your trash talk about Bernie.
3
A serious problem is the current absurd definition of the Second Amendment. It's nonsense.
So given that problem, attempts to restrict the purchase and use of guns, even if successful, would probably only marginally reduce the number of individual and mass killings.
Perhaps instead, we should focus on putting very serious restrictions on the manufacturing, importation, sale and purchase of ammunition.
So given that problem, attempts to restrict the purchase and use of guns, even if successful, would probably only marginally reduce the number of individual and mass killings.
Perhaps instead, we should focus on putting very serious restrictions on the manufacturing, importation, sale and purchase of ammunition.
1
The problem as I see it (Dionne, 10/6) is that too often liberals and conservatives too often create absolutist solutions to gun acquisition, without allowing for differences in local conditions. High density populations concentrate the presence of guns and make it more likely that guns will be used against innocent people, more likely that criminal immature or mentally challenged individuals will gain access to firearms, more likely that untrained or unpracticed gun owners (who obtained a gun for defense against numerous neighbor guns) will misuse a weapon. It is no accident that most gun control advocates reside in or near cities and towns.
Rural areas are more likely to include advocates of regulation-free gun purchase and gun transfer. Such advocates are much less likely than their urban brethren to have ready access to police -- in the event that their homes, farms, or grazing areas are invaded by criminal enterprise (e.g. animal theft, crop theft, vandalism). Urban demands for universal gun restrictions routinely assume that access to police will be both timely and adequate to deal with the use of force by criminal violence. Equally, rural demands for universal gun accessibility assume that police will be community friendly, but inadequate for worst-case scenarios, which might require immediate community vigilante action to drive criminals away from their homes farms and fields.
Rural areas are more likely to include advocates of regulation-free gun purchase and gun transfer. Such advocates are much less likely than their urban brethren to have ready access to police -- in the event that their homes, farms, or grazing areas are invaded by criminal enterprise (e.g. animal theft, crop theft, vandalism). Urban demands for universal gun restrictions routinely assume that access to police will be both timely and adequate to deal with the use of force by criminal violence. Equally, rural demands for universal gun accessibility assume that police will be community friendly, but inadequate for worst-case scenarios, which might require immediate community vigilante action to drive criminals away from their homes farms and fields.
3
I live in Philadelphia and am grateful to have survived being robbed at gunpoint with a sawed-off shotgun. I am ore or less a classic liberal, anti-gun person. Id love it if a miracle happened and they all went away. But that's not going to happen, is it? So I would welcome someone in a leadership position who would get past the tired rhetoric, which ensures that no progress will be made, and would work on practical, moderate steps. Sanders has the credibility to do this. Other countries that allow civilians to have guns are nevertheless making intelligent steps to minimize the risks of guns being abused. Isn't it about time we did that?
7
The person who robbed you most likely obtained the weapon illegally, and armed robbery is against the law. Maybe we need a law that makes it illegal to break the law.
2
Joe - Maybe it's occurred to you that with 300,000,000 guns in the U.S. it might be easier to obtain one illegally than if there were 3,000. Perhaps, if you are as challenged at math as most Republicans seem to be, magnitudes of one million escape your comprehension.
7
Why the personal attack Nancy? What have I done to you?
1
For the the first time in the Democratic campaign, we are seeing the beginning of a real disagreement on a critical issue -- one made unavoidable by the recent carnage in Oregon. It will be interesting to see what happens when Sanders' adherents -- attracted by their candidate's image of "purity" -- face a shortcoming on a specific issue. Don't get me wrong -- I think Bernie Sanders is an unusual politician in that he means what he says. But how will his supporters rationalize what he says he means on this critical issue?
5
I would say this is the least critical issue of the campaign so far.
1
It's the least critical issue unless you have lost a loved one to gun violence and unless you are a parent worried for your children's lives in our gun crazy culture. For me, it's been a critical issue for years. I'm glad at least one of the many presidential candidates is willing to talk about solutions.
2
Then who on earth is perfect? Would you rather have a corporate leech like Hillary lead this country? I hope you are well balanced to figure out that there is no other sane candidate in this election cycle other than Bernie Sanders.
4
I support Bernie Sanders, but his argument that gun violence is mainly an urban issue is misguided. The mass killings of students at Universities and Colleges in our country have taken place largely in urban or what one might consider suburban areas. Something has changed in our culture and it is not mental illness (which has been forever in existence), it is the ease with which any citizen can purchase a gun. If Australia and England could enact laws that have greatly lessened the amount of murders by the use of guns, then, as President Obama noted, this country could implement such laws as well. Too many guns coming up through the south by the way.
9
The issue that people commenting keep ignoring is that Australia and Great Britain have no constitutional right for citizens to have arms. To effect such a change as they have the Constitution would have to be amended. This is a laborious process designed by the founders to keep reactionary decisions from being an influence on the people's rights.
Even if a bill was offered in each legislative branch it would require a 2/3 majority to pass. That would be 67 votes in the Senate and 290 in the House. Even if the six largest population states' Senators were to vote for it they would need to find 55 more Senators to join them. If the law were to be passed the final result of the committee formed may actually turn it around and loosen rules for ownership.
Banning any types of guns would most likely be ignored. Connecticut passed a law two years ago requiring registration of AR15s and at least count compliance was about 40%. Using the police would possibly cause massive resistance not only citizens by by most elected sheriffs who are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
Tread carefully.
Even if a bill was offered in each legislative branch it would require a 2/3 majority to pass. That would be 67 votes in the Senate and 290 in the House. Even if the six largest population states' Senators were to vote for it they would need to find 55 more Senators to join them. If the law were to be passed the final result of the committee formed may actually turn it around and loosen rules for ownership.
Banning any types of guns would most likely be ignored. Connecticut passed a law two years ago requiring registration of AR15s and at least count compliance was about 40%. Using the police would possibly cause massive resistance not only citizens by by most elected sheriffs who are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
Tread carefully.
1
Vermnt is a "hunting state' - fine. They are hunting non- human animals, right? Who needs anything other than a rifle for that?
6
An AR15 IS a rifle. It has become popular because of its operating characteristics and it is no military weapon. A veteran like myself knows the difference between an automatic rifle like the M16 and the semiautomatic AR15. No citizen has been allowed to own an automatic weapon since 1932.
2
Then I assume you're aware that a $369 kit allows an AR-15 to be legally modified to fire up to 900 rounds per minute, accurately, and from the shoulder. Or, as the subhed more concisely puts it, the SSAR-15 lets a shooter “unleash 100 rounds, in 7 seconds.” A product review at a site called Guns America notes that the SSAR-15 “installs in one minute with no special skills.”
8
This subject is simple and complex at the same time. Complex because it touches upon a visceral emotion of so many Americans, each with their own unique feeling about guns and gun control and simple because most of the people who are adamant about the subject are concerned with hunting and traditional hunting equipment is not at issue. I personally have lost a lot of my drive for stiffer regulation of more sophisticated weaponry because I have lost a great deal of respect for my government and it's ability to protect the rights and well being of it's citizens. There may be a time when those guns are needed to reclaim our democracy from the vultures of Wall Street and our growing fascist corporate domination.
It is not the guns that are ultimately responsible for these domestic atrocities but the stupid resistance to making sure that the person buying them is not insane. The event in Sweden several years ago is proof that bans alone will not insure safety.
It is not the guns that are ultimately responsible for these domestic atrocities but the stupid resistance to making sure that the person buying them is not insane. The event in Sweden several years ago is proof that bans alone will not insure safety.
2
You have officially joined the right wing establishment.
I think you should be allowed to have any firearm that if shot from the middle of your property, will land on your property. If you want to take it with you to hunt, that's different and should have nationwide restrictions. This is an urban/rural difference.
Once again the bad guy targets a "gun free zone" , this time in a community where most people carry. And now Obama shows up to grandstand. Guns are not the problem. Liberals and feel good laws are the problem.
4
The TRUTH is that the Second Amendment says NOTHING about the right of individuals to own guns! Moreover, it was NOT about individuals or states arming themselves against their own government.
We had no standing army after the Revolution, and nobody wanted to pay taxes to support one; the solution was to have a militia of citizen soldiers ready to take up arms against a foreign enemy if need be. What was not to be infringed was the right of the members of that militia to have their weapons at hand. The first clause was the critical part of the amendment--yet the "well regulated militia" is conveniently ignored by "strict constitutionalists."
The fact that the Second Amendment does not address private gun ownership does not necessarily mean that individuals can't have them--but it's NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
Those who focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment have to perform mental gymnastics worthy of Circque du Soleil to juggle the following facts and not have their heads explode: 1) the "God-given right of individuals to carry guns" IS INFRINGED, everywhere, thousands of times a day--no guns in the cabin on airplanes, for example--and 2) this "right" is also infringed in the chambers of the Supreme Court and the halls of Congress, where guns are FORBIDDEN, yet where it was decided that the rest of us must pay the price for this "right." They get protection; we, the people, get "freedom."
What? No exploding heads?
We had no standing army after the Revolution, and nobody wanted to pay taxes to support one; the solution was to have a militia of citizen soldiers ready to take up arms against a foreign enemy if need be. What was not to be infringed was the right of the members of that militia to have their weapons at hand. The first clause was the critical part of the amendment--yet the "well regulated militia" is conveniently ignored by "strict constitutionalists."
The fact that the Second Amendment does not address private gun ownership does not necessarily mean that individuals can't have them--but it's NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
Those who focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment have to perform mental gymnastics worthy of Circque du Soleil to juggle the following facts and not have their heads explode: 1) the "God-given right of individuals to carry guns" IS INFRINGED, everywhere, thousands of times a day--no guns in the cabin on airplanes, for example--and 2) this "right" is also infringed in the chambers of the Supreme Court and the halls of Congress, where guns are FORBIDDEN, yet where it was decided that the rest of us must pay the price for this "right." They get protection; we, the people, get "freedom."
What? No exploding heads?
6
The "infringement" clause concerns ownership not access for carry. "to keep and bear arms" is the operating principle.
So, it would be OK for people to have guns at hand... if they are in a state militia or the National Guard?
Wait -- isn't that JUST what the Second says?
Wait -- isn't that JUST what the Second says?
“You can sit there and say, well, I think we should do this and do that,” [Sanders] said. “But you got a whole lot of states in this country where people want virtually no gun control at all. And if we are going to have some success, we are going to have to start talking to each other.”
If the Democrats want to win, they will have to have the vote of people who are democrat inclined, but have been voting Republican in the past several elections. Guns, or more specifically the right to private ownership of guns, is at of the core of this.
A lot of people hear Democrat talk about "common sense" gun safety as a blatant gun grab. Like it or not, believe it or not, that is a fact. Democrat gun talk loses them a lot of votes. For example, 30 million people own semi-automatic rifles. Most of those people are part of the natural democrat constituency; however, hardly any will vote for a Democrat.
Hillary has shown horrible judgment throughout her public life. She has been wrong on just about every issue. I won't waste time enumerating things. It is enough to suggest that she is out of touch with "everyday Americans" despite all of her focus groups.
All this gun talk is only going to throw the election for the Republicans. She said that people should be pragmatic, even if they're not excited. Yet here she is intentionally working folks into a lather over something that will cost the Democrats the election.
Unpragmatic. Galacticly stupid. So completely Hillary.
If the Democrats want to win, they will have to have the vote of people who are democrat inclined, but have been voting Republican in the past several elections. Guns, or more specifically the right to private ownership of guns, is at of the core of this.
A lot of people hear Democrat talk about "common sense" gun safety as a blatant gun grab. Like it or not, believe it or not, that is a fact. Democrat gun talk loses them a lot of votes. For example, 30 million people own semi-automatic rifles. Most of those people are part of the natural democrat constituency; however, hardly any will vote for a Democrat.
Hillary has shown horrible judgment throughout her public life. She has been wrong on just about every issue. I won't waste time enumerating things. It is enough to suggest that she is out of touch with "everyday Americans" despite all of her focus groups.
All this gun talk is only going to throw the election for the Republicans. She said that people should be pragmatic, even if they're not excited. Yet here she is intentionally working folks into a lather over something that will cost the Democrats the election.
Unpragmatic. Galacticly stupid. So completely Hillary.
7
The D- rating from the NRA should be more prominently placed at the top of the article. The idea that Sanders' moderate position on gun control makes him a tool of the gun lobby is ridiculous. He's representing Vermont, a rural state where hunting is popular. Perhaps some on the Left think that respecting a tradition of hunting is incompatible with good gun policy? If so, they need to make that argument out loud instead of sideways sniping at politicians who simply represent the interests of the people who elected them.
10
Bernie's approach to gun control is not the kneejerk, one-dimensional approach of either Clinton or the NRA; it's nuanced and thoughtful, and I think he has it exactly right -- this is for the states to decide. Urban New Yorkers have exponentially greater access to law enforcement and medical treatment than a family living on a 10,000 acre ranch in Arizona, New Mexico or Wyoming; the safety challenges law-abiding citizens face in each of those environments and what constitutes a reasonable response to those challenges are naturally very different, and it seems very childish to assume that what's right for one is necessarily right for the other.
6
Another difference: perhaps it's the water, but you rarely meet someone in a big city, especially an Eastern big city, who believes the US government is imminently going to attack him personally and he is going to have to grab his gun to defend himself, his homestead, and his kin from the invading feds. Yet in the rural West and in the South, this is the common thinking, especially among whites who are feeling disenfranchised.
Oops - here come the black helos! Gotta go!
Oops - here come the black helos! Gotta go!
2
While I support Bernie whole-heartedly on just about every issue in this presidential campaign, I do NOT agree with him on this. Opponents of stricter gun control keep citing the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and if one is to defend gun ownership on Federal grounds, than one cannot claim that the individual STATE has the authority for the regulation thereof.
And by the way, the Second Amendment does not protect INDIVIDUAL ownership, nor does it prohibit the government from any oversight. It says simply:
"A WELL REGULATED (important word!) MILITIA (Not individual) being necessary to the security of a free State (meaning nation), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
And by the way, the Second Amendment does not protect INDIVIDUAL ownership, nor does it prohibit the government from any oversight. It says simply:
"A WELL REGULATED (important word!) MILITIA (Not individual) being necessary to the security of a free State (meaning nation), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
8
Well regulated does not mean what you want it to mean. It simply means "in working order". Classic old English vs. modern feel good interpretation.
3
Since citizens already had the right to arms, arguably they retained that
right under provisions of the 10th Amendment.
However ambiguous you might believe the 2nd Amendment to be WRT an individual right to arms, the fact remains that 45 of 50 state constitutions have provisions that recognize either the right to keep and bear arms as an *individual* right or for self defense - in most cases for both.
If states had no say in the matter why would they have included these provisions? If they conflicted with the federal constitution why would they
have been approved for statehood?
North Carolina's constitution is not specific on this, but the right to self defense is established by legal precedent:
State v. Kerner. 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921)
right under provisions of the 10th Amendment.
However ambiguous you might believe the 2nd Amendment to be WRT an individual right to arms, the fact remains that 45 of 50 state constitutions have provisions that recognize either the right to keep and bear arms as an *individual* right or for self defense - in most cases for both.
If states had no say in the matter why would they have included these provisions? If they conflicted with the federal constitution why would they
have been approved for statehood?
North Carolina's constitution is not specific on this, but the right to self defense is established by legal precedent:
State v. Kerner. 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921)
1
You have just reinforced my point....it is NOT a "right" that should be mandated by the "states". As to why the states have included these provisions? The states try all sorts of things that are contrary to our Federal laws. However, my point is that no one is trying to take the guns away....just regulate, and that is within the jurisdiction of the Federal government. There SHOULD be regulation regarding ownership...national registration, waiting periods, licensing, gun-locks, limits on ammunition and gun purchase within reasonable periods of time. This does not infringe on anyone's "rights"....it protects all citizens and their right to a free and safe nation.
2
Can we please refocus this very important issue onto funding GOOD mental health care, investigating anti-psychotics handed out like candy by Pharma, and what is really spurring cultural violence in this country? Even if we eliminated guns, we would not eliminate the actual problem, and if we actually think about it, carefully, there are far more destructive tools--or do we have a short collective memory?
3
Like Gary Hart, who in 1984 opposed federal gun control legislation, I trust that Bernie will come around.
Here is a link to a NY Times article on gun control from the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination battle: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/05/us/control-of-guns-and-rivals-views.html
On a related note, in one of his signature Facebook Q&As Monday night, Ben Carson again weighed in on the Oregon shooting, writing that he had operated on victims of gun violence "but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away."
Responding to a questioner who asked whether the tragedy had altered his position on the Second Amendment, Carson suggested new gun-control laws wouldn't solve the problem and accused Democrats of "us[ing] these tragedies to advance a political agenda."
Carson's views are disgusting and an affront to those who have lost family members to gun violence. I dare him to say that face-to-face to the parents and other family members of those children, teachers and other individuals killed at Newtown and Umpqua, Charleston, Aurora, Lafayette and Tucson. As President Obama so eloquently stated, how many more times is this going to happen before our legislators finally get the the political will to do something to stop this madness?
Enough is enough!
Here is a link to a NY Times article on gun control from the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination battle: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/05/us/control-of-guns-and-rivals-views.html
On a related note, in one of his signature Facebook Q&As Monday night, Ben Carson again weighed in on the Oregon shooting, writing that he had operated on victims of gun violence "but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away."
Responding to a questioner who asked whether the tragedy had altered his position on the Second Amendment, Carson suggested new gun-control laws wouldn't solve the problem and accused Democrats of "us[ing] these tragedies to advance a political agenda."
Carson's views are disgusting and an affront to those who have lost family members to gun violence. I dare him to say that face-to-face to the parents and other family members of those children, teachers and other individuals killed at Newtown and Umpqua, Charleston, Aurora, Lafayette and Tucson. As President Obama so eloquently stated, how many more times is this going to happen before our legislators finally get the the political will to do something to stop this madness?
Enough is enough!
6
Carson is realistic and correct, you are simply emoting.
Interesting how those against guns 'emote' while those who are obsessed with possessing guns are cool, unemotional, and collected, even when firing their guns into crowded classrooms or churches. Right 'Joe from Iowa'???
4
This article frames the whole discussion as pro or anti gun, this is not the issue at hand, and does not contribute to the debate we need to have as a nation. No one is talking about broadly taking guns away from law abiding citizens and those without mental health concerns. The issue is how do we insure, to a higher degree then present, that guns reside only in the hands of people who will use them wisely.
1
Re: the Roseburg shooter:
“She said that ‘my son is a real big problem of mine,’ ” Ms. Jefferson said in a telephone interview. “She said: ‘He has some psychological problems. Sometimes he takes his medication, sometimes he doesn’t. And that’s where the big problem is, when he doesn’t take his medication.’ ”
Where's the outcry for an investigation into the psych drug/mass shooting connection. Talk about influence and deep pockets, the NRA's budget would probably amount to a rounding error in Big Pharma's.
Try finding one of these shooters that *wasn't on one type of psych drug or other.
srristories.org
“She said that ‘my son is a real big problem of mine,’ ” Ms. Jefferson said in a telephone interview. “She said: ‘He has some psychological problems. Sometimes he takes his medication, sometimes he doesn’t. And that’s where the big problem is, when he doesn’t take his medication.’ ”
Where's the outcry for an investigation into the psych drug/mass shooting connection. Talk about influence and deep pockets, the NRA's budget would probably amount to a rounding error in Big Pharma's.
Try finding one of these shooters that *wasn't on one type of psych drug or other.
srristories.org
3
Sen. Sanders may be aware, even if most other Democrats have forgotten (or never learned) that "USA" does not stand for the "United State of America" and that since the form of government is that of a constitutional republic, with the individual states retaining sovereign rights, the federal government does not have carte blanche to impose one-size-fits-all regulations on the entire population.
States deserve to have flexibility in adopting solutions that suit their own conditions, as has been taking place with respect to marijuana laws - another area where the federal government could make a positive contribution by simply getting out of the way.
Vermont obviously has a (very libertarian) system in place WRT guns that works well for them and has a several hundred year track record of working.
If gun control advocates were really about reducing gun violence as opposed to simply being about *control* they would be looking at Vermont and trying to figure out how its positive features might be applied elsewhere.
Vermonters do not need to be subjected to a federally imposed "fix" just because Chicago or LA are broken. If Bernie recognizes this it may make him an outlier among Dems, but it will make a lot of *former* Democrats, this one included, more inclined to support him.
States deserve to have flexibility in adopting solutions that suit their own conditions, as has been taking place with respect to marijuana laws - another area where the federal government could make a positive contribution by simply getting out of the way.
Vermont obviously has a (very libertarian) system in place WRT guns that works well for them and has a several hundred year track record of working.
If gun control advocates were really about reducing gun violence as opposed to simply being about *control* they would be looking at Vermont and trying to figure out how its positive features might be applied elsewhere.
Vermonters do not need to be subjected to a federally imposed "fix" just because Chicago or LA are broken. If Bernie recognizes this it may make him an outlier among Dems, but it will make a lot of *former* Democrats, this one included, more inclined to support him.
7
There is no clearer evidence that Sanders and Trump are appealing to the very same mob than by looking at their respective positions on gun control.
Neither candidate has the courage that it takes to stand straight up on an issue that would alienate the mob.
So, what is worse. Being owned by big money special interest, or by a mob marching down the street?
Neither candidate has the courage that it takes to stand straight up on an issue that would alienate the mob.
So, what is worse. Being owned by big money special interest, or by a mob marching down the street?
5
"Courage", as I define it, is standing up for your beliefs in the face of ridicule, shame, and character assassination.
Sanders fits this definition.
Sanders fits this definition.
1
So this is a new form of grade inflation. Suddenly,a D- rating from the NRA somehow makes him a 'gun nut'.
Personally, I'd like Bernie to be a bit stronger on gun control, but his current stance is quite reasonable and balanced, but because that does not fit with the shallow, dismissive narrative that has been crafted around him, it is trotted out as something yet again, gasp, radical.
The man has my vote sewed up because his position on almost every other issue important to me--economic and human equity, the environment, education, etc.--put him head and shoulders above the rest in my opinion.
Personally, I'd like Bernie to be a bit stronger on gun control, but his current stance is quite reasonable and balanced, but because that does not fit with the shallow, dismissive narrative that has been crafted around him, it is trotted out as something yet again, gasp, radical.
The man has my vote sewed up because his position on almost every other issue important to me--economic and human equity, the environment, education, etc.--put him head and shoulders above the rest in my opinion.
5
Not exactly pleased with how this article was framed; Bernie Sanders' position on guns has evolved and continues to do so, but the reporter seems to want first to paint him as a gun advocate. Reporters do not have to tell stories in chronological order. Now that the Times is finally covering Bernie, I hope you will at least have the decency to put his current positions atop your articles. Not everyone reads to the bottom (as many comments here demonstrate).
9
The message is lost in translation. Gun regulation, whether strict or lax, traditionally falls under the provenience of the states. Considering the 2nd Amendment's original intention, the decision makes sense.
We've reached a point though, where we need a national policy to prevent civil atrocities. Outline the minimum requirements to ensure public well-being and apply the requirement everywhere. We need to stop treating firearms like fireworks.
Here's the problem: not all guns are equal. Without context, the argument goes nowhere slowly. Sanders' point is valid. A rifle in South Dakota is not a pistol in Boston. Vermonters might understand the difference but clearly both sides fail to grasp the distinction. Alaska and Rhode Island have the same number of Senate votes though. Hence, we have gridlock.
The NRA is an obstructionist advocate for sure. If executive actions were realistic though, I believe President Obama would've already tried. You won't find a solution here without conversation and compromise.
We've reached a point though, where we need a national policy to prevent civil atrocities. Outline the minimum requirements to ensure public well-being and apply the requirement everywhere. We need to stop treating firearms like fireworks.
Here's the problem: not all guns are equal. Without context, the argument goes nowhere slowly. Sanders' point is valid. A rifle in South Dakota is not a pistol in Boston. Vermonters might understand the difference but clearly both sides fail to grasp the distinction. Alaska and Rhode Island have the same number of Senate votes though. Hence, we have gridlock.
The NRA is an obstructionist advocate for sure. If executive actions were realistic though, I believe President Obama would've already tried. You won't find a solution here without conversation and compromise.
13
Senator Sanders represents the majority of Americans who believe that some guns are okay, while others are not. I know, I know...nuance. VP Joe Biden is also on this page. I'm not sure how you think wrapping Hillary in the "I'm going to take your guns" platform is going to do her any favors. This miscalculation (and believe me, it is a calculated position) by the HRC campaign to outflank Bernie, and on the one issue she shouldn't outflank him on, signifies what we knew all along: HRC is washed up. I'm from a purple state that recalled their House Speaker for the same politiking HRC (and the NYTimes) is using now. Say what you want, this is a winning issue for Bernie. So...please proceed Sec. Clinton...
6
Hillary has a reasonable common sense gun control plan that would be a huge step forward. Just because stricter gun control laws won't solve all our problems doesn't mean we don't solve the ones we can. Keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers will not stop mass shootings, but it will save the lives of many women every year. Yes, we need to work on mental health issues, but we are capable of doing two things at once. Bernie's gun control plan is "we need to talk to each other". For me, I say we have been talking for years. Time to act.
6
Why no mention of the 20,000 that showed up in Boston for Bernie?
13
that would relate to this article how?
6
Clinton advertises on the NYT. They are all in bed together. Ironically, the media blackout only fuels Bernie's campaign.
8
Why no mention of the 20,000 who showed up in Boston for Bernie? Um. . . . because possibly this is an article about his straddled and addled position on the Great American Gun Fixation? And, exempting the Arms Industry from Legal Liability?
3
I support Bernie Sanders and agree with those who think he hasn't gotten a fair shake from the Times.
That said, I see this as a straight news story, not a hit piece. It's important to know a candidate's record on any range of issues and all this piece does is lay out the senator's voting record on guns/gun control legislation and the reasons behind the positions taken. Agree with them or disagree with them, but don't think that reporting on a candidate's position on one issue or another is a hit piece simply because of your support for that candidate.
Truth be told, rightly or not, this is not at the top of my agenda; that's reserved for trying to reverse the decimation of the middle class, getting rid of the carried interest tax rate for 10-figure earners and easing the burden on those who can least afford it, among other economic issues.
Bernie Sanders still has my vote.
That said, I see this as a straight news story, not a hit piece. It's important to know a candidate's record on any range of issues and all this piece does is lay out the senator's voting record on guns/gun control legislation and the reasons behind the positions taken. Agree with them or disagree with them, but don't think that reporting on a candidate's position on one issue or another is a hit piece simply because of your support for that candidate.
Truth be told, rightly or not, this is not at the top of my agenda; that's reserved for trying to reverse the decimation of the middle class, getting rid of the carried interest tax rate for 10-figure earners and easing the burden on those who can least afford it, among other economic issues.
Bernie Sanders still has my vote.
9
Once again Sanders is showing his independent, pragmatic approach. Once again, the Times tries to put him in a box. The difference this time is that instead of describing him as a "near Marxist" (left) he's "against gun control" (right). Wrong on both counts, although to be fair to the NYT this wasn't as much of a "hit job" that earlier Sanders pieces were.
I personally would like much stronger gun control. Sanders correctly points out that there are "...a whole lot of states in this country where people want virtually no gun control at all." Sanders' pragmatic approach is the best way forward. Try to find common ground, as he did when talking at Liberty University. “Get beyond the shouting” and understand that "if we are going to have some success, we are going to have to start talking to each other.” That attitude is just what we need in a leader, particularly in our very partisan time.
I may not like it, but I've just been "schooled" by Bernie Sanders. Good job, Senator.
I personally would like much stronger gun control. Sanders correctly points out that there are "...a whole lot of states in this country where people want virtually no gun control at all." Sanders' pragmatic approach is the best way forward. Try to find common ground, as he did when talking at Liberty University. “Get beyond the shouting” and understand that "if we are going to have some success, we are going to have to start talking to each other.” That attitude is just what we need in a leader, particularly in our very partisan time.
I may not like it, but I've just been "schooled" by Bernie Sanders. Good job, Senator.
12
Any gun is a lethal instrument and should be handled with care. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the owner to safe it when not in use, and use it with care when its not safed. If the owner can't own up to his/her responsibilities, then they pose a hazard to the public, whether the cause is mental derangement, anger or simple negligence. This is what legislation should be targeting--responsible use--whereas the NRA and other gun-rights folks conveniently look the other way while children are gunned down.
1
Senator Sanders' argument against gun control is the same argument opponents of same sex marriage have made and that argument was wrong then and it is wrong now.
3
Please check your facts. He's not against gun control.
6
People who own people-killing guns tend to dwell upon killing people. It is obvious in what they write on the internet.
5
I own what would be construed as "people killing guns" but have no interest in using them against people in an aggressive, or offense manner, nor do I "dwell upon killing people". Why do I own them, you ask? Because it is my right to do so.
1
Easy to not take a stance on gun control when you come from an overwhelmingly white, rural, gun-loving state.
Of of which makes Bernie Sanders not a hero fro change, but just another gutless politician.
Of of which makes Bernie Sanders not a hero fro change, but just another gutless politician.
4
explain to us then how it is that VT has very low gun violence? The guns are hunting rifles and you need a license to hunt.
3
Senator Sanders represents Vermont, and the voters that elected him.
That he even got elected with a D minus from the NRA is amazing.
You have to embrace the doable over perfection if you want to get something done.
The vast majority of Times readers have not had to kill an animal that might be rabid on their property, threatening animals and people. . Bag it and wait a day for animal control to pick up the carcass and examine it. In a more rural area a gun is just another tool. Tools bite and don't say I'm sorry.
Violent video games are as much to blame. Had these kids gone out hunting and had to butcher what they killed, they would have a better idea on how fragile life is. That once you pull a trigger there is no reset button.
That he even got elected with a D minus from the NRA is amazing.
You have to embrace the doable over perfection if you want to get something done.
The vast majority of Times readers have not had to kill an animal that might be rabid on their property, threatening animals and people. . Bag it and wait a day for animal control to pick up the carcass and examine it. In a more rural area a gun is just another tool. Tools bite and don't say I'm sorry.
Violent video games are as much to blame. Had these kids gone out hunting and had to butcher what they killed, they would have a better idea on how fragile life is. That once you pull a trigger there is no reset button.
7
“I think it would be fairer to say he’s more in line with what the state thinks about this.”
So Bernie Sanders is first a politician like everyone else. (Don't get me wrong- I am in agreement with him on many issues).
The 2nd Amendment is outdated. The idea of guns as recreation is ridiculous and as soon as we humans really realize this, the better off we as a species will be. There are plenty of healthier ways to get an adrenaline rush.
We play with killing weapons and then come together in the face of a natural disaster such as the hurricane in South Carolina to help and save each other. Why is it so difficult to realize the simplicity of this insanity?
All these "complex" conversations get to me. Wake up.
So Bernie Sanders is first a politician like everyone else. (Don't get me wrong- I am in agreement with him on many issues).
The 2nd Amendment is outdated. The idea of guns as recreation is ridiculous and as soon as we humans really realize this, the better off we as a species will be. There are plenty of healthier ways to get an adrenaline rush.
We play with killing weapons and then come together in the face of a natural disaster such as the hurricane in South Carolina to help and save each other. Why is it so difficult to realize the simplicity of this insanity?
All these "complex" conversations get to me. Wake up.
2
Perhaps the New York Times is reading the comments section here, and decided to write something about Bernie Sanders. What we find in this article is an attempt by the Times to, yet again, portray the good Senator in a negative light. Yet the article fails to do that, pointing out instead that Sanders has a well thought out, non-sound bite position, on this complex problem in our society. And that he has earned a D- for his position from the NRA.
By contrast, it appears to me that Mrs. Clinton is once again holding her finger to the wind and posturing to try to put herself to the "left" of Sanders on this issue. And, once again, she appears an opportunist.
By contrast, it appears to me that Mrs. Clinton is once again holding her finger to the wind and posturing to try to put herself to the "left" of Sanders on this issue. And, once again, she appears an opportunist.
8
Also, Vermont may be much safer and lovelier and kinder than many other states, but do not think all hunters here are good and proper and that guns never get in the wrong hands and kill. A few years ago a man lost his life a half mile down my splendid little road. He had pulled over with a friend and they had a fight over a woman and one man had a gun in his car. I heard the shot and thought someone was target shooting or hunting illegally (we hear guns often), and later found out a man was dying down the road, shot in the belly. If there was no gun in the car, he might have had a black eye, maybe even a broken nose, but instead he is dead and that is what guns do, here there and everywhere, they bring death, through suicide, through anger, through alcohol, through confusion. Two other people were shot dead this year in nearby towns, domestic violence. A few years ago a man was shot dead at a crunchy food co-op in Brattleboro by an angry co-worker. It all happens up here too and having too many guns around brings death. The NRA is a stain on our great country, full of hot air and the blood of many.
12
We have heard the same arguments with same sex marriage and leaving it up to the states. Senator Sanders' position is a ruse and I don't feel comfortable with a pro gun candidate on the Democratic presidential line in view of all the carnage we have witnessed.
5
Have you ever had to shoot your food? Or do you just assume that meat comes down from the sky, wrapped nicely in paper or plastic? Senator Sanders represents the majority of Americans who believe that some guns are okay, while others are not. I know, I know...nuance. VP Joe Biden is also on this page. I'm not sure how you think wrapping Hillary in the "I'm going to take your guns" platform is going to do her any favors. This miscalculation (and believe me, it is a calculated position) by the HRC campaign to outflank Bernie, and on the one issue she shouldn't outflank him on, signifies what we knew all along: HRC is washed up. I'm from a purple state that recalled their House Speaker for the same politiking HRC (and the NYTimes) is using now. Say what you want, this is a winning issue for Bernie. So...please proceed Sec. Clinton...
4
I think people should see the movie The Miligro Bean Field War. ( I might have the spelling off ) Whenever I think about gone control I think about that movie. It's a good argument ( mostly the ending ) against gun control. I also think it shows how guns can be used to make a righteous stand against government intrusion.
We can do some laws around the edges, but that is not going to stop these mass shootings. That is a much more involved issue. The health of this country. The media, movies and music, medications, video games, loneliness. No trust in authority. It is telling that the front page of newspapers' yesterday had an item about the Oregon shooting on one side, and the story of the Doctors Without Borders hospital bombings and 22 dead on the other. This country sells more arms to the rest of the world by far than anyone else. Super Bowl Day is like Christmas. And to the people that bring up the violence in Chicago and other major cities, that is about drugs and gangs. That is not someone walking into a movie house, shopping mall or school killing as many as possible because they watched a Batman movie. If this country is not willing to go the way of England or Japan or like that, pretty much no guns around at all, this will keep happening. It's our national psyche that has to change. Maybe Mr Sanders can do that. But than again this country might be to far gone, as far as guns anyway.
We can do some laws around the edges, but that is not going to stop these mass shootings. That is a much more involved issue. The health of this country. The media, movies and music, medications, video games, loneliness. No trust in authority. It is telling that the front page of newspapers' yesterday had an item about the Oregon shooting on one side, and the story of the Doctors Without Borders hospital bombings and 22 dead on the other. This country sells more arms to the rest of the world by far than anyone else. Super Bowl Day is like Christmas. And to the people that bring up the violence in Chicago and other major cities, that is about drugs and gangs. That is not someone walking into a movie house, shopping mall or school killing as many as possible because they watched a Batman movie. If this country is not willing to go the way of England or Japan or like that, pretty much no guns around at all, this will keep happening. It's our national psyche that has to change. Maybe Mr Sanders can do that. But than again this country might be to far gone, as far as guns anyway.
3
Reading that Sanders is lukewarm on gun control is disappointing. His position may be right for Vermont, a low crime state, but not for the country. If Sanders doesn't start to emphasize the need to fight the NRA and support strong, national, gun control measures, I may rethink my support.
15
I'd feel better about him if his military beliefs didn't dovetail so beautifully with U.S. policy. I believe that stopping the killing in other countries by our own government (and the consequent build-up of the arms industry) is the only way to stop mass shootings. It's a culture of violence.
2
As the article states, "Vermont has a high level of gun ownership compared with other states in the Northeast. It also has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country. At the same time, Vermont has few murders committed with firearms."
It all has to do with the character of the gun owner. Unhappily, if we were to ban guns entirely, they would not go away. Only the criminals and the police would have them. Violent and mentally ill people would still kill. If they could not get a gun, they would find some other means.
It all has to do with the character of the gun owner. Unhappily, if we were to ban guns entirely, they would not go away. Only the criminals and the police would have them. Violent and mentally ill people would still kill. If they could not get a gun, they would find some other means.
3
If liberals put this "test" on Sanders, they will ensure that a Republican becomes president. Bernie is the only one in the race who understands that there are two sides to the gun debate and that it is possible to compromise with both. Set a litmus test that all Dem candidates have to be anti-gun, and you will lose more than half the voters, for many of which this is a single issue vote. Tell me which "gun control" law suggested would have stopped this latest killer. Murder is still illegal, last time I checked, but damn, these crazies just ignore the law. He passed the background check, and since we no longer lock up social defectives in mental institutions (thanks, Ronnie) he was walking our streets camouflaged as a normal human being instead of the monster he was. The Democrats have lost repeatedly on "gun control" because the American People believe in standing up for their Constitution. Don't apply a litmus test to DEM candidates or there will be no room to make progress on this issue. Bernie is the only candidate who can get conservatives to vote for single payer health care and other "liberal" causes. Force a gun-bashing hammer into his hand, and he will never get the chance.
7
It seems that exempting the gun industry from product liability is the issue here. They alone enjoy such an exemption. The auto industry doesn't. If they did: no seatbelts, airbags, speed limits/fuel efficiencies, or other safety measures would ever have been supported by them.
Democrats have lost repeatedly on 'gun control' because enough 'liberal-socialist-independents' like Bernie bend over for NRA money and support.
Democrats have lost repeatedly on 'gun control' because enough 'liberal-socialist-independents' like Bernie bend over for NRA money and support.
25
"... but not attacking the mere idea of gun ownership — was “how you can actually make change.”
That's the key. But because liberals don't want to discriminate against people with mental illness their conscience feels better by removing guns from the country. Makes me believe that liberal progressive thought is a sign of mental illness because it strips one of its identity.
That's the key. But because liberals don't want to discriminate against people with mental illness their conscience feels better by removing guns from the country. Makes me believe that liberal progressive thought is a sign of mental illness because it strips one of its identity.
It is amazing that proposing broad gun control is viewed by individuals, such as you, curtis dickson, as one and the same as 'stripping away one's identity.' Is owning a gun really that central to the identity here in the U.S. as distinct from England, Autralia, Sweden, Germany, Japan, and a dozen other democracies which have successfully instituted gun control and keep death by gun at 100X's less than U.S. figures?
28
Harvard is coming out with a study that indicates there are about 6,000,000 Americans who own more 10 guns or more. - This represents a number of total guns that by inference is between 60,000,000 - 150,000,000 guns are in possession of gun hoarder or 'collectors.'
5% of our households own 10 guns or more. That's a terrifying thought, and it goes a long way toward explaining why there are so many mishaps involving firearms. At a certain point such incidents become nearly actuarial in nature.
If you think keeping your gun safe in your locked closet is going to keep it safe from your kid, I have a bridge to sell you.
5% of our households own 10 guns or more. That's a terrifying thought, and it goes a long way toward explaining why there are so many mishaps involving firearms. At a certain point such incidents become nearly actuarial in nature.
If you think keeping your gun safe in your locked closet is going to keep it safe from your kid, I have a bridge to sell you.
1
We are America, the United States of America. We are NOT England, Sweden, Germany, etc. We have our own unique identity. What's the matter with you Mr Incognito?! Move there.
"You can sit there and say, well, I think we should do this and do that,” he said. “But you got a whole lot of states in this country where people want virtually no gun control at all. And if we are going to have some success, we are going to have to start talking to each other.”
This might be the most honest statement from a politician I've heard on gun control yet. But open dialogue instead of finger-pointing and a he-said, she-said blame game? Silly Bernie. That isn't how politics works ;) (said from a PA Democrat raised in a home with plenty of guns, with respect for gun laws, willing to support the ban of assault weapons but never for a politician attacking the mere idea of gun ownership. Mr. Sanders has my vote.)
This might be the most honest statement from a politician I've heard on gun control yet. But open dialogue instead of finger-pointing and a he-said, she-said blame game? Silly Bernie. That isn't how politics works ;) (said from a PA Democrat raised in a home with plenty of guns, with respect for gun laws, willing to support the ban of assault weapons but never for a politician attacking the mere idea of gun ownership. Mr. Sanders has my vote.)
20
I believe you forgot to mention that the NRA gives Bernie Sanders a rating of D-. Not exactly an endorsement. I agree totally with his stand on gun control and I hate guns, have never owned one and never would. He is the only candidate I've listened to who acknowledges the truth about guns in this country. There are rural owners and urban gun owners. The problem for me has always been the American tradition of raising children with violent video games and movies. The fear of living without a gun begins early. The glorification of weapons begins early. It is taught at home by parents or the absence of parents. This is followed by not seeking and/or not being able to obtain mental health services for their kids. It is a very complex issue and it will take more than words and fist shaking to overcome the NRA.
6
I have only one thing to say about Bernie and that is about his defense of the 2nd amendment. He lives in a very gun oriented state and as such, will not take the correct position regarding gun control. This on it's own says to me that with all his rhetoric, when it comes to issues that directly affect his own constituencies, he will not stand up for what is right. Sadly, in the end, he is no better than all the others.. I'm deeply disappointed with his lack of real courage when it comes to an issue that can hurt him.
13
Gun ownership is not a STATE (meaning Vt) right....it is a FEDERAL right under the Constitution - but not defended as an individual right but rather the right of a MILITIA. I am very surprised that I have only heard one person out of all the talking heads on our media who has mentioned that even in passing.
Yes, the true meaning of that amendment had nothing to do with arming everyone! It was about having a ready Militia if the need arose.
This gross interpretation has cost the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
And let's not get into what this has to do with the ability to buy thousands of rounds of magazine clips over the internet. It's insanity.
Most intelligent individuals recognize the need to make acquiring guns difficult. It's the small fringe and the congressional fear of the NRA that prevent bills coming to the floor that a vast majority of Americans support..
One more example of corporate malfeasance .
This gross interpretation has cost the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
And let's not get into what this has to do with the ability to buy thousands of rounds of magazine clips over the internet. It's insanity.
Most intelligent individuals recognize the need to make acquiring guns difficult. It's the small fringe and the congressional fear of the NRA that prevent bills coming to the floor that a vast majority of Americans support..
One more example of corporate malfeasance .
1
White men love their guns and Vermont is full of both. Sanders wants his cake and eat it too, and if he believed in gun control legislation, why hasn't he introduced any in the Senate? Mr. Sanders is not even a Democrat, is anti-gun control with his "state's rights" argument, and is pro-military involvement to protect the other country to which he maintains dual citizenship, which sum up the reasons this liberal will never vote for Sanders. For Sanders campaign to say he is just influenced by reality in VT, which is 95% white and is the 49th state in population shows just how completely out of touch the old white guy is with the rest of the country. He has gotten to claim the liberal mantle but there is very little liberal or Democrat in Sanders, as he won't even join the party he insists he should run. He also has very few political allies in Congress where he has taken a paycheck for over 20 years. Just another pro-gun, pro Israel white guy who should retire from Congress not run for President and leader of a party he refuses to join.
11
Are you a racist? Only white men love guns? Tell that to the residents of Chicago.
Ms. Clinton and Mr. O'Malley are trying to undercut Bernie's liberal bona fides by painting him as a gun-rights advocate… but the NRA's recent D- rating has him pegged accurately. As the Vermont advocate for new gun laws observes, Mr. Sanders’s focus on keeping guns out of the wrong hands — but not attacking the mere idea of gun ownership — was “how you can actually make change”. I am confident that Mr. Sanders' staff will find a set of policy statements that will help our country make changes.
5
Someone at the editor's desk at the NYT must be telling the staff. " whatever you do don't cover Bernie Sanders and if you do make sure you don't present him in a good light."
Because there's no other explanation for the blatant lack of reporting while "the Donald" is in our collective faces just about everyday .
Because there's no other explanation for the blatant lack of reporting while "the Donald" is in our collective faces just about everyday .
7
It's dismaying to read so many paranoid comments by my fellow Bernie Sanders supporters accusing The Times (and not only in this article) of having an anti-Sanders agenda. Frankly, you all sound like the right-wing Republicans who want to hear only their "truth" and stick to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media sources. The immaturity of Sanders' supporters is probably because many of them, like those I remember from the 2004 Howard Dean campaign, and a lot of people in the early Obama campaign in 2008, are people who are not really familiar with politics. Those of us who support Bernie Sanders who are more mature and experienced know better than to make the tired "media bias" charge at every story we don't like. Grow up. You're a bad sign for Bernie's chances of success, something I hope for.
5
They- Bernie Sanders supporters, alienated me early on- not only in their childish response to the Times coverage - which has actually been pretty generous compared to Clinton where the Times has been an echo chamber for empty Republican attacks on email and Benghazi,- but also whenever Sanders is mention, they always write in looking to bash Hillary in the very next sentence.
4
Owning hand guns is not about hunting. Owning assault weapons is not about hunting. Carrying concealed weapons is not about hunting. So, why doesn't Sanders distinguish recreational gun ownership from other guns? I would like to see a survey of the percent of gun owners who are actually hunters or "recreational users."
4
"Owning hand guns is not about hunting. Owning assault weapons is not about hunting. Carrying concealed weapons is not about hunting."
The second amendment is not about hunting.
The second amendment is not about hunting.
2
About eighteen states do recognize a right to hunt in their state constitutions:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/state-con...
However nearly all of them are also among the 45 states that recognize a right to keep and bear arms as an individual right and or for self defense or both (mostly both).
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
The constitution of New York, unsurprisingly guarantees neither.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/state-con...
However nearly all of them are also among the 45 states that recognize a right to keep and bear arms as an individual right and or for self defense or both (mostly both).
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
The constitution of New York, unsurprisingly guarantees neither.
In talking about gun control, one thing must be taken into consideration and often is not. Two thirds of all gun deaths are suicides; the shooter in Oregon killed himself with his weapons.
I do not know if Senator Sanders proposals on gun control will lower the number of people who use guns to end their lives. It is unlikely that anybody knows something like that for a fact.
But before any proposal is either supported or opposed, care should be taken to determine if it speaks to these considerations. We must ask: Can it lower the number of gun deaths by suicide?
I do not know if Senator Sanders proposals on gun control will lower the number of people who use guns to end their lives. It is unlikely that anybody knows something like that for a fact.
But before any proposal is either supported or opposed, care should be taken to determine if it speaks to these considerations. We must ask: Can it lower the number of gun deaths by suicide?
1
Even when he was young, he acted like a grumpy old man. Now that he is old, he is a grumpy old man who has never liked women or blacks. And he's a socialist. But the white male faction does not want a woman president, so that faction will support Bernie.
3
Sorry, but - like torture - this is one of the hard lines for me. A candidate must support gun control in today's crazy NRA-controlled society. This is not the United States of a couple of decades ago when there was an assault weapon ban and not so many ALEC-driven guns everywhere laws.
Today, the gun nuts think they are entitled to personal arsenals of military weapons which they should be allowed to open carry anywhere they please - including bars, schools, airports, hospitals, etc. They are essentially trying to turn a civilized nation into a military zone, and many of them are crazy paranoid people, who honestly think in their tiny deranged minds that Pres. Obama - the Muslim Kenyan - will show up at their doors to "take their guns away". Look at those Texans who thought Jade Help was the government apocalypse.
Something like 92% of Americans strongly support universal background checks, closing the loopholes for gun sales, and doing obvious things like not letting people on terrorist watch lists, or who have abused their spouses, or committed crimes, get guns.
As for the other 8%, as far as I'm concerned, don't bother prying their guns out of their cold dead hands. Leave them there, and in fact, bury their favorite guns with each of the gun nuts and all other members of their families who die in gun accidents, suicides, violence, etc. These people love their guns far more than their families anyway.
Today, the gun nuts think they are entitled to personal arsenals of military weapons which they should be allowed to open carry anywhere they please - including bars, schools, airports, hospitals, etc. They are essentially trying to turn a civilized nation into a military zone, and many of them are crazy paranoid people, who honestly think in their tiny deranged minds that Pres. Obama - the Muslim Kenyan - will show up at their doors to "take their guns away". Look at those Texans who thought Jade Help was the government apocalypse.
Something like 92% of Americans strongly support universal background checks, closing the loopholes for gun sales, and doing obvious things like not letting people on terrorist watch lists, or who have abused their spouses, or committed crimes, get guns.
As for the other 8%, as far as I'm concerned, don't bother prying their guns out of their cold dead hands. Leave them there, and in fact, bury their favorite guns with each of the gun nuts and all other members of their families who die in gun accidents, suicides, violence, etc. These people love their guns far more than their families anyway.
3
The troubling fact is that because bullets can be lethal for a mile or more's range - the death they spray is not confined to their owner, or even their immediate traceable harm.
11
Please cite your source for "92% of Americans strongly support universal background checks". That is the leftist lie for the disarming of the American public. How do you account for 300 million plus firearms being owned by Americans and how that correlates to the 92% "statistic'?
He is only interested in "Social Revolution", whatever that means. When he talks, the guy has no stamina, and I keep wondering when he is going to.....sit down!!
2
I would just like to say that as an outsider, it breaks my heart to read about these massacres that occur with monotonous regularity in America and that involve the murderous use of firearms. The main problem seems that the pro-gun, Second Amendment lobby have been allowed to get away with far too much for far too long. I do not know exactly who is responsible for changing these laws, whether it is the State or Federal Government or perhaps some cooperation between both is needed but, really, something serious needs to be done and done now! It will not be an easy task and there will be plenty of noses 'out of joint' but for the sake of those people whose lives will be lost in the future, the time for strong action is now!
3
I have absolute confidence that Bernie Sanders will promote step-by-step, sensible reforms to decrease gun violence for Americans. He's just smart enough not to take on the NRA so early in his campaign.
But why does the Times pick on Sanders, when Trump (more guns!) and the other Republican candidates have far more irrational and dangerous views about gun control? This is just more Sanders-bashing by the pro-Trump Times.
But why does the Times pick on Sanders, when Trump (more guns!) and the other Republican candidates have far more irrational and dangerous views about gun control? This is just more Sanders-bashing by the pro-Trump Times.
5
yet "step by step" doesn't do it for you when Obama gets unprecedented health care and finance reform, and important regulations on carbon emissions. sheesh!
"This is just more Sanders-bashing by the pro-Trump 'AND PRO-CLINTON' Times."
Stephen Kings essay " Guns " should be required reading for every person 16 years old and older. The politicians are pandering.
President Obama asked the media to research the gun violence epidemic and present its findings. I was shocked by the following:
"Guns killed more Americans between 2001 and 2013 than terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, AIDS, and illegal drug overdoses combined"
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9446193/gun-deaths-aids-war-terrorism
This is a crisis. I expect a candidate who wants to enter the Oval Office to have the courage to stand up to the NRA and its proxies. To say America will live up to its promise in the preamble to our constitution "LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness."
"Guns killed more Americans between 2001 and 2013 than terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, AIDS, and illegal drug overdoses combined"
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9446193/gun-deaths-aids-war-terrorism
This is a crisis. I expect a candidate who wants to enter the Oval Office to have the courage to stand up to the NRA and its proxies. To say America will live up to its promise in the preamble to our constitution "LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness."
6
Are we really considering that gun control is the responsibility of the president? Certainly there is the issue of vetoing, but the main concern should be what happens in Congress. And for that, I think it's fine to look at Sen. Sanders' record and critique him as a senator, but I honestly don't see that the president is the one that should spearhead any change. Or rather, if a presidential candidate is making a claim that he/she will change gun control laws, I would be very skeptical of it.
2
Again NYT, you are misrepresenting Senator Sanders and promoting fair weather, opportunistic Clinton.
7
sorry, sanders and his supporters portray him as completely pure on every issue, and unsullied by realpolitik considerations to get elected and govern, so it is newsworthy to point out when he has compromised to get the support of the gun lobby and votes from gun owners.
If you want to see what a government can do to a disarmed population take a look at Syria. The solution in the United States is increased care for the mentally ill. And some common sense about allowing the police to inventory the guns in the possession of people who show symptoms or a history of mental illness. As it is now, a police officer cannot pat down or enter the home of a person released a week ago from a mental institution without probable cause and a warrant. Being a mental patient or talking violence should be enough. This is not rocket science; angry, hostile people are not something that it takes a psychiatrist or a federal judge to recognize.
Fred Bauder - 'If you want to see what a government can do to a disarmed population take a look at Syria?' REALLY? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I think not. There are guns aplenty in Syria- ISIS is not their government you know. They are the gun bearing Islamic sect remnants of the Iraq Army augmented by other opportunists. It is hand in glove that belief in guns promotes freedom in any way as opposed to anarchy, totalitarianism, and chaotic death is emblematic of the gun delusion along with xenophobia and near totally misinformed ignorance of reality world-wide.
16
I'm against any new laws until we get rid of the 2nd Amendment. Gun control is a losing issue with Americans right now. It's too bad but it is. I'm sure this is going to take some of the shine off Bernie.
3
My ears perk up when Senator Sanders invokes Denmark and other countries in Scandinavia as places where policies reflect people's desires to care for the most vulnerable in real and tangible ways.
But I have to say: please stop invoking these countries if you are going to be so selective about what makes these societies prosper. People in Denmark look at the daily violence in the US and are horrified, as are so many Americans like myself. It's not for lack of mentally ill people that Denmark has fewer mass shootings and feels a thousand times safer than anywhere in the US.
But I have to say: please stop invoking these countries if you are going to be so selective about what makes these societies prosper. People in Denmark look at the daily violence in the US and are horrified, as are so many Americans like myself. It's not for lack of mentally ill people that Denmark has fewer mass shootings and feels a thousand times safer than anywhere in the US.
3
In recent comments on several subjects I have suggested that the New York Times should study my Swedish newspapers' (DN and GP) use of the "Fakta Ruta" or Fact Box at the bottom of any article where simple unquestionable facts may be useful.
I do not have access to the data to provide such a box here, but can suggest what might be presented.
Fact Box
Vermont
Sweden
Oregon
Pistols per 1000 adults
Rifles per 1000 adults
Automatic fire weapons (refine this term) per 1000 adults
Since I live in Sweden and have Vermont as my home away from home I suspect that Vermont data will resemble Swedish data. And given the information on the arsenal kept by the killer in Oregon, I suspect that Oregon is no Vermont.
I trust Bernie Sanders more than anyone else in sight to take the first steps in the decade-long process to create a saner America one state at a time if he becomes president.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
I do not have access to the data to provide such a box here, but can suggest what might be presented.
Fact Box
Vermont
Sweden
Oregon
Pistols per 1000 adults
Rifles per 1000 adults
Automatic fire weapons (refine this term) per 1000 adults
Since I live in Sweden and have Vermont as my home away from home I suspect that Vermont data will resemble Swedish data. And given the information on the arsenal kept by the killer in Oregon, I suspect that Oregon is no Vermont.
I trust Bernie Sanders more than anyone else in sight to take the first steps in the decade-long process to create a saner America one state at a time if he becomes president.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
3
A US citizen/civilian CAN NOT own an automatic fire weapon without a specific type of licence.. A semi-automatic weapon, yes. The media does not distinguish between the two, probably to keep the uninformed fearful of what they do not know.
1
I guess he can't be president, then. But it's not just the president, is it, there has to be concerted effort by the populace to vote in representatives who want uniform, sensible rules against some of the worst loopholes. but it starts with a president willing and brave to start that conversation and push it along.
5
Sanders is fighting to bring back the idea of the Public Good as the goal of government. If he succeeds, gun control will no longer be a wedge issue and there will be a national conversation with the possibility of a reasonable result.
Sanders is a moderate on gun control: he's for national gun registration, closing the gun show loop hole, against "assault rifles" and clips with over 10 bullets. These should be Federal laws - if Bernie wants to leave these requirements in the hands of the states I disagree. He's against making gun manufacturers liable - I'd need to see the bill. Clearly a manufacturer isn't liable in many cases, for example suicide, and if parents leave guns lying around. But we should have smarter guns with more safety features, which manufacturers fight tooth and nail. Also, advertising guns for young children is a rotten idea. Show me the bill. I'm for requiring insurance.
Sanders is a moderate on gun control: he's for national gun registration, closing the gun show loop hole, against "assault rifles" and clips with over 10 bullets. These should be Federal laws - if Bernie wants to leave these requirements in the hands of the states I disagree. He's against making gun manufacturers liable - I'd need to see the bill. Clearly a manufacturer isn't liable in many cases, for example suicide, and if parents leave guns lying around. But we should have smarter guns with more safety features, which manufacturers fight tooth and nail. Also, advertising guns for young children is a rotten idea. Show me the bill. I'm for requiring insurance.
1
Part of Sanders' appeal is that he is *not* Hillary Clinton, but an independent thinker willing to challenge party orthodoxy.
Nothing would have prevented this most recent rampage shooting, except for either a total ban on gun ownership, which is unconstitutional, or less sensationalist reporting from mass media outlets, which is highly unlikely. (Witness how the Grey Lady herself has spilled untold gallons of ink publicizing the shooter's name, likeness, and probing for possible motives. Infamy granted, right on schedule.)
I support Sanders because he supports ALL of our liberties, not just the ones that appeal to urban liberals. Gay marriage, abortion, cannabis legalization, economic opportunity, and firearms: these are all rights that Americans hold dear. Entrenched interests battle against all of those liberties -- some from the right, and some from the left.
Bernie, have the strength of your convictions and be willing to differentiate yourself. If you waffle, you just play Hillary's game.
Nothing would have prevented this most recent rampage shooting, except for either a total ban on gun ownership, which is unconstitutional, or less sensationalist reporting from mass media outlets, which is highly unlikely. (Witness how the Grey Lady herself has spilled untold gallons of ink publicizing the shooter's name, likeness, and probing for possible motives. Infamy granted, right on schedule.)
I support Sanders because he supports ALL of our liberties, not just the ones that appeal to urban liberals. Gay marriage, abortion, cannabis legalization, economic opportunity, and firearms: these are all rights that Americans hold dear. Entrenched interests battle against all of those liberties -- some from the right, and some from the left.
Bernie, have the strength of your convictions and be willing to differentiate yourself. If you waffle, you just play Hillary's game.
6
This article should really be about Hillary changing with the wind on an issue, probably to change again later. Meanwhile Bernie is doing and saying the same things he always has on gun control, and making perfectly good sense.
I want a President who's not only right on the issues, but who knows who they are, not one who wonders what they should support today, with the help of 200 advisers.
I want a President who's not only right on the issues, but who knows who they are, not one who wonders what they should support today, with the help of 200 advisers.
3
I see it entirely differently. Like many of us, as a mother and grandmother, Hillary's looking at tragedy after tragedy and saying "Enough!" By coming out with new plans, she's actually showing leadership -- on an issue where there is precious little leadership. Few politicians will go out on a limb to try to change to status quo. Most just cower before the gun lobby. I'm not interested in politicians who cannot grow with the times or respond to changing conditions. (As an aside, I see many liberals giving Bernie a free pass on this issue, something they would do for NO ONE else. They simply cannot question or criticize their guy on anything.)
I would prefer that we interpret the Second Amendment closer to how it was written, which is about how people belonging to well regulated militias should be able to posses guns. It is not about owning assault weapons.
Since that isn't going to happen, I'd be happy if the gun show loophole was closed and if private or commercial gun dealers were held responsible for how their weapons were used if they did not perform the appropriate background checks. Along with that, people who would be at high risk for endangering others (mental illness and violent crime arrests as an example) should not be allowed to posses these weapons. And finally, if the owner of the gun should be liable if their weapon is stolen if it is not kept in an appropriate safe and secure place (like a gun safe and not a night table).
Since that isn't going to happen, I'd be happy if the gun show loophole was closed and if private or commercial gun dealers were held responsible for how their weapons were used if they did not perform the appropriate background checks. Along with that, people who would be at high risk for endangering others (mental illness and violent crime arrests as an example) should not be allowed to posses these weapons. And finally, if the owner of the gun should be liable if their weapon is stolen if it is not kept in an appropriate safe and secure place (like a gun safe and not a night table).
3
Ah, the Michael Bloomberg talking points of the left...
The Republican position, in keeping with the NRA preferred position, is that NOTHING can be done about the problem of people killing other people with guns. After all, they hold the view that owning and using guns is one's God-given right, no questions asked. The Second Amendment trumps all.
It appears to me that is a significant majority of Americans believe that there should be background checks for ALL gun sales, and that people who have mental issues, as well as felons, should be prohibited from owning (or having access to) guns. It is high tome that our FEARLESS LEADERS in Congress started to pay attention to the will of the majority?
EXPRESS your position on gun safety to you Representative and two Senators. Tell them that you vote in every election (and mean it). The VOTE your position on gun safety.
Maybe then they will get the message. Or maybe enough of the yahoos will be gone from Congress that some sensible bills can be passed.
It appears to me that is a significant majority of Americans believe that there should be background checks for ALL gun sales, and that people who have mental issues, as well as felons, should be prohibited from owning (or having access to) guns. It is high tome that our FEARLESS LEADERS in Congress started to pay attention to the will of the majority?
EXPRESS your position on gun safety to you Representative and two Senators. Tell them that you vote in every election (and mean it). The VOTE your position on gun safety.
Maybe then they will get the message. Or maybe enough of the yahoos will be gone from Congress that some sensible bills can be passed.
5
is there room for compromise on gun control?https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psych-unseen/201510/the-psychology-...
It's easy to lose sight of the macro here by focusing on the micro issue of how to control guns. Bernie Sanders' focus on spreading support and income opportunity to a broader class of people and realigning our resources to help the 99% would give us more funding for mental health awareness, screening, counseling, and therapies. In addition, it would help ease the pernicious strain and tension faced by overwhelmed citizens who must struggle to make ends meet while labor rates continue to be depressed by the mega-national corporation. Among the many corporations who will be paying their fair share of taxes will be gun manufacturers. Sen. Sanders would support legislation requiring arms makers to establish a fund for a national mental health database the would keep guns away from those who should not have them. Let Colt and Smith & Wesson become funding sponsors of a national clearinghouse of information that would lead to an effective NATIONAL gun registry and licensing program.
18
why should this be an either or situation? you can't promote gun safety and income equality at the same time?
If the arms manufacturers had to pay their fair share of taxes and for a national gun registry, training courses for anyone to be issued a license, sufficient screening to determine need and suitability of those who are issued a license, they may outsource the manufacturing and leave the USA taking their factory jobs away. Taking the jobs away may influence local and regional support for guns. If I'm not mistaken, there are four or five gun manufacturers in Connecticut and I suspect some people in that State are strongly influenced having to make the decision to support the gun industry for jobs or not support the industry to protect public safety. I don't think anyone believes the USA can be "gun free" but if the number of hand guns and high power weapons are reduced, with stricter guidelines for who may own and who may not own guns, I believe our gun problem and crazy gun massacres would be greatly reduced.
Wow, the NY Times finally decided to write about one of Bernie Sanders policies. Of course, they chose the most damaging one possible in the eyes of his supporters. Who would have guessed?
Since today they were already talking on the news about how this would be a "gotcha" for HIllary.
Since today they were already talking on the news about how this would be a "gotcha" for HIllary.
3
I think the number of guns in this nation is absurd, but background checks remove none of them. Background checks cannot determine that an owner is going to have a breakdown in six months or a year. This "gun control" is mostly posturing, which is why, perhaps, so many conservatives think the government is going to take away their guns -- THAT would make some sense unlike all this controlling of sales.
1
It is high time to reduce the number of guns in the hands of people in our nation. Freedom of speech and respect for human life is a far better way to ensure democracy than the demagoguery produced by keeping the most psychologically unstable and prone to persecution complex along with authoritarian prone personalities in a state of heavily armed perpetual anger and compulsive gun collecting. Serious gun control NOW - !!
Freedom of speech flies out the window when the person you're having a heated political argument pats their weapon or flashes the handle of their gun to silently say, 'I'm armed, you're not, I'm right.' Even when someone says, I own a gun or a rifle - that is a declaration. It means that one night when they're drunk, cleaning one of their guns they can accidentally discharge a round, blow through their wall, into my house, and kill one of my family by accident. Every gun owner is a potential hazard defined by the firing range of the weapon they own. There's a reason home insurance appraisal forms note whether there is a gun in the house and whether it is kept in a locked secure cabinet. Hint: it's not because they give you a break on your insurance, because actuarial tables document your potential for coming to harm spike significantly.
Freedom of speech flies out the window when the person you're having a heated political argument pats their weapon or flashes the handle of their gun to silently say, 'I'm armed, you're not, I'm right.' Even when someone says, I own a gun or a rifle - that is a declaration. It means that one night when they're drunk, cleaning one of their guns they can accidentally discharge a round, blow through their wall, into my house, and kill one of my family by accident. Every gun owner is a potential hazard defined by the firing range of the weapon they own. There's a reason home insurance appraisal forms note whether there is a gun in the house and whether it is kept in a locked secure cabinet. Hint: it's not because they give you a break on your insurance, because actuarial tables document your potential for coming to harm spike significantly.
11
Oh, yeah. Another Senator trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Sanders panders.
If he were really radical or "authentic", he'd be calling for abolishing the Constitutional clause that gives his itty-bitty state of Vermont the same number of Senators as mine-New York.
How is this democracy?
I don't blame the old guy. He wants to keep his job, as we seniors mostly do.
But I won't vote for him, either.
If he were really radical or "authentic", he'd be calling for abolishing the Constitutional clause that gives his itty-bitty state of Vermont the same number of Senators as mine-New York.
How is this democracy?
I don't blame the old guy. He wants to keep his job, as we seniors mostly do.
But I won't vote for him, either.
5
America's got some really serious problems to address, not the least of which is the staggeringly dismal -- and dangerous -- quality of many who aspire to leadership. I really wanted Senator Saunders to be a bright ray of hope in what looks like a very dark political season ahead of us. Gun violence is for me a compass issue. Not easy and indicative of so many other broken things. But if Senator Saunders can't find True North, particularly given his Vermont roots (or maybe as I'm finding out now -- because of his Vermont roots) he's not going to lead us to a better place. Trump is exactly who I think someone of his ilk should be. No disappointment. But Bernie Saunders isn't who he says he is. Speaking truth to power can't also be special pleading. It's the very heart of his message. Clarity, courage, conscience don't mix well with confusion. Maybe a good man. But not the leader we need for what lies just ahead. Won't be fooled again.
2
I write this as an American who has lived for the last 17 years in the relative safety of Australia, where Prime Minister John Howard pushed through strong gun registration and ownership regulations.
I am afraid that Americans need to face the fact that the toothpaste cannot be put back into the tube. There are just too many guns in the US, too many ‘enthusiasts’ wary of the evil government, and an advocacy group that is too strong.
I am a dedicated Democrat but I think that Senator Sanders is being realistic. We all agree that someone who would contemplate a mass shooting should not have access to a gun. But how do we identify a person just about to go on a shooting rampage? How do we stop friends from making straw purchases at gun shows? How do we prevent mothers from stockpiling guns in homes that they share with their mentally-unstable sons?
Even with Howard’s gun buyback program, there are still thousands of guns in Australia. Why do we not have angry former employees killing their bosses? Why do we not have people murdering each other over a few dollars? Why do we not have crazy people killing others at an elementary school, a movie theater, or a political rally? I think that the answer is Australia’s functioning social safety net that provides for the unemployed and helps people with mental issues.
From what I understand about Senator Sanders, he seems to be more focused on restoring the US safety net with the expectation that social stability will follow.
I am afraid that Americans need to face the fact that the toothpaste cannot be put back into the tube. There are just too many guns in the US, too many ‘enthusiasts’ wary of the evil government, and an advocacy group that is too strong.
I am a dedicated Democrat but I think that Senator Sanders is being realistic. We all agree that someone who would contemplate a mass shooting should not have access to a gun. But how do we identify a person just about to go on a shooting rampage? How do we stop friends from making straw purchases at gun shows? How do we prevent mothers from stockpiling guns in homes that they share with their mentally-unstable sons?
Even with Howard’s gun buyback program, there are still thousands of guns in Australia. Why do we not have angry former employees killing their bosses? Why do we not have people murdering each other over a few dollars? Why do we not have crazy people killing others at an elementary school, a movie theater, or a political rally? I think that the answer is Australia’s functioning social safety net that provides for the unemployed and helps people with mental issues.
From what I understand about Senator Sanders, he seems to be more focused on restoring the US safety net with the expectation that social stability will follow.
4
Australia, Phillips writes, still has 'thousands of guns' - This fact he cites as evidence that it is the social safety net of Australia not gun control that has reduced their death toll. Pure garbage. 'Thousands of guns?' try 300,000,000 guns owned by 10,000,000 or so Americans - way too many by those Americans inclined to own a gun. The NRA has found its 'profile' gun customer, and like the shooter in Oregon who had 14 guns, succeeded in pushing their buttons to 'collect' multiple weapons and ammo in order to 'grow sales.'
So - yes, it's important for nations to pay more attention to providing support for those with social and mental issues, but it is a poor substitute for saving lives when a psychotic can get hold of multiple weapons and ammo on demand without any tracking system. Australia just had two would be terrorists shoot two people. If they had had ready access to a semi-automatic weapon, their casualty list might have been easily ten times that number before police got to them and shot them dead.
So - yes, it's important for nations to pay more attention to providing support for those with social and mental issues, but it is a poor substitute for saving lives when a psychotic can get hold of multiple weapons and ammo on demand without any tracking system. Australia just had two would be terrorists shoot two people. If they had had ready access to a semi-automatic weapon, their casualty list might have been easily ten times that number before police got to them and shot them dead.
17
Phillip- surely it has occurred to you that thousands of guns in Australia are preferable to the three hundred million guns estimated to proliferate the United States? Do the math. Australia has single digit gun deaths. America thousand of times that rate.
12
This is not a loop hole question, although that should be an easy step to take.
Permanently banning assault weapons and the ammunition used in them is where the nation should all be able to come together -- in spite of the NRA. And then the government should start a large-scale buy-back program encouraging people to sell their weapons. Why do we need citizens stockpiling weapons designed for only one purpose -- to kill large numbers of people?
May take a generation or more, but wouldn't it be nice to look out on the horizon and see a country that doesn't look like an armed camp, ready to go to war with itself?
I hope Sanders sticks with that position or he will lose my support.
Permanently banning assault weapons and the ammunition used in them is where the nation should all be able to come together -- in spite of the NRA. And then the government should start a large-scale buy-back program encouraging people to sell their weapons. Why do we need citizens stockpiling weapons designed for only one purpose -- to kill large numbers of people?
May take a generation or more, but wouldn't it be nice to look out on the horizon and see a country that doesn't look like an armed camp, ready to go to war with itself?
I hope Sanders sticks with that position or he will lose my support.
5
The ammunition in what you conceive to be an assault rifle is also used in other guns that are not.
and, FWIW - long guns of all types are responsible for a small fraction of gun homicides - about 550 nationally in one recent year. The vast majority of gun homicides are committed with handguns.
Somewhat under the number of those killed with knives, slightly ahead of those killed with blunt instruments, though...
and, FWIW - long guns of all types are responsible for a small fraction of gun homicides - about 550 nationally in one recent year. The vast majority of gun homicides are committed with handguns.
Somewhat under the number of those killed with knives, slightly ahead of those killed with blunt instruments, though...
There is nothing that will bring more Republicans out to vote in November 2016 that a Democratic candidate making a big case for gun control. To push for strict measures in this campaign not only will not succeed, but will be doing the Republicans' Get Out The Vote work for them. You may not like that, but we have to deal with the facts as they are.
I grew up in Vermont, and have spent my adult life in Maine - two states where nearly every home has a gun in it and there are no mass killings and very few gun murders. It is similar in many rural states. People see owning a gun as a right, like owning a car, and just as normal.
You are not going to force gun control on these people. It simply ain't gonna happen. To make matters worse, the NRA has successfully convinced millions of gun owners that even one tiny step toward gun control will ultimately end with the Government confiscating all of everyone's guns.
What Bernie is suggesting as a way to proceed at this point is the only logical sensible way toward a dialogue that has any chance of actually leading to reasonable gun control being passed.
I grew up in Vermont, and have spent my adult life in Maine - two states where nearly every home has a gun in it and there are no mass killings and very few gun murders. It is similar in many rural states. People see owning a gun as a right, like owning a car, and just as normal.
You are not going to force gun control on these people. It simply ain't gonna happen. To make matters worse, the NRA has successfully convinced millions of gun owners that even one tiny step toward gun control will ultimately end with the Government confiscating all of everyone's guns.
What Bernie is suggesting as a way to proceed at this point is the only logical sensible way toward a dialogue that has any chance of actually leading to reasonable gun control being passed.
7
90% of the people in this country, excluding slaves, used to believe that everyone had the right to own a slave if they chose to buy one. That changed. 90% of the people in rural Vermont who own a gun have a rifle or shotgun, and often a single or two barrel, because that's what's best for hunting. There are also some who own AK-47s and AR-15s to guard their pot farm. Then there are the survivalists. Most of us have a problem with those who use the cover of the sports hunter or the varmint gun to hide the paranoid and potential mass shooter. Vermont will experience its state mass shooting someday, and Bernie will change his tune. The 'chickens will come home to roost.' As Malcolm X predicted, even in lovely rural Vermont.
1
but suggesting banks be broken up will sooth the republicans into staying home? the whole point of sanders' campaign is that he doesn't triangulate or make these kinds of compromises. he is being a coward on guns, and hardly speaking truth to power.
Let's have stricter controls on video games which run rampant with mass killings. Where do u think young boys get these crazy ideas! Prior to the proliferation of video games there were never these mass murders. Wake up!
Nothing good ever comes from objecting to facts, and the facts support Senator Sanders.
Nearly all he roughly 20,000 annual suicides and accidental deaths, and many of the 10,000 or so yearly murders, are done with guns acquired legally after background checks. Those used in Roseburg, Oregon and most other rampage shootings fall into this category. Further background checks will do little to reduce them.
Limiting the type or number of owned guns, leaving Constitutional issues aside, would have a similarly limited effect: suicides, accidents, and most gun murders involve exactly one gun. Rampage shooters often bring quite a few, but one would be quite enough in most cases. Similarly, despite the horror factor of so called assault weapons, their use is relatively uncommon compared to pistols and they are not significantly more effective. Banning semiautomatic pistols also would have limited effect, as there are devices able to reload revolvers very rapidly.
As much as we might like to think mental health professionals can predict their patients' future behavior, it is not so. For every crazy person who goes off and kills a number of people there probably are thousands with indistinguishable profiles who do not. Many in both groups do not seek help, and the general surveillance to identify those who are dangerous would far exceed available resources.
We may want to do some of these things, but should not expect a lot, especially as to rampage killings.
Nearly all he roughly 20,000 annual suicides and accidental deaths, and many of the 10,000 or so yearly murders, are done with guns acquired legally after background checks. Those used in Roseburg, Oregon and most other rampage shootings fall into this category. Further background checks will do little to reduce them.
Limiting the type or number of owned guns, leaving Constitutional issues aside, would have a similarly limited effect: suicides, accidents, and most gun murders involve exactly one gun. Rampage shooters often bring quite a few, but one would be quite enough in most cases. Similarly, despite the horror factor of so called assault weapons, their use is relatively uncommon compared to pistols and they are not significantly more effective. Banning semiautomatic pistols also would have limited effect, as there are devices able to reload revolvers very rapidly.
As much as we might like to think mental health professionals can predict their patients' future behavior, it is not so. For every crazy person who goes off and kills a number of people there probably are thousands with indistinguishable profiles who do not. Many in both groups do not seek help, and the general surveillance to identify those who are dangerous would far exceed available resources.
We may want to do some of these things, but should not expect a lot, especially as to rampage killings.
The opinion of Thomas D. Dial is that one gun can wreak enough havoc. True, but six or seven or thirteen or fourteen guns, and body armor, can wreak so much more death and pain. I am in favor of banning all guns in most circumstances except in very limited ways (i.e. - two or three shot hunting weapons with long barrels - no hand guns, with a one gun per license limit). The argument that 'banning automatic weapons would have limited effect,' is quite weak if the definition of limited is even killing on fewer victim, let alone scores of dead and wounded.
1
Amazing how this firebrand reformist is absolutely uncompromising when it comes to economic and social reform, but when it comes to gun control, Sanders is all Realpolitik:
“You can sit there and say, well, I think we should do this and do that. But you got a whole lot of states in this country where people want virtually no (change) at all. And if we are going to have some success, we are going to have to start talking to each other.”
Is that a direct quote from Hillary who says that about his socialist platform?
His campaign slogan should be "Guns don't kill people, capitalism kills people"
“You can sit there and say, well, I think we should do this and do that. But you got a whole lot of states in this country where people want virtually no (change) at all. And if we are going to have some success, we are going to have to start talking to each other.”
Is that a direct quote from Hillary who says that about his socialist platform?
His campaign slogan should be "Guns don't kill people, capitalism kills people"
6
It's not that the specter of gun-related tragedies is lost on Sanders. It's related, rather, to what he considers an even stronger priority -- strengthening labor. He's not interested in dividing labor with the gun issue -- for pretty obvious reasons. I may be incorrect, and I hope so. This is because if Sanders indeed sees 'guns' as a wedge issue for labor, he is not going to bring labor together, meaningfully.
yes, but isn't a bit hypocritical to rail against big corporations all the time, then vote against people being able to sue them? how does this help the little guy in the face of the big mean corporation?
For all of those folks out there with stars in their eyes about Mr. Sanders, wake up. He's the Donald Trump of the Democratic primaries. A grumpy loudmouth. Another "false prophet", to quote John Boehner.
The best and most foolproof method forward for gun control is to trace both the gun and the bullets back to the seller, vendor and manufacturer in civil lawsuits. That will make the manufacturer a partner with the vendor selling the products, mandating a screening system that is accountable and airtight.
The best and most foolproof method forward for gun control is to trace both the gun and the bullets back to the seller, vendor and manufacturer in civil lawsuits. That will make the manufacturer a partner with the vendor selling the products, mandating a screening system that is accountable and airtight.
2
When people on the left talk about gun control they mean a total ban on guns and in this country it would be far easier to deport 11 million people than to confiscate 100 million (or more) guns. I believe that it is ridiculous to try and deport 11 million people and I know it's impossible to confiscate 100 million guns. The good news is that Bernie Sanders is smart enough to know the truth of both of those statements. That makes me like him even more.
25
I don't think most people on the left believe in a total ban on guns, just making guns harder to get.
Oh dear. The savior of the far left is pro gun.
3
I agree with Bernie.
Maybe that's because I'm a non-gun owner who has good friends who are gun owners. There are lots of responsible gun owners who know how to handle, care for, and store their guns and won't do anything stupid with them. You won't find them walking around a restaurant with an assault rifle, but you will find them at the range target shooting. So any sensible gun control plan puts a minimal burden on those who are doing the right things to ensure their guns are only used when they're supposed to (self-defense, hunting, etc).
Maybe that's because I'm a non-gun owner who has good friends who are gun owners. There are lots of responsible gun owners who know how to handle, care for, and store their guns and won't do anything stupid with them. You won't find them walking around a restaurant with an assault rifle, but you will find them at the range target shooting. So any sensible gun control plan puts a minimal burden on those who are doing the right things to ensure their guns are only used when they're supposed to (self-defense, hunting, etc).
5
Good for him. Maybe he is the most reasonable Democrat candidate after all. He knows the issue is not guns, but mental illness.
1
They have mental illness in the UK don't they? Even crime you will be amazed to learn. So why is our gun homicide rate 30 times that of the UK? Could it have some connection with the fact that 42% of the world's privately held guns are in the US and we have a notoriously lax regulatory regime? What would your explanation be? Pray speak.
1
Isn't it amazing how "mental illness" just doesn't seem to exist in any other developed country?
3
The US is in denial that guns are both a symptom and a vector of mental illness.
This proves what a phony Sanders is. If he was really running for national office he'd take a position applicable to the entire nation. Instead he's more worried about losing his Senate seat one day after he drops out of the nomination contest, of which he has no real hope of winning.
Sanders supporters have been sold a bill of goods.
Sanders supporters have been sold a bill of goods.
7
New York Times,
I find it telling that the gun issue is the ‘only’ issued-related article on Bernie Sanders that you have written and that you have done a poor job of explaining his views. Voters will want to know what Sanders would do to address this issue as president, not the positions that he has taken as senator (and congressman).
You mentioned Sanders’ Boston rally, why didn’t you cover that rally? He drew a crowd of 25,000, a record turnout.
You have written about Hillary Clinton’s college plan (two front page articles) as well as a number of other issues. You have refused to cover Sanders’ common-sense plan to address the serious issues facing this country.
Agenda for America: 12 Steps Forward
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/
1. Rebuild our crumbling infrastructure
2. Reverse climate change
3. Create worker co-ops
4. Grow the trade union movement
5. Raise the minimum wage to a $15 living wage
6. Pay equity for women
7. Trade policies that benefit American workers
8. Make public colleges tuition-free (paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation), and lower interest rates on current student loans
9. Break up the big banks
10. Medicare for all
11. Expand Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and nutrition programs
12. Crack down on off-shore tax havens, return to a progressive tax code, and eliminate corporate tax loopholes
[part 1]
I find it telling that the gun issue is the ‘only’ issued-related article on Bernie Sanders that you have written and that you have done a poor job of explaining his views. Voters will want to know what Sanders would do to address this issue as president, not the positions that he has taken as senator (and congressman).
You mentioned Sanders’ Boston rally, why didn’t you cover that rally? He drew a crowd of 25,000, a record turnout.
You have written about Hillary Clinton’s college plan (two front page articles) as well as a number of other issues. You have refused to cover Sanders’ common-sense plan to address the serious issues facing this country.
Agenda for America: 12 Steps Forward
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/
1. Rebuild our crumbling infrastructure
2. Reverse climate change
3. Create worker co-ops
4. Grow the trade union movement
5. Raise the minimum wage to a $15 living wage
6. Pay equity for women
7. Trade policies that benefit American workers
8. Make public colleges tuition-free (paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation), and lower interest rates on current student loans
9. Break up the big banks
10. Medicare for all
11. Expand Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and nutrition programs
12. Crack down on off-shore tax havens, return to a progressive tax code, and eliminate corporate tax loopholes
[part 1]
35
1. HOW? Where does Sanders suggest the money for rebuilding the infrastructure come from - debt? Federal funds? Local taxes?
2. Reverse climate change? HOW? Cap and trade? Solar - Nothing that Hillary and a dozen others haven't suggested more extensive and comprehensive plans for v. Bernie.
3. Workers Co-ops? Oh - cite a dozen that have succeed and survived more than five years. And this is #3 on Bernie's list?
4. Grow the trade union movement? Skilled union movements have been a rationale for price fixing labor since the Workingman's movement of the 19th century. Please explain or demonstrate how they've helped v. general unionism.
5. Raise the minimum wage to $15? That works the same for NYC as Rutland, Vt. right? LOL
6. Pay equity for women? Yeah, Bernie and everybody else - Hillary has taken the fight world wide including to China - plus, um, she IS a women and has experienced misogyny and discrimination directly- see, most recently Benghazi - trans. 'Get Hillary' Committee - Which Bernie has been hypocritically mute on. If Bernie had actually stressed himself at all in Hillary's defense against the disgusting Republican attacks, instead of smirking opportunistically as his supporters posted 'anyone but Clinton' diatribes, you might find a bit more receptivity to Bernie.
7.Trade policies that benefit American workers? Foreign tariffs? Trade restriction? Go ahead, be specific.
8. Make public colleges tuition free? See Hillary.
Yawn . . .
2. Reverse climate change? HOW? Cap and trade? Solar - Nothing that Hillary and a dozen others haven't suggested more extensive and comprehensive plans for v. Bernie.
3. Workers Co-ops? Oh - cite a dozen that have succeed and survived more than five years. And this is #3 on Bernie's list?
4. Grow the trade union movement? Skilled union movements have been a rationale for price fixing labor since the Workingman's movement of the 19th century. Please explain or demonstrate how they've helped v. general unionism.
5. Raise the minimum wage to $15? That works the same for NYC as Rutland, Vt. right? LOL
6. Pay equity for women? Yeah, Bernie and everybody else - Hillary has taken the fight world wide including to China - plus, um, she IS a women and has experienced misogyny and discrimination directly- see, most recently Benghazi - trans. 'Get Hillary' Committee - Which Bernie has been hypocritically mute on. If Bernie had actually stressed himself at all in Hillary's defense against the disgusting Republican attacks, instead of smirking opportunistically as his supporters posted 'anyone but Clinton' diatribes, you might find a bit more receptivity to Bernie.
7.Trade policies that benefit American workers? Foreign tariffs? Trade restriction? Go ahead, be specific.
8. Make public colleges tuition free? See Hillary.
Yawn . . .
1
[part 2]
Since Sanders announced his candidacy for president, he has introduced legislation to:
1. reduce prescriptions drug costs
2. require states to automatically register individuals to vote if they are eligible and establish Election Day as a national holiday
3. raise the minimum wage to $15
4. provide $5.5 billion for states and local governments to employ one million youth from ages 16 to 24 years old and provide job training to hundreds of thousands of young people who have no job prospects
5. make solar energy more accessible to low-income families
6. guarantee 10 days of paid vacation, Sanders co-sponsored Sen. Gillibrand’s bill guaranteeing 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, and he co-sponsored Sen. Murray’s bill to provide at least seven paid sick days
7. make public colleges tuition-free (paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation), and lower interest rates on current student loans
8. break up the big banks
For details on Sanders’ legislation, go to:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business?PageNum_rs=1
If elected president, Sanders will have a litmus test for his nominee to the Supreme Court: “That nominee will say that we are going to overturn the disastrous decision on Citizens United because that decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians.” Sanders plans to introduce legislation to provide public funding of elections.
NYT, why haven’t you covered these issues?
Since Sanders announced his candidacy for president, he has introduced legislation to:
1. reduce prescriptions drug costs
2. require states to automatically register individuals to vote if they are eligible and establish Election Day as a national holiday
3. raise the minimum wage to $15
4. provide $5.5 billion for states and local governments to employ one million youth from ages 16 to 24 years old and provide job training to hundreds of thousands of young people who have no job prospects
5. make solar energy more accessible to low-income families
6. guarantee 10 days of paid vacation, Sanders co-sponsored Sen. Gillibrand’s bill guaranteeing 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, and he co-sponsored Sen. Murray’s bill to provide at least seven paid sick days
7. make public colleges tuition-free (paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation), and lower interest rates on current student loans
8. break up the big banks
For details on Sanders’ legislation, go to:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business?PageNum_rs=1
If elected president, Sanders will have a litmus test for his nominee to the Supreme Court: “That nominee will say that we are going to overturn the disastrous decision on Citizens United because that decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians.” Sanders plans to introduce legislation to provide public funding of elections.
NYT, why haven’t you covered these issues?
39
"NYT, why haven’t you covered these issues?"
Because you are doing such a great job!
Because you are doing such a great job!
Senator Sanders has just lost my support. He may well represent Vermont, but we need a candidate who represents the USA. I am switching to Vice President Biden. We need -badly-gun control. No other advanced nation has our death rate due to gun violence although they all have the same rates of mental illness and/or personality disorder. The big difference is lack of access to the kind of guns one can easily buy here. I suspect that the latest killer and his enabling gun buying mom both meet criteria for personality disorders, her self "diagnoses" not with standing. Those are exactly the kind of people who should not have guns, but there is no accurate "screening" of potential danger for such.
4
In my opinion, Bernie does a good job of representing the USA. His D- record from the NRA shows that he is not in their bag by a long shot. He is for background checks and a ban on assault weapons. On the other hand there are vast swaths of the country which embrace the gun-culture as part of their heritage and social identity. His position seems well reasoned. For the record, he voted in favor of the gun legislation following Sandy Hook. I do hope you re-evaluate Sanders.
Allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for the mayhem their product is used for makes no more sense than allowing suits against distilleries for the predictable deleterious (and often deadly) effects of drinking bourbon. I have very little sympathy for corporations and less for arms manufacturers, but trying to achieve gun control through the back door by bankrupting gun makers would have set really bad precedents. Sanders vote was right. The same is true of his vote on the Brady Bill.
I hate the NRA and I think the gun culture in this country is crazy and needs to be curbed. The US has the highest rate of gun ownership on the planet by far. Second and third place go to Serbia and Yemen. I understand this.
But I also know that elected officials in liberal enclaves are not above sometimes promoting hollow and demagogic measures that are unlikely to actually make us safer, but that do a great job in whipping up their base.
Anybody who remembers her performance in the 2008 primaries, when she got all wistful about learning to shoot as a girl in order to score points against Obama, will recognize the hypocrisy and opportunism of Hillary Clinton's current "toughness" on guns. Whether you agree with Sanders positions on these two pieces of legislation or not you can be certain that they are actually his positions and that they are unlikely to change when it is expedient for him. Does anybody think that about Ms. Clinton?
I hate the NRA and I think the gun culture in this country is crazy and needs to be curbed. The US has the highest rate of gun ownership on the planet by far. Second and third place go to Serbia and Yemen. I understand this.
But I also know that elected officials in liberal enclaves are not above sometimes promoting hollow and demagogic measures that are unlikely to actually make us safer, but that do a great job in whipping up their base.
Anybody who remembers her performance in the 2008 primaries, when she got all wistful about learning to shoot as a girl in order to score points against Obama, will recognize the hypocrisy and opportunism of Hillary Clinton's current "toughness" on guns. Whether you agree with Sanders positions on these two pieces of legislation or not you can be certain that they are actually his positions and that they are unlikely to change when it is expedient for him. Does anybody think that about Ms. Clinton?
20
Except no one is forcing death-inducing amounts of bourbon down the throats of others' in random and senseless acts of violence over 30,000 times every year. If gun owners just shot themselves or each other your analogy might be legitimate.
I seem to recall tobacco companies being successfully sued for selling tobacco products.
Ban handguns and assault weapons and yes, take them away from those that's got 'em.
12
That's cutting to the chase.
I feel that Senator Sanders has a sensible, nuanced position on gun control. It's not the same as mine, but he's great on so many issues that I'll give him a pass on this one. Although no pun is intended, I think Senator Sanders should stick to his guns on this issue and not worry what your newspaper has to say about him.
24
The main purpose of gun control is crime control. There is no consensus regarding gun control. Almost everyone favors crime control. True leaders get things done. Being right on an issue accomplishes little absent a consensus. I'd vote for a candidate who ignores the gun issue while proposing all kinds of community initiatives designed to weed out known violent criminals and take the initiative to assure that they not possess guns illegally.
7
For the the first time in the Democratic campaign, we are seeing the beginning of a real disagreement on a critical issue -- one made unavoidable by the recent carnage in Oregon. It will be interesting to see what happens when Sanders' adherents -- attracted by their candidate's image of "purity" -- faces a shortcoming on a specific issue. Don't get me wrong -- I think Bernie Sanders is an unusual politician in that he means what he says. But how will his supporters rationalize what he says he means on this critical issue?
10
Val in Brooklyn, NY to Myles in Little Neck. CRUCIAL question. Thank you. I haven't decided which way I'm going btwn Bern & Hill. This is a problem and a potential deal breaker. Mike in Manhattan used the word "nuanced" to describe what he feels is Bernie's view on this. What's nuanced about death? Where's the nuance or grey area in machines made to kill?
I'm torn after seeing videos of Bernie's interviews from this summer. He oozed condescension in suggesting that Blacks voted for Obama because of his skin color. He avoided talk of demographics, preferring to speak of working class whites. Racism & $$ aren't always mutually inclusive. He knows that. BLM embrace or not, it's hard to forget that previous disrespect. And, of course Hillary, her history of prisons, superPacs, etc. But, unless I'm wrong she's better on gun control. Bernie needs to remember, Vermont is only one state. He's got to convince us, too.
Hello, rock and hard place. I must vote. Women's rights, civil rights, etc. But, it's not moot if your dead. If you're afraid you'll get shot. Why can't one person have the courage to discuss repealing the 2nd Amendment. Since some conveniently overlook "well regulated militia," I say get rid of the whole thing. No fence sitting. Death's not political or ambiguous for the victims or families. Enough sophistry. Take a risk. Stand up for what's right.
White House bound? Prove it. Guns or me.
Sub'd: 10-6-15, 2:37 a.m. EST
I'm torn after seeing videos of Bernie's interviews from this summer. He oozed condescension in suggesting that Blacks voted for Obama because of his skin color. He avoided talk of demographics, preferring to speak of working class whites. Racism & $$ aren't always mutually inclusive. He knows that. BLM embrace or not, it's hard to forget that previous disrespect. And, of course Hillary, her history of prisons, superPacs, etc. But, unless I'm wrong she's better on gun control. Bernie needs to remember, Vermont is only one state. He's got to convince us, too.
Hello, rock and hard place. I must vote. Women's rights, civil rights, etc. But, it's not moot if your dead. If you're afraid you'll get shot. Why can't one person have the courage to discuss repealing the 2nd Amendment. Since some conveniently overlook "well regulated militia," I say get rid of the whole thing. No fence sitting. Death's not political or ambiguous for the victims or families. Enough sophistry. Take a risk. Stand up for what's right.
White House bound? Prove it. Guns or me.
Sub'd: 10-6-15, 2:37 a.m. EST
As one of Sanders' "adherents," I can assure you that I'm attracted by his policies, not his "image of 'purity.'" That kind of condescension reminds me of the reactions I got from the "Hillary is inevitable" crowd when I began supporting Barack Obama about 8 years ago.
I a Bernie supporter (morally and financially). Do you want to know how I 'rationalize' his views on guns? I don't! I strongly disagree with his stance on guns, and the stance of probably every member of the US Congress. Fortunately, I do not have to agree with a candidate on every single issue (nor do I expect to). On every other major issue (EVERY one) Bernie beats Hillary hands down.
If someone votes for Hillary over Bernie solely based on the gun issue I think that person is seriously misguided. Hillary is not saying that all guns should be banned, which makes her position every bit as hopeless as every other major politician. She does, however, always advocate for more war in the Middle East, corporate ownership of the electoral process (no opposition to Citizens United), and is willing to sell her candidacy to the highest bidder (whom I believe is Goldman Sachs at the moment).
There simply is not a lot of genuine daylight between Bernie and Hillary's position on gun control (neither would substantially limit gun violence). I don't see how a nuance on this one issue can overcome the enormous gulf between them on just about every other major issue we face.
If someone votes for Hillary over Bernie solely based on the gun issue I think that person is seriously misguided. Hillary is not saying that all guns should be banned, which makes her position every bit as hopeless as every other major politician. She does, however, always advocate for more war in the Middle East, corporate ownership of the electoral process (no opposition to Citizens United), and is willing to sell her candidacy to the highest bidder (whom I believe is Goldman Sachs at the moment).
There simply is not a lot of genuine daylight between Bernie and Hillary's position on gun control (neither would substantially limit gun violence). I don't see how a nuance on this one issue can overcome the enormous gulf between them on just about every other major issue we face.
1
I suppose we should be grateful that the Times has finally decided to actually write about Sanders' record and views, though the interests seems oddly selective.
37
We're very sorry. The bourgeois proclivities of our local rag are completely coincidental. They have nothing to do with our overarching goal of supporting the chosen candidate of the liberal corporate-capitalist intelligentsia.
Pure coincidence, we swear! But I'm sure you'll be very interested to read our upcoming article on Sanders's disgraceful, wasteful use of depends undergarments! Apparently, he never uses the same pair twice! Why? Because he hates the environment. But we all knew that.
Now stop thinking and go vote for Hilary. Baa... Baa...
Pure coincidence, we swear! But I'm sure you'll be very interested to read our upcoming article on Sanders's disgraceful, wasteful use of depends undergarments! Apparently, he never uses the same pair twice! Why? Because he hates the environment. But we all knew that.
Now stop thinking and go vote for Hilary. Baa... Baa...
Yo Chris, every politician running for president is being asked their position on gun control now, even Bernie, after our monthly mass shooting by yet another angry male.
I think Bernie is somewhat sincere. As vague as the wind on specific policies other than offering to spend pots of money, which he will 'get back from taxing Wall Street.' He strikes me as a wordy blow-hard, soft-hearted and soft-headed Bronx uncle with a mediocre mind and strong opinions - in short a boor. In the case of gun industry forces winning a vote from him exempting them from product liability coverage- an opportunistic boor.
21
As the article points out, Sanders' positions on guns have angered both sides. So, what conclusion can be draw? Like every other position Sanders takes, his position on guns is nuanced, pointing to the complexity of the issue. It also shows that Sanders sticks by his principles and is consistent. All of which should be appreciated and valued in a politician (although on the gun issue, some evolution would be nice).
Of the reactions by politicians, what is most shocking is that Hillary would take a controversial stance.
Of the reactions by politicians, what is most shocking is that Hillary would take a controversial stance.
22
So we're not allowed to talk about Senator Sanders positions without hearing non sequitur potshots at Hillary Clinton from his supporters?
3
I haven't read any pro-gun advocates raging about Sanders position. Please explain your post that he's 'getting it from both sides?' What's 'nuanced' about consistently opposing any product liability for the gun industry and singling them out from every other entity for such exemption?
14
The Home Page headline, "Sanders Shies From Tough Stance on Gun Control" seems more editorial statement than descriptive of the delineated reality. If Sanders believes what he is saying -- and there is little reason to think otherwise -- then it is simply wrong to say he is shying away from a "tough stance." There is a huge difference between having a particular stance and shying away from the stance's opposite.
29
Would you prefer, ''Sanders Votes Against Holding Gun Makers Liable for Deaths" - That would accurately represent his position on that legislation. I get that Vermont is rural and that people want to be able to shoot varmints. But, how does that relate or compute to extending a special papal dispensation to the gun industry on product liability??? It is unique among all industry in being totally exempt from public product liability.
If the auto industry had had Sanders-like support - there would be no seat belts, airbags, speed limit, and Ford Pintos would still be zipping around like firebombs on wheels.
If the auto industry had had Sanders-like support - there would be no seat belts, airbags, speed limit, and Ford Pintos would still be zipping around like firebombs on wheels.
10
I can't remember in which of the last tragic shootings I left a comment stating that nothing will change, and that we will continue to read about these shootings.
I stand correct.
Also, I stated that it is not the NRA that is at fault. They are simply wielding their power.
The blame is on the elected officials who supposedly represent the people.
We can scream all we want, but at the end of it all it's money (NRA) that they will listen to.
I am saying this once again.
Nothing will change.
I stand correct.
Also, I stated that it is not the NRA that is at fault. They are simply wielding their power.
The blame is on the elected officials who supposedly represent the people.
We can scream all we want, but at the end of it all it's money (NRA) that they will listen to.
I am saying this once again.
Nothing will change.
5
It will only change if people decide not to commit mass killings, or if someone on the scene can stop the attack. As it is, law enforcement should be praised in this case for getting there fast, getting everybody out, and stopping the attack before it got worse.
Nothing will stay the same.
I agree. There will be a pile of teddy bears, cards and flowers at the next murder scene. A candlelight prayer vigil. Survivors/witnesses/heroes will go on morning news programs. Everyone will talk about how nice the dead were. There will be talk about how the community will come together and heal.
But no one will do anything about guns.
But no one will do anything about guns.
Gun control is the single issue on which Hillary Clinton is to Bernie Sanders' left. For those who see gun control as the single, most important issue for 2016, a vote for Clinton or O'Malley might be appropriate.
My salient issues are economic growth, safety net issues and income inequality, and I feel that Sanders is head and shoulders above Clinton on these matters. Hence, my support for Sanders.
Moreover, Sanders is hardly anti-gun control-- as his D- NRA rating attests. I can readily accept Sanders' positions on gun control-- especially because I admire his stances on issues affecting middle-class, working and poor Americans.
My salient issues are economic growth, safety net issues and income inequality, and I feel that Sanders is head and shoulders above Clinton on these matters. Hence, my support for Sanders.
Moreover, Sanders is hardly anti-gun control-- as his D- NRA rating attests. I can readily accept Sanders' positions on gun control-- especially because I admire his stances on issues affecting middle-class, working and poor Americans.
29
Gun control should be reduced to a simple 5-point plan.
1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic "assault" weapons outright. There is no defensible case for citizens to own these.
2. Ban all handguns and concealable firearms outright. Again, if hunting and farming are the main use case, why are these needed?
3. Ban all firearms from urban areas. No hunting and farming there.
4. Institute large-scale buyback programs and enforce these laws strictly.
5. Once guns are brought down to a non-threatening level, take them away from cops too (possibly excepting a rifle in the car for emergencies.)
1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic "assault" weapons outright. There is no defensible case for citizens to own these.
2. Ban all handguns and concealable firearms outright. Again, if hunting and farming are the main use case, why are these needed?
3. Ban all firearms from urban areas. No hunting and farming there.
4. Institute large-scale buyback programs and enforce these laws strictly.
5. Once guns are brought down to a non-threatening level, take them away from cops too (possibly excepting a rifle in the car for emergencies.)
8
Uh huh. Maybe you need to move to Australia, where they confiscated all guns from private owners.
Meanwhile: you are the EXACT reason that I am a Lifetime Member of the NRA.
Meanwhile: you are the EXACT reason that I am a Lifetime Member of the NRA.
2
you are cherry picking here, you see one guy who is super extreme and fits into your world view, and assume that everyone else is just like him. it would be like me saying all conservatives want slavery back because I heard one right wing radio host support it. the overwhelming majority of liberals do not want what this guy is advocating for. most liberals just want guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and past criminals, along with a ban on guns that have no purpose but to kill another human.
Meanwhile: you are the EXACT reason I'm happy not to have to live in the United States. It occurs to me that someone who is so chronically unhappy about everything has no business with guns in the house. Do yourself and your neighbors a favor and get rid of all -- what? -- 13 of them.
This Sanders is from a rural state where guns are OK excuse is ridiculous. New York has many times more rural area than Vermont. New York's 21st Congressional District alone is so rural that it is larger than the entire state of Vermont. New York hunters harvest 20 times as many deer as Vermont hunters despite the fact that we have strictest gun laws in the country and Vermont has the laxest. Vermont has plenty of gun accidents and gun suicides. Recently a Vermonter shot his neighbor while carelessly target shooting in his back yard. Stricter gun laws wouldn't hurt Vermont hunters one bit. Sanders' rural state dodge is baloney.
12
“If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.” -- Bernie Sanders. Obviously not enough Americans have died for him to do something about it.
11
Every state is a mix of rural, suburban and urban areas, so they all have the same mixture of interests.
4
Well, you have just admitted you have never been anywhere besides the big coastal cities (and EUROPE of course).
I have some news for you -- Montana is not like Florida. Oregon is not like Nevada. New Jersey is not remotely like Nebraska.
I have some news for you -- Montana is not like Florida. Oregon is not like Nevada. New Jersey is not remotely like Nebraska.
3
And Mississippi is like none of those.
Why is it so difficult for politicians to draw the distinction between long guns, including shotguns, used for hunting, and hand guns and other types of weapons that can be fitted with high-capacity magazines?
6
I'm a longtime supporter of the Brady Campaign. I'm a supporter of Bernie Sanders. I think Sanders was wrong to oppose the Brady Bill. But there is no such thing as the perfect candidate. This article's "gotcha" tone, and its positing of a way for Hillary to use Sanders' record to political advantage is simply another example of Hillary's lack of political belief, other than the imperative of getting herself elected President.
Sadly, Sanders is right about gun control laws being difficult to pass and enforce. The biggest roadblock is the Heller decision which, for the first time in American history, enshrined an individual constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." That the so-called "originalist" Antonin Scalia chose to fully ignore the second amendment's opening clause, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Well-regulated militia, a phrase meaning nothing to Scalia. Yet he acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms is REGULARLY infringed. Can't take a gun on a plane, or even to visit Scalia himself. And that second amendment doesn't mention guns. Can you own a bazooka or a tactical nuclear weapon?
There are as many guns as people in this country, which is incompatible with safety or sanity.
I'm disappointed with Sanders, but he's improving on the subject. But even with a huge blind spot, he's far superior to any other candidate.
Sadly, Sanders is right about gun control laws being difficult to pass and enforce. The biggest roadblock is the Heller decision which, for the first time in American history, enshrined an individual constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." That the so-called "originalist" Antonin Scalia chose to fully ignore the second amendment's opening clause, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Well-regulated militia, a phrase meaning nothing to Scalia. Yet he acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms is REGULARLY infringed. Can't take a gun on a plane, or even to visit Scalia himself. And that second amendment doesn't mention guns. Can you own a bazooka or a tactical nuclear weapon?
There are as many guns as people in this country, which is incompatible with safety or sanity.
I'm disappointed with Sanders, but he's improving on the subject. But even with a huge blind spot, he's far superior to any other candidate.
24
The claim that the Second Amendment presupposes a militia tie is somewhat questionable. The English Bill of Rights (1689) had a number of provisions included a century later in the US Bill of Rights, of which one was "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law." (Other provisions included the right to petition the king, freedom of speech and exemption of parliamentary debate from prosecution, and prohibition of excessive bail and of cruel and unusual punishments). There was no mention of a militia.
These rights of Englishmen certainly were well known by those who participated in writing the Constitution and its first ten amendments, and it is likely that they intended the Second Amendment to have essentially the same meaning (other than the limitation to Protestants) as the English Bill of Rights a century earlier.
These rights of Englishmen certainly were well known by those who participated in writing the Constitution and its first ten amendments, and it is likely that they intended the Second Amendment to have essentially the same meaning (other than the limitation to Protestants) as the English Bill of Rights a century earlier.
"Gun control"
Yeah, sure... as if the blue states are going to march into the red states with the Army and confiscate all their guns. How stupid do you think we are? It's never, ever, going to happen in this country. Why? Because it'll never, ever, happen in California, for one thing.
Yeah, sure... as if the blue states are going to march into the red states with the Army and confiscate all their guns. How stupid do you think we are? It's never, ever, going to happen in this country. Why? Because it'll never, ever, happen in California, for one thing.
5
I seem to recall Andy that the blue states had to march into the gray states once to redress a crime against humanity called 'slavery'. Perhaps the blue states may need to do something similar again to bring the right-wing gun-toting hillbillies under control.
How many million lives are you willing to sacrifice to accomplish this fool's errand?
No one wants to take away a good guy's gun. Only just try to limit the number of bad guys with guns. How will we know who's a good guy? They'll be the one happy to demonstrate responsibility for their guns by registering them every couple of years. We have cars that are registered with proof of insurance and the ability to pass a driving test. Everyone who has any professional job that could be a danger is licensed and registered. Would you like to get medical care or fly on a plane with people who aren't licensed? This take away your guns stuff is pure nonsense. And, if you don't want to register your guns because you want to violently overthrow our democratically elected government you are too stupid to have a gun in your possession. The South tried to overthrow our duly elected government. How did that work out for everybody?
7
People kill people just like cars don't kill people do. We live in time of savagery an getting worse road rage is all time high . Think agun about guns before trusting people who have anqwers to all problems
1
This man is right on. He calls it like it is.
I hope I get to vote for him.
I hope I get to vote for him.
9
The glaring deficit of the Sander's campaign,on Gun control,surely relegates him to 2nd tier status,in this heart breaking segment of American history.Regardless of his 'home state and region's proclivity for firearms,his political posture must be 'bigger.The embrace of practical safeguards to prevent the string of recent tragedies,must have a national endorsement.Hillary Clinton has made such a position,central to her campaign. I applaud her for her sensible courage.Practicality demands that 'we,do something.The tried and true,asinine(imho)that 2nd Amendment infringements are intolerable and unamerican,is preposterous.Gun enthusiasts claim no 'law, can stop a truly determined individual.So why even TRY?The defeatism of That state of mind,is terminal to this society.Something must be done,regardless of NRA sentiments.The whole world is Watching...
1
Honesty is difficult to find when applied to American politicians.
40 years in office and the best thrown at Bernie is that he is a socialist and now a gun lover. Caring about the people who elected you does not make anyone anything except a great representative.
Bernie has positions on many issues and each shows his courage.
So please look at his website for his reasoned and rationale views on many topics of concern to Americans, young and old, black and white, male and female, immigrants and other minorities.
The media and sadly the NYT as part of that group have not been as honest as Bernie. Most coverage if that is a term that could be used is highly selective and often used to try to denigrate him.
What America needs is a sane and honest president. A president who represents all Americans and not the only the 1%. Should that not be clear, please consider the delusional, in denial, insane and egotistical opposition candidates. They have less to say of value on this subject and most others.
Readers in New York State should know that the deadline to register Democratic is October 9. Register right now on the Internet and if inclined to consider Bernie, vote for him in the primary.
My 93 year old (when he died) dad always said, "In America you get a chance to vote for the crook of your choice." He never considered Bernie because Bernie was not there as a presidental candidate nor would my father consider him a crook. NYT readers have a chance to vote. Take it!
40 years in office and the best thrown at Bernie is that he is a socialist and now a gun lover. Caring about the people who elected you does not make anyone anything except a great representative.
Bernie has positions on many issues and each shows his courage.
So please look at his website for his reasoned and rationale views on many topics of concern to Americans, young and old, black and white, male and female, immigrants and other minorities.
The media and sadly the NYT as part of that group have not been as honest as Bernie. Most coverage if that is a term that could be used is highly selective and often used to try to denigrate him.
What America needs is a sane and honest president. A president who represents all Americans and not the only the 1%. Should that not be clear, please consider the delusional, in denial, insane and egotistical opposition candidates. They have less to say of value on this subject and most others.
Readers in New York State should know that the deadline to register Democratic is October 9. Register right now on the Internet and if inclined to consider Bernie, vote for him in the primary.
My 93 year old (when he died) dad always said, "In America you get a chance to vote for the crook of your choice." He never considered Bernie because Bernie was not there as a presidental candidate nor would my father consider him a crook. NYT readers have a chance to vote. Take it!
5
While most gun-related killings could be prevented by appropriate, rational gun control measures, mass killings represent a much smaller number of deaths. They differ from most shootings in that they are mainly copycat-type crimes in which the shooter was looking for glorification and consciously studied previous mass killings. In the Oregon shooting, the killer wrote about prior mass killings and noted that the shooters achieved notoriety. The same happened in Newtown. Consider this: with a series of subway suicides in Austria, authorities persuaded the media to avoid printing the names, avoid putting the stories on the front page, and keep the word "suicide" out of the headlines. The contagion of those subway suicides quickly subsided, the numbers dropped 75%. It is clear now that by publicizing the info about these killers, the media are setting the stage for future mass killings.
6
I'm sorry, but the right to kill a deer or a duck because it's "fun" is not more important than protecting innocent human lives. I'm so tired of listening to politicians kowtow to the "sport" firearm lobby. If badminton were responsible for 33,000 deaths in a year you can be darn sure racquets would be taken off the shelves.
I'm even more sick of politicians in states like Vermont pretending that gun violence is a problem only for "dangerous" urban centers like, well, Chicago. As a matter of fact we have some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country, but it's all for nothing when permissive states (like Vermont) keep the flood of legal guns flowing. We've got plenty of problems here at home, but lax laws in places like VT are partially responsible for the children who are murdered in Chicago. A politician who doesn't get that doesn't get my vote.
I'm even more sick of politicians in states like Vermont pretending that gun violence is a problem only for "dangerous" urban centers like, well, Chicago. As a matter of fact we have some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country, but it's all for nothing when permissive states (like Vermont) keep the flood of legal guns flowing. We've got plenty of problems here at home, but lax laws in places like VT are partially responsible for the children who are murdered in Chicago. A politician who doesn't get that doesn't get my vote.
10
"If badminton were responsible for 33,000 deaths in a year you can be darn sure racquets would be taken off the shelves."
Right. Like cigarettes?
Right. Like cigarettes?
1
Clearly these maddening events are caused by people who are deranged and I have no sympathy with those who want no control over any weapons.
I do not consider a firearm with a limited capacity in one's home, properly monitored and secured an unreasonable right. Nor do i consider the use of arms for sport or even their increasingly limited use in hunting unreasonable.
However I do not consider firearms with large capacity magazines that have been developed for armed assaults in war to have an actual purpose in any civilized nation and do not think they should be available for use or purchase.
If we cannot live with reason there is no basis for society; and arms developed for large scale killing are not reasonable.
I do not consider a firearm with a limited capacity in one's home, properly monitored and secured an unreasonable right. Nor do i consider the use of arms for sport or even their increasingly limited use in hunting unreasonable.
However I do not consider firearms with large capacity magazines that have been developed for armed assaults in war to have an actual purpose in any civilized nation and do not think they should be available for use or purchase.
If we cannot live with reason there is no basis for society; and arms developed for large scale killing are not reasonable.
6
I grew up on Long island and don't ever recall seeing a gun, save for police or military. I moved to Vermont 40 years ago and the difference was striking. Guns, particularly rifles, were commonplace. In gun racks on pickup trucks, slung over a shoulder in hunting season. Lots of natives hunt every year and freeze the meat. If you happen to live way out in the hills, there can be no cop to call. You wait for the state police or possibly a sheriff.....so protection can be an issue. It's just different here and gives one pause about the nuances of trying to impose a broad policy accross diverse environments. Most Vermont politicians, democrat or republican, support gun owner rights.......or they wouldn't get elected.
7
The media and many well-meaning liberal currents of opinion have been emphasizing the issues of gun control, and same-sex marriage to the exclusion of issues of rising inequality and the class-based nature of who rules in America. Of course, those other issues are important, but Bernie is one of the only ones who has had the courage to defend the rights of workers and others who have been left behind in the frantic race to amass wealth. He understands that you first have to show the average voter that you will fight for his interests and then you will have the chance to win them over on issues of gun control and
social issues. Cuomo and Clinton and others show that it is possible to take the "right" stance on social issues while making sure not to touch the real issues of economic power. We need people like Bernie to lead the way for real change.
social issues. Cuomo and Clinton and others show that it is possible to take the "right" stance on social issues while making sure not to touch the real issues of economic power. We need people like Bernie to lead the way for real change.
11
Wow, a politician who can think for himself, and refuses to run with the herd! Sander's politics aren't mine, and I don't think he has much chance of becoming president, but more and more I have to admire his integrity.
10
These gun control arguments mainly revolve around the purchase of firearms, regulating sales, increasing background checks, closing loopholes. There are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms already in circulation in the U.S. and untold billions of rounds of ammunition, more than enough to murder every U.S. citizen several times over. If gun sales were blanket banned tomorrow it is doubtful this would have much effect on gun violence given the firearms saturation in the country. If the government mandated every citizen to sell their firearms and ammunition to the government for confiscation only law abiding citizens would comply, leaving outlaws armed, as the old cliché goes. If gun and ammunition sales were banned immediately it would probably take several generations for all the firepower in the nation to wind down through attrition.
3
"If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen"
The strongest gun control legislation would lead to the laws most nations have, where people simply cannot own guns or can have maybe one gun. Obviously, this would have a profound effect. No doubt we can't get the strongest gun control legislation in this country, but at least we could say 13 guns are 12 too many.
The strongest gun control legislation would lead to the laws most nations have, where people simply cannot own guns or can have maybe one gun. Obviously, this would have a profound effect. No doubt we can't get the strongest gun control legislation in this country, but at least we could say 13 guns are 12 too many.
1
I think a lot of Democrats who don't support Saunders, and not just Clinton supporters, are grabbing onto this as their 'A-ha!' moment. Finally, an opportunity to take him down!
But Saunders' position on this is not only more in line with most Americans, but is also most likely to produce something. As long as the issue is presented as either/or reform will continue to go nowhere. As long as gun ownership is entrenched in the Bill of Rights,efforts to restrict it will have the burden of proof weighed against them.
But Saunders' position on this is not only more in line with most Americans, but is also most likely to produce something. As long as the issue is presented as either/or reform will continue to go nowhere. As long as gun ownership is entrenched in the Bill of Rights,efforts to restrict it will have the burden of proof weighed against them.
9
So if Bernie's stance on guns is so righteous, why has he never introduced any of his common sense in the form of legislation even once during his 23 years in Congress? If Sanders hasn't gotten around to it in 23 years, anyone would be hard pressed to proclaim it is a priority. Maybe it is because he can't get a backer because he seems to have almost zero close colleagues in a body where he has spent his career?
Bernie Sanders is the NRA's candidate in the democratic race. I bet the gun manufacturers have bankrolled him by the millions.
1
TV coverage and its dramatic exploitation of these tragedies to increase ratings is also responsible for the proliferation of these massacres.
But we should no more control the freedom of the press to act irresponsibly than to control the rights to bear arms.
But we should no more control the freedom of the press to act irresponsibly than to control the rights to bear arms.
1
I am glad Bernie Sanders does not want to be distracted from the one giant issue: INCOME INEQUALITY. Everything else is a side show by sleazy politicians who want to perpetuate the rule of injustice and greed.
8
I agree wholeheartedly; what is often ignored by those inclined to draw comparisons between the US and other developed countries is the horrible economic and social pressure suffered by our population as the result of income inequality. We are not Denmark, Sweden, Australia, Japan, or Canada. I believe Sanders understands that in the US, should you stumble, odds are no one will be there to catch you. You are on your own.
What does the freedom to carry a concealed weapon without a permit have to do with hunting?
5
I hope someone leaks the photos of the children from sandyhook. Just like the Vietnam war, when Americans saw enough dead Americans, they protested relentlessly until the war ended. As horrid as this may sound, it just may get the result we need.
5
when someone decides to form a group AFTER Newtown, I'd expect that peron to be violently AGAINST any sort of guncontrol, and completely in favor of a total ban on guns in the hands of civilians.
have we learned nothing?
We will never know whose hands are the "wrong" hands
Shame on all who waffle and continue to support gun ownership. Are you listening Bernie?
I sincerely hope neither you, nor any of your family members EVER become victim of the 'wrong' hands. (or the "right" hands, for that matter)
have we learned nothing?
We will never know whose hands are the "wrong" hands
Shame on all who waffle and continue to support gun ownership. Are you listening Bernie?
I sincerely hope neither you, nor any of your family members EVER become victim of the 'wrong' hands. (or the "right" hands, for that matter)
c, did you watch Clinton's video? She did not advocate a ban of all guns in America. She was quite cagey actually, saying that she wishes that responsible gun owners and hunters would form a group separate from extremists. Clinton supports, " responsible gun owners and hunters." I agree that it is impossible to distinguish the right hands from the wrong hands in all cases, but I would say also, if I advocated a complete ban on guns, are you listening Bernie, and Clinton ?
Please don't compare gun ownership in rural Vermont with urban areas like Detroit or Baltimore. Nothing will change until the rich have their children slaughtered by a mad man.
Where have you been?
2
When I've heard him explain his stance, it makes sense.
11
Democrats in Vermont have never pushed for additional state gun control laws, though there is support for making State gathered information made available to the Federal data base. And as the article notes, the lack of such laws does not seem to create a problem here. If the Democrats pushed for a tighter gun control agenda, they would lose their overwhelming majority. We do have a Progressive party, which is farther to the left than the Democrats, and actually elects candidates in the Burlington area.
6
If you live in Massachusetts and you want a gun, you go to Vermont.
The devastation wrought by a country awash in guns, with little regulation of who may have them or how much damage they can do, is not borne just by the children who are murdered in their classrooms. It's also borne by the millions of children who are subjected to routine lockdown drills in their classrooms, rehearsing for the possibility that a lunatic with an arsenal will mow them down there.
Sanders tells us we have to respect the right of rural Americans to their guns. Sorry Senator: it's more than time for the gun lovers and the lawmakers who defend them to start respecting the rights of our children not to live in terror, even if it means sacrificing their guns. Any supposed Democrat who can't step up to the plate for that agenda shouldn't be in office, let alone be president.
Sanders tells us we have to respect the right of rural Americans to their guns. Sorry Senator: it's more than time for the gun lovers and the lawmakers who defend them to start respecting the rights of our children not to live in terror, even if it means sacrificing their guns. Any supposed Democrat who can't step up to the plate for that agenda shouldn't be in office, let alone be president.
50
Yes oh yes. I wonder if people without school age kids are aware that in schools across our country, children practice hiding quietly in their schools, not from a tornado, but from a madman with guns.
1
Why should one have to read between the lines to realize that Mr. Sanders' position on gun control is exactly the same as Ms. Clinton's?
Because the Times has a fetish: a fetish with optics and the political horserace.
Guess what? Your fetish is not helping the culture of politics.
Because the Times has a fetish: a fetish with optics and the political horserace.
Guess what? Your fetish is not helping the culture of politics.
16
Oh,really? Their records are not the same:
"And in 2005, he voted in favor of a bill to shield gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits. (Mrs. Clinton, then a senator from New York, voted against that bill, and is pledging to repeal it as part of her gun control plan.)"
"And in 2005, he voted in favor of a bill to shield gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits. (Mrs. Clinton, then a senator from New York, voted against that bill, and is pledging to repeal it as part of her gun control plan.)"
There is a profound difference between proposing a national policy and leaving it all the the states.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress specific powers to regulate militias which the second amendement does not repeal or supercede. Only a national gun policy can be effective now that long distance travel is so easy.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress specific powers to regulate militias which the second amendement does not repeal or supercede. Only a national gun policy can be effective now that long distance travel is so easy.
Right-wing media has been working 24/7 for decades to whip large swaths of American society into a heightened state of paranoia over "socialism," "tyranny," immigrants, crime, people of color, and bums who, the propaganda mill says, make a career of mooching off "law-abiding citizens."
Guns are are huge problem in the USA, but it is the reasons that guns are everywhere-- the mental illness under which supposedly normal Americans are laboring -- that is the bigger problem.
Politicians pump American exceptionalism simultaneously as right-wing media pumps out paranoia and hatred for imaginary bogey men. American society is crazy. Millions of people with grandiose delusions because they are Americans! are furious at Obama, welfare cheats, homeless people, immigrants, black people, "socialists," "the left," "liberals" and scared to death of all of the above.
It isn't the guns. And it isn't mentally disturbed individuals. It is a mentally disturbed society.
Have you ever seen the 1940 film "The Mortal Storm?" It portrays how Nazi ideology pervaded every facet of German society in the 1930's: small towns, schools, families. I am not saying the USA is a giant Nazi loony bin. I am saying the USA is a giant angry right-wing loony bin. And this looniness serves the political ambitions of a reactionary faction -- with the consequence that millions of unstable, poorly informed personalities are armed to the teeth.
Guns are are huge problem in the USA, but it is the reasons that guns are everywhere-- the mental illness under which supposedly normal Americans are laboring -- that is the bigger problem.
Politicians pump American exceptionalism simultaneously as right-wing media pumps out paranoia and hatred for imaginary bogey men. American society is crazy. Millions of people with grandiose delusions because they are Americans! are furious at Obama, welfare cheats, homeless people, immigrants, black people, "socialists," "the left," "liberals" and scared to death of all of the above.
It isn't the guns. And it isn't mentally disturbed individuals. It is a mentally disturbed society.
Have you ever seen the 1940 film "The Mortal Storm?" It portrays how Nazi ideology pervaded every facet of German society in the 1930's: small towns, schools, families. I am not saying the USA is a giant Nazi loony bin. I am saying the USA is a giant angry right-wing loony bin. And this looniness serves the political ambitions of a reactionary faction -- with the consequence that millions of unstable, poorly informed personalities are armed to the teeth.
67
I have not seen "The Mortal Storm".
I get my history from history books, not Hollywood movies.
I get my history from history books, not Hollywood movies.
2
Nice try, but many, if not most, of the non-suicide gun deaths are in the black community and no one has the political courage to talk about it or deal with it. Let's use evidence-based epidemiology to address this problem, as Nick Kristof suggests, and not base our reactions on right or LEFT wing propaganda. I'm not saying the US is a Commie loony bin. I am saying the USA is a giant angry left-wing loony bin... that's only interested in facts and science when the subject is climate change (a la Bernie Sanders).
3
I agree with everything you wrote here.
1
Amazing, simply amazing!
You constant read the comments in the newspaper from Sanders supporters complaining that this newspaper does not report on what Bernie Sanders has to say.
Now, we get an article that shows that Sanders is simply another two-faced politician who refuses to take a stand on the problem of gun control and what do we get - more complaints or accusations that somehow quoting what Sanders has to say is just another example of the "bias" this newspaper has for Bernie Sanders.
This reaction, on a serious issue that desperately needs to be addressed, is a perfect example of why serious people need to reject the Sanders bandwagon, because in the end, Bernie Sanders is a political cipher who not only lacks influence, but is not worth supporting because he doesn't have the guts to take on serious and controversial issues, like gun control and the culture of gun violence in this country that kill so many people each year in our country.
You constant read the comments in the newspaper from Sanders supporters complaining that this newspaper does not report on what Bernie Sanders has to say.
Now, we get an article that shows that Sanders is simply another two-faced politician who refuses to take a stand on the problem of gun control and what do we get - more complaints or accusations that somehow quoting what Sanders has to say is just another example of the "bias" this newspaper has for Bernie Sanders.
This reaction, on a serious issue that desperately needs to be addressed, is a perfect example of why serious people need to reject the Sanders bandwagon, because in the end, Bernie Sanders is a political cipher who not only lacks influence, but is not worth supporting because he doesn't have the guts to take on serious and controversial issues, like gun control and the culture of gun violence in this country that kill so many people each year in our country.
13
Clinton supporter
What's YOUR solution to the problem of gun control? Don't bother... it ain't gonna ever happen.
1
Democrats should always be aware that the Republicans spend about a third of their budget to sabotage the Democratic Party by backing its weakest candidates. The word on the street is that Republican operatives are stroking Bernie's tumescent ego.
Joe Biden would be wise to discount the flattery he gets too.
Joe Biden would be wise to discount the flattery he gets too.
Bernie Sanders isn't shying away from gun control issues. Here are his stances and policies inclusive of his stance on mental health issues relating to gun violence:
:http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/
:http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/
32
A day (or so) late and a dollar short:
In a statement on Monday, Mr. Sanders said his campaign was assembling a package of proposals to address gun violence. He expressed support for closing the so-called gun show loophole and for banning assault weapons, among other things.
In a statement on Monday, Mr. Sanders said his campaign was assembling a package of proposals to address gun violence. He expressed support for closing the so-called gun show loophole and for banning assault weapons, among other things.
2
Guns are out of control because the states undermine each other. The US needs a national gun policy for a nation where anyone can drive through several states in a day.
2
Agree with you about need for national gun policy.
Needless, mindless gun violence is one of our most pressing domestic issues in this presidential campaign.
On this issue, Bernie Sanders is channeling The Donald and Jeb! with such defeatism. This is profoundly disappointing, especially his remarks that gun legislation belongs only with the states. As Bernie knows, states do not have customs controls at their borders, making strict-control states sitting ducks for the iron pipeline from the 24/7 guns everywhere states like Georgia.
Further, his suggestion that tighter regulation will fail to accomplish anything, so let's sit on our hands and accept the carnage constitutes anything but leadership, even in hunter-happy Vermont. Try spinning that line to gun victims' families and loved ones. He'd lose their votes in the blink of an eye, just as he is losing mine.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
On this issue, Bernie Sanders is channeling The Donald and Jeb! with such defeatism. This is profoundly disappointing, especially his remarks that gun legislation belongs only with the states. As Bernie knows, states do not have customs controls at their borders, making strict-control states sitting ducks for the iron pipeline from the 24/7 guns everywhere states like Georgia.
Further, his suggestion that tighter regulation will fail to accomplish anything, so let's sit on our hands and accept the carnage constitutes anything but leadership, even in hunter-happy Vermont. Try spinning that line to gun victims' families and loved ones. He'd lose their votes in the blink of an eye, just as he is losing mine.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
7
Although certainly senseless killing is horrific, you are wrong about it being the most pressing domestic issue. Gallup ranked it as number 22 on the list.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
2
Please suggest something that would have stopped the shooting in Oregon short of complete ban and confiscation of weapons?
If you can't, you must admit Sanders is right and anything else is magical thinking.
If you can't, you must admit Sanders is right and anything else is magical thinking.
27
Allow me. What if the Oregon shooter had been required to annually renew a license to keep each weapon (including requiring a note from his doctor) and another license to carry his weapons based on demonstrated need, and been required to pay for liability insurance for each weapon and bullet he owned, with the cost in proportion to killing potential. What if he had been subject to strict requirements for storing his guns in a locked case and his ammo at a minimum distance, also in a locked case. What if, when he failed to renew his licenses and keep up his insurance, the ATF had the right to confiscate his guns.
The states with the strictest gun control laws are the biggest failures at preventing gun violence. Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the country, and also some of the fewest, and least restrictive gun laws. Oregon just passed new gun laws, with the "help" of Michael Bloomberg's money (and ideology). We can all see how well that worked out.
14
Vermont is an exception. See the trend here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/gun_control_by_state_t...
The data show there is a high correlation between stronger gun controls and lower gun-related death rates. If you want to argue impact of policy you need to look at all the data.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/gun_control_by_state_t...
The data show there is a high correlation between stronger gun controls and lower gun-related death rates. If you want to argue impact of policy you need to look at all the data.
Not sure what point you're trying to make, other than you really like guns and dislike all this talk about ways to deal with a significant and costly public health problem. Also I take it you don't like self-made billionaires using their money for purposes other than to amass more wealth for themselves. And clearly you think Vermont is great and Oregon isn't. Because people in Oregon are trying to do something about gun violence and you seem pleased that a troubled kid who moved to Oregon from California, acquired 12 guns, and shattered the lives of innocent families in a small Oregon community. Only hope you aren't representative of other Vermonters and feel lucky that the shooter's mom, a nurse, wasn't offered a job in your state and innocent families in Vermont were spared. A bit twisted...
If you want to see something interesting that defies the headlines and political images, note that for years Vermont has had perhaps the most lax gun laws in the nation.
And it is among the most peaceful, which defies the conventional wisdom.
Check it out.
One hypothesis is that Vermont is one of the few states or locales left in the US where town meeting government reigns. People actually talk to each other, rather than calling each other names.
One might also check out the many rural areas of the US where community is more powerful than guns, even though guns are present.
Life is just a bit more complex, and positive, than most headlines suggest.
And it is among the most peaceful, which defies the conventional wisdom.
Check it out.
One hypothesis is that Vermont is one of the few states or locales left in the US where town meeting government reigns. People actually talk to each other, rather than calling each other names.
One might also check out the many rural areas of the US where community is more powerful than guns, even though guns are present.
Life is just a bit more complex, and positive, than most headlines suggest.
38
Not very many people in Vermont. Even less diversity. Small population of not dissimilar people should facilitate community and diminish social friction and name calling. Crime rate should be lower regardless of gun laws or the special relationship people there have with their guns. Maybe things are just so great because of an abundance of those splendid small colleges like Middlebury, Williams, Bowdoin, and Amherst. Not much to Vermont's experience that applies to America's shooting problem. Except, maybe, that voracious appetite for heroin. As Mick sings (the one with simply red locks) "heaven is where nothing ever happens...".
Another theory about VT's lack of gun violence is it is completely homogenous being 95% white, second oldest state statistically, and 650,00 people live there. Not at all similar to the rest of US. Many of the guns purchased in VT are taken to states with gun control laws, completely obliterating Berne's stance that all gun laws should be made by states and favor what old white men demand locally, no matter the ultimate price many people must pay for their version of recreation. Old white men who rarely leave the house are not representative of this country, so Bernie should just represent VT instead of trying to make all of us fit into their statistical anomaly of a state.
Yes Marty - if all our states were 95% white, middle class, stoner, ex-hippies, we wouldn't need gun control. Yah mon!
Bernie Sanders has a sensible approach to gun control because Americans have a 2nd Amendment right to own weapons and nothing will change that. He does support universal background checks and closing the gun show loop hole. Suing gun manufacturers is a silly approach because it would make guns too expensive for law-abiding gun owners. Sanders takes a common sense approach to guns which will be a first step towards accomplishing real reform.
49
Of course, here we go again on that 2nd amendment thing: the second half of it making the militia the ones to keep the guns. (Any of the mass shooters in a "militia?" I didn't think so).
The NRA is sort of like Fox News: if they say it enough times it becomes the truth.
The NRA is sort of like Fox News: if they say it enough times it becomes the truth.
so on this issue bernie says we have to start talking to each other? just last week bernie was bragging that unlike "naive" obama, he wouldn't try to deal with republicans at all. i thought his idea for enacting change is having millions of permanent demonstrators taking to the streets to put pressure on lawmakers until his marvelous ideas became reality. i guess just not with gun control.
7
I expect the issue is whether Mr. Sanders the Vermont Senator believes he will be the President for Vermont or the President for the United States. I believe he knows that Vermont is not particularly representative of the country as a whole even if his policies might be popular and make sense for Vermont. He will figure out where his allegiance lies and make that clear as he proceeds.
38
mr. sanders leading the polls in new hampshire and iowa should tell you that he IS particularly looking like he's represenative of our country as a whole and his policies ARE popular around the country and make sense for this country.
1
On the other hand, Sen. Sanders may be aware, even if most other Democrats have forgotten (or never learned) that "USA" does not stand for the "United State of America" and that since the form of government is that of a constitutional republic, with the individual states retaining sovereign rights, the federal government does not have carte blanche to impose one-size-fits-all regulations on the entire population.
States deserve to have flexibility in adopting solutions that suit their own conditions, as has been taking place with respect to marijuana laws - another area where the federal government could make a positive contribution by simply getting out of the way.
Vermont obviously has a (very libertarian) system in place WRT guns that works well for them and has a several hundred year track record of working.
If gun control advocates were really about reducing gun violence as opposed to simply being about *control* they would be looking at Vermont and trying to figure out how its positive features might be applied elsewhere.
Vermonters do not need to be subjected to a federally imposed "fix" just because Chicago or LA are broken. If Bernie recognizes this it may make him an outlier among Dems, but it will make a lot of *former* Democrats, this one included, more inclined to support him.
States deserve to have flexibility in adopting solutions that suit their own conditions, as has been taking place with respect to marijuana laws - another area where the federal government could make a positive contribution by simply getting out of the way.
Vermont obviously has a (very libertarian) system in place WRT guns that works well for them and has a several hundred year track record of working.
If gun control advocates were really about reducing gun violence as opposed to simply being about *control* they would be looking at Vermont and trying to figure out how its positive features might be applied elsewhere.
Vermonters do not need to be subjected to a federally imposed "fix" just because Chicago or LA are broken. If Bernie recognizes this it may make him an outlier among Dems, but it will make a lot of *former* Democrats, this one included, more inclined to support him.
One day there will be a massacre in Vermont. And then what will he say?
11
He'll say its not the gun's fault, because it isn't.
I'm liking Sanders more and more.
I'm liking Sanders more and more.
18
What if there isn't ?
What will you say?
What will you say?
1
With all due respect to Senator Sanders and those who support him, as noted in this article, he has taken stances that make no sense if we are serious about preventing gun violence that we see all too often in the US.
How could any reasonable person be opposed to the Brady bill and a reasonable waiting period when purchasing a gun? This would allow time for background checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. Background checks are already common in society: people undergo them in most job hiring situations.
How could anyone support shielding gun manufacturers from liability from the ways in which their products are used? We did not shield tobacco companies from liability - one of few other industries whose products cause death and disability when used as intended. We did not shield BP, Exxon Mobil, or Volkswagen from liability.
These reasonable measures, opposed by Senator Sanders, would have no impact on law-abiding recreational hunters in Vermont.
As CNN and others have reported, from 2001-2013:
Total deaths from firearms in the US: 406,496.
Total deaths worldwide to US citizens or in the US from terrorism: 3,380, including 2,977 who died as a result of the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 and 350 who died overseas.
Why do we whatever we can to prevent terrorist attacks, but do nothing to curb gun violence?
Senator Sanders needs to "evolve" on this issue. He is running to be President of the US - not President of Vermont.
How could any reasonable person be opposed to the Brady bill and a reasonable waiting period when purchasing a gun? This would allow time for background checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. Background checks are already common in society: people undergo them in most job hiring situations.
How could anyone support shielding gun manufacturers from liability from the ways in which their products are used? We did not shield tobacco companies from liability - one of few other industries whose products cause death and disability when used as intended. We did not shield BP, Exxon Mobil, or Volkswagen from liability.
These reasonable measures, opposed by Senator Sanders, would have no impact on law-abiding recreational hunters in Vermont.
As CNN and others have reported, from 2001-2013:
Total deaths from firearms in the US: 406,496.
Total deaths worldwide to US citizens or in the US from terrorism: 3,380, including 2,977 who died as a result of the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 and 350 who died overseas.
Why do we whatever we can to prevent terrorist attacks, but do nothing to curb gun violence?
Senator Sanders needs to "evolve" on this issue. He is running to be President of the US - not President of Vermont.
43
Great response, Larry. I've been ranting for the past fifteen minutes since reading this article but doubt anything constructive could come from what I have to say.
Does Senator Sanders truly feel it appropriate that the state population of Vermont be subject to one set of rights guidelines while the the populations of Chicago and Los Angeles are subjected to another? Why not bring back the Mason-Dixon Line,
while we're at. Gun control for one ethnic group (guess who?), a free ride for another (Elmer Fudd and co.) and a lifetime seat in the Senate for the Hunting Club Socialist himself: Bernie Sanders!
Does Senator Sanders truly feel it appropriate that the state population of Vermont be subject to one set of rights guidelines while the the populations of Chicago and Los Angeles are subjected to another? Why not bring back the Mason-Dixon Line,
while we're at. Gun control for one ethnic group (guess who?), a free ride for another (Elmer Fudd and co.) and a lifetime seat in the Senate for the Hunting Club Socialist himself: Bernie Sanders!
I strongly support shielding not just gun manufacturers, but all manufacturers from any lawsuit which claims damages resulting from the intended purpose of the product. The gun makers can still be sued if their product fails and causes harm or if they break the law and sell guns illegally. But no manufacturer should be sued for making a totally legal product and following all laws in selling that product. What is next? Suing the alcohol company because drinking it made you drunk and you broke other laws because of it?
2
Tobacco companies weren't held liable for the illnesses their product caused, but rather for their efforts to conceal these effects when they knew about them. The comparison with gun manufacturers is specious. They aren't pretending their products don't kill. Emotionally I understand the desire to bankrupt them, but its actually a terrible way to make policy and Sanders was right to vote against it. If you want to ban their product, make the political case for it and win the people to your point of view. Using litigation this way was an end-run around democracy. Sanders understood this and, despite his general support for gun control legislation, rightly opposed this particular piece of legislation.
1
Straddling the fence on gun control is not easy. The top rail is high and those on either side withhold their trust and support. I own a number of firearms. About half of them family heirlooms, hand-me-downs or, in one case a deathbed bequest. Of those I've purchased, the impetus was often nostalgic, reminders of different places and times, fantasy connections to history.
I carried an M16 in Vietnam. I wouldn't own one today for love nor money, and I would, as graciously as possible, decline one proffered as a gift. I was brought up in home with one small caliber, bolt-action rifle and one shotgun. These were used for hunting, and the animals killed with them were eaten at the dinner table.
I understand nostalgic respect for a tradition. I also know the revulsion of seeing a human being, a young woman, very pretty, not out of her teens, with only a 1/4 inch pucker in the skin of her breast as evidence of her having been on the wrong team in a war that this country had no business being involved in and eventually lost. But she was shooting at the young man who killed her. Who was in the wrong?
In the gun debate, in the United States of America, you are damned if you, you are damned if you don't. In the end, we are all damned if we cannot find a middle place where guns are neither feared nor revered. Where punishment for misuse, for false representation of reason for ownership is swift, severe, and above all certain.
I carried an M16 in Vietnam. I wouldn't own one today for love nor money, and I would, as graciously as possible, decline one proffered as a gift. I was brought up in home with one small caliber, bolt-action rifle and one shotgun. These were used for hunting, and the animals killed with them were eaten at the dinner table.
I understand nostalgic respect for a tradition. I also know the revulsion of seeing a human being, a young woman, very pretty, not out of her teens, with only a 1/4 inch pucker in the skin of her breast as evidence of her having been on the wrong team in a war that this country had no business being involved in and eventually lost. But she was shooting at the young man who killed her. Who was in the wrong?
In the gun debate, in the United States of America, you are damned if you, you are damned if you don't. In the end, we are all damned if we cannot find a middle place where guns are neither feared nor revered. Where punishment for misuse, for false representation of reason for ownership is swift, severe, and above all certain.
11
It's irrelevant what Sanders, Clinton, Trump, or any other candidate thinks. Until the NRA loses its grip on Congress, no sort of background check, liability insurance requirement, or any other sort of law is ever going to come up for a vote, let alone pass.
17
Thus far I have been quite impressed with Bernie Sanders, but by saying gun control was a matter best left resolved in state capitals he is showing uncharacteristic weakness. How is it better if every state has a different gun control law? Fact is, it isn't. What prevents someone from driving a few hundred miles to the next state with a lax or non-existing gun control law, buy one or several guns and drive home again? Nothing, and Bernie knows that. I think it's just a weak cop-out when a politician running for national office says something is better left to individual states.
17
Quote one: "think it's just a weak cop-out when a politician running for national office says something is better left to individual states."
Quote two: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Quote two: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4
The same argument can be made with anything illegal. Marijuana is essentially legal here in CA and a few other states. This is in violation of federal law, but the feds look the other way. Some states, again like CA, have a right to die law. That is the whole idea of states. People could choose where they want to live and under what conditions. We are a federation of states.
4
If you consider the 2nd amendment to the Constitution to apply to gun ownership by citizens, how can you rationally state that gun laws are not defined as federal coverage under the Constitution so should be left to the states?
Bernie is just being realistic, No amount of laws regulating the sale of guns is going to stop the high profile massacres such as what just occurred in Oregon. Consider this: if your neighbor suspects you are committing child abuse, the authorities will knock your door down to investigate. If your neighbor suspects you have an arsenal in your house and may be unstable and likely to do harm with that arsenal, the authorities will ignore you.
21
Man, the Times really hates Sanders. Must be Wall Street pulling their strings.
126
Yes, Joe from NY - it's all a Wall Street plot to get Bernie for exempting the gun lobby from liability on behalf their gun slinging gun clients. The merchants of death - persecuted by Wall Street. How quaint.
Wow! Another negative article on Bernie Sanders! Shocking.
I would love for the Times to write an article talking positively about Bernie. They rave about so many candidates yet somehow find articles of derision for one of the top two democrats.
The Times gives positive spin on Rubio's, Bush's and Trump's tax plans which are hilarious. But for Bernie they can only find that he is soft on gun control. He is hard on big business. Hard on big banks. Hard on so many things that have infected the United States but you have to portray him as a socialist who is soft on guns and a guy with bad hair. pb
I would love for the Times to write an article talking positively about Bernie. They rave about so many candidates yet somehow find articles of derision for one of the top two democrats.
The Times gives positive spin on Rubio's, Bush's and Trump's tax plans which are hilarious. But for Bernie they can only find that he is soft on gun control. He is hard on big business. Hard on big banks. Hard on so many things that have infected the United States but you have to portray him as a socialist who is soft on guns and a guy with bad hair. pb
75
'Rave'? Really? I've yet to see the NYT 'rave' about ANY candidate, Dem or Republican. This is reporting. It's not an editorial and it's not an op-ed. Sanders was asked a question, and the reporting tells us what he said in response.
Can you please attach a link to the positive spin the Times offered on Trump's tax plan? I seem to remember the Times saying it doesn't add up such as in the attached article. Were you referring to another article perhaps?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/opinion/joe-nocera-is-donald-trump-ser...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/opinion/joe-nocera-is-donald-trump-ser...
Poetic license, I suppose. PB
Bernie gets so much so right. But here he missteps, badly. Leadership means not being cowed by the Constitution or the goons who so flagrantly misread it.
18
I've lived in Vermont for 31 years. I was a big supporter of the Brady bill, which Bernie Sanders (wrongly, stupidly) voted against. I'm with Hillary Clinton on gun control. Go, Hillary!
18
Or Martin O'Malley.
2
I have never expected to find a candidate for national or local office with which I agree on every issue. Bernie Sanders has definitely come the closest. I was already aware that his positions on gun control were not as limiting as I would like to see.
There are a few things that bother me however, and as a supporter of Bernie I will keep the pressure on him about it:
First, while I believe his positions in the past have come out of a genuine approach to supporting those he represents from Vermont, he is not running for state office now, he is running for President, and he needs to answer to a larger constituency.
Second, too many of his ideas are based on a nationwide solution such as a $15 national minimum wage and national healthcare - regardless of the rural / urban make up of any particular state - for him to then call gun control largely a state issue.
Third, he can't continually espouse the virtues of the Scandinavian model when the gun laws there are much more restrictive than here in the US. At best it is a major side step and at worst it's hypocritical.
So for now I continue to support Bernie, but I will be keeping a close watch on how he responds to the issue.
There are a few things that bother me however, and as a supporter of Bernie I will keep the pressure on him about it:
First, while I believe his positions in the past have come out of a genuine approach to supporting those he represents from Vermont, he is not running for state office now, he is running for President, and he needs to answer to a larger constituency.
Second, too many of his ideas are based on a nationwide solution such as a $15 national minimum wage and national healthcare - regardless of the rural / urban make up of any particular state - for him to then call gun control largely a state issue.
Third, he can't continually espouse the virtues of the Scandinavian model when the gun laws there are much more restrictive than here in the US. At best it is a major side step and at worst it's hypocritical.
So for now I continue to support Bernie, but I will be keeping a close watch on how he responds to the issue.
15
With regards to 1, he did come out with a list of reasonable proposals for gun control and said he has a team working to refine and expand those proposals. 2) I agree with you and 3) I've only ever heard him use the Scandanavian model when talking about universal healthcare, education, and higher taxes on the rich. I think he realizes there are some other major differences. In all, I support your call to keep the pressure on him and make him a better candidate. He's far from perfect and I think he realizes this.
9
If he realizes he's far from perfect (say by voting to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits from victims of gun violence -- an epidemic consuming this country) would love to hear him say it.
The inference that only poor ethnic urban populations should be subject to gun control so this his state (and his seat in the senate) is spared inconvenience is simply offensive.
The inference that only poor ethnic urban populations should be subject to gun control so this his state (and his seat in the senate) is spared inconvenience is simply offensive.
Sanders said "We're going to have to stop shouting" and "We're going to have to talk to each other." He wants it handled at the state level. He says no one has the magic answer. This sounds like honesty and logic as opposed to reactive sound bites. And yet the NYT is criticizing him for this? We see why there are not more politicians like Sanders. The media is contributing to the problem.
73
What 'criticism'? This is what reporting looks like. He's being asked a question, and the reporting is telling us his response. Any real or implied criticisms are coming from other people relevant to the story being reported, from DC to Vermont, while the man is running for national office. But the Times isn't picking sources out of thin air, or cherrypicking only sources that disagree with Sanders. Are you blaming the NYT for telling the story of Sanders and the issue of gun violence in America? How could you?
Bernie seems to be perfectly capable of shouting about income disparity while having only the vaguest regards for how to balance our budget - protective tariffs and bashing bankers aside. It's just on guns he want to be sotto voce and vague.
Spin this anyway you all like. Guns are a cancer on America's soul. Guns are a tumor on the world. The Arms Industry is Evil Incarnate. Bernie is a Schmendrick from the Bronx with integrity on most issues of class. But, feet of clay on guns, and that's major. Step up, Bernie, or we will leave you behind because of this one. It's too important.
32
well spoken, Jwp.
Is alcohol also a tumor? It kills far more than guns. It has no more redeeming value than guns. It causes pain and misery for millions of families.
1
No. Bernie has always been a sensible gun control advocate.
He proudly touts his D- rating with the NRA.
He proudly touts his D- rating with the NRA.
27
Thank you, NY Times, for highlighting what has been an unfortunate -- though rarely discussed -- issue for Senator Sanders: his wishy-washy gun control stance.
In light of the predictable massacres and the unwillingness of Members of Congress or Senators to take a firm stance on this for fear of losing NRA money or having a target on their back for NRA political hit money, it'd be nice if Sanders could "feel the Bern" for sensible gun control. But instead it now looks as though his past inaction and unwillingness to act will come home to roost.
Sadly, I fear he'll be shown to be out-of-step with most Americans (and most Democrats) on this and many other issues as the race moves forward and the spotlight brightens. Hopefully those considering voting for him will turn off their irrational Hillary Hate long enough to take a clear look at his positions, his legislative record, his ability (or inability) to form coalitions to get things done, and what he's really saying. At the end, I suspect they'll discover a Sanders they don't quite recognize.
In light of the predictable massacres and the unwillingness of Members of Congress or Senators to take a firm stance on this for fear of losing NRA money or having a target on their back for NRA political hit money, it'd be nice if Sanders could "feel the Bern" for sensible gun control. But instead it now looks as though his past inaction and unwillingness to act will come home to roost.
Sadly, I fear he'll be shown to be out-of-step with most Americans (and most Democrats) on this and many other issues as the race moves forward and the spotlight brightens. Hopefully those considering voting for him will turn off their irrational Hillary Hate long enough to take a clear look at his positions, his legislative record, his ability (or inability) to form coalitions to get things done, and what he's really saying. At the end, I suspect they'll discover a Sanders they don't quite recognize.
13
Yeah, right. Hillary is a warmonger, full stop. Sanders has a sensible approach to gun control, and recently put out an outline of his stance and said he has a team working to refine his proposals: https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-appalled-by-mass-shootin....
i will not vote for a warmonger. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.
i will not vote for a warmonger. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.
3
In addition, there's no proof he would be any good at interactions with international leaders.
1
Too many guns out there, too many crazy people.
The most convoluted regulatory system you can invent will not solve this problem--not in our lifetimes, anyway.
Many ordinary people think that these incidents just prove that the cops cannot protect us--even if, as in the recent Oregon tragedy--the cops get there in 6 minutes (after the call).
These people want the right to protect themselves and their children from random murder.
And please note that the most stringent pro-regulation folks (Bloomberg, Hillary) are the ones who are now and will forever always be protected by armed men--whether due to their personal wealth or previous office. With lots of money you can hire bodyguards who somehow have gun licenses. How?
The most convoluted regulatory system you can invent will not solve this problem--not in our lifetimes, anyway.
Many ordinary people think that these incidents just prove that the cops cannot protect us--even if, as in the recent Oregon tragedy--the cops get there in 6 minutes (after the call).
These people want the right to protect themselves and their children from random murder.
And please note that the most stringent pro-regulation folks (Bloomberg, Hillary) are the ones who are now and will forever always be protected by armed men--whether due to their personal wealth or previous office. With lots of money you can hire bodyguards who somehow have gun licenses. How?
1
As Joe Biden pointed out, there's a Sandy Hook in America every day. But the realities surrounding those shootings - type of gun, legal status of gun, demographic of perpetrator, demographic of victim - don't suit various parties' preferred narratives. So we don't hear about them. (Here's a hint: take a look at the New York Daily News some day, and see what the Times isn't reporting. I'm often shocked by how much violence is actually taking place in New York.)
Maybe Bernie knows that people who own guns legally generally don't shoot other people. Maybe Bernie also remembers who has the guns if we don't (and I don't mean "criminals").
Y'all are REALLY gonna hit the ceiling when you find out what he's said about illegal immigration.
Maybe Bernie knows that people who own guns legally generally don't shoot other people. Maybe Bernie also remembers who has the guns if we don't (and I don't mean "criminals").
Y'all are REALLY gonna hit the ceiling when you find out what he's said about illegal immigration.
1
Never mind what Sanders is saying - what are John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican Congressional majority saying about this latest mass shooting? They are saying nothing, nothing at all.
That is the disgrace, the shame and dishonor.
The Times ought to be writing more than once about what is not being said by our silent and contemptible Congress. Interview those Representatives and Senators and have them justify not demanding more stringent gun controls and background checks. Ask them if they have visited the grieving families, visited the blood-spattered classrooms, attended memorials and graves.
That nothing is being said or done about these continuing tragedies is deplorable - let's remember who is silent and who benefits from the NRA and that other deplorable and disgraceful lobby.
That is the disgrace, the shame and dishonor.
The Times ought to be writing more than once about what is not being said by our silent and contemptible Congress. Interview those Representatives and Senators and have them justify not demanding more stringent gun controls and background checks. Ask them if they have visited the grieving families, visited the blood-spattered classrooms, attended memorials and graves.
That nothing is being said or done about these continuing tragedies is deplorable - let's remember who is silent and who benefits from the NRA and that other deplorable and disgraceful lobby.
10
"Bernie Sanders Shies From Tough Stance on Gun Control," we are told. This is what Sanders actually said:
“If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.”
Is he wrong? We are also told, "“The people of my state understand, I think pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles' he said on CNN. Vermont has a significant hunting culture and a high level of gun ownership compared with other states in the Northeast. At the same time, Vermont has few murders committed with firearms." Once again, is he wrong?
What's really going on here is that Bernie dares to say something different from Hillary, the NYT's official candidate. Therefore, he must be criticized for not taking the "tough stance" that Hillary has, at least since yesterday.
“If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.”
Is he wrong? We are also told, "“The people of my state understand, I think pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles' he said on CNN. Vermont has a significant hunting culture and a high level of gun ownership compared with other states in the Northeast. At the same time, Vermont has few murders committed with firearms." Once again, is he wrong?
What's really going on here is that Bernie dares to say something different from Hillary, the NYT's official candidate. Therefore, he must be criticized for not taking the "tough stance" that Hillary has, at least since yesterday.
35
Vermont has no concealed carry permit requirement. Anyone can carry if they qualify. They believe in Yankee common sense not big government control.
1
In that case, maybe a senator from Vermont is not fit to lead a nation that is 80% urban.
9
This is pretty much the only issue Hillary can get any traction with, even though Bernie's positions are left of congress even on this. Basically this is just a Times push piece trying to divert attention from the fact that Hillary is a shill for the 1%.
28
Holy smokes. I'm a Bernie supporter, but even I can't think of anyone but a fanatic that thinks this is a Clinton 'push piece'. What is wrong with this country? Is there no sanity left?
1
The unlimited right of all, including children, criminals, the mentally ill and terrorists, to own guns is a de facto right commit mass murder.
Those are not rights that most Americans are willing to give up, and Mr. Sanders knows it.
Most Americans value their right to use guns to kill more than they value the lives of their own children.
We all know the drill;
1) Mourn the "senseless" deaths of the victims;
2) Condemn the "senseless" act of the killer;
3) Senselessly declare that gun control is NEVER an option.
4) When the next mass shooting occurs, and it will, repeat 1) through 3).
Those are not rights that most Americans are willing to give up, and Mr. Sanders knows it.
Most Americans value their right to use guns to kill more than they value the lives of their own children.
We all know the drill;
1) Mourn the "senseless" deaths of the victims;
2) Condemn the "senseless" act of the killer;
3) Senselessly declare that gun control is NEVER an option.
4) When the next mass shooting occurs, and it will, repeat 1) through 3).
12
Someone please tell Ms. Clinton that the president does not have the authority to legislate (make or repeal) laws.
13
Not necessary since no one is actually talking about giving the President any authority on legislating (or repealing) any laws. Executive action can only occur when Congress has already passed a law that a president signed, and that action cannot nullify a law, only either expand its scope or not endorse it...until that President's term is ended. Hardly the same as passing (or repealing) a law.
Nobody likes mass murders except mass murderers and they are very few in a population of over 300 million people.
There are two camps following a mass murder such as in Oregon; those who are upset but understand these things happen, and those who hysterically react calling for massive action against the entire population.
Who would you trust with a gun?
The practical person is in control of their emotions while those that hate guns are not. It's like a fortunate law of nature that the overemotional reactionary people hate guns so they won't possess a gun and we won't have to worry about them using one.
There are two camps following a mass murder such as in Oregon; those who are upset but understand these things happen, and those who hysterically react calling for massive action against the entire population.
Who would you trust with a gun?
The practical person is in control of their emotions while those that hate guns are not. It's like a fortunate law of nature that the overemotional reactionary people hate guns so they won't possess a gun and we won't have to worry about them using one.
1
Yes, all the logic is so clearly on the side of gun owners. *sarcasm All the people defending the NRA and their right to own assault weapons and high capacity magazines certainly don't react to the notion of any tiny gun regulation with belligerence and an overdose of emotion. No sirree.
"calling for massive action" Only in the minds of those who hysterically react ANY commentary on our national epidemic of gun violence. We can't speak for all 300 million individual Americans, but there isn't a SINGLE, not ONE, politician, either Democrat or Republican, calling for 'massive' anything with respect to guns. Heck, we can't even get a vote to allow the government to compile statistics about guns in our society, much less do anything 'massive' about actual guns. Yet, we're the 'hysterical' ones? Just for bringing it up as a subject?
oh boy ... so sorry to read this!
good bye mr sanders, there's no way I can stand behind someone who believes guns have a place in anyone's hands but police officers, or military, on-duty, personnel.
good bye mr sanders, there's no way I can stand behind someone who believes guns have a place in anyone's hands but police officers, or military, on-duty, personnel.
12
Why do you hate the Constitution so much?
1
Really? How pathetic to depend on the government to protect you.
1
if a NYT article can chase you away you were never behind him.
hurry, you have a long list of better people to vote for.
Bernie is honest if anything. sometimes people just want to be fooled.
as in almost every election since (you add the year) the people voted for someone who told nice stories like the ones they want to hear and then boom you get unjustified wars and economic collapses allwrapped around more lies.
hurry before you change your mind and think about all the good points in his program.
hurry, you have a long list of better people to vote for.
Bernie is honest if anything. sometimes people just want to be fooled.
as in almost every election since (you add the year) the people voted for someone who told nice stories like the ones they want to hear and then boom you get unjustified wars and economic collapses allwrapped around more lies.
hurry before you change your mind and think about all the good points in his program.
2
For some reason deep inside of me I don't think Sanders has what it takes to be the president. While I admire the man... Go Hilary!
11
And if Hilary can't do the job, how about Hillary?
“I don’t know that anybody knows what the magic solution is.”
How is that substantially different from what Bush and Trump said?
About that 2005 bill Sanders voted for: "It's a historic piece of legislation," said Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, who said the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20 [when the bill took effect that year], the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."
And he voted against the Brady bill.
Sorry, but I'm not giving him a pass on this. I don't care that things are different in Vermont - he's running for president of the entire country.
And by the way, he still hasn't told us how he plans to deal with a gridlocked Congress, and all he's said about foreign policy is that he won't use military force as recklessly as his predecessors. That's nice, but I doubt he's going to be able to avoid having to be commander-in-chief.
And, while he's voiced criticism of Likud, he hasn't given any indication that he plans to make U.S aid to Israel contingent on its obeying international law. As a Jew he's in a unique position to make a strong statement in that regard, but he's made no indication that he'll take on that role.
Of course I agree with him on many issues, particularly as regards the economy and health care, but I question how effective he'll be in actually changing anything.
How is that substantially different from what Bush and Trump said?
About that 2005 bill Sanders voted for: "It's a historic piece of legislation," said Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, who said the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20 [when the bill took effect that year], the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."
And he voted against the Brady bill.
Sorry, but I'm not giving him a pass on this. I don't care that things are different in Vermont - he's running for president of the entire country.
And by the way, he still hasn't told us how he plans to deal with a gridlocked Congress, and all he's said about foreign policy is that he won't use military force as recklessly as his predecessors. That's nice, but I doubt he's going to be able to avoid having to be commander-in-chief.
And, while he's voiced criticism of Likud, he hasn't given any indication that he plans to make U.S aid to Israel contingent on its obeying international law. As a Jew he's in a unique position to make a strong statement in that regard, but he's made no indication that he'll take on that role.
Of course I agree with him on many issues, particularly as regards the economy and health care, but I question how effective he'll be in actually changing anything.
22
And I don't think Bernie would be particularly effective when up against international leaders. At least there is no proof in that area.
I'm even more impressed with Bernie. He's not jumping on the nonsense bandwagon. If we stop selling guns tomorrow, there will still be millions of them available and now worth even more money on the black market. We have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in our quest for a safe world. The usual knee jerk reactions always result in unintended consequences. Keep up the good work Mr Sanders. Mass killings are a mental health issue, not a gun control issue. But those benefits cost money which the 1% would rather spend on hot tubs and luxury yachts.
76
But they don't have any better mental health services in Australia. Yet they haven't had a mass shooting since they severely tightened their gun laws. Can you kindly cite some evidence for your assertions?
Well, then, by all means let's just throw our hands up in the air and keep the guns flowing. The logic here is just stunning.
1
You cast a false dilemma. Why does mass shootings have to either a mental health issue or a gun issue? Why can it not be both?
If Americans will stop gazing at their navels for a moment cand consider similar incidents involving knives in China and Taiwan (2013, 2014) you will see that while many people are hurt in knife attacks the fatality rate is much lower.
The supposed flow of illegal firearms is also bunk. Do you and all your friends know where to buy illegal handguns? More to the point, many people who have a problem with current gun laws are not advocating full bans. They simply want closer screening and tracking, which is non-existent in many states.
If Americans will stop gazing at their navels for a moment cand consider similar incidents involving knives in China and Taiwan (2013, 2014) you will see that while many people are hurt in knife attacks the fatality rate is much lower.
The supposed flow of illegal firearms is also bunk. Do you and all your friends know where to buy illegal handguns? More to the point, many people who have a problem with current gun laws are not advocating full bans. They simply want closer screening and tracking, which is non-existent in many states.
2
It is unfair to single out Bernie Sanders on the issue of gun control when no elected official from either party has the courage to take a stand in favor of it.
Saturday in Boston, Sanders did mention he would support federal mandatory background checks and banning semi-automatic assault weapons. Is that worse than anybody else? If he was more radical, he would again be accused of being "far-left" and unelectable...
The power of the fourth branch of government (the NRA) and the number of nitwits who worship it are without a doubt one of the most puzzling mysteries in America. After 7 years in office, and an increasing number of massacres, Obama has been unable to tighten gun control laws. Does anyone believe Hillary Clinton will do any better? On the basis of what record?
Gun control will come when people get educated by the change that the election of Bernie Sanders will bring to this country.
Saturday in Boston, Sanders did mention he would support federal mandatory background checks and banning semi-automatic assault weapons. Is that worse than anybody else? If he was more radical, he would again be accused of being "far-left" and unelectable...
The power of the fourth branch of government (the NRA) and the number of nitwits who worship it are without a doubt one of the most puzzling mysteries in America. After 7 years in office, and an increasing number of massacres, Obama has been unable to tighten gun control laws. Does anyone believe Hillary Clinton will do any better? On the basis of what record?
Gun control will come when people get educated by the change that the election of Bernie Sanders will bring to this country.
12
Much as I favor stronger gun regulation, criticizing Bernie Sanders for voting against a bill that extends liability to manufacturers is not relevant to this serious issue. Manufacturers are liable for defective products that cause injuries to users. If a gun were to blow up in the hand of the shooter, causing injury or death, I would expect that the manufacturer be held liable for a defective product. But guns are made to kill. That's what they do. Holding Smith and Wesson liable for our insane love of an instrument that kills is absurd. Instead, we need to focus on rethinking the Second Amendment, removing guns already out in society, requiring insurance held by gun owners, and proper registration of firearms.
112
I disagree. Guns are toys for big boys for shooting practice in gun ranges. When they are used to kill, they are the tool that facilitated the crime. The company that makes an object that kills is liable for each and every death.
Be as it may that Vermont is conservative on guns, but Bernie Sanders cannot let the interests of one state direct his presidency run. Guns are an important issue right now, one that requires an establishment politician to fight. This might just be the break for Ms. Clinton to break away from Mr. Sanders.
61
In fact, it will be the issue that allows Sanders to get many millions of votes that Clinton will NEVER get because of her anti-gun stance. Don't you realize he is the only candidate that is truly crossing the aisle? He can unite; he can talk to conservatives in their own language, he can bring in independents like no other. Hillary will only further the divisions that have paralyzed our government for the last 20 years.
Just decided I'm a Bernie guy.
Sen. Sanders favors income redistribution, state control of medicine, and freedom to carry the concealed weapon. Vermonters may favor much the same. I do not favor any of it.
That said, when push comes, most Sanders opinion poll talkers will vote for Hillary Clinton. Or so I believe.
After 8 years, throw tge bums out, said my dad.
The opinion poll has become the place to act out. It's the post adolescent den of iniquity, a place to play let's pretend.
Firearms do not kill. People kill. Hollywood and violent games inspire. The sick may well kill, guns or no.
Bernie Sanders barely matters.
That said, when push comes, most Sanders opinion poll talkers will vote for Hillary Clinton. Or so I believe.
After 8 years, throw tge bums out, said my dad.
The opinion poll has become the place to act out. It's the post adolescent den of iniquity, a place to play let's pretend.
Firearms do not kill. People kill. Hollywood and violent games inspire. The sick may well kill, guns or no.
Bernie Sanders barely matters.
2
Mass killing by hand with a blade or other means is personally difficult and draining. Mass killing by pulling a trigger is anonymous and effortless.
This difference is not being recognized by either side of the gun rights issue. The concept of keeping guns out of the hands of mentally challenged people is honorable. Unfortunately, there is no way to implement this concept. Take the case of World War II vets who are in their 90's and have become mentally incompetent some of the time. How do we protect their rights and at the same time protect those of us who care for them and whom they may perceive as marauders some of the time because they can't consistently remember us?
This difference is not being recognized by either side of the gun rights issue. The concept of keeping guns out of the hands of mentally challenged people is honorable. Unfortunately, there is no way to implement this concept. Take the case of World War II vets who are in their 90's and have become mentally incompetent some of the time. How do we protect their rights and at the same time protect those of us who care for them and whom they may perceive as marauders some of the time because they can't consistently remember us?
5
Because of our Constitution, we could not pass a law to prevent news outlets from giving shooters publicity. While I support laws to limit the purchase of combat weapons and magazines of ammunition, and greater access to mental health services, tighter laws and more services will not stop these mass shooting events. It is clear that many of the shooters are disaffected young men who use these events for the notoriety and publicity they receive. However, there is nothing preventing the major media outlets of this country from voluntarily deciding not to disclose the identity of the perpetrators or to run photos of them. Call them John Doe and report demographic information, but don't give these persons the publicity they are so desperately seeking. I think that the media, the 24 hour news cycle and the culture of celebrity are just as responsible for these events as the gun manufacturers. When will major news outlets, like the New York Times, take responsible measures to deny publicity to those individuals who are motivated to commit these heinous acts to get the attention they so desperately crave? I'm sorry, but I blame the media for many of these deaths. I fully support the Oregon sheriff who says he will not participate in making the Oregon shooter famous. Not publicizing the shooters may not end these events, but I believe that it would stop many of them. It's time for news outlets to show some leadership.
3
lets regulate those military sort of weapons and focus on screening those who need them…Sanders is for that and says so…the gun culture is hiding behind 2nd amendment issues that were meant to insure a ready militia not a cowardly classroom vendetta…the NRA is a crony bunch of gun stock holders not peace loving hunters period.
7
If the other 49 states were like Vermont in their gun use then I would say right on Bernie. But they are not. If the leaders of the NRA were reasonable human beings we could begin an actual useful discussion in this nation. But they are not. Interesting that in both Sandy Hook and Umpqua, the mothers of these very disturbed young men thought guns were a way to bond with their boys.
13
I respect the fact Senator Sanders is charting a responsive, consistent and reasoned course in responding the latest mass shooting tragedy in Oregon. Any responsible, humane citizen would ask the question;What can be done to mitigate if not end the national tragedy of gun violence in America.
Realistically short of outright repeal of the Second Amendment, America's options for gun control by legislastion is limited. Senator Sanders has sincerely expressed willingness to close loop holes which allowed Mr. Root to purchase a firearm when his criminal background would have blocked purchase. Tighter regulastions applicable to private sales of weapons are also meaningful steps to limiting access of firearms.
But ultimately it is our fellow citizens, not manufactures who must bear liability for the firearms they possess. The mother of the alleged shooter in Oregon disengenously claims she purchased guns out of a fear of confiscation. Whatever her concerns, she was acutely aware she had a very troubled son and demostrated depraved indifference by allowing him access to her cache of firearms. The proper course would her criminal indictment and prosecution as accesory after the fact for the murders and injuries sustained by the victims.
This would serve as clear notice to gun owners the careless exercise of their Coinsitutional rights or illegal evasion of gun controls will subject them to the same criminal consequences as the shooters who kill or injure with their weapons.
Realistically short of outright repeal of the Second Amendment, America's options for gun control by legislastion is limited. Senator Sanders has sincerely expressed willingness to close loop holes which allowed Mr. Root to purchase a firearm when his criminal background would have blocked purchase. Tighter regulastions applicable to private sales of weapons are also meaningful steps to limiting access of firearms.
But ultimately it is our fellow citizens, not manufactures who must bear liability for the firearms they possess. The mother of the alleged shooter in Oregon disengenously claims she purchased guns out of a fear of confiscation. Whatever her concerns, she was acutely aware she had a very troubled son and demostrated depraved indifference by allowing him access to her cache of firearms. The proper course would her criminal indictment and prosecution as accesory after the fact for the murders and injuries sustained by the victims.
This would serve as clear notice to gun owners the careless exercise of their Coinsitutional rights or illegal evasion of gun controls will subject them to the same criminal consequences as the shooters who kill or injure with their weapons.
11
Sanders comes from a rural hunting state where gun ownership is the norm. As he's moved to the national stage, his views on gun control have become more nuanced and decidedly more liberal. Whereas Clinton has essentially been given a pass by the party on avoiding or reversing positions on gay marriage, the Iraq war, the Keystone pipline, etc. I suggest, we must do the same for Sanders or otherwise call out Clinton for her numerous inconsistencies.
7
Nice. Looks like Senator Sanders wants to confiscate peoples' money but not their guns. That's not a great recipe for safer cities or economic growth.
5
It disturbs me that someone who claims to be liberal hides behind his state's culture to excuse his failure to avoid coming out against the use of guns. We are now seeing the results of Americans' attachment to guns preventing reasonable regulation. We are no longer an agrarian society and the widespread availability of guns no longer makes sense. Please come to your senses Sen. Sanders
96
1 - Oh, I thought it was his job to stand with his state's culture.
2 - we are no longer an agrarian society? What pray tell, are you eating, on a daily basis? YOU may be living in a city, but millions of us are not.
2 - we are no longer an agrarian society? What pray tell, are you eating, on a daily basis? YOU may be living in a city, but millions of us are not.
1
Just read the entire article... he is not opposed to dealing with America's crazy infatuation with guns.
Black and white thinking is not going to help us deal with the issue of guns. My grandfather was a hunter. Every November found him deer-hunting. He had a shotgun, not an AK-47. There is a difference and we need to respect it.
I am anti-gun, but I am willing to concede that some people want to hunt and some responsible hunting culls the herd, which prevents the deer from becoming so numerous that they starve to death in late winter. Better a quick death than a lingering one.
So, where do I come out? Ban any weapon that is principally or only used to kill other humans. Target practice? I've done it. Leave the handguns in a locker at the practice range. That prevents children getting their hands on them or others stealing them. Safety? First, I think it provides a false sense of invulnerability that can result in needless killings. Second, in a pinch, a shotgun will kill a human as easily as a deer.
I am anti-gun, but I am willing to concede that some people want to hunt and some responsible hunting culls the herd, which prevents the deer from becoming so numerous that they starve to death in late winter. Better a quick death than a lingering one.
So, where do I come out? Ban any weapon that is principally or only used to kill other humans. Target practice? I've done it. Leave the handguns in a locker at the practice range. That prevents children getting their hands on them or others stealing them. Safety? First, I think it provides a false sense of invulnerability that can result in needless killings. Second, in a pinch, a shotgun will kill a human as easily as a deer.
1
Bernie, you are very special. So is Vermont. I am a Canadian with property in Vermont for the last thirty years. I know about "deer season" although I don't hunt. But what is happening when all these people are being shot, has nothing to do with "deer season". These are real people like you and me and your children and my children. We don't do that in Canada, we don't kill people and we don't own guns. And we don't need to. So what is it about this "frontier" need to bear arms? The world has evolved, in case you haven't noticed. I feel deep sadness for the useless suffering of innocent humans.
74
Here’s a great way for the Establishment to lower Bernie’s standing in the polls — accuse him of being “soft on gun violence.”
Whereas Hillary, that Establishment stalwart, has staked her claim to being in the front of the pack — or is it the herd?— on this issue.
Here’s a bulletin for the media: Bernie Sanders is an independent thinker. Hence, he won’t always be stampeded by what media executives and editors prescribe as The Dogma to which all good people must subscribe or they are otherwise tainted.
In this writer’s eyes, Mrs. Clinton is the one who is tainted indelibly by her ties to the Money Power. That’s my number one issue — as it is, I think — for the majority of Democrat voters.
For all the cover provided for her by her pals in the corporate media, Clinton can’t fill stadiums with enthusiastic supporters because she’s all too obviously the candidate of the liberal wing of the plutocracy.
Her recent calls for a harsher line on Russia and Syria is also deeply troubling. More US military intervention in Muslim civil wars is completely bonkers.
Whereas Hillary, that Establishment stalwart, has staked her claim to being in the front of the pack — or is it the herd?— on this issue.
Here’s a bulletin for the media: Bernie Sanders is an independent thinker. Hence, he won’t always be stampeded by what media executives and editors prescribe as The Dogma to which all good people must subscribe or they are otherwise tainted.
In this writer’s eyes, Mrs. Clinton is the one who is tainted indelibly by her ties to the Money Power. That’s my number one issue — as it is, I think — for the majority of Democrat voters.
For all the cover provided for her by her pals in the corporate media, Clinton can’t fill stadiums with enthusiastic supporters because she’s all too obviously the candidate of the liberal wing of the plutocracy.
Her recent calls for a harsher line on Russia and Syria is also deeply troubling. More US military intervention in Muslim civil wars is completely bonkers.
143
Cover provided by the corporate media? What world are you living in. Sec. Clinton has been viciously and unjustly attacked by the corporate media for 22 years. So far just this year we had attacks on the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, her email server (this paper said it was a criminal investigation and later were forced to retract that lie), and the fake big money from Wall St. bunk. The Wall St. Journal floated that briefly but that only lasted until it was found Sec. Clinton was getting 1/100 of what GOP candidates were getting, if you include the superpacs.
As someone who lived for years in Vermont, I should point out that Bernie Sanders is more of a socialist than a member of the American Left. He's not overly PC. The Progressive Coalition in Burlington, VT supported him, but he never joined them.
4
In 2006, Sanders said, “I think [democratic socialism] means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship all of our people have healthcare; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly. That’s all it means.”
Sanders is a pandering politician of the usual style. His position on gun control was modeled after what would best win votes in Vermont, not was was right for the country. In that, he has been one of the enablers of gun violence spawn by the lack of the laws he opposed, such as background checks. Now that he wants to be president, his views have suddenly changed. Now he wants stronger laws because that's what voters will vote for. The man lacks a moral core of convictions.
The more you get to know this man, the more sickening he becomes.
The more you get to know this man, the more sickening he becomes.
2
Then go vote for the Republican in Democratic clothing, Hilary Clinton.
1
Huh? The article is saying he hasn't suddenly changed his views. It looks to me that he has been relatively consistent (people do grow) over time with regards to gun control, having views that are unsurprising for a senator from Vermont. Looks like you've made up your mind to smear him and are making up things to fit your worldview.
1
Damnit, Bernie!
There are two American gun cultures. Who is upset about what guns hunters use? This is a problem bigger than hunters affected by federal regulations. This is a problem bigger than the tensions between the states and federal government. People are dying every day and others are afraid they're next. Gun violence in American could easily be justified under the Commerce Clause and allow federal oversight. Give me a break!
Just today my girlfriend's workplace was threatened by some 4chan user calling for a rebellion. Who is going to prevent that lurker from unloading an AR-15 in her workplace and devastating another community? Who is going to run a background check on the next Adam Lanza or whichever nut decides today is the day?
Why can't Congress represent the American people -- most of whom support background checks? Why can't I get a candidate that speaks for the betterment of all of us?!
Balking from tighter gun restrictions is a deal breaker for me, and you can do better, Bernie.
There are two American gun cultures. Who is upset about what guns hunters use? This is a problem bigger than hunters affected by federal regulations. This is a problem bigger than the tensions between the states and federal government. People are dying every day and others are afraid they're next. Gun violence in American could easily be justified under the Commerce Clause and allow federal oversight. Give me a break!
Just today my girlfriend's workplace was threatened by some 4chan user calling for a rebellion. Who is going to prevent that lurker from unloading an AR-15 in her workplace and devastating another community? Who is going to run a background check on the next Adam Lanza or whichever nut decides today is the day?
Why can't Congress represent the American people -- most of whom support background checks? Why can't I get a candidate that speaks for the betterment of all of us?!
Balking from tighter gun restrictions is a deal breaker for me, and you can do better, Bernie.
49
Which is why he voted to ban AR-15s, not once, but twice.
1
Wow, yet another hit piece on Bernie Sanders by the New York Times. First he's too radical to take seriously, then he's not radical enough? Give me a break.
Since when is it "not tough" when someone wants to ban assault weapons, wants instant background checks, and wants to close the gun show loophole. These are all not the current law, they are opposed by the NRA, so it seems to me that Bernie's certainly not "soft" on guns.
And quite frankly, he has been fearless in discussing on this issue (as he is fearless with every issue). No, he doesn't want to take away every gun in America -- guess what, neither do Americans.
Sanders has been out front saying that there is "consensus" on what ACTION should be taken to work on gun control. So where's the news story on how that is getting mucked up in Congress, hmm?
Hillary takes one breakout stance on an issue, and suddenly she's a liberal hero? I'm confused, I thought she was a self-described moderate? (What flavor will we get from her next week?)
What about all the Wall Street money going to Hillary? What about the Iraq War vote? What about the TPP? We're not buying it.
Since when is it "not tough" when someone wants to ban assault weapons, wants instant background checks, and wants to close the gun show loophole. These are all not the current law, they are opposed by the NRA, so it seems to me that Bernie's certainly not "soft" on guns.
And quite frankly, he has been fearless in discussing on this issue (as he is fearless with every issue). No, he doesn't want to take away every gun in America -- guess what, neither do Americans.
Sanders has been out front saying that there is "consensus" on what ACTION should be taken to work on gun control. So where's the news story on how that is getting mucked up in Congress, hmm?
Hillary takes one breakout stance on an issue, and suddenly she's a liberal hero? I'm confused, I thought she was a self-described moderate? (What flavor will we get from her next week?)
What about all the Wall Street money going to Hillary? What about the Iraq War vote? What about the TPP? We're not buying it.
255
How about responding to the issue at hand? Guns.
4
Do you not know that he voted against the Brady bill which outlawed assault weapons? You need to get real information about this important issue and Sanders position - the one he has actually taken with his votes. Not the one he is coming up with right now to try to "reset" his position.
3
This is not a hit piece. It isn't overwhelmingly positive with respect to Sanders, but reasonable people can disagree on the topic of gun control, and there is room for reasoned critique here. It is reasonable to critique the willingness to paint Hillary as a liberal on one issue, when she is seemingly a classical Republican on most others, but I would say overall this is a balanced news piece.
At least the issues are being discussed.
At least the issues are being discussed.
2
Bernie Sanders is in favor of sensible gun control. His vote in support of gun control after Sandyhook shows that. He is not a rabidly anti-gun guy because his home state has a sensible gun culture. Please do not misrepresent Bernie Sander's views on guns.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/17/senate-roll-call-...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/17/senate-roll-call-...
112
Sorry, this is Bernie's soft spot.
Much as I hate to say it, he is weak on gun control.
Much as I hate to say it, he is weak on gun control.
1
We need gun control in the U.S. We do not need some more namby pamby doomed to fail, gun industry diddled, half-baked gun bill. Ammo and guns need to be restricted. The 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed or substantially modified. Bernie has been a fun ride hooting and hollering to tax the rich and rein in Wall Street, but this issue and women's rights are too important to compromise on. He's not a woman, and he's soft on guns and the NRA. Got it, Vermont. So what. I don't care. It's the nation and the world being ruined by the gun. It's really not about zip code politics.
1
Bernie is soft on gun control - period. He has had the opportunity to enhance background checks, manufacturer liability, etc. and has done nothing. When he says that guns in VT are something different that guns in L.A. , or Chicago, or Oregon etc. he is just pandering for votes. I live here. Have lived here for more then 20 years. There have been enough gun related incidents in VT. in the past decade to warrant attention but not a word from Senator Sanders.
Of course his campaign will begin to assemble some comprehensive comments about guns in the coming weeks - right. Sander's would like you to believe that he bases his opinion on the fact that he represents a state that uses firearms mostly for recreation - really? Kids shot because parents do not secure firearms, how about a tally of where VT. would fall with Per Capita gun trades/sales for drugs in the U.S.
Bernie Sanders may have a message for some folks on some issues but on guns he's a fraud and I'm no Hilary supporter.
Of course his campaign will begin to assemble some comprehensive comments about guns in the coming weeks - right. Sander's would like you to believe that he bases his opinion on the fact that he represents a state that uses firearms mostly for recreation - really? Kids shot because parents do not secure firearms, how about a tally of where VT. would fall with Per Capita gun trades/sales for drugs in the U.S.
Bernie Sanders may have a message for some folks on some issues but on guns he's a fraud and I'm no Hilary supporter.
10
So who do you support, if anyone?
Did you read what was written: "But after the Newtown, Conn., shootings, Mr. Sanders, by then a senator, voted for expanding background checks and banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines."
That contradicts your statement: " He has had the opportunity to enhance background checks, manufacturer liability, etc. and has done nothing."
Did you read what was written: "But after the Newtown, Conn., shootings, Mr. Sanders, by then a senator, voted for expanding background checks and banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines."
That contradicts your statement: " He has had the opportunity to enhance background checks, manufacturer liability, etc. and has done nothing."
6
It is really difficult to dispute the contention that people with mental illnesses or convictions for violent crimes should have access to guns.
However, gun control is a regional issue. The needs of citizens differ depending on where they live. For example, I don't feel the need for a shotgun or Glock pistol in Manhattan, but I'd sure get one of each if I lived in Nebraska, 40 miles from the nearest town. Remember the book and movie, In Cold Blood?
Bernie Sanders needs to be responsive to the whole country. Not just to urbanites whose exposure to violent crime is limited to watching re-runs of Law and Order.
However, gun control is a regional issue. The needs of citizens differ depending on where they live. For example, I don't feel the need for a shotgun or Glock pistol in Manhattan, but I'd sure get one of each if I lived in Nebraska, 40 miles from the nearest town. Remember the book and movie, In Cold Blood?
Bernie Sanders needs to be responsive to the whole country. Not just to urbanites whose exposure to violent crime is limited to watching re-runs of Law and Order.
4
Oops..... I meant to write It is really difficult to dispute the contention that people with mental illnesses or convictions for violent crimes should NOT have access to guns.
1
I am a Liberal Democrat and recreational shooter and infrequent hunter. I despise the NRA for their 2nd Amendment Militia agenda! I think we need strict registration and control of firearms. It's too easy for anyone to get their hands on heavy weapons. An assault rifle with a high capacity mag is NOT a hunting piece.
Bernie represents a rural state where hunting is a tradition, though doubtful that many there hunt with assault weapons. I'm still voting for him.
Bernie represents a rural state where hunting is a tradition, though doubtful that many there hunt with assault weapons. I'm still voting for him.
179
Newsflash: The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.
2
What do you 're-create' when you shoot?
Life?
Calmness?
Serenity?
Art?
Purpose?
Beauty?
Or,
Death.
Revenge.
Power.
Life?
Calmness?
Serenity?
Art?
Purpose?
Beauty?
Or,
Death.
Revenge.
Power.
Of course he does - of course he does. Ol' Bernie's just now finding out what's involved in running for national office. Somehow, his "firebrand" speeches sound tinny when echoed in this big an auditorium.
Hilary was the first to promote herself on gun control, taking political advantage of the victims' misery. Bernie will follow suit soon...
Hilary was the first to promote herself on gun control, taking political advantage of the victims' misery. Bernie will follow suit soon...
5
If Hilary does in fact vote for real gun control, it would be one of the few liberal votes in her life. Get real, shes a Republican through and through.
6
Sorry, have you compared Hillary's positions to the Republican platform? Gar rights? Equal pay for women? Immigration? Tax policy? No, she is not a Republican.
2
Let's just outlaw the weapons manufacturing (including all the Military Industrial Complex). If there are no guns...great.
Stop also international weapon dealing.
I'd rather vote for Bernie who is not the warmonger that Hillary has turned out to be.
Stop also international weapon dealing.
I'd rather vote for Bernie who is not the warmonger that Hillary has turned out to be.
21
The clamor for "gun control" is a red herring argument which occurs whenever the news media and politicians see a chance to fan the flames for their favorite "cause". Murder is the problem, murder by knives, clubs, poison, arson, explosives, beatings by thugs. Murder by known criminals who have eluded justice and sometimes murder by law enforcement officials. Is murder by other methods than guns less important? Didn't each of the perpetrators of the recent multiple shootings manage to get around current gun restrictions? Would a logical thinking person believe that more restrictive gun laws prevent the loss of innocent lives? If that were true how is it that we have seen law enforcement officers shoot innocent or unarmed people? Finally, how does a law abiding citizen protect himself or his loved ones against thugs on the street, a car jacking, a home invasion? It's an established fact that a loaded firearm is the best protection against a deadly attack by someone with a weapon. That's why police have loaded guns. But the students in their gun-free school zones had no defense.
3
Please, that kid would never go into that school looking to kill people with a knife. People like him couldn't handle killing someone with their bare hands. They are able to do what they do because they can stand 10 feet away (or more) and kill a bunch of people at one time.
9
The odds of surviving a knifing are actually rather high unless it is a direct stabbing to the hilt to a major organ or severs a major artery.
And don't even get me started on the myth of 'protecting' oneself from an attacker.
And don't even get me started on the myth of 'protecting' oneself from an attacker.
1
The NRA loves to hand out their 'rating' on politicians who are for or against them. They have that right but what has always puzzled me is why, when only about 4% of Americans hold NRA membership cards, their ratings seem to mean so much to anyone, particularly the Press. In almost any other matter, 4%, for or against, is negligible and that group is virtually ignored. Gun laws, or lack of them, didn't cause what happened here. Nothing anyone in Government can or does do will prevent events like this. Nothing!
2
Bernie is not going to be the President of Vermont. We don't need another white liberal ideologue any more than we need another white conservative male ideologue. Only one candidate has produced any compelling policy positions that are also supported by first-rate research and well-reasoned argument - the rest is just a lot of hooey that people on both side want to hear and the candidate is decidedly not a white male liberal or conservative. Gosh what if people stopped projecting their desire and fears on candidates and ACTUALLY read the material?!?!?! If everyone is not perfect than why do we crucify Hillary over email yet forgive Bernie his provincial take on guns and get all dewy eyed about his orating. He ain't Gandalf folks.
17
I couldn't care less about emails. I won't vote for Hilary because she is a Democrat in name only. Look at her voting record.
3
Clinton is not being questioned about e-mail, she is being questioned because because of her ignorant handling of classified data, violations of government policy and her need to lie about it and cover things up. E-mail was merely the means by which the weasel was discovered.
4
I don't see Sander's take as the provincial one, but rather the pragmatic one for the whole country. He's talking about getting past the shouting. What is your solution?
Who's the candidate you describe?
I don't really care for any politician, but I will say that Sanders isn't being that inconsistent and he's not giving a poll tested answer.
Who's the candidate you describe?
I don't really care for any politician, but I will say that Sanders isn't being that inconsistent and he's not giving a poll tested answer.
7
Hunting requires a permit, correct? So, please don't compare Vermont gun ownership with national crime via glocks and semi-autos. That's ludicrous. I am not a gun owner, but I'm not blind, either. Technology-driven isolation, kids hooked on violent graphic video games, pharma pushing anti-psychotics on kids for decades, now, the chemical-laden American diet and its impact on our brains, hormones, and emotions, and especially the lack of funding for decent mental health care. Politicians are shutting down funding for mental health care all over this country. Bernie is 100% right! Things need to change and it has to be done together as a nation--our priorities must change. We can do it while still respecting the 2nd amend. We can stop these tragedies by going to the heart and soul of the problem.
27
If Hillary had any real intention of doing something about gun massacres, I'd switch and vote for her but, again, her finger is in the wind and this issue is one she thinks on which she can win.
28
How do you figure that this is a ploy by Clinton? She's been on record and voted against the bill that let gun manufacturers off the hook; Sanders voted for it. That's not supposition; it's fact. The same standard that's applied to Clinton should be applied to Sanders and on this issue, I think he's wrong.
11
Tina: why should a gun manufacturer be liable if someone misuses a gun? Everyone knows what guns are for, what they do and how they do it. It is not the fault of the manufacturer unless the gun has a defect.
1
Listen up Bernie! I was a Hillary supporter and decided to vote for you in the primary, even gave you $50! I want my money back. I am going to heed the President and vote for Hillary who stands for real gun control and limits. You are such a disappointment. I'm glad I found out you are a cowardly politician before I voted.
16
That's too bad you let a hit piece sway you one way or the other. Bernie has put out a statement that includes an outline for gun control, much of which he's recently voted for in Congress. He has a team working to refine and expand those solutions: https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-appalled-by-mass-shootings/
Hillary Clinton is a corporate warmonger, with ties to nearly every complex out there (military, private prisons, Wall Street, fossil fuels, big pharma)
Hillary Clinton is a corporate warmonger, with ties to nearly every complex out there (military, private prisons, Wall Street, fossil fuels, big pharma)
5
How is this a hit piece? It explains his position.
6
Michelle- it doesn't explain his latest position. People do evolve. I like Hillary and voted for her in the last primary. I'm still undecided on Hillary or Sanders. I'll vote for the candidate whom I think has the best chance of defeating anyone the GOP throws at us. Any GOP win is far, far worse than not voting for Sanders if he wins the nomination. We democrats need to unite in our support of the democratic nominee. In reference to your prior comment. If you want your daughter to HAVE a future you'd best support the democratic nominee. It really is that simple.
The gun problem does indeed require a "holistic" solution. Bernie's economic and social policies cover much of that solution. Today we have an America which exploits and neglects its people. This country needs to nurture them instead. A more democratic economy, which is central to Bernie's message, has great potential to erase much of the hatred and violence in our society.
189
This is just nonsense...a little girl 8-year-old was killed over the weekend in Tennessee, because a father of an 11-year-old boy did not lock up a gun and allowed his son access. Now the boy is facing premeditated murder charges.
9
Require a "holistic" solution? If you look at the last 10 years of mass shootings,the problem is not economic. The problem is not holding people with guns accountable both in the process of attaining them ,their use, & their accessibility of others. I & most Americans do not have a problem with someone having a gun or collecting them. There is nothing wrong with demanding that a person who owns a gun to be qualified in handling,storage & purpose of ownership. Most everyone who deals with life & death machinery has to be certified;doctors, lawyers,& automobile drivers. They also must have liability insurance. Why not weapons? Why can we place limitations on automobiles & not guns? We cannot eliminate violence with a gun,but we can definitely reduce the death toll ,just like safety laws have reduced automobile deaths. The right to bear arms is in the Constitution,but also the protection of the general public safety is paramount. The NRA is accountable for more deaths than Planned Parenthood. A holistic approach may make difference in a generation or two,but people are dying now. We are at the mercy of gang bangers ,conspiracy theorists & the mentally unstable who find their way of life existentially being threatened.should they have a gun? That is the very immediate question. It has been immediate for quite awhile,longer than Bernie Sanders. Our problem & Bernie's is not facing the problem. When we truly be taking that step Bernie?
5
Most of the posters on this article seem to believe that one issue should determine a candidate's suitability for office. No wonder the Republican't Party is still a contender. Senator Sanders is The Only presidential candidate in decades to take populist approach to addressing the nation and that is the important issue. Sanders' position on gun control is right along with public sentiment, which is mixed and polarized with no common consensus on any level but that of making weapons hard for crazy people to own or acquire.
Would you rather a lobbyist was giving him his talking points as most of the other presidential candidates have done for over a generation?
Would you rather a lobbyist was giving him his talking points as most of the other presidential candidates have done for over a generation?
1
Hillary or the Guns....
Of course it will be the Lady!
No progressive issues mean a dime without gun debate on the table Mr. Bernie.
Of course it will be the Lady!
No progressive issues mean a dime without gun debate on the table Mr. Bernie.
10
There is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to automobiles, and yet, there are 256 million autos in this country.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment. There will still be plenty of guns to go around, but our legislators will finally be able to enact common-sense controls on their ownership, possession, and use.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment. There will still be plenty of guns to go around, but our legislators will finally be able to enact common-sense controls on their ownership, possession, and use.
13
Mr Sanders speaks of how many people own guns in VT. What they own are hunting rifles, shotguns, and the like. The reason that there is less gun violence in VT is because unlike many other places, most people don't own, nor care about hand guns, or assault rifles.
The paranoia created by the NRA has ill, and ill informed people lining up to buy guns to protect themselves from whatever ungrounded fears they might have.
The concept that a fully armed populace will result in less gun violence is sheer lunacy.
The paranoia created by the NRA has ill, and ill informed people lining up to buy guns to protect themselves from whatever ungrounded fears they might have.
The concept that a fully armed populace will result in less gun violence is sheer lunacy.
238
Funny. Someone in Idaho knows what kind of guns people in Vermont have in their safes.
1
This is not true. I have lived in rural Vermont almost 20 years. Many of my neighbors and friends own handguns, as well as hunting rifles. I am not sure why there is less gun violence in Vermont. Part of it is the "live and let live" ethos, part is our state's low religiosity, and part is the low population density. But a school shooting could happen here, however, because everywhere in this country the meme for such horrendous acts is present, and all it takes is one angry individual.
Bernie's struggle with how to understand and prevent gun violence is everyone's struggle.
Bernie's struggle with how to understand and prevent gun violence is everyone's struggle.
2
Can you back up your comment with a source?
This Vermonter wants more gun control. I can walk into a gun store tomorrow, flash my license, and walk out with a gun. Or many many guns. Absurd. And for those who say Vermont is safe and we have not had a school shooting, that just means we are waiting for our first one. We have plenty of sad confused white boys with guns at their fingertips. Bernie, whom I adore in many ways, and whom I have voted for on many occasions, is starting to get on my nerves with all the simplistic Bad People Have Money, Good People Do Not shtick (and I should note, I really do not), along with his wanting to ignore gun control (until he can no longer ignore it, when pressed, such as right now). Also, there is a huge trade in guns up here. Dealers come up with loads of heroin and go back down to MA & NY with guns. Over and over. So Vermont guns might terrorize folks elsewhere. Hillary is right to press forward with strong gun control, I am listening.
65
He has been calling for more gun control and is working to expand his proposals. Not sure why this article is saying the opposite: https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-appalled-by-mass-shootings/
Hillary, otoh, is a warmonger with ties to the MIC, private prisons, big pharma, Wall Street, dirty fossil fuel money. The choice is clear.
Hillary, otoh, is a warmonger with ties to the MIC, private prisons, big pharma, Wall Street, dirty fossil fuel money. The choice is clear.
5
Thanks for the link mremwo. I don't know why the NY Times and others keep ignoring things like this. If you check out Sander's record, which I have, he has voted for reasonable legislation like limiting magazine size, banning assault style weapons, extended background checks and other reasonable proposals. If I lived in VT I would be very nervous with the amount of guns in their state since heroin/meth use is near epidemic. Do we really need some hopped up junky having such easy access to guns? This is how the regulations will help to minimize the risk. Massachusetts requires character reference letters to the chief of police before a pistol permit is issued in an attempt to weed out the unstable. is it foolproof? No, but the statistics speak for themselves .People still have guns here but we rank 48th per capita in gun deaths. Could it possibly be because we have reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of people who really shouldn't have them? I'm really tired of the second amendment adherents who conveniently disregard the well regulated phrase in the second amendment. I'm also really tired of their total disregard of the preamble that states that the government will provide for the general welfare of the people and that our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is guaranteed. The constitution doesn't begin and end with the second amendment. It would be nice if those who claim to be such strict constitutionalists would actually read the damn thing!
Many comments are made that regulating gun sales, by whatever means, no matter how strict they are, will have little or no effect on the numbers of gun related deaths. The word that's always missing, of course, is "immediate" (effect.) There are some 270 million in the U.S. It will take years for regulations and laws to be passed and put into effect, for the means of enforcement to be applied and monitored, for databases to be established, for gun "buy-back" programs to be organized. In other words, a regulatory system that is successful to the degree that they are so in the most developed countries--a group of 35 in which we are currently rated 31.
13
My God!
A leftist who actually understands that gun ownership is one of the civil rights we have, that gun prohibitionists are ideological and will strip civil rights they don't like from the public the same way religious ideologues will strip 1st amendment rights on us, racists will strip voting rights from us, and hard-on-crime types will strip due process rights from us!
Imagine: Democrats have the chance to vote for someone who recognizes that what is good in New York City may not be right for rural Montana, and vice-versa.
I bet my last dollar that Sanders would agree that moderate gains in restrictions - universal background checks, and temporary disarmament of people experience emotional or psychological distress who aren't yet adjudicated mentally ill - would are the most important goals.
Not repealing the Second Amendment, or full ban and confiscation, or pretending that modern ammunition should be banned, or any of the ridiculous over-reaches from prohibitionists who don't like guns in general and don't care about the Constitution, but instead believe they have business picking and choosing which civil rights people get.
A leftist who actually understands that gun ownership is one of the civil rights we have, that gun prohibitionists are ideological and will strip civil rights they don't like from the public the same way religious ideologues will strip 1st amendment rights on us, racists will strip voting rights from us, and hard-on-crime types will strip due process rights from us!
Imagine: Democrats have the chance to vote for someone who recognizes that what is good in New York City may not be right for rural Montana, and vice-versa.
I bet my last dollar that Sanders would agree that moderate gains in restrictions - universal background checks, and temporary disarmament of people experience emotional or psychological distress who aren't yet adjudicated mentally ill - would are the most important goals.
Not repealing the Second Amendment, or full ban and confiscation, or pretending that modern ammunition should be banned, or any of the ridiculous over-reaches from prohibitionists who don't like guns in general and don't care about the Constitution, but instead believe they have business picking and choosing which civil rights people get.
18
Look, people want reasonable gun ownership controls, not snark. More preschoolers die each year from gun violence than police officers. You need to think about how wrong that is and whether this is really a topic for dripping sarcasm.
16
"Not repealing the Second Amendment, or full ban and confiscation, or pretending that modern ammunition should be banned, or any of the ridiculous over-reaches from prohibitionists who don't like guns in general and don't care about the Constitution, . . . "
Sorry, but the Constitution, as designed, is meant to be modified. Repealing an Amendment whose purpose long ago ceased to exist is the very essence of caring about the Constitution.
Sorry, but the Constitution, as designed, is meant to be modified. Repealing an Amendment whose purpose long ago ceased to exist is the very essence of caring about the Constitution.
11
More people want to prohibit abortions or realistic sex education or same-sex marriages than want to prohibit guns. And a huge majority just wants regulation, like we have with autos.
10
I understand that Senator Sanders' record has to appeal to constituents in order to be (re)elected and do any good. But while Vermont is a rural, hunting state with low crime, the same is true of Oregon, and the problem of a heavily-armed, deranged individual in Roseburg led to the newest tragedy. And individual states with lax gun laws also present an opportunity to out-of-state residents to get guns. America needs uniform, nation-wide laws to make gun control effective - and to keep individual legislators and governors independent of the firearms lobby.
152
You are aware that USA does not stand for the "United State of America", right?
In Vermont, guns (long gun or pistol) may be carried openly or concealed pretty much anywhere (except private property where the owners may prohibit it) without a permit for any purpose other than the commission of a crime.
Yet Vermont has minimal gun crime and is consistently rated the safest state in the US.
There is no justification to impose draconian gun laws on a state that sees no need for them and has done just fine without them for a couple hundred years now, thank you very much.
The idea that one cannot be both a liberal and against overreaching one-size-fits-all gun control would have been an alien one to the outstanding Democrats in the Not-So-Old West - I'm talking about people like Oregon Sen. Wayne Morse, or Idaho's Frank Church.
They were anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-environment, labor & etc., but they properly regarded the right to keep and bear arms as a civil right enabling people to exercise the most fundamental of human rights: the right to personally defend one's person, family, property and community.
It's unfortunate that the NRA gives unwarrantedly low ratings to Democrats willing to buck what has become the party line on gun control.
Hey, maybe Bernie is a socialist after all, and remembers the old George Orwell quote:
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
In Vermont, guns (long gun or pistol) may be carried openly or concealed pretty much anywhere (except private property where the owners may prohibit it) without a permit for any purpose other than the commission of a crime.
Yet Vermont has minimal gun crime and is consistently rated the safest state in the US.
There is no justification to impose draconian gun laws on a state that sees no need for them and has done just fine without them for a couple hundred years now, thank you very much.
The idea that one cannot be both a liberal and against overreaching one-size-fits-all gun control would have been an alien one to the outstanding Democrats in the Not-So-Old West - I'm talking about people like Oregon Sen. Wayne Morse, or Idaho's Frank Church.
They were anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-environment, labor & etc., but they properly regarded the right to keep and bear arms as a civil right enabling people to exercise the most fundamental of human rights: the right to personally defend one's person, family, property and community.
It's unfortunate that the NRA gives unwarrantedly low ratings to Democrats willing to buck what has become the party line on gun control.
Hey, maybe Bernie is a socialist after all, and remembers the old George Orwell quote:
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
What law would have stopped this cretin?
2
"America needs uniform, nation-wide laws to make gun control effective - and to keep individual legislators and governors independent of the firearms lobby."
Well, that might be appropriate in a country with a unitarian government that arrogates to itself the power to override the (quaint concept) "right" of individuals to protect themselves from attack.
However, in a country that is a constitutional republic - 45 of whose state constitutions recognize the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, among whose purposes are self defense... it is decidedly inappropriate.
Maybe you should forget getting rid of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, it sounds like you'd rather get rid of the whole thing. Better get to work writing it up, maybe you can model it after France or North Korea.
I know, you can call it the "United State of America".
Well, that might be appropriate in a country with a unitarian government that arrogates to itself the power to override the (quaint concept) "right" of individuals to protect themselves from attack.
However, in a country that is a constitutional republic - 45 of whose state constitutions recognize the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, among whose purposes are self defense... it is decidedly inappropriate.
Maybe you should forget getting rid of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, it sounds like you'd rather get rid of the whole thing. Better get to work writing it up, maybe you can model it after France or North Korea.
I know, you can call it the "United State of America".
Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data. And the numbers keep increasing.
Inaction is not an option anymore.
If close to 33.000 people were killed in a year due to terrorism, or other causes, Congress would be taking serious action. Mr Sanders is part of Congress and he's voted many times against gun control perpetuating the crisis.
Inaction is not an option anymore.
If close to 33.000 people were killed in a year due to terrorism, or other causes, Congress would be taking serious action. Mr Sanders is part of Congress and he's voted many times against gun control perpetuating the crisis.
102
At the very least, we should be able to fund full scale research into this, but the gun lobby holds us all hostage. As Kristof said in another article, we need to start treating this as a public health issue. That's what led to safety measures for cars and cigarettes.
6
Good idea Tina, but the founders didn't guarantee our right to cigarettes or cars in the Constitution. Big difference.
1
Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of people. In fact, the fall out of the war still continues. Bernie Sanders voted no. Sanders has not recently voted against gun control just as Clinton has not recently voted for war. Maybe they're both getting smarter.
1
Twenty elementary school children and a congresswoman were shot and no drastic gun control laws were passed. I don't know what it will take to have stricter gun control in America.
Bernie represents a state where hunting is a hobby and mass shootings are not an issue. He certainly believes in sensible gun control laws. He also happens to have a dismal rating, I believe a D or an F, from the NRA.
Bernie represents a state where hunting is a hobby and mass shootings are not an issue. He certainly believes in sensible gun control laws. He also happens to have a dismal rating, I believe a D or an F, from the NRA.
127
NYT will try to muddy people candidate in any way they can. Notice how they devote a lot of article to HRC and post a video. It is clear that they are sold out. In fact, all media is trying to force people to elect her. Bernie is the candidate with most common sense and pro-people stance. He appeals to both camps.
18
This progressive just gave him an "F" for political courage on this issue, most disturbing.
4
I think that the true problem is mental illness with these shootings. Bernie Sander's call for a continuing revolution in our politics are far stronger than any other supporter towards a path which might solve them.
Clinton's support of the war in Iraq is reflective of her poor judgement and moral weakness. This war and the backlash it has caused is much more tragic then the various shootings around this country. I, still a child then, had predicted all that the war would cause.
I think that we should just not have military style guns, one shot and a long time to reload type. Similar to what our founding fathers had in mind when they created the second amendment.
There is a serious problem with are society and we need a revolution. Go Bernie!
Clinton's support of the war in Iraq is reflective of her poor judgement and moral weakness. This war and the backlash it has caused is much more tragic then the various shootings around this country. I, still a child then, had predicted all that the war would cause.
I think that we should just not have military style guns, one shot and a long time to reload type. Similar to what our founding fathers had in mind when they created the second amendment.
There is a serious problem with are society and we need a revolution. Go Bernie!
76
You are so right, Joe.
One step in the right direction would be better enforcement of the existing laws plus a longer waiting period before it's possible to buy a gun. But the reality is that those with evil intentions will always find a workaround.
One step in the right direction would be better enforcement of the existing laws plus a longer waiting period before it's possible to buy a gun. But the reality is that those with evil intentions will always find a workaround.
3
Sanders and I are far apart on this issue.
He still has my vote.
No candidate is perfect.
Truth is, if he doesn't get the nomination, I won't vote for president.
Yet again.
The rest are nowhere near getting my vote.
He still has my vote.
No candidate is perfect.
Truth is, if he doesn't get the nomination, I won't vote for president.
Yet again.
The rest are nowhere near getting my vote.
85
Thank you! His honesty and consistency is refreshing. NYT and other corporate media will continue to disparage him but I think people know better.
12
You're in Chicago... Your vote is irrelevant in presidential elections.
Illinois will go blue whether you stay home or not.
Illinois will go blue whether you stay home or not.
@Charlie - Be Careful Here. I witnessed this same attitude in 1980 and in 2000. Progressives stayed home. Ronnie Ray Gun got elected (in 1980) and Cheney/Bush (in 2000) - and the rest is history. The Supreme Court is ON THE LINE. And flipping the WH to the Repubs would guarantee plutocratic/theological dominance for the next thirty years.
15
It's not Bernie Sanders' job to toe every big gov lefty/socialist talking point.
Sorry he's not the 100% radical socialist in a can that everyone around here desperately wants him to be.
Trust me, he's far left enough to please people around here and be totally unelectable in a general election.
Sorry he's not the 100% radical socialist in a can that everyone around here desperately wants him to be.
Trust me, he's far left enough to please people around here and be totally unelectable in a general election.
30
He is not uneletable. Stop that idea in its track. if you vote for him, he is more than electable. He is doing better than HRC against republican candidates in general matchup.
12
So who is more electable? Jeb Bush whose remark after the Oregon school shooting is, quote "stuff happens".
How callous ( and clueless ) can you be?
How callous ( and clueless ) can you be?
3
Totally unelectable? Wanna bet?
3
Ok. So forget gun 'control'. Go for insurance requirements. Allow gun manufacturers and sellers to be sued. Let doctors talk to patients about guns. At the very minimum, allow the government to keep accurate records and do research. You're dropping the same ball as everyone else, Bernie. Not acceptable anymore.
147
He is as sensible on guns as you can get. Would you sue a car manufacturer say Toyota if someone run over a person with with his/her Toyota? That is really does not make much sense. It makes sense to invest in tougher and more immediate background checks, preventing people from buying guns at show and investing in mental health treatment. All of which he is strongly advocated LONG before HRC.
10
How about sensible gun storage laws too. Firearms have to be in a locked safe, where children or casual break-ins can't access a firearm.
What gun owner wants to be culpable in a mass shooting?
The Congressional ban on funding firearm fatality research by the NIH is bogus; pandering to the NRA. As are laws that prohibit family physicians from questioning patients about firearms in the home.
I do support Bernie.
What gun owner wants to be culpable in a mass shooting?
The Congressional ban on funding firearm fatality research by the NIH is bogus; pandering to the NRA. As are laws that prohibit family physicians from questioning patients about firearms in the home.
I do support Bernie.
3
This is just part of the post-shooting dance. What about the other causes/ Like taking God out of the classroom; school psychologists not identifying and tracking all the "weirdos". The decline of the family and poor parenting. Bad shool administration. Jock culture. Incompetent police. THESE were the warring factions that came out after Columbine. The gun-control people just don't see themselves as part of the dance. Same as the others.
Bernie Sanders has voted in favor of expanded background checks for commercial sales with an exemption for sales between “family, friends, and neighbors”. He has also voted in favor of a national instant background check system.
“We need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it. But some people think it’s going to solve all of our problems, and it’s not. We have a crisis in the capability of addressing mental health illness in this country. When people are hurting and are prepared to do something terrible, we need to do something immediately. We don’t have that and we should have that,” Sanders said.
Watch Bernie talk about gun control on Youtube: https://youtu.be/BM-VVSIRvEQ