2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"My Mom"-Daughter Of Slain Sandy Hook Principal Stars In New Hillary Clinton Ad
Last edited Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)
Thank you, Erica. You are a hero just like your mom. You are using your heartbreak to promote gun reform that will stop the murders of our children and families in our homes, our schools and our streets. A progressive cause that is so long overdue.
She reminds me of my mother: she isnt scared of anything, Erica Smegielski says.
Dawn Hochsprung, will appear in a new ad for the Hillary Clinton campaign in the upcoming primary states of Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Smegielski, to whom Clinton devoted the final portion of her victory speech Tuesday night, argues in the ad, My Mom, that Clinton is the presidential candidate best equipped to reform the countrys gun laws.
The 60-second version of the ad begins with Smegielski describing how painful it was to lose her mother in the December 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Hochsprung, one of 26 victims of the massacre, was killed while trying to protect her students.
No more families should have to go through what we have, Smegielski says. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that has what it takes to take on the gun lobby.
Clintons campaign website says she would strengthen gun background checks by closing loopholes and end legal immunity for gun makers and sellers whose products are used in violent acts, among other reforms.
No one is fighting harder to reform our gun laws than Hillary, Smegielski continues, as footage of her hugging Clinton appears on screen. She reminds me of my mother: she isnt scared of anything. And thats how I know she is the person who can actually make a difference.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)This ain't Australia.
frylock
(34,825 posts)It probably drops off the radar after CT votes.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'm certain you place great faith in your prophecy. Possibly a sandwich board with scripture on either side and a white robe may allow you more credibility.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Haveadream
(1,630 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... or she actually feels compassion for for people. You might try it.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Ordering the taking of life of another human being then making light of it- is sickening and makes her no better of a human being than Gadaffi was.
Fla Dem
(23,591 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I did not comment in regards to the massacre at Sandy Hook.
But her callousness in regards to other lives does nothing to make me believe that she has compassion for any life let alone the children who died at Sandy Hook.
Fla Dem
(23,591 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 06:09 PM - Edit history (1)
she had no compassion for human life. What am I to assume you mean? You used that situation to suggest she doesn't care for human life which includes all innocents deaths, such as those at Sandy Hook.
Frankly I have no problem with her laughing over Gaddfi's death. I cheered when they got Bin Laden. Does that mean I have no compassion for any human life?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I don't care how you try to shame me.
Either all human life has value or it doesn't.
Fla Dem
(23,591 posts)and this thread was about the ad featuring the daughter of the Sandy Hook principle who was mowed down.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Due to economic sanctions on medicine and food, the ones she and her boss President Bill Clinton found so pressing for our national security.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the pricewe think the price is worth it.
60 Minutes (5/12/96)
http://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
For the record: Even in 1991, Iraq was no threat to the United States or to Saudi Arabia. Poppy Bush and his cronies had to lie to the American people, just like his dim son would a decade later.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014778172#post54
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)that was merely the video I used to show her callousness toward other human lives.
But let me ask you this- were those 26 children's lives more valuable than dead Syrian, Iraqi or Libyan children who have died as a result of Hillary's actions?
As I said either all human life has value or it doesn't.
How many times has she mentioned the poisoned children of Flint Michigan since the primary there. No, she tossed them a couple cases of water and is pretty much done with them since she got the votes she wanted from their parents.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Last edited Tue May 3, 2016, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Fla Dem
(23,591 posts)and the NRA when it suited him.
The Daily Beast
2/9/2016
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire Sen. Bernie Sanders has railed against big defense corporations at rallies, but he has a more complex history with the military-industrial complex. Most notably, hes supported a $1.2 trillion stealth fighter thats considered by many to be one of the bigger boondoggles in Pentagon history.
Sanders has made his opposition to Hillary Clintons hawkishness a cornerstone of his campaign. But he hasnt exactly been antiwar all his career. When it has come time to choose between defense jobs and a dovish defense policy, Sanders has consistently chosen to stand with the arms-makers rather than the peaceniksleading to tension with some of the most adamant adherents of progressive ideology.
In 1985, for example, protesters massed at the General Electric plant in Burlington, Vermont, where Sanders was serving as mayor. They were protesting the fact that the plant was manufacturing Gatling guns to fight socialists in Central America.
Jim Condon, now a Democratic state legislator in Vermont, was news director of a local radio station at the time and describes himself as an old acquaintance of the senator.
There were protesters who were unhappy that General Electric was manufacturing Gatling guns at the plant, and so they would lock themselves to the gates and engage in civil disobedience. And so the mayor, Bernie, finally got cops to go in and arrest the protesters, Condon told The Daily Beast. The GE plant was one of the largest providers of jobs in the city. So it was economically important that the plant stay open and people who worked there went to work.
When it comes time to make speeches, Sanders has slammed defense corporations for political gain.
We know that there is massive fraud going on in the defense industry. Virtually every major defense contractor has either been convicted of fraud or reached a settlement with the government, Sanders said in Iowa City last year at a town hall. We need a strong military, it is a dangerous world. But I think we can make judicious cuts.
But when those defense corporations come to his own backyard, he quietly welcomes them in.
The Vermont senator persuaded Lockheed Martin to place a research center in Burlington, according to Newsweek, and managed to get 18 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets stationed at the citys airport for the Vermont National Guard.
In very clever ways, the military-industrial complex puts plants all over the country, so that if people try to cut back on our weapons system what theyre saying is youre going to be losing jobs in that area, Sanders said at a Q&A in New Hampshire back in 2014. Weve got to have the courage to understand that we cannot afford a lot of wasteful, unnecessary weapons systems, and I hope we can do that.
History has shown that Sanders has not had the courage to do that.
Immediately after he made those comments, an audience member pointed out that the F-35 fighter jet project had a lifetime cost of $1.2 trillion: When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program? the questioner asked.
>>>snip<<<
Sanders countered that the plane was essentially built. He acknowledged in his 2014 Q&A that while the F-35 was incredibly wasteful, it is now the plane of record and it is not going to be discarded.
>>>snip<<
In New Hampshire, where the Democratic primary is being held Tuesday, Sanders rallied supporters at a downtown Manchester theater. For an hour, he railed against the big banks and the current minimum wage. He never mentioned national security policyor the big defense corporations he sometimes supports.
More>>>>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bernie-sanders-loves-this-1-trillion-war-machine.html
The Hill
By Tim Devaney - 03/07/16 11:36 AM EST
The National Rifle Association is tweeting its support for comments from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at Sunday's Democratic presidential debate.
The NRA tweeted Monday that Sanders was spot-on during the debate when he defended his vote for legislation that would hold gun manufacturers liable for shootings.
http://thehill.com/regulation/272029-nra-tweets-support-for-bernie-sanders
By David A. Fahrenthold July 19, 2015
How the National Rifle Association helped get Bernie Sanders elected
BURLINGTON, Vt. A few days before Election Day in 1990, the National Rifle Association sent a letter to its 12,000 members in Vermont, with an urgent message about the race for the states single House seat.
Vote for the socialist, the gun rights group said. Its important.
Bernie Sanders is a more honorable choice for Vermont sportsmen than Peter Smith, wrote Wayne LaPierre, who was and still is a top official at the national NRA, backing Sanders over the Republican incumbent.
More>>>>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I'm betting you don't.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)And since I was replying to a comment accusing Hillary of being "very good at "using" people who have suffered great tragedy" asserting that it was her compassion for them that made her take the stand, it stands to reason that yes, your response to my comment with a video of her cheering the death of Gaddafi is absolutely comparing Gaddafi to Sandy Hook.
I cheered when Gaddafi died because of the hand he had in the killings of 270 innocents on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. That you would compare her compassion for the victims of Sandy Hook to her satisfaction over the killing of a monster like Gaddafi saddens me.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)about the death of anyone tyrant or innocent- is inappropriate and is an example of her compassion for her fellow human beings.
I can't tell you how many times some perceived enemy of the left has passed and been brought to the attention of posters here. Where the judgemental prigs have come out and shamed those who have danced on their graves.
HRC could give a rats as about anyone other than herself and what is hers.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... but it's just not enough to muster a care for it. I think there is perhaps a spectrum of acceptability. I'm a big believer spiritually in respect for the dead as a whole, but I've made exceptions for the truly despotic. I didn't cheer when Scalia passed but someone like Gaddafi, I had no problem raising a glass. I think it depends on how horrific the person actually was. I am against the death penalty, not because I couldn't pull the switch myself if I knew someone was guilty, but because I do not believe a bureaucratic system can 100% know whether someone is guilty. To paraphrase Increase Mather in his letter that ended the Witch craze of 1692 Salem, "it were better for ten Witches to be freed than for one innocent person to be hanged." And yes, that's an area I disagree with Hillary on. Horrors that I might not accept every policy a candidate puts forth.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)He was a tyrant and was responsible for the deaths of many many of his peoples. And now HRC as a result of her decision to have him killed- is responsible for scores of Gadaffi's people being killed too.
So let me ask you- why aren't the dead innocent Libyans lives as valuable as those who were murdered at Sandy Hook? And if you believe as I do that they are- what does that make HRC?
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)War has casualties. I'm sure there were innocents killed in the Bosnian War but I think the atrocious that were going on there made a strong case for our being there. While I am no war hawk, there are times where force is necessary. I am 100% for what went on in Libya. War may be an evil, but it is a sometimes necessary one. Outside of our coffee house socials and dog walks in the park, the world is a very, very dangerous place. I think Hillary understands this in a way that Bernie does not.
And ultimately I have no real issue with her cheering Gaddafi's death. It might have been a little excessive in terms of diplomacy. She's certainly no Obama. None of these current candidates have his finesse. But it's certainly not something that will make me not vote for her. I'm going to vote for whichever Dem wins the nom, not just because of the policies (which I think are close enough though I weigh more with Hillary's policies), but because of the character of the individual. Again, neither of them is an Obama, but I think she'll do pretty well.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I don't accept that.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)It's like asking me how long I've been beating my wife.
How does one value a life anyway? I believe that life is sacred, but I also believe that there are times when when we have no choice but to engage in the evil of war (you remember my saying it was an evil right?). Should it be a last resort? Absolutely. Do I believe in some quantifiable "value" assigned to life where Gaddafi is equal to the Sandy Hook children? Not at all, but if you're going to frame my words in terms of the value of life, then please define your debate terms. What is the value of a life?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)My point all along is that here is a woman who shows that she cares nothing for human life if she can sit in front of the world and cackle gleefully at the death (whether deserved or not) of another human being.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Well fine, but then actual real-world scenario changes things.
If someone has a gun pointed at your mother and just happens to be standing on a trap door leading to a pit of poisonous snakes and you have your finger on the button, are you going to let your mother die for the value of that killer's life? And, if so, are you not essentially valuing your mother's life as less than the shooter? To place their lives at equal value is to make no choice at all and keep the status quo, which, in effect, would be not pushing the button. But do you think that's the wisest choice? And, more importantly, is it the choice you would make?
These life valuing equations fall apart when confronted with actual life choices.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)have died as a result.
Your question to me does not compare to what has occurred in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world as a result of her actions while SOS. But if I did have to make the choice- I would not be proud of what I chose to do- whether it was to let my mother die or take out her oppressor. I would not cackle gleefully as a result of that action.
Again, a world leader cackling gleefully at the death of another human being, deserved or not- is not only inappropriate, it is sick.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)... HILLARY IS VERY GOOD AT "USING" PEOPLE.
riversedge
(70,092 posts)for knocking her down--and make no mistake--YOU Are slamming the slain woman and others who died at Sandy Hook.
artislife
(9,497 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Wind in the willows.
George II
(67,782 posts)Fla Dem
(23,591 posts)If it wasn't for the NRA, Bernie Sanders would never even been elected to his 1st term in congress. He may have a D- rating with the NRA, but that is just a ruse. He's in their pocket lock, stock and barrel. If he ever became President (which is never gonna happen) you would not hear one word about Gun Control ever come out of his mouth.
He is an dispassionate politician concerned only with his own well being.
The beneficiary was Sanders, who was Smiths main opponent in the 1990 House race.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
<iframe width="792" height="445" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
-Support legislation to stop domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns. Although federal law generally prohibits domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing guns, this protection does not apply to people in dating relationships or convicted stalkers. Hillary will fight for legislation to prohibit all of these domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns.
-Make straw purchasing a federal crime. When an individual with a clean record buys a gun with the intention of giving it to a violent felononly so that felon can avoid a background checkit should be a crime. Hillary will fight to make so-called straw purchasing a federal crime.
-Close loopholes that let persons suffering from severe mental illness purchase and possess guns. Hillary will fight to improve existing law prohibiting persons suffering from severe mental illness from purchasing or possessing a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should finalize its rulemaking to close loopholes in our laws and clarify that people involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment, such as the Virginia Tech shooter, are prohibited from buying guns.
-Keep military-style weapons off our streets. Military-style assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. Hillary will work to keep assault weapons off our streets and supports reinstating the assault weapons ban.
Much More :
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/
jmg257
(11,996 posts)background checks - check
AWB - maybe
Straw Purchases double illegal - check
Mental illness barred - ok
Domestic abusers barred - check
Revoke the licenses of bad-actor dealers - fine, ATF can do their job
The gun industry must be held accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns - Not buying it, just makes little sense DEPENDING on particulars
Consider Australian mandatory buy-back - no way
Fla Dem
(23,591 posts)Haveadream
(1,630 posts)riversedge
(70,092 posts)Haveadream
(1,630 posts)There is a real coalition building in this country that wants to stop the loss of our children and family members to epidemic gun violence.
Everyone, keep pushing for change!
Fla Dem
(23,591 posts)The ten-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, and it expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Unfortunately, when it came up for renewal in 2004 Republicans blocked it.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)The Right Wing will turn back the clock on our civil rights every chance they get. Mind boggling. Impossible to imagine any other objective but greed and callous disregard for other's lives.
Thank you for your post and the link.
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)How useful was it in preventing the Sand Hook shooting? CT had a state version of Clintons AWB and the rifle used in that shooting was compliant.
Did any breathe a sigh of relief after the Sandy Hook shooting because the rifle didn't have a bayonet lug? I think not.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)She is just pandering for now and will evolve back to Annie Oakley as soon as she can for the general
Vinca
(50,237 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)[font size=4]Annie Oakley Rides Again!!![/font]
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Whatever a given audience wants to hear... Then she'll double down and lie about it!
pangaia
(24,324 posts)a democratic candidate who engaged in such blatant pandering in my lifetime..Except maybe in 2008.
It amazes me how pro-gun the far left has become since Bernie became a (sort of) credible candidate.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Such a prime example why leaving the Democratic Party for good is looking better and better.
artislife
(9,497 posts)and the lies and mis-directions just keep coming. Soon I will hear of her virgin birth.
jillan
(39,451 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Haveadream
(1,630 posts)It is heartbreaking. It is impossible to listen to people talk of the senseless murders of their children and family members and not be galvanized to do something about it. Whether it is the families in Sandy Hook or Mothers of the Movement, all are unified in bringing the crisis of gun violence to light. We must create legislation that regulates weapons. The Right Wing will fight it so it will take Progressives to do something about it.
oasis
(49,333 posts)a personal level in one-on-one situations.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Here he is breaking into tears for the families of gun violence. Impossible not to be moved by this issue.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)Obama did some of the best speeches to try to force people to fix this problem. I felt of all of the politicians his were the most heart felt.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)We have been so fortunate to have him as our President.
yes...
Logical
(22,457 posts)mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)This is the problem. THe gun lobby is powerful and how much political "capital" would have to be used to bring it to heel? How many people actually think HRC will actually fight against them in any effective way?
Back last year the HRC campaign identified Sanders votes on the gun issue as a possible weakness in his armor. They have hammered it home at every point to great effect. Does this mean President Clinton (v.2) will lead a crusade to solve this problem?
Does anyone really think there aren't much more important issues (TO HER) than this one?
Right now the only people paying attention to this campaign are the small minority of voters who are either Clinton or Sanders supporters (I'm not concerned with the Trump/Cruz faction right now) and Sanders has been outgunned by the Clinton camp. What happens in the General Election.
If Clinton loses we Progressives will get blamed, of course, but that won't change a thing. It is hard to imagine the US public being dumb enough to put either Tweedle-de-dumb and Tweedle-de-dumber in the Oval Office but it could happen.
Hillary Clinton may be a wonderful person BUT she is running a campaign which incorporates the worst aspects of Establishment politics and, thanks to the Internet, that is all out in the open. There are very many people who can see what is behind the curtain.
Black Lives Matter activists and Occupy activists seem to have few illusions about where their issues are likely to end up when the dust settles. It seems a pity that there are so few of them.
Another pity is that when the inevitable "politically expedient" betrayal takes place, like choosing not to prosecute Wall Street outsiders, or keeping Single Payer off the table despite a campaign of promises to fight for such things, lots of idealistic and committed volunteers will be disgusted and dismayed by what us old timers can see coming.
The bright spot? Now there is a place for them to go.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)He opposed giving victims of gun violence the right to sue manufacturers...a stand with which I agree.
All manufacturers are protected in the same way. To do otherwise would lead to chaos.
The dam would be broken.
The manufacturers of Louiville Sluggers (baseball bats) would be open to lawsuits when a bat is used by a "bill collector" to break someone's legs...
For that matter, so would the manufacturers of 2 X 4s.
The manufacturers of Kitchen Knives would be open to lawsuits. The Kitchen Knife is frequently used in domestic violence.
and, yet, Clinton supporters SwiftBoat Sanders on this issue screaming "He protects the gun manufacturers!!!"
Sanders is advocating common sense protection ALL legitimate manufacturers in the USA (except manufacturers of defective products and cigarettes)...even those who make pillows (can be used to smother someone), and those who make rope.
Sanders, like myself and Obama believe in sane, common sense regulation of GUN owners and sellers.
*Ban Assault Weapons and high capacity clips*
*Thorough Background Checks
*close Gun Show Loopholes
*Institute a "Buy Back" programs like the one in Australia that has been extremely successful.
*Recognize that there is a vast difference between rural gun owners and suburban and urban gun owners.
*A caveat on "Assault Weapons". It has recently come to my awareness that some "assault type rifles" like the AR-15 and other semi-auto variations of the military M-16 ARE used by subsistence hunters who live in hostile environments, like Alaska. Because of their design and plastic body parts, they are more reliable in extreme cold and mud. Much more so than standard hunting rifles.
Hillary would be a fool to try and run on Gun Control in the GE.
Not because it is wrong,
but because that issue is a LOSER.
Bernie's pragmatic approach to the problem would do much better nationally on this issue in the GE.
Expect to hear no more about Gun Control from Hillary after the convention...
and no more phony pleas using the children of Sandy Hook as stage props.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Haveadream
(1,630 posts)and the families affected by gun violence and the progressives who care about it are pushing forward with everything they have to change the legislation. That is why they are backing Hillary in droves. She is loud and clear about her position on this issue. Looking to the past will not save lives. We have to come together to push for change now.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)IF she's elected, nary a word will be spoken about it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)not so much in Harlem earlier in the week
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/23/hillary-clintons-pennsylvania-visit-is-another-welcome-home/?_r=0
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The only significant difference between their gun control policies is his (absolutely correct) opposition to enabling ludicrous nuisance lawsuits against manufacturers of a legal product. The notion that there's any further difference between them is propaganda.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Chezboo
(230 posts)and excusing herself for millions of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead and injured American veterans. What could be more despicable?
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)sarae
(3,284 posts)It should be politicized. I'm tired of the NRA's efforts to silence these discussions.
Fla Dem
(23,591 posts)Haveadream
(1,630 posts)She is a hero and an example to all of us. She is channeling her pain in a way to protect others from ever having to experience it. She deserves nothing but respect. Cynicism on this issue only makes those using it look like they are focused on petty politics and on the wrong side of Right Wing legislation that is killing people.
Il_Coniglietto
(373 posts)From President Obama's address on the Roseburg shooting:
And, of course, whats also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.
...
This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction. When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives. So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesnt make sense.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/10/01/watch-president-obamas-statement-shooting-oregon
This already IS a political issue. We could make real change if we had politicians brave enough to fight for it.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Obama is one of the people leading the way and progressives everywhere should take up the cause so we can create change to save hundreds and thousands of lives.
thank you for the quote!
Il_Coniglietto
(373 posts)But I'm confident we'll look back at Barack Obama as one of the finest presidents we've ever had. His advocacy on gun violence in particular has been so important. His clear frustration with not only congressional Republicans, but some Democrats has mirrored the way most Americans feel. Here he is, the most powerful person on Earth, stymied by a cowardly, do-nothing legislature. But he doesn't give up, and I'm optimistic our next president will fight the gun lobby just as forcefully.
YW! I remember cheering when I watched him say it. The link I posted has video of the entire response.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)he has been exemplary in the face of nearly insurmountable odds. Despite the roadblocks, he has set a progressive standard on many issues, particularly those of civil rights. Like you, there are policies with which I disagree but the country and the world are so much better for having him as our President. I am going to miss him terribly.
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)He waited until any gun control proposals wouldn't affect his reelection.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Wouldnt want to politicize a political issue!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Than blaming Sanders for all of the gun violence deaths. Hillary has said more than once she was sorry for her vote on IWR and would not vote the same way again. I am still waiting on Sanders to apologize about his votes on the Brady Bill.
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)Haveadream
(1,630 posts)All progressives should do whatever they can to put pressure on legislators to change the laws.
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)But I do not support laws the restrict gun ownership that have little chance of reducing actual gun violence.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Like civil rights issues, like LGBT issues, it will be an uphill climb.
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)If she is the nominee and if she wins the GE.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)must be in place. PERIOD. Just this weekend, TWO massacres. Last night, shootings at a PROM FFS.
Assault weapons have one purpose, and one purpose only. That is to kill PEOPLE. This is what they're designed for. Sure, they're hunting weapons. If your game is people.
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)You brought them up so surely you know some legislation that would have prevented there occurrence.
Did you know that CT had a Assault Weapon Ban in place and that the rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting was compliant?
Did it work for you? Were those deaths any less horrible with that ban in place? I think not. Such a ban only made antigun people feel like they did something.
I have an AR and it is a fine self-defense rifle.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:15 PM - Edit history (2)
In fact, family members of the victims have been contacting his campaign, imploring him to be a powerful voice advocating for change in the antiquated gun laws that make our country a deadly place for millions of Americans every day. This is a civil rights issue. The number of Americans killed by gun violence is greater than those who are lost in war and most of them are in demographics that are historically most oppressed or vulnerable.
Nothing is stopping Bernie from being a champion of this progressive cause in the same way he has embraced others. In fact, were he to do so, especially because he has the support of so many millennials, he could singlehandedly be the catalyst for sweeping change. Every family member, friend and advocate of those murdered or destroyed for life is hoping he will do so.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Nothing is stopping Bernie from being a champion of this progressive cause in the same way he has embraced others. In fact, were he to do so, especially because he has the support of so many millennials, he could singlehandedly be the catalyst for sweeping change. Every family member, friend and advocate of those murdered or destroyed for life is hoping he will do so.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)There is nothing Bernie could have done that would have made any difference. Bernie is for sensible gun control, as am I. Those light thinkers who insist that manufacturers should be held liable for how assholes use their products.
Did you know that a bar of soap can be used to choke a person to death, and has actually happened? Should manufactures of soap be sued for wrongful death.
The only difference is between Hillary and Bernie that Bernie believes (as I do) that manufactures should not be sued unless their product is defective.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...special legal protections under the PLCAA?
Right now, soap manufacturers have to take their chances with judges and juries.
The soap industry isn't covered by the PLCAA.
Logical
(22,457 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)She then introduced a fond memory from her youth.
You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl, she said.
You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. Its part of culture. Its part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because its an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/clinton-touts-her-experience-with-guns/
Which Hillary?
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)As it is part of Obama's. The better part of the last decade have taught most compassionate people that gun violence is an out of control epidemic. It is a place where the Right Wing is digging in and it is something progressives are moving forward on. Back in 2012, the gun enthusiasts were already targeting Obama and Hillary for their work to change the gun control landscape.
The most important action we can take right now is to be a unified force to do everything we can to push legislation to make our homes and streets safer. Gun violence takes the lives of 33,000 a year. The RW will do everything they can to stop us.
Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Craig James of Texas drew a standing ovation this week after warning that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seek an international agreement banning the use of guns on U.S. soil.
James, sitting on stage at a Grassroots America candidate forum in Tyler on May 16, 2012, said: "Im going to stand up because I want to make sure you dont forget what Im going to say right now." An Austin American-Statesman reporter recorded his remarks.
"If anybody in this room has not been following this, the United States, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are negotiating with the United Nations about doing a treaty that will ban the use of firearms," James said. "I want you to know that the Second Amendment is about to be busted and if we dont stand up and stop this and scream and make sure that Washington, D.C. hears us, then were in trouble with the Second Amendment.
"Where is the next part that they take away? This is insane," James said. He subsequently urged everyone to make sure friends and neighbors understand the U.S. is trying to ban and get rid of the Second Amendment, which says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Dont let them fool you any other way. We dont want to wake up one morning and realize that we have to send our firearms (away) and Ive got a bunch of em," James said. The ovation followed.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/may/17/craig-james/craig-james-says-barack-obama-and-hillary-clinton-/
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Someone who constantly changes her core values doesn't have my trust or vote. Not to mention the pandering (which isn't necessary and can be a little insulting). She doesn't have to be my abuela but she could listen to people who don't pay her $250,000 a pop. Then there's her judgment, she listens, she studies (so the press tells us) then she makes Gawd-awful decisions.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)Or did I just gain 10 or 20 years of perspective and it influenced how I think about those values in the here-and-now? Can you acknowledge that life experience will change opinions over time, and that people are allowed to grow and evolve?
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)That is a big question non-Clinton supporting Democratic voters have about Clinton.
Core values are pretty big. They are literally the center of your world view of what's important. Is it wrong to invade a nation just because someone wants to be a "war-time President". Opposing that war would be politically naive and the republicans might call you a hippie or a.. a... <gasp> peacenik could you really take that kind of risk?
Help unions retain jobs or help companies hire H-1b visa holders for half pay (hey maybe you could run for Senator in Punjab) ?
The most basic core value, do you help others, or help yourself at the expense of others.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Is gun violence? I guess suicide by hanging is rope violence, right?
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Would you truly have us believe that now she's our savior from gun violence? Hillary, have you no shame? Using dead children and grieving relatives as electioneering tools? Really?
In a just world (or one where people had better memory), Hillary would not be able to get away with this scummy, bottom feeding behavior.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)I live in a very Red part of my very Red state of Indiana. I know many gun enthusiasts. MOST of them are in favor of sensible and reasonable regulation for guns.
So many of us are sickened by all the mass shootings we see, regardless of which side of the political fence we sit on, D or R.
This issue isn't going away.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Now is the time to step up and challenge the greed of the gun lobby who profit from the death of our most oppressed and vulnerable. There is a movement in this country to stop them and we can all be part of it.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)To tell me two things (or even one of the two things) - (1) what EXACTLY is Hillary proposing that would have prevented a tragedy like Sandy Hook and (2) what EXACTLY is Hillary proposing that would result in less gun violence? I'm more interested in the first since Hillary keeps using Sandy Hook for political benefit.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)"I do support comprehensive background checks, and to close the gun show loophole, and the online loophole, and what's called the Charleston loophole, and to prevent people on the no-fly list from getting guns," said Clinton. "What I am proposing is supported by a great majority of the American people and a significant majority of gun owners."
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sticking-resolution-clinton-has-nothing-say-trump-n490836
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sparked a larger debate over the use of executive action with the proposal for confronting gun violence that she released Monday. Clinton said she would act on her own whenever possible if Congress does not pass gun control legislation.
Clinton's proposal includes pushing for comprehensive federal background checks, closing loopholes in the system, repealing legislation that gives the firearm industry immunity from lawsuits, and improving laws intended to prevent the mentally ill from purchasing or possessing guns.
She specifically mentioned using executive action to tighten loopholes surrounding gun show and online weapon sales if necessary.
"I want to push hard to get more sensible restraints," Clinton told NBC. "I want to work with Congress, but I will look at ways as president."
http://www.infowars.com/hillary-on-using-executive-orders-to-take-guns-amen/
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)or any other mass shootings?
Please answer the question posed.
The Sandy Hook weapons were stolen and were nit classified as assault weapons per Connecticut law that was a continuation of the expired federal law.
To answer the question posed, no her positions would not affect any of the mass shootings or suicides that I know of.
katmille
(213 posts)We don't know. YOU don't know. Perhaps if the shooter had gotten treatment for his mental illness. Perhaps fewer children would have died if the shooter had had fewer guns or less ammunition or if his gun had jammed or if .... or if ..... or... or.
So that question can only be answered by vigorous pursuit of more and better gun safety legislation. And by the passionate support of such legislation by courageous people like Erica Smegielski and Hillary Clinton who are not afraid of gun worshippers and the NRA!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You just do not like it. The weapons were purchased years before. A federal background check was passed. The murderer killed and stole the weapons. The rifle used was not classified as an assault weapon and any semi-automatic rifle would have the same rate of fire. Magazine limits are always grandfathered so the magazines would have been available. Mental health, we are alwsys told that is just an NRA talking point. None if the proposals mentioned would have much of any effect, especially with suicides which are 2/3 of gun deaths.
I am for sensible legislation that actually might do something, not feel good stuff like cosmetic bans.
katmille
(213 posts)Keep loving your guns if you want.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)They are objects that perform a function.
Typical of a gun control person to post insults directed at firearms owners. Shows the level pepole will sink to instead of using the knowledge we have to actually come up with measures that might work. Good night, it is past my bedtime.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Would have prevented Lanza's mother from purchasing the weapon that Adam Lanza used at Sandy Hook, or prevented Lanza from killing his mother and stealing that weapon. So I ask again, what exactly is Hillary proposing that would have prevented Sandy Hook (hint, the answer is "nothing" ?
The "no fly list" issue is comical - has anyone on the no-fly list ever committed a gun-related crime in the US?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)sarae
(3,284 posts)Erica's a brave woman!
If any issue should be politicized, it's this one. It needs to be discussed.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I will take my dumb guns.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)She is fighting for change to prevent more tragedy.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)UtahLib
(3,179 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)CTyankee
(63,892 posts)with her. Until it happens to your family, you don't know what you would feel and say. You want to say something that means a lot but often your words and how they are heard are different. Please try to be understanding here...
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)There are no words for your loss except I am deeply sorry for you and your loved one's pain. No one should have to go through that.
Sending you so much heartfelt care.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Should we make these manufacturers liable for damages caused by these products.
How about pillows used to smother people?
Should they be liable for the deaths caused by their products too?
Where will you draw the line?
Bernie's approach is the only sane approach.
CTyankee
(63,892 posts)for "protection" by a drunken, angry man. My niece was 24 years old, recently married. He wounded her grandmother and then turned the gun on himself. It was a bloody godawful scene when the police arrived. My brother collapsed at her coffin at the funeral. Her sister ended up going into the ministry because of the tragedy.
My answerto your question is "I don't know." And frankly, I don't care to even think about it...
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)no words...
CTyankee
(63,892 posts)brother had some unclaimed property. I gave her the info and told her that, while she can do what she wants of course, I like to think it could be used for her kids college fund and that my brother would do something for them all these years later. He had a terrible life and finding this out was like a redemption. It was good to hear that she was well and her mother was well also. My heart breaks for her.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Hope you find some peace.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Perhaps that is why we make lawsuits against pillow manufacturers so much easier to do than lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Lawsuits against pillow manufacturers are allowed.
The PLCAA draws the line at GUNS.
There are no restrictions against suing pillow manufacturers. Only judges and juries stand in the way.
Guns ARE more dangerous than pillows
By rasbobbo
Thursday Jan 20, 2011 · 3:24 PM CST
It seems to me any rational discussion of gun laws has to begin with this as a bottom line stipulation. You may not see this as a huge leap, but I can assure you, to many 2nd amendment absolutists, it is the Grand Canyon.
See, the argument goes; you can kill somebody with a car, too. Or a baseball bat, or a plastic bag, or a pillow. They are all inanimate objects & equally dangerous, or equally non dangerous. I've had some folks break it down for me molecularly; it's just a bunch of molecules arranged in a certain way, none of those molecules is inherently dangerous, so how could one arrangement be more dangerous than another? Facile nonsense, to me, but it is an argument I hear all the time.
Yes indeed, cars do kill people - a lot of people. Cars are dangerous machines. We recognize that & have certain registration & licensing procedures because we recognize that. Further, to operate your motor vehicle in public we require insurance & further licensing licensing that requires certain knowledge & physical skills. You may have to prove you can parallel park your vehicle. I do not know what the ballistic equivalent of parallel parking would be, but I am reasonably sure that the overwhelming majority of handgun owners/carriers have never passed such a test.
The wise wise heads on the Supreme Court have determined that by birth, every American is given the right to own a loaded handgun. I don't think they made the leap to "handguns are not dangerous."
The even wiser heads in the Arizona State legislature have determined that it is appropriate for the citizens in this state to carry concealed firearms pretty much anywhere - bars, cars, churches, Jack-in-the-Box, you name it. Some of the really superior thinkers in the State legislature have said the more people packing heat the safer everybody is. That college classes full of armed students would be safer environments for learning. (Question: Who gets to sit in the back?)
I know I live in a country with about as many guns as people. I know those guns are not going to go away. I know many Americans just love their guns & many see any sort of restriction as the first step toward taking their love away. In fact, I found a friend of mine's reason for owning the dozen or so that he has, "I just like 'em," as compelling as any 2nd amendment, fight tyranny, self defense argument. I don't want to take everyone's guns away Not even if it was possible - which it is not.
Can we not, as a starting point at least in any discussion of firearms & firearms safety, at least acknowledge that a loaded handgun is more dangerous than a pillow? I've posited this here on dkos a couple of times & gotten a lot of vehement denials. Not surprising to me really. What is surprising is that not one of the "safe, sane, there should be training," folks ever finds their way into a thread to say, "c'mon, of course it's more dangerous. That's why I lock mine up." "That's why I don't give my six year old a loaded gun when he goes to sleep." "That's why I don't just leave it loaded on the coffee table." Nope, when it comes to the most basic of admissions, that a loaded handgun is more dangerous than a pillow, the safe, sane folk are really quiet.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/20/937642/-
bvar22
(39,909 posts)especially the one about lawsuits against Pillow Manufacturers for wrongful deaths?
Or Baseball bats?
or kitchen knives?
I have personally never heard of one, and Goggle turned up nothing,
so help me out here with a few links to these lawsuits.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Just because you have personally never heard of it doesn't mean there are laws that don't allow them.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)With the exception of Cigarette manufacturers, or manufacturers of a defective product, I can't find a single case where a manufacturer has been sued.
You made the claim that pillow manufacturers HAVE been sued for wrongful death without links or support.
Did you just make that up?
...because it sure looks like it.
I'll make it easier.
Find a case where a manufacturer of Kitchen Knives has been sued. Kitchen Knives have been used in many domestic murders.
If you can't produce a link, or even a rumor, then I (and everyone else reading this thread) will know you are just blowing smoke out of your ***.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Did you just make that up?
...because it sure looks like it.
Or did you just make that up?
Because it sure looks like it.
I prove so-called "negatives" every day, but be that as it may, if pillow manufacturers are actually mentioned in the PLCAA, then it shouldn't be all that hard for you to find and quote the relevant passage from the law, or at least find some random claim to that effect on the internet by somebody other than yourself.
kcr
(15,315 posts)I'm asking you to back up your claim, which wasn't negative.
stone space
(6,498 posts)especially the one about lawsuits against Pillow Manufacturers for wrongful deaths?
I claim that the PLCAA does not protect pillow manufacturers from lawsuits.
Like cigarette manufacturers and lawn dart manufacturers, anybody wanting to sue pillow manufacturers have only judges and juries standing in their way, not the special legal giveaways afforded to gun manufacturers in the PLCAA.
If you claim that pillow manufacturers are given the same special legal protections in the PLCAA as gun manufacturers, then perhaps you could quote the relevant passage from the law?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)In post #104, that:
All I'm asking for is a link to support your preposterous claim, or just a verifiable example of a pillow manufacturer being sued for the improper use of their product....just ONE example will do.
Help me out.
Educate me.
Post a link.
stone space
(6,498 posts)What part of the quote are you disputing? Are you claiming that pillow manufacturers receive special legal giveaways under the PLCAA?
Pillow manufactures still have to deal with judges and juries, just like cigarette manufacturers and lawn dart manufacturers and auto manufacturers and hammer manufacturers.
And just like gun manufacturers, were it not for special corporate legal protections like the PLCAA.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)advocate for common sense regulation.
What commonsense regulations does Hillary support that Bernie does not?
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)mcar
(42,278 posts)Haveadream
(1,630 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)I think Erica trumps all the naysayers here. She is beautiful.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)They are incredibly brave.
katmille
(213 posts)This is an amazing post. So impressed with the courage of Erica and Hillary Clinton!
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Together we really can make a difference. We have to try and keep trying.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Cha
(296,868 posts)Haveadream
(1,630 posts)about the messing up of your thread, here in gdp.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)My local ducks are my friends. She shoots them for sport with her Daddy because it is big tradition that Obama does not understand, that was her 2008 position.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Her mother is dead. And your exaggerated concern about your ducks in the context of her mother's murder is offensive and dismissive of gun victims and their families.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)I want to just remind people that Hillary will say anything and do nothing. NEVER, ever HER.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Cleo Pendleton grasped a microphone and described the final moments of her daughters life to a group of hundreds at the Canaan Baptist Church near New Castle Friday.
She says, I think Ive been shot, and then she tries to run, and then she buckles to her knees, said Pendleton, a member of Mothers of the Movement, a group of women who have had children killed in violent acts.
The group is traveling the country to advocate for stricter gun laws. The event Friday was organized by Hillary Clintons presidential campaign in advance of Delaware's primary Tuesday.
On Friday, Pendleton implored the crowd to become politically active, describing how her daughter, Hadiya, had been gunned down in Chicago just a week after performing a dance at President Barack Obamas second inauguration in 2013.
President Obama mentioned Pendleton's death in his 2013 State of the Union Address in Congress, where Pendleton's parents, Cleopatra Cowley-Pendleton and Nathaniel A. Pendleton Sr., attended as guests.The crime scene is "just a mile away from [President Obama's] Chicago house.
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/04/22/clinton-campaign-sponsors-gun-violence-talk/83413970/
postatomic
(1,771 posts)Sorry you've had crap thrown at you by The Sandman supporters and some gun nuts.
It's a powerful ad and speaks to the kind of person Hillary is and her commitment to gun control. Gabby and Mark strongly support Hillary on the issue of gun control. It all works for me.
Again - thanks for posting this.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Would have prevented Sandy Hook?
postatomic
(1,771 posts)The shooter used an assault weapon to literally shoot an entrance into the building. If he hadn't had the AR-15.....
Hillary will continue the ban of assault weapons. We don't need military grade weapons in the hands of untrained and dubious individuals.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And the fact is the weapon Lanza used was not a "military grade weapon." It isn't used by a single military in the world and it isn't an automatic weapon but only fires one bullet every time you pull the trigger, just like any of the thousand other brands of semi-automatic rifles and handguns on the market. And Connecticut had an assault weapons ban in place at the time of the shooting -- the firearm Lanza used complied was legal to possess under that ban. So explain to me why the firearm Lanza used should be banned?
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Thank you for your post and the mention of Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly. They are currently on the campaign trail to put the issue of much needed gun legislation on the table.
Here is more about the incredible work they are doing with their organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions:
On January 8, 2011, a mentally ill young man shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in the head, killed six of her constituents, and wounded 12 others. Since that tragedy in Tucson, America has seen too many more mass shootings but no response from Congress. This inaction on gun violence was thrown into even starker contrast after the massacre of 20 children and six of their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
On the second anniversary of the horrific Tucson shooting, as America mourned the dead in Newtown, Gabby and her husband, retired Navy Captain and astronaut Mark Kelly, launched Americans for Responsible Solutions to encourage elected officials to stand up for solutions to prevent gun violence and protect responsible gun ownership.
As gun owners and strong supporters of the Second Amendment, Gabby and Mark know we must protect the rights of Americans to own guns for collection, recreation, and protection. But they also agree with the vast majority of Americans, including gun owners, that commonsense protections from gun violence can prevent shootings from shattering communities like Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown.
Even commonsense solutions to protect our communities from gun violence have been hard to achieve. Why? Because entrenched interests like the gun lobby have used big money and influence to stop Congress from acting. Until now, the gun lobbys political contributions, advertising and lobbying have dwarfed the influence of average, law abiding citizens. No longer. With Americans for Responsible Solutions and likeminded friends engaging millions of people about ways to reduce gun violence and supporting lawmakers willing to take a stand for responsible policies, legislators will no longer have reason to fear the gun lobby and their dangerously deep pockets.
postatomic
(1,771 posts)Americans for Responsible Solutions is one of the few PACs that I support through my time and money. I tried to find the video of Gabby talking to some locals a while back. Even though she has a hard time talking there was no denying her passion and her support of Hillary. Gabby is an amazing and inspiring human being.
Take it from me: Talk is cheap.
In fact, a lot of the people running for president seem downright terrified to even have a rational conversation about the problem of gun violence in America. Weve listened closely to all of them, and weve looked at all of their records. Only one candidate for president has the determination and toughness to stand up to the corporate gun lobbyand the record to prove it. That candidate is Hillary Clinton.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/why-mark-i-are-supporting-hillary-clinton-president/
bvar22
(39,909 posts)stood up to the gun lobby. She was senator for two terms, surely she must have done something then.
Maybe I'm just having a senior moment, but I can't reacall a damned thing.
I DO know that as Secretary of State, she approved sales of Hundreds of Millions of dollars of guns and ammunition to brutal dictators in the Middle East.
So help me out here. When has Hillary "stood Up' to the Gun Manufacturers, besides standing up to collect donations to the Clinton Foundation.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)I learned how to shoot a gun behind our Lake Winola cottage, Clinton said. Ive gone duck hunting, and I know how important gun rights are to the people of Northeastern Pennsylvania. But we have to take the guns off of criminals and reduce gun violence without infringing upon the anyones Second Amendment rights.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)This should be a top priority for everyone who is sick of gun violence in this country.
On the subject of the Hillary haters who hate, no matter the cost, the heartbreak, the loss of life, and the good of our nation........ they are some sick puppies. 💩😞
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Revoking the gun corporation immunity to lawsuits would be a great beginning.
Response to Haveadream (Original post)
cyberpj This message was self-deleted by its author.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)It's not doing Clinton any favors, all anybody has to say about it is that they think it smells of "political exploitation" from a candidate that was last here in 2008 talking about the need to protect our gun manufacturers (and we have a lot of them for some reason) from frivolous gun-control measures and lawsuits.
Combined with (Democratic!) Gov. Dannel Malloy's endorsement of Clinton on the same day he was laying-off state employees and talking about the need to "reform" (read: bust) public-service unions...I think CT may be an upset looming that nobody sees coming. Clinton is hemorrhaging support here in the last week or so.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)dr60omg
(283 posts)So, which Hillary?