Republicans
The somewhat interesting part:
Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success. Murders committed with guns in Richmond decreased by over 60% when Project Exile was in place – in the first two years of the program alone, 350 armed felons were taken off the street.
Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.
Cruz full text here. Perhaps worth noting, no one displays the issue more prominently than Cruz.
– Citizens’ Second Amendment rights make us more safe, secure, and free.
– The Second Amendment is not simply about hunting or target practice. It’s about protecting our lives, families, and homes.
– When citizens cease to have the right to defend ourselves, we cease to be free. And now, more than ever, as radical Islamic terrorists seek to attack Americans on our own soil, Americans’ right to protect our families and communities is all the more critical to our safety and freedom.
– Ted Cruz has been a tireless defender of the Second Amendment. From successfully protecting law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights at the Supreme Court to defeating legislation that sought to take away this right, Ted Cruz has always championed Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.
The somewhat interesting part:
Gov. John R. Kasich continues to be a strong supporter of the right to bear arms and, as governor, has signed every pro-2nd amendment bill that has crossed his desk to defend this basic, constitutional right. John Kasich is a gun-owner himself, and in his 2014 reelection was endorsed by the National Rifle Association for his support of the Second Amendment as an inviolate part of our Constitution.
Removing Burdensome Restrictions for Law-Abiding Concealed Carry Licensees: John Kasich enacted legislation protecting Ohio’s concealed carry laws, including protecting the privacy of permit holders and allowing for reciprocity licenses with other states where permit holders can carry their firearms.
Democrats
As president, Hillary will increase the number of gun sales subject to background checks:
Comprehensive federal background check legislation. Background checks reduce gun trafficking, reduce the lethality of domestic violence, and reduce unlawful gun transfers to dangerous individuals. It is reprehensible that bipartisan legislation supporting background checks failed in Congress after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But Hillary is not giving up—she will continue to fight for legislation to build on the Brady Bill’s success.
– Closing the “Charleston Loophole.” Hillary will push Congress to close the loophole that allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check has not been completed within three days. This loophole allowed the alleged Charleston shooter to purchase a gun even though he had a criminal record.
– Tightening the gun show and Internet sales loophole if Congress won’t. If Congress refuses to act, Hillary will take administrative action to require that any person attempting to sell a significant number of guns abide by the same commonsense rules that apply to gun stores—including requiring background checks on gun sales.
To ensure that the safety of our communities is prioritized over the profits of the gun lobby, Hillary will also:
– Repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection. Hillary believes the gun industry must be held accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns. Hillary will lead the charge to repeal the so-called “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” a dangerous law that prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.
– Revoke the licenses of bad-actor dealers. Hillary believes we must do more to crack down on gun stores that flood our communities with illegal guns. As president, she will provide funding to increase inspections and aggressively enforce current law by revoking the licenses of dealers that knowingly supply straw purchasers and traffickers.
Sanders full text here. There is no gun or Second Amendment section, which surprised me. This is from a section of his issues page called Racial Justice. I know this isn’t a direct parallel, but it does have gun violence implications, so it seems more fair to include it.
Addressing Physical Violence
It is an outrage that in these early years of the 21st century we are seeing intolerable acts of violence being perpetrated by police and racist acts of terrorism by white supremacists.
A growing number of communities do not trust the police. Law enforcement officers have become disconnected from the communities they are sworn to protect. Violence and brutality of any kind, particularly at the hands of the police meant to protect and serve our communities, is unacceptable and must not be tolerated. We need a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and racism will not be accepted in a civilized country.
– We must demilitarize our police forces so they don’t look and act like invading armies.
– We must invest in community policing. Only when we get officers into the communities, working within neighborhoods before trouble arises, do we develop the relationships necessary to make our communities safer together. Among other things, that means increasing civilian oversight of police departments.
– We must create a police culture that allows for good officers to report the actions of bad officers without fear of retaliation and allows for a department to follow through on such reports.
– We need police forces that reflect the diversity of our communities, including in the training academies and leadership.
– At the federal level, we need to establish a new model police training program that reorients the way we do law enforcement in this country. With input from a broad segment of the community including activists and leaders from civil rights organizations we will reinvent how we police America.
– We need to federally fund and require body cameras for law enforcement officers to make it easier to hold them accountable.
– We need to require police departments and states to collect data on all police shootings and deaths that take place while in police custody and make that data public.
– We need new rules on the allowable use of force. Police officers need to be trained to de-escalate confrontations and to humanely interact with people who have mental illnesses.
– States and localities that make progress in this area should get more federal justice grant money. Those that do not should get their funding slashed.
– We need to make sure federal resources are there to crack down on the illegal activities of hate groups.
johntmay says
If you voted for Hillary over Bernie because of the gun issue, I have a question for you. Did you cast your vote for the pre-2008 Hillary who, in her NY Senate run supported strict federal gun control measures. ……Or, did you vote for the post 2008 Hillary who Clinton spoke throughout the campaign about the importance of guns to American culture (trying to get to the right of Obama on this issue) and said at a Town Hall in 2008 , “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.” While at the 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Clinton gave an affirmative “yes” that she was backing off her 2000 call for a national licensing and registration plan because it would “preempt” cities and states’ initiatives.
So, if elected, which Clinton will show up?
Christopher says
…who knows how to work through the nuances of an issue as demonstrated by what you say above.
johntmay says
To fund the re-election campaign, to make more money, no other guiding principles? I think it’s a fair and honest question. If one is voting for Clinton over Sanders because of her position on guns, and that position has, historically, been here, there, anywhere……what position does the voter hope for and what in the past gives him the confidence that this time, she will not switch again?
Christopher says
…and yes, to some extent acknowledging that politics is the art of the possible. Too much purity and consistency actually starts to concern me at some point.
johntmay says
is in trying to win the White House by whatever means possible. That’s not an artist, that’s a con artist. For more federal action on guns, against it, for it, whatever, just get ME into the White House and let ME and MY people do what WE want. She’s been for the TPP, against the TPP. Today she come out for a $15 minimum wage and yesterday she was against it but the NY primary is on the horizon…..gimme a break.
HR's Kevin says
How is that different from Sanders? He has been pretty vague about how exactly he will accomplish all of the great things he has promised. His agenda is 99% a legislative one, so where is he going to find the legislators to implement it for him? I don’t get the impression that either he or his most fervent supporters are especially interested in doing anything to get Congress back in Democratic hands (or whatever hands he thinks is going to get the job done).
As far as I can tell, it boils down to an “underpants gnome” style plan:
1) Elect Bernie Sanders
2) ???
3) Healthcare and prosperity for all!
I really would like to hear him and/or his supporters provide realistic details about what is going to be needed to get all of this done. Otherwise it seems every bit the a confidence game you are accusing Clinton of engaging in.
jconway says
It’s the same underpants gnome theory for Clinton as it is for any of the remaining candidates. The House will remain full of obstructionist Republicans, and the Senate is as likely to flip under either Democratic nominee. This same question applies to Hillary.
Barring Kasich, who is the least likely to become President, none of the Republicans can pass what they want either. John has deep, longstanding ties with the Congressional Republicans and could pass most of his agenda, most of which is bad for the country. I don’t see them deferring to Trump or Cruz if either becomes President.
That’s why we should really focus our activism locally where it has an impact. A bunch of Massachusetts liberals yelling at each other about which Democrat’s agenda will look better as it gets vetoed by Paul Ryan is a nice sideshow from a bunch of Massachusetts liberals yelling at legislators in our own state, ostensibly of our ideology, failing to do anything despite wielding an incredible amount of power. Something federal Democrats would kill for. And yet, the only thing they seem willing to fight for is tax breaks for big business.
HR's Kevin says
that Clinton is committed to supporting the Democratic party and for doing what she can to ensure that Democrats running for other offices can win. Already she has spent considerable effort in support of Democratic candidates and I have no doubt will continue to do so in the future whether or not she wins the nomination.
It is not at all clear that Sanders and many of his supporters are really committed to that. Quite to the contrary, they are surprisingly resistant to the idea that they might actually have to do something concrete to win Congress back. Instead, it will somehow happen magically as a result of the Bernie “revolution”. I think the problem is that they have spent to much effort demonizing the “establishment” Democratic party, they don’t want to admit that they will need to support it (or replace it for that matter) if they want to get things done. They are so focused on idealogical purity, that it hampers their ability to support potential allies who don’t have perfect credentials. That is a BIG problem.
You are right that we have little chance of accomplishing much if the Republicans still control Congress, but I have much more confidence that the “establishment” Democratic party — warts and all — has a much better chance at recruiting and supporting candidates than Sanders can do working outside of the party.
johnk says
Did you watch the Trump Nut Job interview on SNL this weekend, if you replaced Trump with Sanders it would still work.
What the f*** does Clinton’s story have to do with gun control? What, it tells you that she has a family with a rural background and likely goes hunting. We’re outlawing that now? When did that happen?
YOU MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!
Specifically tell me where Clinton has ever said the there should be no federal standards on gun control. You can’t because IT NEVER HAPPENED.
What are you talking about? You seem confused. Speaking of federal standards, what about background checks and waiting periods? Sanders voted against that five times. Five freakin’ times!
What you should be curious of is that. Not this pretend bullshit rambling cut/paste job of a crappy attack.
johntmay says
From the time she was first lady through her 2000 Senate run in New York, Clinton supported strict federal gun control measures.
Clinton continued to push for more gun control while serving as the senator from New York, but in her 2008 presidential run, she seemed to back off a bit.
At a 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Clinton gave an affirmative “yes” that she was backing off her 2000 call for a national licensing and registration plan because it would “preempt” cities and states’ initiatives.
in 2016 Clinton’s list of the gun control measures she would support does not, though, include the gun licensing and registration program she advocated for in 2000 but backed off of in 2008.
On, off, On,. off, on….
HR's Kevin says
So what if Clinton’s specific proposals change over the years. That is as much a response to what she thinks she can actually accomplish with a Republican run Congress as anything else. Clinton is clearly not someone who is going to stick with one proposal that has no chance of ever passing just to maintain her ideological purity. So it seems to me that in principle she wants more gun control, but the exact nature of those controls has changed.
Bernie on the other hand simply doesn’t want to talk about the subject.
jconway says
Ain’t none of these plans passing that Congress. If 22 dead upper middle class white kids under 10 in CT is not going to move the needle, nothing will. Not for the next decade. So this is all pandering and posturing and an easy issue for her to out flank him on the left.
Funny how the same folks forgiving her for the war vote saying it was 14 years ago are quick to pounce on Sander’s votes on guns that are just as old. And to my fellow Sanders voters, we have to be honest and concede that his votes on this issue were just as cynical, just as immoral, and just as nakedly political as her vote on the war. So let’s all be real, neither one of them is making promises they can keep on this issue.
HR's Kevin says
because he still holds it. He made that pretty clear when the issue came up in the debates. On the other hand, I don’t think that Clinton is in any way trying to claim that Iraq war was a good or necessary thing in retrospect. Clinton at least has the defense that the Bush administration deliberately misled Congress in lobbying for the vote. Sanders has no such defense for his vote. In any case, I would feel much better about it if I felt that his position on the subject had changed, but it has not.
This kind of stuff goes both ways. Sanders people should not harp on Clinton’s Iraq war vote – and they do just that – and then complain when the gun vote issue comes up. It seems to me that Clinton was attacked for her Iraq vote long before Sander’s gun vote became an issue.
You are totally correct that we cannot expect any favorable change in gun control laws under either candidate (although remind me again what Bernie is promising?). It seems that no amount of mass shootings and avoidable gun deaths is going to change Congress’s mind.
HR's Kevin says
is why Sanders is so insistent on digging in on his gun vote. I totally understand why he would need to not piss off gun owners in VT while he represents the state. But now that he is running for national office as a Democrat I would think he might want to walk that back a bit. I am not sure if he has made the calculation that he needs to keep a foot in the pro-gun camp, or that he really believes that gun manufacturers need special protections that he would deny other industries, or simply that he cannot admit he was wrong about any past decision.
Mullaley540 says
Sanders knows he’s not going to be either the Democratic Presidential or Vice-Presidential nominee this year. He has already filed with the FEC for re-election as an INDEPENDENT for the 2018 Vermont US Senate seat. He is now funneling money from those who contributed in excess of the legal limit for his Presidential campaign to his 2018 Senate Campaign — something that his campaign has been reprimanded in writing twice already by the FEC.
Sanders is concerned about his Senate seat and doesn’t want to lose due to Vermont gun voters like he did before.
stomv says
I ain’t saying you’re right, I ain’t saying you’re wrong, but I am writing that I’d like to read something about the two FEC reprimands…
Christopher says
…who has been knocked by Sanders for headlining huge fundraisers along side George Clooney, for example. She can’t take most of the money raised in those contexts for her own campaign, however. She is being a team player by raising money for the rest of the party and its candidates, which is what I would hope and expect our presidential nominee to do.
SomervilleTom says
I just went Googling for those two FEC reprimands you assert, and found nothing. Please offer a citation for those — as is, they look like unsupported and groundless cheap-shots.
Mullaley540 says
http://freebeacon.com/politics/feds-flag-thousands-of-illegal-bernie-sanders-contributions/
comes up when one googles FEC Sanders reprimands.
You can also go dirrctly to the FEC get their reprimands to the Sanders campaigns. The pdfs are many pages since they list all the illegal contributions — collectively worth over $10 million.
doubleman says
The Free Beacon is a right-wing digital rag. They call the donations illegal but nothing else you have cited confirms that.
The FEC letter hardly looks like a “reprimand” and instead looks like the regular correspondence of a regulatory agency dealing with a campaign and seeking corrections on potential discrepancies of .1% of the donations. None of that is surprising when a campaign is getting millions of donations in a tight time period and quickly producing reports.
This seems to be a fairer take.
Mullaley540 says
And what has Saint Bernie done after getting reprimanded by the FEC? Did he return excess contributions? Did he try to send those contributions to help elect other progressives (so the revolution could actually happen)? No. He filed as an INDEPENDENT, not Democrat, for his 2018 Senate re-election and shuffled excess contributions there. And no, $10 million of FEC-questioned contributions is not .1%; it’s closer to 10%.
And no, these types of reprimands from the FEC are not common. They normally send them to campaigns they think are a either corrupt or disorganized. Pick which one you believe. I’ll give St. Bernie the benefit of the doubt and choose disorganized. (Keep in mind that a disorganized campaign is highly predictive of a disorganized white house).
And, what exactly did St. Bernie get for his $800 thousand to Tad Devine in February (see FEC spending report). Please note that St. Bernie employs a corporate lobbyist as his Senior Campaign Advisor. Check out Tad’s clients. Oh! And who was instrumental in having the Democratic Party use Superdelegates? You guessed it. Tad Devine.
doubleman says
When only Breitbart-like entities are covering this story and implying bad intent, that’s all one really needs to know.
SomervilleTom says
Ditch the snark, please. I ignore hits on sites like “freebeacon.com”, as noted below.
As doublman notes, I see normal and usual traffic. Your characterization as “reprimand” appears to be an overreach.
Mullaley540 says
Reprimand is exactly what the FEC has done with the Sanders campaign.
Christopher says
…SomervilleTom is a Clinton supporter.
jconway says
We should all try and old one another’s candidates and supporters to proven reality based commentary. Sick of seeing nasty stuff about the Clintons reposted from right wing blogs and self proclaimed progressives belittling Sanders accomplishments or red baiting him.
A moderate Republican I follow on Twitter put it best:
I don’t want to break the seventh seal to cause the Apoclypse so I’m voting for the Democrat.
Mullaley540 says
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/619/201602250300038619/201602250300038619.pdf
Peter Porcupine says
It’s like his failure to release his tax returns. Everybody knows I’m honest, so I don’t have to do accurate reporting or submit to scrutiny like those other guts- I’m Bernie!
fredrichlariccia says
who do you support?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
johntmay says
Are my only real issues. Everything else take a back seat. So there is really only one choice, eh?
Oh, and consistency counts. Fool me once, shame on you….
johnk says
Honestly, it’s time to get real.
johntmay says
When you say “get real”, are you saying we need to surrender control of the economy to the banks and give up on health care as a human right?
Is that your reality?
bob-gardner says
. . .since you state that you were a 20-year subscriber to the National Review.
Is it possible that your animus toward the Clintons is the one thing that has remained constant while your issues have evolved?
methuenprogressive says
No wonder he addresses it as a ‘race issue’.
Perhaps it’s an issue Sanders thought he left behind when he fled to Vermont.
jconway says
And I’ve made the case repeatedly that the gun control movement has forgotten about black lives by focusing to the comparatively rare events of mass shootings as opposed to the insane 600 homicides, 578 of them people of
color, that have made this the most violent year on record in Chicago.
And no, a ton of right wingers point to that and say it’s a black problem or it’s a problem of there not being enough guns or some other kind of bullshit. But the White House flat out said “that’s not our issue” when pressed by black pastors, basically what my father in laws white church said when he brought up gun violence in one of his sermons “that’s a Chicago problem”. No it’s an American problem and it’s time we elected people with the stones to take it on. Hillary and Bernie have been equally inconsistent on this issue, but I am glad someone is making the racial justice argument. These communities have been abandoned to die by all of is and that’s the biggest problem with gun violence in America, and you’d need far stricter gun control than background checks to rain it in. Something neither of these candidates will get passed.
My grandpa isn’t coming back, the friends and family of black co workers aren’t coming back, and I am sick and tired of this being used as a political wedge issue and yet another stale talking point in the purity wars on the progressive side of the aisle. Neither one of them will do anything about this issue if elected, even if they want to, since the problem is incapable of getting solved at the federal level at present.
jconway says
It’s shameful that your thoughtful and informative post has been hijacked by the same stale arguments that have infected anything else on this blog.
Let’s have a real debate about what policy will work. It’s insulting to those of us who lost families to see a real issue reduced to the daily mockery of presidential primary talking points.
JimC says
Lively discussion. It was really just a snow day cut-and-paste job.