From the HRC website:
Hillary will fight to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill:
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 felon—only so that felon can avoid a background check—it 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.
Sorry, but I find this uninspiring.
It almost goes without saying that Trump is worse, and he says scary things about every American having the right to carry whatever they want anywhere, but there’s also this:
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.
Frankly that sounds better to me than HRC’s “straw purchasing” proposal. Is straw purchasing really a big problem?
But more to the immediate point, my vote is securely Democratic. What of the pesky independents?
I submit, unprovably, that HRC would be far better off really throwing the gauntlet on guns. It would enable her to force the issue and make people choose a safer path, and arm herself (pun intended) for future legislative battles on guns (which, at the moment, hardly seem possible).
It would be a hard choice (pun intended again), but also a strong one.
ADDING: It’s interesting that, once Clinton felt threatened by Sanders, she went after him on guns. Her instinct was correct (though honestly I found the attack shaky).
The other day, surprising no one, the NRA endorsed Trump. Why not fire up our base, bu doubling down on that? WHACK Trump on guns as much as possible, and stake out a clear plan for gun safety. RUN on this.
jconway says
I feel like guns are another red/blue culture war issue now. Gone are the days when suburban conservatives like Peter King or Henry Hyde would vote to ban assault weapons alongside abortions, or prarie populists like Russ Finegold or Paul Wellstone could brag about their A+ NRA ratings.
Anyone who is voting for Hillary is probably for gun control and anyone voting against her is already against gun control and voting for Trump. How many undecided voters really prioritize this above the economy, trade, or national security? Not that many I suspect.
Her position definitely helped her win over progressives who might’ve voted for Sander’s in the primary, including our own Bob Neer who cited that as his primary reason he wasn’t feeling the been. I heard she will de-emphasize it to win over rust belt union members and be competitive in the west. I don’t see that working either, but I also don’t see this being the issue that gets the progressive base to come out.
johnk says
plus Wayne LaPierre loves this idea.
You might want to research this one a bit more.
JimC says
There is a term for the fallacy, wherein an idea is bad because someone we don’t like likes the idea, but that term escapes me at the moment.
Then tell me what, exactly, is wrong with this idea? Wouldn’t it encourage more responsible gun ownership?
scott12mass says
Read the criminal history of the scum (Zambrano) who just shot officer Tarentino in Auburn Mass and you’ll understand how conservatives see the problem is often our lack of sufficient punishment for violent offenders.
SomervilleTom says
Even though we have a significantly higher rate of violent offenders (as a share of our population) than other nations, the sad fact is that a higher portion of THOSE commit gun crimes than in other nations.
If anything, we have more harsh punishments for our violent offenders than other nations. The data, therefore, does not support this argument. It is compelling in the same way that the argument that heavy objects fall faster than light objects is compelling — “common sense” says it should be so. The reality is that it is NOT — heavy and light objects fall at the same speed.
Our problem is NOT that lack “sufficient punishment” for our violent offenders. The problem is, instead, that we make it so so trivially easy for those violent offenders to acquire guns.
Discussions about this would, of course, be improved if we actually had data collected from hard science in the US (it is available from other nations). That is impossible because our government has blocked research into gun violence since the 1990s (emphasis mine):
As we grow more and more accustomed to relying on passion, prejudice, and short-term politics to guide public policy on this issue (and so many others), our public policy gets worse and worse.
Our political system is spiraling downward in a power-dive into mutual self-destruction. We MUST find a way to reassert the importance of reason, fact, and informed debate in setting public policy.
scott12mass says
This thread was about perceptions of Clinton/Trump in the general election. Both candidates are viewed unfavorably, economic plans are difficult to measure (or get excited about), foreign policy for the average voter is not that important. What sets candidates apart? People I talk to mention one thing first about Sanders when his name comes up, free college (always the first thing).
So is gun control/crime (and I think in most discussions they wind up hand in hand) going to be where Clinton sets her standard? I’m sure Trump hopes she does. Willie Horton all over again.
SomervilleTom says
You made a comment about Mr. Zambrano that I responded to.
How many of the people you talk to about “free college” object to Ms. Clinton’s proposal to exclude the 1% from that benefit? How many even KNOW that Ms. Clinton offers pretty much the same plan as Mr. Sanders?
I doubt very much that Ms. Clinton will allow Mr. Trump to define the differences between them, and I doubt that she will fall for the gun-control bait.
Do you mind if I gently remind you that it was Mr. Dukakis that was snookered by the Willie Horton attack, and that it was Bill Clinton (Hillary Clinton’s husband) who turned that racism on its ear and beat the bejesus out of George H. Bush and the GOP as a result?
I’ll leave it to Ms. Clinton and her campaign team to choose how they respond to Mr. Trump. I’m not worried about his gun-control rubbish in the slightest.
scott12mass says
The average voter has a much shorter attention span and is much less informed than the crowd on here. No talk about Clinton’s college plan, most don’t know she has one.
You think Bill Clinton won because he showed he was fighting racism?
Bush lost because of “Read my lips, no new taxes”, and he lied. It was a stupid pledge to make,but simple enough to remind the voters of.
We’ll see who defines the discussion of their differences, but whoever defines the battle in words which will fit in a tweet will win.
Christopher says
GHWB did not “lie” when he promised no new taxes. He later reneged on that pledge – huge difference. The former implies maliciously saying something the speaker knew to be false at the time it was stated – in other words, never intending to keep it which you can only know if you can read his mind. I for one assume he meant it. The latter can happen for any number of reasons and maybe even should happen if circumstances warrant. I agree it was a stupid pledge, but I have more respect for the leadership of one who honestly says my mind and/or circumstances have changed and here is why I feel I must reconsider, than for one who stubbornly keeps to his pledge just so he can say he stood on principle and kept to his pledge.
johnk says
no fallacy.
JimC says
n/t
johnk says
5 year federal sentence on top of the state action, if any. 5 years hard time no matter what, no parole. So that would be a minimum of a 5 year federal sentence. HuffPo has some background.
Mark L. Bail says
a species of ad hominem fallacy, guilt by association.
That’s not an opinion on the actual comment.
JimC says
The argument of the diary is, HRC’s position on gun control is not strong enough to motivate voters in the middle.
If you disagree with this premise, maybe you can say why. It seems to me that her position is too generic to move the needle. It seems designed to keep us happy enough without really alienating anyone who hasn’t already spent a generation hating her.
Disappointing. And, I think, a real lost opportunity.
johnk says
highlights what Clinton has been saying during the primary and in debates. It’s a lot more than the part which you highlighted in your post. It’s a great deal more. I don’t know what you are looking for here to be honest.
The second point is that you then highlighted a crime bill era program that we have learned is NOT what we should be doing. If Clinton took that backward approach then that might cause a problem with her base.
Did you think that she should move toward the “middle” here, and go back to the 90’s “tough on crime” mantra? What specifically are you saying, this is what you think the “middle” wants?
This post confuses me.
JimC says
I feel you’re like being deliberately obtuse, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Her position means nothing.
Part of the part I didn’t quote is stuff she “fought for” but never happened.
I think she plans to do NOTHING on guns. NOTHING. Because she thinks guys are politically risky.
I hope she proves me wrong.
I further believe that, the more divisive the issue, the better off a candidate is having a strong position. The point is, make the middle choose.
petr says
… of the stuff she ‘fought for’ (in the Senate) if it was to return and eventuate, she would, as President, sign it into law. That’s not the nothing you think it is.
I’m pretty sure Candidate Obama had little plans to do much on guns, circa 2008. But events have a way of overtaking presidencies… ref. Hook, Sandy; Giffords, Gabby; Colorado, Aurora; etc… and the signature failure to move forward, even in the face of the mounting horror, is not on Obama but on the entire Senate, Republican and Democrat alike. Best case scenario we’re looking at here is a Clinton presidency and a Democratic Senate with a backbone… If you don’t like Secretary Clinton, I’m fine with that, but you have a better chance of getting what you want if a President Clinton has a congressional majority… and that’s not out of the realm of possibility with the fecund absurdity of the oncoming Trump-wreck.
I could not agree more. But failure to do this isn’t on Secretary Clinton alone. And even on the apparently consensus view, when a Democratic leader does do such things, he/she is more likely to face underhanded opposition in his/her own backyard, ref. Obama, Barak and Bay, Guantanamo. I don’t particularly fault Clinton for trying to navigate between a party that sometimes makes the easy things hard and the hard things impossible and an electorate who wants the hard things to be easy and the impossible things to be everyday…
JimC says
But there is an opportunity to change, and she has it.
We keep hearing about how she’s a strong leader; the election presents a chance to lead strongly on an important issue. So I think she should lead us on it.
petr says
I’m not sure where lies the overlap between strong leader and strong campaigner. George W. Bush was, in fact, probably the best, strongest, campaigner in recent memory… and yes, I’m putting him above Bill Clinton in that regard… However much of a good campaigner he turned out to be he was an abysmal failure of a leader. Absolutely the worst. Bill Clinton, for that matter, was a fearless campaigner and a timid leader. The only thing Ronald Reagan did was to campaign… And on. I think much the same can be said of the present POTUS: Peerless campaigner but once in office… sort of a fizzle.
It might just be me trying to justify my past presidential votes (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, etc) but I strongly suspect the converse of the above paragraph is also true: poor campaigners are more likely to be true leaders for the things that the campaigns must take seriously are not the things that a serious sober minded leader must take seriously. There is, in fact, no other way to explain the present day Trumped up GOP.
centralmassdad says
It is always a tough issue because, although a significant majority supports reasonable gun regulation, that support is tepid at best. There are brief surges of support an energy after each new incident, but that energy quickly dwindles with the headlines and gun regulation becomes one among many priorities, and not necessarily one that drives a November voting decision.
Meanwhile, on the other side, prevention of any regulation, reasonable or otherwise, generates sustained support and energy, all the time without exception, even when a decent person might be embarrassed to have such a position, like after Sandy Hook. Maybe the population of these folks that would ever consider pulling a “D” lever in November has dwindled to zero, but in the past, the “energy” differential has always made the political cost/benefit analysis of running loud and proud on gun control to be a losing proposition.
If Sandy Hook didn’t change that dynamic, I don’t know what will.
johntmay says
That’s been her problem and most common weakness, eh? She is afraid to take a bold stand on anything. Well, sure, maybe today, but once the opposition comes, she folds. Once she thinks that a particular bold stand might cost a few votes or worse, a few donations, that bold stand is walked back, minimized, or even reversed. Her supporters call that “being a shrewd politician”. We’ll see how that works out in a general election with a populist mood.
dasox1 says
Don’t confuse the two. HRC needs a compelling political rationale for her candidacy. She doesn’t have one. Sure, she understands public policy, but that doesn’t win elections. Maybe it should but it doesn’t. What’s her overarching message behind her candidacy? Four more years? We can’t go back to the policies of GHWB? Change? Back to the 90’s? Trump sucks? She needs a compelling political rationale, that resonates and that she can stick to.
Christopher says
…is a very strong rationale IMO.
JimC says
But this year, it isn’t.
What is she prepared FOR? To maintain a status quo no one likes.
Christopher says
It’s not about status quo or not, or a laundry list of issues. She knows HOW to be President in ways other candidates can only dream of. She and Sanders could completely swap every position they have taken on various issues and she would still be the one who would require the least on the job training.