Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
Wed May 6, 2015, 09:52 PM May 2015

Voting against the Brady Bill versus voting for the Iraq War Resolution?

What do you see as the bigger negative in a Democratic Presidential candidate?


18 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Voting against the Brady Bill is the bigger negative
0 (0%)
Voting for the Iraq War Resolution is the bigger negative
18 (100%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
71 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Voting against the Brady Bill versus voting for the Iraq War Resolution? (Original Post) Nye Bevan May 2015 OP
Your post proves nothing Renew Deal May 2015 #1
Voting against the Brady Bill ... Evergreen Emerald May 2015 #2
Absolutely true BainsBane May 2015 #4
Guns kill more people every year. JaneyVee May 2015 #61
Not just the Brady bill BainsBane May 2015 #3
He voted for the PLCAA because he knows that holding a manufacturer liable for GGJohn May 2015 #6
Good post. bigwillq May 2015 #7
There would be no need for a separate law for that BainsBane May 2015 #10
Oh? And what firearms manufacturers delivered weapons to illegal gun runners? GGJohn May 2015 #11
Manufacturers know purchasers will take care of that. Manufacturers know guns will be misused, Hoyt May 2015 #34
Oh really? GGJohn May 2015 #37
If you made a living off something that hurt so many people, would you keep doing it? Hoyt May 2015 #41
Oh, so that would apply to the auto industry also, GGJohn May 2015 #48
Nope, cars aren't built to kill. Do you have three garages full of cars? Hoyt May 2015 #50
Oh, so you're not just as injured or dead because a car wasn't built for killing? GGJohn May 2015 #51
" People go on about Americans being killed with drones..." beevul May 2015 #55
What was the bill going to do? treestar May 2015 #60
No they are not dsc May 2015 #65
Exempts them from their own negligence? treestar May 2015 #67
As disturbing as your statistic is there is no form of gun violence worse than war Bjorn Against May 2015 #13
That may be BainsBane May 2015 #21
It does concern me, unfortunately there is not a candidate that does not have some bad positions Bjorn Against May 2015 #26
I am too, though I still agree with him more than anyone else out there. arcane1 May 2015 #31
Absolutely BainsBane May 2015 #44
You're disappointed in the same way I'm disappointed at the lack of vegemite cheesecake Scootaloo May 2015 #35
What? BainsBane May 2015 #42
My apologies, BainsBane, I actually had you mixed up with someone else, somehow Scootaloo May 2015 #53
Though it also includes the Civil War BainsBane May 2015 #22
Even so, when you count the Iraqis and Vietnamese killed the number of war deaths is astronomical Bjorn Against May 2015 #29
I understand BainsBane May 2015 #45
Anyone who opposes guns should have opposed the Iraq War Bjorn Against May 2015 #5
There are lots of lives dying in the US from guns, how can any one defend one vote over the other Thinkingabout May 2015 #33
Both votes were wrong, but their effects were not equal Bjorn Against May 2015 #39
You are right both votes may be wrong, for the number of poster claiming they would never Thinkingabout May 2015 #59
This message was self-deleted by its author guillaumeb May 2015 #8
"he opposed the bill because he felt handgun waiting periods could be dealt with at the state level" arcane1 May 2015 #32
no contest PowerToThePeople May 2015 #9
Are you suggesting that Sen. Sanders is a war criminal? eom. GGJohn May 2015 #12
you people.. PowerToThePeople May 2015 #14
Ok, sorry. GGJohn May 2015 #17
sorry if I came across badly PowerToThePeople May 2015 #19
No problem, GGJohn May 2015 #20
Voting NO on the ISIS resolution was not a good vote either. People are still getting killed. Thinkingabout May 2015 #36
So domestic war, no problem? BainsBane May 2015 #23
That's the problem, GGJohn May 2015 #24
Amen to that. n/t 99Forever May 2015 #27
I understand people have differing opinions BainsBane May 2015 #47
Ban all Guns! PowerToThePeople May 2015 #30
The gun lobby is working to overturn local and state restrictions BainsBane May 2015 #49
And "domestic war", to use your phrase, guillaumeb May 2015 #38
excellent point BainsBane May 2015 #46
I ckecked out the Senator's main contributors. guillaumeb May 2015 #69
I think it's forty something percent of Americans who own guns BainsBane May 2015 #70
Neither one are in my top issues for a candidate. n/t tammywammy May 2015 #15
I can despise both just as much, and neither candidate gets a pass. NuclearDem May 2015 #16
Ever notice how the very same folks... 99Forever May 2015 #18
It's a DU rule. n/t cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #25
To the average voter? Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #28
Standard reply, followed by snarky ending. Rex May 2015 #40
Let's see a good vote I support versus one of the most foolish ones ever that I don't? TheKentuckian May 2015 #43
Gee, let's see.... MADem May 2015 #52
False equivalent Gman May 2015 #54
Since Brady around a quarter of a million people have been murdered.* joshcryer May 2015 #56
The excuses are appalling treestar May 2015 #57
false. and don't put that in the past tense. They're still dying and it's due cali May 2015 #58
Yep. I've already said I think the way folks characterize Dems votes for IWR is revisionist history stevenleser May 2015 #62
Wrong LittleBlue May 2015 #68
I honestly believe any attempt to justify the Iraq war is kind of appalling. bullwinkle428 May 2015 #71
The bottom line is: no candidate is going to have a perfect track record. cyberswede May 2015 #63
People write sane stuff, and sane stuff gets ignored in favor of the sexy stuff. ScreamingMeemie May 2015 #64
But but but...ponies! If the small group of shit stirrers don't stir the shit Rex May 2015 #66

Renew Deal

(81,801 posts)
1. Your post proves nothing
Wed May 6, 2015, 09:56 PM
May 2015

Because they are both bad and cannot be compared. It can be argued that there were justifications for the Iraq War (though I disagree with them). What justifications are there for voting against the Brady Bill?

Evergreen Emerald

(13,069 posts)
2. Voting against the Brady Bill ...
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:02 PM
May 2015

Du would be in a tizzy if Clinton had Sander's view on gun control. People are so forgiving when it comes to sanders.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
3. Not just the Brady bill
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:05 PM
May 2015

He voted for gun manufacturers to have immunity from tort liability. How can people claim to be anti-war while supporting or turning a blind eye to the domestic war of gun violence at home, one that has killed more Americans since 1968 than all US wars in history?

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
6. He voted for the PLCAA because he knows that holding a manufacturer liable for
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:16 PM
May 2015

the criminal or negligent misuse of their product is ridiculous.
You can still sue the firearms manufacturers if their product is defective causing injury or death, what you can't do is sue them for the criminal or negligent use of their product.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
10. There would be no need for a separate law for that
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:25 PM
May 2015

and it has been applied to exempt gun companies who knowingly delivered weapons to illegal gun runners. Any support for gun manufacturers and against gun control is pro-murder and pro-domestic war as far as I'm concerned. People go on about Americans being killed with drones but don't bat an eye when they are massacred with guns. Murder is murder. Evil is evil, and the gun situation in America is the embodiment of evil itself.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
11. Oh? And what firearms manufacturers delivered weapons to illegal gun runners?
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:30 PM
May 2015

You do know that firearms manufacturers are prohibited by Federal law from selling to the general public? They can only sell to FFL dealers.

The reason for this law was the Brady org. talking several cities into suing the manufacturers for the criminal misuse of weapons, they wanted to wear down the manufacturers with SLAPP suits and hoped to bankrupt the industry, instead, it badly backfired on them, so in essence, the Brady org. kicked themselves in the nads.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
34. Manufacturers know purchasers will take care of that. Manufacturers know guns will be misused,
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:14 PM
May 2015

yet still pump them out for gun fanciers. Might be legal, but darn sure immoral.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
41. If you made a living off something that hurt so many people, would you keep doing it?
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:57 PM
May 2015

I know it might be difficult to forget you have at least three gun safes packed with lethal weapons.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
48. Oh, so that would apply to the auto industry also,
Thu May 7, 2015, 12:44 AM
May 2015

after all, automobiles have hurt and killed millions since their inception.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
51. Oh, so you're not just as injured or dead because a car wasn't built for killing?
Thu May 7, 2015, 12:51 AM
May 2015

I have a barn full of farming equipment and several farm vehicles.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
55. " People go on about Americans being killed with drones..."
Thu May 7, 2015, 02:17 AM
May 2015

"People go on about Americans being killed with drones but don't bat an eye when they are massacred with guns."


And if some future administration kills mass numbers with drones, will you blame the administration, or the drones?

If you are consistent with the logic you use when it comes to guns, you'll blame the drones.


I'm not sure theres a better way to illustrate the absurdity of your position.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
60. What was the bill going to do?
Thu May 7, 2015, 01:48 PM
May 2015

If it made them immune from tort liability - what you just described is tort liability. Of course they are strictly liable for defects or their own negligence. But they would never be liable for another's negligent use of their product. So what was there to immunize them from?

treestar

(82,383 posts)
67. Exempts them from their own negligence?
Thu May 7, 2015, 02:08 PM
May 2015

It can't be the negligence of others, since they already aren't liable and don't need exemption.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
13. As disturbing as your statistic is there is no form of gun violence worse than war
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:31 PM
May 2015

I say this as a very strong and vocal opponent of guns, the people in the gungeon hate me so don't think for a second that I don't recognize the severity of gun violence domestically.

The statistic you cite is no doubt extremely disturbing and serious steps need to be taken to reduce those gun deaths. Your statistic is flawed in one major regard however, it only counts American deaths. The vast majority of deaths that have resulted from US wars have not been Americans, I think their lives need to be counted as well. Domestic gun violence is horrible, but there is no form of gun violence worse than war and the body count clearly shows that when you count all lives lost.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
21. That may be
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:46 PM
May 2015

It's true those are only American lives and not all those who die in war. Still, I'm very disappointed to learn of his position on guns and how little it concerns people here.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
26. It does concern me, unfortunately there is not a candidate that does not have some bad positions
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:57 PM
May 2015

Last edited Wed May 6, 2015, 11:29 PM - Edit history (1)

I support Sanders, but I do not support his position on guns, if he were to get elected President this is an issue I would protest him on. I love Sanders on most issues aside from guns and Israel/Palestine so I will support his bid for the Presidency, but no matter who takes office after the election their feet need to be held to the fire.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
31. I am too, though I still agree with him more than anyone else out there.
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:00 PM
May 2015

It's not a game-changer for me, anyway. I wouldn't mind if he were pulled to the left on this issue

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
44. Absolutely
Thu May 7, 2015, 12:21 AM
May 2015

People insist criticism is supposed to raise attention of issues for candidates, yet when it comes to someone they decide they like, they will hear none of it. This brand of politics that makes some individuals heroes above reproach and others the embodiment of all ills is simplistic. Do people care about real issues or just finding a figure head? I have never understood a view of politics, history, or society more generally that focuses on individuals above broader social forces. It strikes me as about next to nothing. Either people care about human life and gun control or they don't. Either promoting corporate interests is bad or it's not. Merchants of death are not better than bankers. In fact they are worse, in my view, because murder is worse than usury.

People discuss their hatred (and it is hatred) for Clinton rather than issues. They project rather than examining voting records. They discuss Greenwald and Snowden as individuals, focusing on endless trivia, and forsake the important issue about the NSA and the conflict between privacy and national security. They like Wikileaks so they assume Assange must be a saint and shouldn't be held responsible for legal charges of sexual assault. What is lost in all of this is any semblance of principle, principles flung out the window in a second if it conflicts with their views of a particular individual. That's not a concern for social reform or economic justice; it's cult of personality for and against, nothing more.

Now I can see how people can weigh the pros and cons on various issues and decide in Sanders favor. But to claim any concern about a voting record is "piling on" or somehow illicit is weak and unprincipled. It's like when people refuse to discuss public financing because they want to make it all about their antipathy for a single candidate. Meanwhile, money continues to corrupt government and they could care less as long as one person is kept out of the White House. There are issues far more pervasive than a single candidate, election, or presidency, yet people insist on making every discussion as small as possible.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
22. Though it also includes the Civil War
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:51 PM
May 2015

and thus accounts for casualties on both sides. That was the deadliest war in US history for American lives, and yet it still pales in comparison to the numbers killed from gun violence since 1968 alone.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
29. Even so, when you count the Iraqis and Vietnamese killed the number of war deaths is astronomical
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:59 PM
May 2015

On edit: I want to be clear that I am not discounting the number of domestic gun deaths. It is very disturbing fact that more Americans were killed by guns at home than in war and I don't want to sound like I am dismissing what you are saying.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
45. I understand
Thu May 7, 2015, 12:25 AM
May 2015

and I don't have a grasp of the numbers involved. Both are atrocious.

Did you see the graphic favorably comparing Sanders to Teddy Roosevelt, Americans most prominent early imperialist and a man who relished killing people. That is a case of white washing history to overlook warmongering and TR's crucial role in constructing American empire.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
5. Anyone who opposes guns should have opposed the Iraq War
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:12 PM
May 2015

Many people here know I am very anti-gun and I am also a long-time anti-war activist who has been in literally hundreds of anti-war actions.

Opposing guns and opposing war are not two separate issues, let's face it the Iraq War led to huge numbers of gun deaths. I am a big supporter of the Brady Bill, but I can not deny that the Iraq War caused a hell of a lot more gun deaths than the Brady Bill prevented.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
33. There are lots of lives dying in the US from guns, how can any one defend one vote over the other
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:13 PM
May 2015

and say other isn't. More soldiers died in Iraq than died in 9/11. There are still many being killed by ISIS but this vote was overlooked apparently.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
39. Both votes were wrong, but their effects were not equal
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:26 PM
May 2015

The Iraq war literally resulted in hundreds of thousands of gun deaths, the rise of ISIS is a direct consequence of the war so people are continuing to die as a result of the Iraq War Resolution.

The Brady Bill has no doubt saved lives, it is impossible to measure how many but I am sure it is significant. No matter how many it saved however it does not make up for the hundreds of thousands who have died and continue to die in Iraq.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
59. You are right both votes may be wrong, for the number of poster claiming they would never
Thu May 7, 2015, 08:15 AM
May 2015

Vote for Hillary because of her IWR then a vote against the Brady Bill and the vote against holding the gun manufactures not held responsible for their product will not be looked on kindly.

Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
32. "he opposed the bill because he felt handgun waiting periods could be dealt with at the state level"
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:02 PM
May 2015

That is a point often overlooked in these kinds of discussions. Thanks for highlighting it!

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
14. you people..
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:35 PM
May 2015


Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq.

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq: Passage of the joint resolution that would authorize President Bush to use the US military as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend U.S. national security against Iraq and enforce UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. It would be required that the president report to Congress, no later than 48 hours after using force, his determination that diplomatic options or other peaceful means would not guarantee US national security against Iraq or allow enforcement of UN resolutions and that using force is consistent with anti-terrorism efforts. The resolution would also give specific statutory authorization under the War Powers Resolution. Every 60 days the president would also be required to report to Congress on actions related to the resolution.

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Bernie_Sanders_War_+_Peace.htm
 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
19. sorry if I came across badly
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:43 PM
May 2015

It felt to me as if you were trying to turn my statement into the opposite of what I meant by it. This has been going on for years by BOGers and is a tactic I am seeing now by HRC supporters on this site. It gets very old having to fight it constantly. Sorry for being so jumpy.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
20. No problem,
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:45 PM
May 2015

I probably would've been the same way.
I try to stay away from those groups, my blood pressure is bad enough already.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
23. So domestic war, no problem?
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:52 PM
May 2015

I don't understand how one can claim to be anti-war while enabling domestic war through gun violence.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
47. I understand people have differing opinions
Thu May 7, 2015, 12:39 AM
May 2015

but when those opinions reflect inconsistencies, I will comment on it. Either one places a value on human life or one doesn't. Either one opposes corporate interests that undermines democracy or one doesn't. Such a glaring inconsistency needs to be pointed out. Some place a higher value on property and individual liberty over the common good. That is their right. I happen to disagree, and I have a right to voice those disagreements, even as the NRA is working to take that right away.

I have also stated quite publicly that I do not care whom anyone votes for. Some will vote Sanders, some Clinton, some O'Malley and some GOP. We all have the the right to make that choice. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026557489

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
30. Ban all Guns!
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:00 PM
May 2015

I think that gun control on the national stage is a failure at the present time. We need to work locally just like we have with marriage equality and legalization of marijuana. Once enough states are in the fold, it can go national.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
49. The gun lobby is working to overturn local and state restrictions
Thu May 7, 2015, 12:47 AM
May 2015

While people here don't want to be disturbed with discussions of gun violence in GD, the NRA is rapidly eroding their rights. They are overturning regulations at the state and municipal level, not just gun bans but restrictions on concealed carry. They are making it a national right, through legal activism, for anyone to carry guns anywhere, without permit or training. They are also restricting First Amendment rights, inserting lines in bills like ACA that prohibit speech on guns. They are the most powerful and best funded lobby in the US, and anyone who thinks that isn't about corporate profits isn't paying attention. Who else can see a bill (background checks) defeated that has support from 90% of the population? All of what people legitimately worry about in regard to Wall Street is enacted in spades by the corporate merchants of death. They have made it impossible to work at the local level because they are systematically overturning those laws. They are a real threat to our democracy, and people who care about the corruption of democracy by corporate America ought not make excuses for them.

Additionally, the issues concerning militarization of the police and killing of citizens is also linked to guns. People say they want an unarmed police force. With a citizenry armed to the teeth, that simply isn't possible.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
38. And "domestic war", to use your phrase,
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:19 PM
May 2015

enables the constant foreign war. War becomes, or rather always was, the norm in the US. The constant violence desensitizes people and makes the violence seem the natural state of things.

Senator Sanders feels that gun control is best accomplished on a state level. Whether or not that is a sound tactical move is another debate.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
46. excellent point
Thu May 7, 2015, 12:32 AM
May 2015

about the connection between domestic and foreign war. We can see it in throughout our culture. We are not the most militaristic society in history by accident.

That state's level argument is a canard. When it comes to promoting gun proliferation, the gun lobby works to overturn not only state but municipal restrictions. He knows that. If the gun lobby respected state's rights, that might be another matter, but they don't. The real divide is between urban and rural, and the gun lobby has ensured that cities like Chicago and DC are not allowed to prohibit hand guns or even concealed carry. They have sought to make it a national issue, so pretending it is about state's rights rings false.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
69. I ckecked out the Senator's main contributors.
Thu May 7, 2015, 07:19 PM
May 2015

Predominantly unions. The NRA is NOT listed as a contributor. Just saying.

I agree that the states' rights argument is a fiction. And increasingly, the percentage of US citizens who actually own guns is not very large, but the total number of guns owned is large.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
70. I think it's forty something percent of Americans who own guns
Thu May 7, 2015, 10:38 PM
May 2015

but yes, there are more guns than people in this country. It's frightening.

Sanders may well believe that gun companies deserve a protected status above other corporations. I do not. They are the most powerful lobby in the country and do a great deal to erode democracy. They are every bit as bad as Wall Street.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
18. Ever notice how the very same folks...
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:40 PM
May 2015

... that sing the praises of polls that they agree with, are the first to discount ones that go the other way?

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
28. To the average voter?
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:59 PM
May 2015

Probably neither matters all that much.

Time and again, it's been proven, what American voters care about is their own pocketbooks, their own jobs.

TheKentuckian

(24,934 posts)
43. Let's see a good vote I support versus one of the most foolish ones ever that I don't?
Thu May 7, 2015, 12:18 AM
May 2015

This is a toughie! I guess I have to go with Iraq being something like infinitely worse.

A mote of dust stacked against a super massive black hole is my vote.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
52. Gee, let's see....
Thu May 7, 2015, 01:03 AM
May 2015

One candidate is from a gun state. The people who vote for him like guns.

The other candidate is from the state that got hit with the worst loss of human life in a terror attack ever in the US. A massive number of the people who voted for this candidate personally knew someone who died in the attack, and the effects of the loss of life, and commerce, resonated across the state for YEARS after the event.

Both votes were in reaction to these rather specific constituencies.

Sounds to me like we've got two legislators who respond to the desires of their constituents. In short, they dance with the ones what brung them.

Of course, this is DU, so let's toss some mindless SHIT about that, instead!!!! Let's make it all PERSONAL....and NEFARIOUS....and while we're at it, let's call each other NAMES!!!!!

Because that's what makes for good political discussion, ya?


joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
56. Since Brady around a quarter of a million people have been murdered.*
Thu May 7, 2015, 05:33 AM
May 2015

Its effect has been minimal. Assuming even the 2% of felons who were denied guns got one, and assuming they went on to murder someone, that's 10k murders. A more reasonable number would probably be a small percentage of that. Perhaps 500 people saved by Brady.

But the Democratic platform is pro-gun regulation. So that will have to be reconciled. Even pro-gun liberals are for better enforcement of the regulations (the Brady Bill hardly convicts anyone).

*not suicides, not accidental discharges, murdered in an act of violence.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
58. false. and don't put that in the past tense. They're still dying and it's due
Thu May 7, 2015, 06:53 AM
May 2015

to the war.

the excuses are disgusting. Had we NOT gone to war, a million would likely be alive. Had every gun control measure been passed that was proposed, the lives saved would have been a relatively small percentage. And it's likely that some of those measures would have been deemed unconstitutional. No sweeping legislation to ban guns was introduced- and that's what you'd need to do to substantially reduce gun violence in this country.

But hey, they're just feriners, right?

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
62. Yep. I've already said I think the way folks characterize Dems votes for IWR is revisionist history
Thu May 7, 2015, 01:53 PM
May 2015

but even if I didn't, the damage from guns to the US year after year is a much bigger deal than the Iraq War.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
68. Wrong
Thu May 7, 2015, 02:22 PM
May 2015

Without the IWR, the Iraq War couldn't have happened. Gun legislation has only a marginal effect on gun violence. The Brady Bill prevented 1.9m gun sales. But those felons could have easily bought a gun at a gun show, from a private party or from the black market. It had almost no impact in a country with ~300m guns.

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
63. The bottom line is: no candidate is going to have a perfect track record.
Thu May 7, 2015, 01:53 PM
May 2015

Vote for whichever candidate best reflects your views.

Either Hillary or Bernie will be light years better than any Republican.

ScreamingMeemie

(68,918 posts)
64. People write sane stuff, and sane stuff gets ignored in favor of the sexy stuff.
Thu May 7, 2015, 01:55 PM
May 2015

Thanks for being sane, cyberswede. Thank you very much.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
66. But but but...ponies! If the small group of shit stirrers don't stir the shit
Thu May 7, 2015, 02:00 PM
May 2015

early it will never set correctly! To those of us that will vote for the primary winner...these groups infighting looks pathetic and childish.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Voting against the Brady ...