'Urban' vs 'Rural' Gun Control - Debunking Hillary Clinton's Attack on Bernie Sanders

[mother earth]

Published on Nov 6, 2015


Secretary Hillary Clinton recently went on the offensive, and tried to imply that Bernie Sanders's statements on 'rural vs urban gun legislation' was somehow racist.

Oddly enough, Secretary Clinton said the very same thing in 2008, when discussing gun control policies in New York City and in the rural parts of New York State.

[Hoyt]

1. Rural gun owners, including militias, come packing to cities. No one really cares

about a gun or two for hunting and home protection (for the paranoid), but gun fanciers just want more gunz in more places.

[TeddyR]

3. So what is your point?

Do you claim that "rural gun owners" are causing the inner city gun violence? Haven't seen any evidence of that myself, but willing to consider any sources you might have. Far as I can tell, the problem isn't "rural gun owners," but felons shooting others. Perhaps you saw the story about gang members purposely killing a 9 year old in Chicago 2 days ago? Does the fault lie with the gun or the murderer?

[Hoyt]

4. To the extent they keep the lethal weapons industry pumping along, Yes. And, the

largely racist, right wing, rural gun fanciers trade the lives of kids, spouses, etc., to preserve their access to guns. Gun fanciers, like yourself, promote more gunz.

[markpkessinger]

8. Your comments amount to an ignorant, outrageous slander of rural culture

I grew up in rural Pennsylvania, where many people lived on farms, and where hunting culture was deeply entrenched in the local culture. I have lived in NYC for the past 33 years since college, so I understand this issue from both sides. My father hunted. My brother still does. I did, too, for a couple of years in high school, but never really cared for it. In our school district, the first day of buck season and the first day of doe season were school holidays. (If they hadn't been holidays, 95$ of the boys, and a large number of girls as well, would simply not show up.)

Most of these folks wouldn't call themselves "gun fanciers." Most don't see their guns as a hobby, or as collectibles, but rather, they regard them as tools. Your slander of these folks as a bunch of "right wing, rural gun fanciers" who "come packing to cities" and who "trade the lives of kids, spouses, etc., to preserve their access to guns." Are some of them racist? Of course -- one will find racists among every population subgroup, urban or rural, one cares to look at in this country. Are there some crazy gun nuts among them? Yes, there are, but they can be found in urban areas, too. But the overwhelming majority are certainly NOT crazed. Most, even though they may own guns and use them for hunting, have little patience for those who carry their guns around with them everywhere they go. Most don't even oppose reasonable gun regulation, once they understand what is actually being proposed. Unfortunately, the NRA's propaganda campaign is slick, and it has been very successful.

These folks have concerns about gun regulation. Granted, most of the concerns are unfounded, but they are not, on their face, unreasonable ones. My brother has discussed his concerns with me. My brother is 60-years old, and has been an avid hunter all of his life. He currently owns around 9 rifles of various caliber, 4 or 5 shotgun guns of various gauges, and maybe a dozen handguns, most of which are antiques, and are either cannot be fired in their current condition, or, if they could be fired, ammunition is no longer manufactured for them. The two handguns of his collection that can be fired have been registered, as they are required to be..

Now, out of this entire assortment of guns, my brother only ever bought two of them. The rest have been handed down through the family for many generations. (That rather blows a hole in your theory that people like my brother "keep the legal weapons industry humming.&quot He is concerned that if he is expected to register all of his guns, the fees attendant to registration would mount up pretty quickly. What's more, he is concerned that once the state realizes it has this new source of revenue, the temptation will be to hike those fees every time there is a shortfall somewhere in the budget. Now, I realize those concerns can be addressed (antiques through grandfathering language), and issues related to registration don't really come into play in any federal gun laws.

My brother is not a stupid man. He is a very successful small business owner and a community leader. He can be reasoned with and brought around on this issue. But when someone like my brother hears someone like you make such outrageous, slanderous statements about him and people like him, it doesn't exactly serve to make him receptive to hearing the other side of the argument. Statements like yours only confirm in the minds of , rural folks what many of them already suspect: that urban liberals often make sweeping, and false, judgments about rural people, and tend to think of all rural citizens as if they were extras for the film, "Deliverance."

Bernie understands someone like my brother, because there are plenty of him in rural Vermont. Statements like yours do great damage, both to the cause of gun control, and to the ability of the Democratic party to reach rural voters. Shameful.

[Hoyt]

9. I'm not talking about hunters, I'm talking about yahoos arming up in defense against

minorities, the government, city folks, liberals, or whatever sick crud they can come up with.

Do you understand rural folks like this?





?w=584

[markpkessinger]

11. That distinction was not at all clear in your first couple of posts . . .

The question at issue was whether there are legitimate differences or distinctions to be made with regard to gun control in rural versus urban contexts. In your response, you trotted out the existence of gun nuttery, implying that it is exclusively a rural phenomenon, and left it there, as if the entire question of distinctions was self-evident merely by virtue of the existence of gun nuts, many of whom happen to live in rural areas. To a resident of one of those rural areas, that sounds an awful lot like a blanket condemnation.

[Hoyt]

12. Oh no, there are racist, sick gun owners in cities too.

As I said in my first post, few care about a gun or two for hunting and home defense. More than that, or gun toting in public, should not be tolerated.

[Hydra]

2. I live in a rural area with lots of guns and almost nil gun violence

It's cute that she's making this about race and not offering a solution at the same time, but that's par for the course.

Many edits: I should really log off, no sleep = poor brain function

[George II]

5. "tried to imply....." - THERE is a definitive observation.

[passiveporcupine]

6. Bam...she has outdone herself again.

[raindaddy]

7. Hillary Clinton is missing what so many of our so called leaders in DC are missing...

A moral compass!

These two statements side by side would make a great ad for Sanders. It would give people a little insight into a woman who will say and do anything to become President, including inferring that Bernie is a racist....

[markpkessinger]

10. Hillary also misrepresents the immunity issue . . .

. . . she speaks of it as mere product liability, such as the kind of liability any manufacturer faces for a product that causes harm to the public. But the issue is somewhat different with respect to guns. For example, if somebody buys a hammer, and then bludgeons someone to death with it, no one would suggest that the hammer manufacturer should be liable for that. But with guns, some folks think that when somebody misuses it in a way that causes harm, the gun manufacturer should be liable. I'm no fan of gun manufacturers, but that's rather a double standard, and I think Bernie was correct to vote in favor of immunity.