world

Clinton pitches new gun control laws following Oregon shooting

52 Comments
By LISA LERER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

52 Comments
Login to comment

What American needs is not more one off, stand alone legislation. What it needs is a comprehensive system built from scratch. Even the pro-gun lobby should see that these stand alone laws are infringing on their gun rights more than a comprehensive system would. In fact, the pro-gun lobby should be the one putting proposals for such a system out there, and thereby control their own destiny. But that would be asking gun nuts to do what they can't do: think straight.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Standard response. If legal firearms are restricted, then only criminals will have firearms and nobody will be able to stop them. Where I live, the head of house is legally REQUIRED to have a firearm AND ammunition. I like knowing that my neighbors all have firearms, should anything criminal happen. Our city crime rate is 30% lower than other, similar cities, around the USA. I've never heard of the law being enforced and some people do refuse to have firearms at home, but it is like immunizations - the herd protects everyone.

In the USA, about 34% of all households have a firearm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_ownership that is a large group to convince any law changes are desired.

This year in the USA, about 10000 people were killed by firearms. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

In 2013 in the USA, about 33000 people were killed by motorized vehicles on the roads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year - clearly we need stricter laws about who is allowed on the roadways. After all, about 80% of all Americans own a vehicle. The simple math shows that vehicles are more deadly than firearms in the USA. Anecdotally, I've been in 8 car accidents in my life, one with serious injuries, but have never been involved with any accident related to firearms. I am much more concerned about death when driving than when shooting and the statistics show that is reasonable.

Alcohol related deaths are more than 2x higher than vehicle deaths. We should limit who can drink - oh - we tried that. Didn't work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#United_States

Hospital errors are listed in that last link as 23% of the deaths in the USA. Firearms are 1.3% and that includes about 2/3rds in suicides.

Smoking causes 18% of deaths. We should ban tobacco smoking and save about 435000 lives annually.

My point, if it isn't clear, is to solve the big problems which impact the most people. Firearms aren't even in the top 10.

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

Great points theFu, the problem is the liberal media. Those two links for the firearm deaths include lawful self defense, police use, and suicides I can almost assure you. Which would reduce those firearm death numbers a fair percentage.

My gripe has been cars when compared to firearm deaths. The stats are through the roof. Young male drivers it astronomical. And today the way the need to be connected to their cell phone is dangerous. As a bike rider I pay extra attention to keep my butt safe. I've been hit by cars on both motorcycle and bicycle minor incidences fortunately and sooo many near misses. Car driver just don't pay attention enough.

Smoking is a choice, not a need just like owning a firearm here in the states. I hate tobacco and I don't hate much in my life.

Alcohol again is a choice, this is a choice I choose in moderation which is not so harmful and I also will not drive after more a few drinks. Yet, I have known several killed by alcohol.

Shootings, I have know one person murdered and no accidental shootings. I have known a few who committed suicide with a gun though. The media hype is exactly that.

It is said Obama will visit the town in Oregon to exploit his anti gun agenda. Strangely he is not wanted by several of the towns officials. This would be a slap in their faces as well as the families of the 9 victims and the deviates family.

What Hillary is presenting is nothing new, it's been tried and reverted. It is no better. The Fed backround check needs to work a bit better. It has become a trend amongst social misfits to become the great vindicator and just kill people, yes a gun makes it easier but it is a disturbed person pulling the trigger.

I would feel safer with competent firearm users around than zero! The fact is when challenged with an opposing gun they get shot or shoot themselves. When they are challenged from another shooter the mass deaths stop. That's evident in all the mass shootings.

I wish there was world peace but the reality is different. I wish people didn't kill others but the reality is different. This also is fact, always was and always will be.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

If legal firearms are restricted, then only criminals will have firearms and nobody will be able to stop them.

What a ridiculous attempt at logic.

Our city crime rate is 30% lower than other, similar cities, around the USA.

And yet cities in the USA with stronger gun control, have fewer deaths from gun related violence. Go figure.

My point, if it isn't clear, is to solve the big problems which impact the most people. Firearms aren't even in the top 10.

But guns are the one that can be removed, without negatively impacting other parts of society.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

TheFu: "In 2013 in the USA, about 33000 people were killed by motorized vehicles on the roads."

Quick question. When you wake up, shower, then leave your house and sit on your guns, how long does it take you to get to work? Because we all know that cars were not created for killing people, but as a means of transportation. Now, what purpose do guns serve aside from shooting people? When you're preparing dinner, do you cut vegetables and meat with your guns? That's a purpose that knives serve. Are you one of those Americans that puts his gun in his left hand and the fork in his right while eating??

You see, all of the things you mention are not at all for the purposes of hurting others, but serve as tools in everyday society. Guns have absolutely no place at all except for killing. Period.

As for smoking, you don't realize you are defeating your own argument, do you? Most people would be happy if further laws were put on tobacco restricting sale and use -- and it is already quite regulated in case you missed that, too. Same with alcohol. What gun nutters are suggesting, if you want to make the comparison seriously, is that alcohol and tobacco be available at schools, that there be no ID for sales because it infringes on your rights, etc.

Good on Hillary for her determination to finally address and go after one of The US' serious diseases.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

The GUNs were not the problem, the American cultures and social values were the problems. Too much violences were caused by too many nasty people. Hillary is one of them and if you believes her pledges of banning guns then you are naive. Politicans writing blank cheques every second until their last breathing.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

StrangerlandOCT. 06, 2015 - 11:03AM JST If legal firearms are restricted, then only criminals will have firearms and nobody will be able to stop them.

What a ridiculous attempt at logic

. ---- Drugs are illegal who sells and does drugs? Your logic is lacking.

Our city crime rate is 30% lower than other, similar cities, around the USA.

And yet cities in the USA with stronger gun control, have fewer deaths from gun related violence. Go figure

. ----are you referring to Chicago? Lacking facts again!

My point, if it isn't clear, is to solve the big problems which impact the most people. Firearms aren't even in the top 10.

But guns are the one that can be removed, without negatively impacting other parts of society

. --- wouldn't that same logic go for alcohol and tobacco?

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

. ---- Drugs are illegal who sells and does drugs? Your logic is lacking.

In Japan, guns are illegal, there are almost no gun deaths. Your logic is lacking.

. ----are you referring to Chicago? Lacking facts again!

No, though Chicago when looked at per capital has a lower mass murder rate than other cities in the country. But I'm talking about actual numbers, which you haven't checked.

. --- wouldn't that same logic go for alcohol and tobacco?

Look how well prohibition worked.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Good on Hillary for her determination to finally address and go after one of The US' serious diseases.

It's an election year, go figure.

In Japan, guns are illegal, there are almost no gun deaths. Your logic is lacking.

But The suicide rate in Japan is still one of the highest in the world. Self-defeating argument.

No, though Chicago when looked at per capital has a lower mass murder rate than other cities in the country. But I'm talking about actual numbers, which you haven't checked.

Not when you factor in the out of control Black on Black crime rate which is through the roof.

Look how well prohibition worked.

Not well at all.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

MarkG: My gripe has been cars when compared to firearm deaths. The stats are through the roof.

We spend a lot of time and money developing car safety because the numbers are high. Now imagine a lobbying group who spends each and every day trying to repeal or lessen the impact of driver safety laws. And imagine they make a lot of money doing it. Then you'd have the NRA.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

In Japan, guns are illegal, there are almost no gun deaths. Your logic is lacking.

But The suicide rate in Japan is still one of the highest in the world. Self-defeating argument.

What a ridiculous attempt at logic.

Not when you factor in the out of control Black on Black crime rate which is through the roof.

Nothing like making up rhetoric, rather than looking at the truth, right bass?

Look how well prohibition worked.

Not well at all.

Exactly. Which is why you should let people kill themselves, if that's what they want. But you shouldn't let people kill others.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

I think Hillary is killing her election chances with this. Too many liberals also love guns.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Hillary would never let a blooding tragedy go to waste...note the timing of her proclamation...

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"Clinton also proposed repealing legislation that shields gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers of firearms from most liability suits, including in cases of mass shootings."

Clinton, being a libtard, would of course say such an ignorant thing.

How about this : Clinton also proposed repealing legislation that shields AUTOMOBILE manufacturers, distributors and dealers of AUTOMOBILES from most liability suits, including in cases of VEHICULAR HOMICIDE and DUI/DWI and all accidents including injury or death.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

There are so many guns out there already that I am totally against gun control.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

There are so many guns out there already that I am totally against gun control.

And people claim that the Japanese are apathetic.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Mental illness is the real issue, not new gun laws, evilness and mental illness go hand and hand. I bet the guy Chris who blocked the door wished he'd had a gun...! he would of returned fire and ended the thing right there...Now in America teacher's will have to carry gun's... just to survive...Just a thought...

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Mental illness is the real issue, not new gun laws, evilness and mental illness go hand and hand.

And since it's been shown that guns can't be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill, it would make sense to get rid of them altogether.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

not necessarily we need to protect ourselves from government and people like this...and as far as Hillary...she has a very good chance of being the most powerful woman on earth, as long as Bill is in the room...Bill Clinton is probably the greatest politician on the face of the planet, I know I am not the only one who think's this...again just a thought...

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@theFu

This year in the USA, about 10000 people were killed by firearms.

I thought guns didn't kill people? Oh well, in any case you are talking citizen homicide only. You left out the around 20,000 gun suicides (same source), police shootings (the number of which is a secret) and gun accidents (which I can't find figures for just yet). So, when you aren't biased and take the time to look at all the data, you realize that the gun and traffic deaths are about the same, or the guns deaths are more.

We don't know how many people would have committed suicide if not for having a gun, but I bet its a pretty high number.

clearly we need stricter laws about who is allowed on the roadways.

We do. We have insane drivers and insane gun owners too. But I believe we have the resources to get a grip on both things at the same time.

Hospital errors: not sure what we can do. I also expect most who die that way are old anyway. I note that cause is listed in the chart on wiki but not on the graph, which is odd to say the least.

Smoking and alcohol: They are not dying so young generally. It is not really old people dying slowly by their own hand people are worried about, and for good reason; old people tend to die no matter what.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I think tougher gun control laws should eventually lead to a total abolishment of guns. Yes, it sounds like a pipe dream to get rid of guns entirely, but all good things must start somewhere. After all, the right to bear arms has gotten the American people just more blood on their hands to deal with. Every single day, people are getting killed by guns in America; even little children. Just today, I read a story about an 11-year-old shooting to death another child in a spat over a puppy:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-boy-11-kills-girl-eight-over-puppy-211349093.html

The NRA and gun nuts want everyone else to believe that guns are needed for protection. Yet, I was able to live safely in the U.S. for 23 years without ever owning one, and none of my friends ever had one either. In fact, there have been so many instances of people getting shot accidentally by either their own gun or from someone else.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Wyandotte Nation: Mental illness is the real issue

Mental illness is the distraction the pro-gun groups use.

Are you expecting us to come up with some kind of mental health test that can predict what people will do, then create some kind of invisible bubble that stops that person from picking up a gun? Because gun supporters aren't offering jack in terms of better mental healthcare (and most likely would block legislation to spend money on it). And they sure as hell aren't doing anything about the fact that people can easily get guns at gun shows, through private sellers, or just taking one from a friend.

Gun supporters will further complicate the issue by saying that even if a person is somehow banned from owning or possessing a gun due to mental illness, he can still live in a house with a gun collector because it would infringe on the collector's rights.

So....what solutions are you guys offering us other than distractions?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

@Wyandotte Nation Mental illness is the real issue, not new gun laws, evilness and mental illness go hand and hand

The far right's darling helped stop funding for a programme for the mentally ill.

Gun crowd members who claim it's people with mental health issues who massacre innocent people should be the first in queue to volunteer money, maybe from the sale of guns in the form of a higher tax, to re-fund and re-establish programmes to help those with mental health problems. Or maybe they can urge their powerful gun lobbies and NRA to help them do this.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Why is it that when someone is against private citizens owning guns the right always call them liberals? Is that because they have the power of free thought rather than the blinkered view of flag-waving Republicans? Sorry, but from a non-American perspective it's baffling...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Sorry, but from a non-American perspective it's baffling...

Particularly as so many liberals in the US love their guns as much as anyone. Guns are a bipartisan issue in America.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I'd rather take the guns and weapons away from the government then vise versa.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Why is it that when someone is against private citizens owning guns the right always call them liberals?

"Liberal" is the right's blanket term for any view they've been told to disagree with. Like the term "socialist" they don't really understand it but seem to think it's an insult due to the way their leaders throw the terms around. It's a lazy way of not having to use actual facts and evidence to support their claims.

Gleaming example: "Clinton, being a libtard, would of course say such an ignorant thing."

While accusing someone of ignorance, the commenter calls Clinton a "libtard," revealing his own conservaderp-ness. (See how that sounds?) No context is given on her past policies or stances. Just an insult.

If only they'd stop listening to the likes of Fox News, they'd know that she's more of a centrist that only started leaning left in earnest after Bernie Sanders, a true liberal, decided to run. That's still about ten times better than most of their candidates though.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

FizzBit - I too would not like to see the government taken away from the guns and weapons.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

2nd Amendment will soon cease to exist and the US will be like North Korea, if they aren't already.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Of 62 mass shooters between 1982 and 2012, only one was a woman. Up yours, Donald!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Clinton pitches new gun control laws following Oregon shooting

Might not catch fire at the moment, but statistically speaking, she'll have another dozen massacres before the election to try again. Perhaps eventually people will begin to pay attention - though I wouldn't hold my breath.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What a ridiculous attempt at logic.

As they say, light is the best disinfectant for liberals.

Nothing like making up rhetoric, rather than looking at the truth, right bass?

No, I leave that to you libs on that, I am definitely outmatched.

Exactly. Which is why you should let people kill themselves, if that's what they want. But you shouldn't let people kill others.

Right....

Why is it that when someone is against private citizens owning guns the right always call them liberals?

Because MOST liberals live in a make believe world where peace progressive logic is the norm.

Is that because they have the power of free thought rather than the blinkered view of flag-waving Republicans?

Free ONLY when it comes to issues liberals WANT to talk about.

Sorry, but from a non-American perspective it's baffling...

Why do some many Europeans care? I never understood that.

"Liberal" is the right's blanket term for any view they've been told to disagree with.

No. What it really means is that liberals want to live in a world where there are NO repercussions, where there is No accountability and where traditionalism is something of the past and needs to be stomped out in order to push a progressive liberal agenda over the entire country. Check California.

Like the term "socialist" they don't really understand it but seem to think it's an insult due to the way their leaders throw the terms around. It's a lazy way of not having to use actual facts and evidence to support their claims.

Believing in income redistribution, wanting to punish big business, that's more than enough to go by that term.

If only they'd stop listening to the likes of Fox News,

So in other words, they should listen to 99% of liberal progressive media outlets instead of listening to a more balanced centrist news outlet?

they'd know that she's more of a centrist that only started leaning left in earnest after Bernie Sanders, a true liberal, decided to run.

No, you mean an honest committed socialist. At least Bernie doesn't hide what he really is.

That's still about ten times better than most of their candidates though.

And still neither of them will win, especially Hillary is NOW all of a sudden a candidate that is for more gun control? I know the woman is desperate, but this is just pathetic, seriously!

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Chicago is a joke. Most strict gun laws. Yet, the shootings never cease.

Why not give those folks 3-5 yrs in federal prison for committing crimes involving the use a a firearm? Law abiding american gun owners (mostly mid/upper-mid class (R) wouldn't have a problem with it.

No, the libs won't have it. They'll cut deals in court- plea bargains etc . . . in order to get a "lesser" sentence. It's all nonsense.

See, republican gun owners would be FOR this kind of strict enactment. . . for the spirit of safer gun control. Why won't the dems, libs, illegals and ghetto gangbangers accept it?

Maybe cause, if they wear the shoe, everyone would see the truth.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

No. What it really means is that liberals want to live in a world where there are NO repercussions, where there is No accountability and where traditionalism is something of the past and needs to be stomped out in order to push a progressive liberal agenda over the entire country. Check California.

That pretty much describes conservatives who could care less about the repercussions of the right to bear arms and how much blood is shed by crazies with guns. And a Republican's idea of accountability is blaming the victim for not protecting themselves with more guns in the first place. That kind of accountability is one I could live without. If being called a liberal means that I choose to enjoy living in a place where I never have to worry about the possibility of being caught in a crossfire at a public place, then a liberal I am.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

You'll never convince the lemmings Wc, they'll follow the liberal media and liberal leaders off a cliff.

It's funny to read the hate speech posts here from some of those libs here. I've yet to see conservative behave similar.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Clinton is trying to create space between her and Sanders. To connect with the base.

Y'know, people like me.

Perhaps she should have more rallies and less fundraises...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's funny to read the hate speech posts here from some of those libs here.

Oh, I know. I think 3-5 yrs added (federal prison time), in addition to whatever state penal was violated- during the commission of a crime involving a firearm- would be a perfect enhancement for violators.

Why won't the libs wear this shoe? I own a couple firearms. I gladly accept.

Man those corrupt, lenient prosecutors in those "blue" states ruin the mustard.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Gun nutters support all kinds of laws that they will never actually work to pass. Just like they support mental health care that they suddenly stop talking about when the the recent shooting drops out of the headlines. They just love their little guns and if some people get slaughtered at a college....well...I guess that's just the way it is. Let's just blame "liberals" for the murders and slip out the back door holding our precious, precious guns.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

You couldn't be further from the truth Super. Do you recall the magazine capacity ban? In my state (and I think federally) was a 5 day wait to purchase a pistol. Democrats pushed those. It didn't change anything.

A strict backround check for transfer and for those floating around already what do you propose? Remember now, 300 million guns are in public hands. How many of those are killing people? And why? Suicides don't count. Justified police shootings don't count. Low life's will continue their illegal escapades.

A gun grab is not anywhere near the horizon. Collectors have thousands of dollars in their gun collection. Have you ever priced a period cowboy gun? Add a famous name to it and is over $100,000 gun. WW2 guns in mint condition or rare can go for several thousand dollars. When was the last time a cowboy gun was used in a murder? How about a WW2 gun? What about target pistols and rifles? Olympians use them all the time! And lastly all those hunters, shall we just stop hunting? Farmers and ranchers won't like that not to mention all the increased roadkill we'll have.

In active shooting situations only another firearm stops the killing. Usually in the police's hands but not always. Guns DO stop human defects from continuing to kill.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

A strict background check for transfer? Surely you know about the gun show loopholes and transactions between private parties, especially on message boards. If you insist on ignoring that then what's the point of including you in the discussion? Your just adding white noise.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Based on a light observation, it seems as though the members whose comments have the 'dislike' button are conservative/republican and those whose comments have the 'like' button are liberal/democrat. This leaves me with a couple intriguing thoughts... 1) People apparently 'dislike' common sense. The liberal community is constantly forcing this apparent opinion that if a criminal who owns a gun commits a mass shooting, the other law-abiding citizens who do or plan to own guns should suffer for it. This is wrong in it's entirety. GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE WITH BAD INTENTIONS AND OPPORTUNITY KILL PEOPLE. Logically, the lazy libs may find it easier to just nip the whole issue in the bud and outlaw guns and attempt to mold the American culture into that of Japan or the UK. Well, realistically, that opportunity has long passed. America is a country constructed with these particular freedoms and developed from them. Even Americans are brought up with the mentality that guns are okay. It's not going to change, so wipe your tears away. 2) An intriguing number of the commenters are from people who do not only lack the experience of having ever lived in America, but base their opinions in comparison to the culture of their own country. Lest I be the one to remind these lobotomized liberals that America is still a fairly young country, especially compared to your European or Asian homelands. America is still working out the kinks in it's own system, which you have nothing whatsoever to do with. 3) Again, guns are not the issue. People are the issue. Stupid people are the issue. Stupid people call guns the issue. Firearms (not weapons of mass destruction for the idiot that referred to them as such), are created by people for various reasons. These are not common household items comparable to a fork or coffee maker, firearms require training and responsibility for proper use and handling. Repub/Conservs need to get it through their thick skull that just because you may be able to, others cannot just pick up a gun and know how to use it, Most people who never touched a gun are SCARED of them. That is not the correct mindset to have as an American, especially when ownership of a gun is a constitutional right...not to mention completely trying to shut them out. Forget it, that ship has sailed loooooooong ago. I would propose a standardized training, whether it be in high school or else where, in which each individual either buying a gun or just in general, is required to have a full mental examination, and from there, be allowed to undergo basic firearms familiarization and marksman training. Knowledge is the best way to deal with these types of issues. (And for those kids who refuse the training prior will lose their right to purchase a firearm in the future.) This would help weed out (most of) the crazies while familiarizing the citizens with a part of their basic constitutional right. Later on in life, if the said person, who passed their familiarization course, wishes to purchase a firearm, they can undergo further examination and potentially purchase one. I don't give a crap if anyone gives me the dreaded 'dislike' button for my comment. I honestly don't care what you think. I am simply stating that given the state that America is in, this would be the most practical application and could solve the issue for both sides. drops mic

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Gun nutters support all kinds of laws that they will never actually work to pass. Just like they support mental health care that they suddenly stop talking about when the the recent shooting drops out of the headlines.

What a bunch of crock! Of course they want more mental healthcare or at the very minimum a more stringent background check before the purchase of firearms and that voice is becoming louder, I'm for it, since that is the underlying problem.

They just love their little guns and if some people get slaughtered at a college....well...I guess that's just the way it is.

Hey, libs feel the same about the slaughter, distribution and sale of baby parts, so what's different, without being a total hypocrite?

Let's just blame "liberals" for the murders and slip out the back door holding our precious, precious guns.

No, just people are tired of hearing liberals scream about one issue and then are complete hypocrites when it comes to relatively similar issue, murder is murder, but if it's down by a firearm, it's immoral, but if it's done medically, quiet and below the radar, it's acceptable.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Steel phallus fetishists' denial continues ad nauseam/infinitum/mortem mundi.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

SuperLibOCT. 07, 2015 - 06:02AM JST A strict background check for transfer? Surely you know about the gun show loopholes and transactions between private parties, especially on message boards. If you insist on ignoring that then what's the point of including you in the discussion? Your just adding white noise.

The transfer refers to private FFL dealer transfer. The gun show loopholes are in only a few states, it's not national. What is legal is longarms private sales. Pistols are absolutely FFL transfers. The message boards are monitored by the BATF in case you were not aware.

Forgive me for presumption some posters actually know the laws. My bad.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

So in other words, they should listen to 99% of liberal progressive media outlets instead of listening to a more balanced centrist news outlet?

Remember how the media acted like Hillary had already won the Democratic ticket and marginalized Sanders until his surge forced them to take him seriously? That's your first clue that most of the media is actually centrist. The reason you think they're so far left is that Conservatives have been moving farther and farther right and the Democratic party has unfortunately let them.

No, you mean an honest committed socialist. At least Bernie doesn't hide what he really is.

He's a democratic socialist but he's also a liberal and progressive. And yeah he's honest too. He's honest about the fact that America is not perfect and that we can take ideas that have been shown to work from other countries, even socialist ones like Denmark. High taxes but free higher education, free healthcare, long mandatory paid vacation times, hard to get ridiculous/unnecessary rich but not allowed to get poor, consistently rated high on quality of life surveys. Sounds like a real communist nightmare...

Hey, libs feel the same about the slaughter, distribution and sale of baby parts, so what's different, without being a total hypocrite?

And on the other side we have dishonesty... The Planned Parenthood "scandal" has been thoroughly debunked, and yet politicians on your side continue to repeat it. Abortions make up a tiny percentage of the services PP facilities provide, zero in a lot of states where politicians are most vocally against it. When legal abortions are performed, sometimes organs are donated for research that can save future lives. There's some transportation cost involved, but zero monetary profit. You can be pro-life, but don't make stuff up.

You want to talk about hypocrites? Conservatives claim to be the party of family values, but they have just as many if not more extra-marital sex scandals as the left. They also claim to have Christian values but are very selective in their scripture reading. I went to a Southern Baptist high school. What I remember from the New Testament is Jesus rarely mentioning sex or gays. He couldn't stop talking about helping the poor and how much he hated the rich though.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

MargK: The gun show loopholes are in only a few states, it's not national

But do you realize that any loopholes that exist make existing transfer laws useless? Private parties can sell guns to one another which makes the entire background system purely optional. "Strengthening/enforcing existing laws" sounds like adding an extra 10 feet to the side of a dam because of a hole in the middle of it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That's your first clue that most of the media is actually centrist. The reason you think they're so far left is that Conservatives have been moving farther and farther right and the Democratic party has unfortunately let them.

No, I work in the media. I know first hand. I worked for the 3rd largest news network in North America. The media is predominantly liberal at least 99% and that's conservatively honest.

He's honest about the fact that America is not perfect and that we can take ideas that have been shown to work from other countries, even socialist ones like Denmark.

What is the population in Denmark? What is the population in Sweden or Norway or Iceland? What is the population in Denmark? What is the population in Sweden or Norway or Iceland? These countries have smaller populations and the people don't mind paying over 70% in taxes doing that for you very, very long time and are content with it. That would never pass in the United States and there is no way that the United States can take care of 370 million people like that, it's impossible. We already having a difficult time dealing with Obamacare, let alone A giant and more massive government apparatus. If you're seeing the drug drug convictions in those countries? Have you seen the suicide rate in those countries that are freaking liberals a beautiful Safehaven?

High taxes but free higher education, free healthcare, long mandatory paid vacation times, hard to get ridiculous/unnecessary rich but not allowed to get poor, consistently rated high on quality of life surveys. Sounds like a real communist nightmare.

That's why socialism in this country would never work. That system works for those countries small as they are, but that will never work here. But I suggest that people that like taxes and like the government taking their money, they should move to Scandinavia and live there, that system works for those countries, small as they are, with a small population, but that will never work in the states. But I suggest that people that like taxes and they are happy to give up their money, they should move to Scandinavia. I've been there many times and would never want to live there, nice country, even liked the Surströmming, but to live there, not my taste.

And on the other side we have dishonesty... The Planned Parenthood "scandal" has been thoroughly debunked, and yet politicians on your side continue to repeat it.

The same goes for the exaggerated gun scare tactics you libs try to scam the public about.

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6186552-Police-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/

PoliceOne has scored a major scoop in police journalism by conducting a survey of more than 15,000 law enforcers regarding their thoughts on gun control in America.

These men and women — most of whom actually work the street — have a front row seat to see gun violence in America. They put their lives at risk when they do their jobs, actually coming face-to-face with violent encounters involving firearms.

And when it comes to finding ways to reduce gun violence and large scale shootings, most cops say a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” isn’t the answer.

More than 91 percent of respondents say it would either have no effect or a negative effect in reducing violent crime. This is an overwhelming response by those whose job it is to actually deal with this issue on the front lines.

Instead, it is interesting to note that armed citizens show up frequently as a deciding factor in reducing the carnage from a mass murder situation; proactive choices dominate over gun and magazine restrictions and bans.

Abortions make up a tiny percentage of the services PP facilities provide, zero in a lot of states where politicians are most vocally against it.

And that's where we should stop the funding, for that small percentage.

When legal abortions are performed, sometimes organs are donated for research that can save future lives. There's some transportation cost involved, but zero monetary profit. You can be pro-life, but don't make stuff up.

If you want to believe that, go ahead. Most people are not buying it. Interesting that 99% of PP donations goes to the DNC, I'm not at all surprised the Dems are in their pockets.

You want to talk about hypocrites? Conservatives claim to be the party of family values, but they have just as many if not more extra-marital sex scandals as the left.

Did that involve firearms or abortions? Are people dying in massive numbers or children from these affairs?

They also claim to have Christian values but are very selective in their scripture reading. I went to a Southern Baptist high school. What I remember from the New Testament is Jesus rarely mentioning sex or gays. He couldn't stop talking about helping the poor and how much he hated the rich though

What?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The media is predominantly liberal at least 99% and that's conservatively honest.

I concede that they lean more liberal, especially if your point of reference is Fox News. Both like to avoid upsetting the status quo though.

That would never pass in the United States and there is no way that the United States can take care of 370 million people like that, it's impossible.

Those countries don't spend billions on unnecessary wars either. Maybe we could divert some of that money. Either way, my point was that "socialism" isn't the dirty word most conservatives seem to think.

If you're seeing the drug drug convictions in those countries?

Can't be more than the US.

Have you seen the suicide rate in those countries that are freaking liberals a beautiful Safehaven?

Don't know the actual numbers, but suicides tend to increase in colder, drearier seasons. Scandinavia...

The same goes for the exaggerated gun scare tactics you libs try to scam the public about.

There's no need to exaggerate when random shootings occur at a monthly rate now.

From your article:

More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.

So cops who recently have a habit of shooting unarmed civilians because they suspect they were armed want to arm more civilians? There are a lot of good cops...

More than 81 percent of respondents were in favor of arming teachers and school administrators if they were properly trained and vetted or at least proficient.

... but there are a lot of dumb ones too. Considering recent events, I'm sorry if I don't put much faith in their opinion.

If you want to believe that, go ahead. Most people are not buying it.

Facts and evidence don't seem to have much effect on your side.

Interesting that 99% of PP donations goes to the DNC, I'm not at all surprised the Dems are in their pockets.

You know they also provide prenatal care and support, cancer screening, unwanted pregnancy/STD prevention too right? Not such a terrible organization to be affiliated with.

Did that involve firearms or abortions? Are people dying in massive numbers or children from these affairs?

No, but is speaks to the hypocrisy and obvious lies of Conservative leaders and their base that just laps it up.

What?

Many stupidly rich people are Conservatives. There's nothing wrong with being rich if you work for it, but let's be honest, some people are criminally rich and they get there by gaming the system. They pay ridiculous amounts of money to buy politicians so they can become even richer and pay less taxes, etc. Taxes that could be used to fund "socialist" programs. This is the type of thing that Jesus was most adamantly against, but it's never mentioned by the supposed party of Christ. Again, it speaks to the bulls*** of Conservatives.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I concede that they lean more liberal, especially if your point of reference is Fox News. Both like to avoid upsetting the status quo though.

They don't care and that's not what they are in the business of, they just report and you the viewer decides, because if that were true, they would kiss Trump's feet and they won't, that's why he's pissed off at them for not bowing to him.

my point was that "socialism" isn't the dirty word most conservatives seem to think.

For some countries, I would agree, but that's not the country we are, were intended to be and don't want to become. So for most Americans, the idea and the concept is off-putting.

Can't be more than the US.

Of course, we are a bigger nation, but for the size, it's very high and because of the acceptance of a more open drug culture, you have a lot of people that take advantage of this and the consequences are so often tragic.

There's no need to exaggerate when random shootings occur at a monthly rate now.

Not an exaggeration, but it's a fact that most gun shootings in the US are between other gang members. Take Chicago for instance, they have very strict gun laws, but the Black on Black crime is out of control, why the president and other liberals never mention anything about that, surely they are the compassionate party and yet, they are silent when it comes to this issue EVERY time.

So cops who recently have a habit of shooting unarmed civilians because they suspect they were armed want to arm more civilians? There are a lot of good cops...

But you also forgot to mention that a lot of people don't listen or comply with the cops demands. If a cop tells you to do something, you do it, you have a beef with that cop, take it later to his station and file a complaint. You making a standoff with the cop, challenging him and invoking your rights, you will never win-guaranteed. There is a proper time and place for everything. But I do believe we should arm more people, because we can't always depend on the police to protect us, but that's just my personal opinion.

Considering recent events, I'm sorry if I don't put much faith in their opinion.

That's ok, I do and I know a lot of cops, my brother is a cop and went on enough ride alongs and that article and the interviews were done by the people that work the beat and make a living at putting their lives on the line everyday to protect our rights and safety.

Facts and evidence don't seem to have much effect on your side.

That depends on who you asking.

You know they also provide prenatal care and support, cancer screening, unwanted pregnancy/STD prevention too right? Not such a terrible organization to be affiliated with.

That wasn't the point or reason for wanting PP defunded, all those services, NO conservative objects to, we are ONLY talking about defunding the part where fetuses are aborted, chopped up and their body parts sold, that part of the provision should be defunded 100%.

No, but is speaks to the hypocrisy and obvious lies of Conservative leaders and their base that just laps it up.

And yet, none of the liberals, including the president want to view the videos, but when you talk about lapping something up, the libs lap up the gun issue as well, so why don't you be consistent on the issue. I want more background checks, I do believe there is a problem with a lot of mentally challenged people getting their hands on firearms and they shouldn't and I believe a portion that funds PP should be banned, consistent. You can't be either??

Many stupidly rich people are Conservatives.

Most of the Hollywood elite and Silicon Valley are Liberals are the richest, what about them?

There's nothing wrong with being rich if you work for it, but let's be honest, some people are criminally rich and they get there by gaming the system.

Don't be partisan on this....

They pay ridiculous amounts of money to buy politicians so they can become even richer and pay less taxes, etc. Taxes that could be used to fund "socialist" programs.

Which hasn't worked so far, we have been trying the robbing Paul to give to Peter and we still have one of the worst economies, so much for that idea...

Or put the money back into small business and give more tax breaks to companies and corporations to expand and create a strong and more vibrant private sector, create more jobs, people spend more money, creating more revenue to buy or invest, sounds like a real winner to me.

This is the type of thing that Jesus was most adamantly against, but it's never mentioned by the supposed party of Christ. Again, it speaks to the bulls*** of Conservatives.

So now Liberals are concerned about the teachings of the Bible???

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

""Liberal" is the right's blanket term for any view they've been told to disagree with. Like the term "socialist" they don't really understand it but seem to think it's an insult due to the way their leaders throw the terms around. It's a lazy way of not having to use actual facts and evidence to support their claims."

Ha ha ha ha ha! That's so lame. I'm extremely liberal. I strongly believe in the individual right to do whatever you like as long as there is no harm to others(Non Agression Principle). So, I use the term libtard to refer to the socialists flavor of those who promote the power of the state over individual natural rrights, certainly including the right to effective self-defense. Yes, that means the right to own, posses, and carry firearms. And, yes, socialist IS a dirty word. Read Road To Serfdom and enlighten your dim mind.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

yes, socialist IS a dirty word. Read Road To Serfdom and enlighten your dim mind.

Only to a certain segment of the American population. To the rest of the world, it's not a dirty word. Many of us come from socialist countries that have a much higher average standard of living than the US. And we aren't shooting each other either.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Only to a certain segment of the American population.

I believe those people live up in the far Northern part of America

To the rest of the world, it's not a dirty word.

I don't think MOST Americans care what the rest of the world thinks or if they like the word socialism or not. Good for them. We are NOT Europe and they are not the US.

Many of us come from socialist countries that have a much higher average standard of living than the US. And we aren't shooting each other either.

And many of us in the have more money, more patents, more food, more guns and more entertainment that a big portion of the world watches and enjoys.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites