Bernie and Guns

[Fawke Em]

I watched and then rewatched his interview with Chris Hayes - and trust me, I hate MSNBC now, so tuning in, even to see Bernie, was a chore.

What I heard him say wasn't this evil thing that this board has been telling me tonight.

He believes in background checks.

He believes in closing the gun show loopholes.

What he doesn't believe in is violating the Second Amendment.

Yeah, we have one of those.

I don't own guns, however, both my husband and I have been trained more professionally than most people on this board. I learned at the state police academy as part of a story I was doing as a reporter. I trained with the rookie cops. I was NOT given special treatment (other than I'm too small to have made the "cut" for a cop, so I did have to ask for some assistance in how to rack the rifle). My husband was in the Army - enough said.

Trust me. We can both shoot, clean and keep a gun safe. We choose not to. We don't need to hunt, nor like to do so. We have children. And, we have rescue dogs who would tear anyone who touched me or the kids from stem to stern if they tried. No. I don't need a gun.

But what Bernie added to this discussion is this: access to mental health counseling.

THAT is the difference between the average gun owner and the these nuts who shoot up innocents in the public square.

No one really talks about that. They say to just ban guns or restrict guns or let the good guys shoot the bad guys like the OK Corral. All of that is for naught if someone is bound and determined because they're in dire need of mental healthcare.

The gun violence issue is important, but, admittedly, not my number one, even though my son's fourth grade teacher shot and paralyzed his principle and a gang member shot and killed another gang member at my son's high school (before he was there).

My number one is bringing us up to "code" with the rest of the industrialized world and getting these people help or making it easier for a parent to stay at home with a child who needs their parent or making it easier for parents to take some time off with their kids.

That's why I'm for Bernie. It's time we stopped working ourselves to death and spent time with our families because we CAN, we'd all be better off.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Bernie needs to come out say his vote against the Brady Bill was a mistake.

He needs to say that it was a mistake to vote for providing immunity to gun manufacturers.

Bernie needs to say it was a mistake for him to oppose background checks for handguns in the 1990's.

[Fawke Em]

3. Why?

Why would you hold a gun manufacturer responsible for making a killing machine. Don't we all know that's what they are?

[ibegurpard]

6. it wasn't a mistake

And establishing precedent of allowing lawsuits against companies for production of legal products without narrow exceptions is EXTREMELY awful policy that no amount of horror about today's shootings can change.

[Fawke Em]

12. Like abortion.

Abortion is legal, but all manners of legal shenanigans have been allowed to keep women from being able to exercise their legal right to an abortion.

To me, it's the same thing: a violation of the Constitution.

[moobu2]

42. Wrong. Gun manufacturers could make guns safer

there are several ways they could utilize new technology for instance. Gun manufacturers should be open to litigation exactly like any other product manufacturer is.

[Fearless]

62. Correct

Doesn't everyone wish the two could be separated? Absolutely, but that's not how the legal system works.

[mythology]

91. Cigarette companies were sued for a legal product

They were sued for not just lying about the harm, but also for advertising to kids. Gun manufacturers advertise in survivalist magazines and other places that have a wide readership of people who lack a basic grasp on reality.

Gun manufacturers also refuse to add safety features that would save lives. You can't make a car without seat belts or airbags. Also gun manufacturers fight to block things like background checks or block gun dealers who repeatedly have guns turn up in crimes. A bar can be sued for letting customers leave to drive while drunk.

[virtualobserver]

9. It wasn't a mistake..........If you want to make guns illegal, do it

but allowing suits against manufacturers is an ass-backward approach. Those lawsuits would be thrown out of court.

Bernie didn't like the 5 day waiting period for background checks with the Brady bill. He voted for instant background checks.

[DanTex]

11. Umm... if the lawsuits would be thrown out of court, there would be no need for the law.

The reason for the law is precisely the opposite: the lawsuits were succeeding, and some gun companies (like Smith and Wesson) were changing their business practices in ways that would reduce gun violence. But the NRA couldn't have that. So they teamed up with Bernie to prop up our gun homicide rate along with the all important gun industry profits.

It was a horrible vote. It would be simple enough for him to just admit it, rather than giving dumb excuses for it like that hammer analogy of his.

[virtualobserver]

17. as I said, it is an ass-backward approach.....if you want to ban guns, do it

There is no way in hell that merely changing the business practices of gun manufacturers would have any effect on gun violence....we have 300 million guns in circulation.

I don't own guns myself. Listening to these discussions after each tragic massacre depresses me because I rarely hear anyone propose a solution that would have the slightest impact.

[Scootaloo]

19. Can you explain to me the exact process by which a suit against a third party would lessen shootings

I've seen it compared to suits against tobacco companies, but a key difference is that the tobacco companies were actively lying to consumers about the dangers of their product.

[msanthrope]

20. Tobacco companies, after enough lawsuits, began to support heavy restriction of sale to minors. And

for the most part, interdiction of the sale of tobacco to minors is a success.

Gun companies would make it more difficult for their product to get into the wrong hands if there was a financial/legal incentive for them to do so.

[Scootaloo]

21. Easy enough to verify if someone is of majority age or not.

Are we proposing on-site psychological evaluations?

[msanthrope]

22. Waiting periods and extensive background checks....that would help, no?

Making gun manufacturers more responsible for who they sell to would make these multinational corporations pay attention more to where their products end up.

I don't like corporate protection for gun manufacturers.

[Scootaloo]

23. What control do manufacturers have over who dealers sell to, currently?

[msanthrope]

37. gun manufacturers have the same rights other corporations do.

they aren't forced to sell their products to people. they have me your absolute power to condition the sale of their products

[Fawke Em]

13. We had the techonolgy then and we certainly do now.

I agree with him: make it instant.

[-none]

83. Part of the reason for a 5 day waiting period was for a cooling off period.

Anyone wanting to use a gun shop like a grocery store is a potential murder, background check or no.

[workinclasszero]

73. Bernie is totally wrong on guns.

Its laughable to see his backers tie themselves up in knots trying to justify his reactionary, knee jerk, right wing position on guns and the protection of the big businesses that profit off the slaughter their weapons of mass killing make possible!

[beam me up scottie]

79. How is his pro-gun control stance wrong?

Trying to sue gun manufacturers out of business for making legal products is a losing strategy.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Both Obama and Hillary are pro-2A as well.

Bernie is pro-gun control and is speaking out about the issue.

DUers should be attacking the Republicans who refuse to allow us to pass legislation to address the gun problem, not blaming Bernie.

[Fawke Em]

5. DUers should be smart enough to know that it's not just about guns.

It's about mental health.

I'm lucky enough to be able to take time off or work from home when my children need me. Most people aren't.

[dsc]

38. Is Europe and Japan free of mentally ill people?

How about Australia and New Zealand? None of them, not a single solitary one of them, have the mass shooting problem we have. Gee I wonder what is different about here?

[Fawke Em]

77. They also have single-payer.

And are allowed to take more time off from work with a mentally-ill family member without losing their jobs than we do.

Yes. There is gun control, but there is also better access to mental healthcare.

We don't seem to talk about that.

[dsc]

92. actually neither France nor Switzerland

have single payer to name two, and I will concede there is likely more leave for those taking care of the mentally ill, it isn't unlimited.

[ibegurpard]

4. I'm a handgun owner

I fully support background checks, waiting periods, increased sale regulations and possibly bans on public ownership of certain types of firearms. What I will never support is outright banning of firearms or suing manufacturers for making legal devices. Bernie ' s positions line up with mine.

[Fawke Em]

7. Thank you.

That is my position, as well.

I believe in the Second Amendment, which, "in my view," also means a well regulated militia. That means you can have your guns, but we get to regulate that.

Right?

[ibegurpard]

10. That's right!

Gun fetishists tend to forget the "well-regulated" part.

[Fawke Em]

15. I could go tomorrow and apply for a permit.

I'd hope they'd require me to show I knew how to use it, but they wouldn't.

The thing is: I wouldn't mind.

[840high]

8. ....x10+

[Cali_Democrat]

45. You own a handgun? Why doesn't that surprise me? nt

[ibegurpard]

52. your opinion is of no consequence to me

[Hydra]

14. We've had this argument before

For whatever reason, the people who want to ban guns in the hands of private citizens seem to think that's the only way to kill people, and murders and mass killings will disappear magically if they do.

I'd rather we change the culture- we encourage violence of all kinds, and then wonder why it leads to killing people. As far as I can tell, there's nothing positive we're getting out of it, so why are we not doing something about it?

[Fawke Em]

16. The First Amendment, which I like even more.

But you do have to wonder why movies and TV shows that encourage that are so popular.

[Hydra]

41. I'm a big fan of the First Amendment too

But there's nothing to say we can't change what values we emphasize- otherwise why fight against racism, sexism, LBGT issues, classism, social darwinism, etc?

I'd like to see us become a more equal, accepting and less warlike nation. Unless the RW 1/4 of America is totally unsalvageable, I think we can do better about that.

[MisterP]

18. no, it's the guns--it ain't lawn furniture

[DebJ]

26. Please explain how one can do a mass killing with a knife, or any other weaponry

short of a bomb. It just doesn't happen.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Knife-wielding attackers kill 29, injure 130 at China train station

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

[DebJ]

28. Yeah, I've had that one quoted to me before. That ONE.

So you REALLY think that everything from Columbine forward would have happened with knives?

ROFLMAO.

[beam me up scottie]

29. The Osaka school massacre

Osaka school massacre

The Osaka school massacre took place on June 8, 2001, at Ikeda Elementary School, an elite primary school affiliated with Osaka Kyoiku University in Osaka Prefecture, Japan.

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

So you REALLY think that everything from Columbine forward would have happened with knives?

Knock it off with the straw man argument, you're not fooling anyone.

You said:

Please explain how one can do a mass killing with a knife, or any other weaponry

short of a bomb. It just doesn't happen.

I provided one example and now you're moving the goalposts and accusing me of making an argument that's not mine.

[DebJ]

30. It is simply logic, common sense, physics, that we would not have the proliferation of mass killings

without guns. Period. Despite what I've heard people say, that killers will find a way no matter what, that's just not true... it's just
not feasible. The movie theatre killings, the school killings.... just wouldn't happen. Stuck in a moving train, okay. But otherwise,
no, we would not have this proliferation.

Who wouldn't be happy right now to see that in the last umpteen years, there was only 2 mass killings with knives, instead of what we
see today..........wait, make that only two in the last FEW MONTHS.

[beam me up scottie]

32. Disingenuous/straw man. I never said any of those things.

And there have been more than 2 mass killings with knives in the last "umpteen" years.

New details in stabbing deaths of 5 Oklahoma family members

BROKEN ARROW, Okla. - When officers from the Broken Arrow Police Department responded to a silent 911 call late Wednesday night the last thing they expected to find was five people stabbed to death.

According to Cpl. Leon Calhoun, the suburb of Tulsa, which was named one of America's safest cities in 2007, averages less than one murder a year.

A mass murder like this one "isn't just unusual, it's unheard of," Calhoun told 48 Hours' Crimesider.

Cops were called to the home after someone called 911 from inside the house but did not speak. Cpl. Calhoun said officers were dispatched to investigate whether there was a problem and found the bodies of David Bever, 52, April Bever, 44, and three of their children. The Associated Press reports that the deceased children are a 5-year-old girl, and two boys, ages 7 and 12.

Now, the Bever's 18-year-old son, Robert, and his 16-year-old brother are in custody, suspected of the murders.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-details-in-stabbing-deaths-of-5-oklahoma-family-members/

I'm not making an argument against gun control, I simply provided three examples that proved you wrong. Just admit it and move on.

[DebJ]

33. Scottie I'm not arguing with you or your points. Whoopdee doo it's happened a handful of times.

People have also, over the course of history, been struck by falling objects from airplanes and killed, and occasionally
someone runs their automobile right through a house and kills someone sleeping in their bed.

But the TRUTH remains that almost everyone of the mass killings we have suffered would not have occurred without
guns. Period.

[beam me up scottie]

34. You were arguing that mass killings don't happen without guns or bombs.

Since you realize that was wrong I guess we're done here.

[DebJ]

35. You are funny Scotty. Like I said, people also have died in other bizarre and unusual circumstances

but that's not what we are dealing with, with guns. Mass killings with knives are bizarre and unusual circumstances. Mass killing with guns have become a routine occurrence. Like I said, I don't know anyone who wouldn't consider things extremely improved if the only mass killings done were done with knives. Then we'd hear about those so rarely we wouldn't think of mass killings as an issue in this country.




Without guns, how many of these would have taken place?


http://everytown.org/article/schoolshootings/

[beam me up scottie]

55. You are the one who claimed mass murderers couldn't use knives.

Why is it so difficult to admit you were wrong?

[Hydra]

43. Poison, although I suspect bombs would be the next answer most of these people would pick

Biologicals could be a nasty new way to do business too.

Something as simple as bleach and ammonia do bad things to people. Bad people do bad things with whatever they have.

[JDPriestly]

24. We do need more mental health counseling, but more than anything we need anger management

training.

Americans do not channel or deal with anger well. Anger is a part of life.

We see this on DU. People get banned from DU all too frequently.

And why? Simply because they lose their tempers.

Some people who go on these shooting sprees are genuinely hallucinating or severely depressed or otherwise truly mentally ill.

But many of them are just downright angry and unable to control their anger and in that sense mentally ill.

Some of the mass murderers who have been deemed truly mentally ill would not have been prevented from getting a gun by any laws because there were guns in the home (Sandy Hook) or they were very young (Columbine) and a psychologist would have had great difficulty categorizing them as dangerous because of their youth. In addition, it must be quite a difficult decision for a doctor or psychologist to report that a person is not mentally stable enough to obtain a gun permit or should have his/her gun taken away. The client/psychologist or doctor/patient relationship would be pretty much ruined if the doctor did that. It would be hard to prove that a patient is a danger to others without the patient's having actually harmed anyone or posed a risk to anyone. Putting someone in a psychiatric hospital for a long time is difficult to do if the person is legally an adult.

Also, assuming that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, it is hard to deprive a person who has never committed a crime of such a fundamental right. It is very close to deciding someone is guilty and should be punished or penalized when in fact the evidence only supports the conclusion that the person could be dangerous.

So this is a much more difficult problem than those who want to deprive certain people based on the opinion of a psychologist or doctor of a fundamental right.

Background checks are OK, but it seems to me that before someone is denied the right to buy or own a gun, that person deserves to have a hearing similar to a hearing on a restraining order, a hearing before a judge with evidence presented.

So passing a law about gun ownership is not such an easy thing.

And I would not want to see a law that would make it difficult for people who hunt, who live in the country in isolated situations or even on large farms, unable to have guns and defend themselves.

Restrictions on certain types of ammunition and guns that are virtually only useful for killing people? Yes.

But you can't just have a blanket prohibition on gun ownership by people who are deemed mentally ill without affording people the due process that permits them to support evidence that they are healthy. No one should be assumed to be dangerous just because they have a mental illness. That is another problem with gun control laws. Each individual is entitled to due process before a gun permit is denied in my opinion.

[DebJ]

31. First we need to teach about 1/3 of our population that compromise is a necessity in society.

When 1/3 of the population or so thinks that things should always go their way, with no compromise, that's a good base for
anger right there.

[JDPriestly]

51. I would put it this way: we need to teach people to share.

Nobody gets to have it all. Not even if they are strong enough to take it all.

We have to share.

Should slaves have "compromised" with their masters?

I don't think that would have resulted in anything approaching justice.

Compromise comes about when those compromising respect each others' points of view.

There is an excellent book on this called "Nonviolent Communication."

The problem in our government today is that one side, the Republicans, have the view that their ideas are ordained by God and that to compromise is to betray God and the way God would have them act.

That's crazy, but it does not allow for compromise.

We see the same philosophy with the Muslim fanatics in the Middle East.

And, always, this religious fanaticism that does not permit compromise is associated with a power structure that benefits from the fanaticism and the resistance to compromise.

If President Obama, moderate, thoughtful. rational and caring person that he is, has not been able to reach compromise with the Republicans that allows for a budget and a way forward that insures a better life for all Americans, then who can?

For the Republicans and their wealthy donors and the fools that hang on every word Fox News utters, compromise is a dirty word.

That 1/3 that refuses to share, those who complain to be pro-life but who refuse to pay a few dollars more for their health insurance so that everyone can go to a doctor when they need to -- that 1/3 needs to be learn to share. And if they do, we probably won't have nearly the terrorism in the world. That goes for people in all countries although the specific framing of the issues may differ from country to country.

We have to learn to share more with each other.

[DebJ]

63. Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in kindergarden. n/t

[JDPriestly]

64. Yes. I note that the European countries that have lower rates of massacres and higher

rates of social programs also have wonderful kindergartens. In Austria and Germany and I think in France, a child of three is eligible to enter a wonderful world of kindergartens in which there is order and relative peace, opportunities to play and learn together, a process that encourages children to share.

The teachers in those kindergartens are well selected and trained.

We have a hodge-podge of day cares with sometimes untrained teachers. We need to do better.

Bernie Sanders promises to do better. President Obama has proposed universal pre-school for all American children. We really need to make that a priority. It will help us solve a lot of our problems. I won't list them. I think you agree with me.

Thanks.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. Whatever happened to talk of banning handguns?

[alp227]

36. a ban violates the second amendment nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

46. You mean the gun lobby's interpretation of the 2nd....

The "well regulated militia" part is always conveniently dropped.

It's one thing to play dressup in the woods but imagine if everyone who wanted a gun was required to serve in the military.

The "security of a free state" part is also forgotten. The idiots we have playing dressup in the woods are planning for the day when the federal guvmunt is gonna git em.

The 2nd is supposed to PROTECT that government. Not oppose it.

We don't NEED a militia anymore anyway. We're screwing up enough by maintaining a standing army and imposing registration for a potential draft.

[hack89]

53. No. The Supreme Court's interpretation. Read Heller. Nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

56. So you're siding with the conservatives?

[hack89]

57. No. Pointing out an obvious reason why you can't ban hand guns. Nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

58. Because of rulings by Conservatives....

There's a long history of those being reversed.

[hack89]

59. Really? Happens all the time?

Can you give me some examples?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

60. Dred Scott for a start.

[hack89]

61. Which was succeeded by the 14A and not another Supreme Court decision.

Anything more recent than 1866?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. Brown vs Board of Education.

[hack89]

66. Are you noticing the trend here?

In both cases the move was towards expanding rights not restricting them. Can you show a single case that removed or restricted an existing right?

Two cases in 150 years. And both expanded, not restricted, civil rights. Not much to hang your hat on, is it?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

67. The trend is reversing conservative wins....

Heller was mentioned prior.

Dissenting opinions:

Dissent (Stevens)

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people to maintain a well regulated militia. It was a response to the concern that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to state sovereignty. Neither the text of the Second Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidence the slightest interest by the Framers in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.

There is no indication that the Framers intended to enshrine the common law right of self-defense in the Constitution. The view in Miller that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons, is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption. The majority fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons.


Dissent (Breyer)

The Second Amendment protects militia-related interests, not self-defense-related interests. Furthermore, the Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the right to keep and bear arms, including substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, and regulations that imposed limitations on the use of firearms for the protection of the home.

Adoption of a true strict scrutiny standard for evaluating gun control regulations would be impossible and I would adopt an interest-balancing inquiry. In applying this kind of standard the Court normally defers to a legislature’s empirical judgment in matters where a legislature is likely to have greater expertise and greater institutional fact finding capacity.

This case is also cited as DC v. Heller. See United States v. Lopez for a constitutional law case brief addressing the constitutionality of gun control legislation enacted by Congress in exercise of its power under the Commerce Clause.

See how quickly it could change?

[hack89]

68. Repukes have been saying the same about Roe v Wade forever

Have you ever wondered why a conservative court hasn't reversed Roe yet if it is so easy?j

[Spitfire of ATJ]

69. Because they don't REALLY want to outlaw abortion...

Republicans only use the issue to point at Demoncrats and claim they are killing babies as blood offerings to Satan.

Well,....you asked.

[hack89]

70. Yet you are so sure liberals want to ban guns?. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. Not ALL guns. My point is we've retreated into futility.....

There was a time when you could legally own a Tommy gun and hand grenades. The massacres of the gangland era caused the outrage to ban those.

We had a grade school massacre and,.......crickets.

[hack89]

72. Heller does not prevent that at all

AWBs, registration, and licenses are constitutional right now. All Heller says is that you have a right to own a handgun in your home for self defense.

The 2A and Heller is not your problem. Lack of political and public support is.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

74. Wrong. There's massive public support....

I believe a LOT of it goes back to the problem in the Beltway where they believe the country is much more conservative than it actually is. That, and they've forgotten that the goal of politics isn't to raise money and avoid conflict.

[hack89]

75. For things like UBCs

Not for things like registration and gun bans. More to the point, that support is not evenly distributed which certainly shapes the political landscape.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

76. We could get more. The public is NOT on the side of the NRA.

[hack89]

81. True

The public is firmly in the middle between the extremists on either side. Just like DU.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

82. I used to live out beyond the phone and electric lines....

Rattlesnakes were fond of the morning sun on my back porch. I used to strap on a .22 revolver loaded with rat shot to feed the chickens. There were bear tracks near the blackberry bushes that grew along the creek that ran past the house so I had a 20 gauge pump with alternating 00 and slugs just in case.

I would have had ZERO problem with registering those guns.

I also realize that I don't need them anymore since I moved back to the city.

[hack89]

84. Until someone explains how registration will reduce gun deaths

In a significant manner I will not support it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

85. Then I guess having ballistics linked to serial numbers would freak you out too.

[hack89]

86. Been tried and failed

The ballistic signature of a gun constantly changes as it is used. After a while that reference signature is useless.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

88. That's where you take it in for inspection, updated ballistics and reregistration....

The technology exists to track ammo to the buyer too.

[hack89]

89. Have you looked at the compliance rate for registration

In NY and CT? You are building your fantasy on shifting sands. It is meaningless when people ignore the law and law enforcement refuses to enforce it. You will not be able to force this down the publics throat.

[hack89]

87. How will that reduce gun deaths?

Irrelevant for suicides and mass shootings.

[hack89]

40. Such a ban is off the table until Heller is repealed. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. The dissenting opinions on that had the Right screaming, "gun grab".

[hack89]

48. The right is not known for their intelligence. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

50. They're known for their tantrums.

[aikoaiko]

90. Lost cause.

Been lost since late 1960s.

[pinebox]

39. The gun issue

We're never going to solve this, ever.

We won't and it's because we as a country can't come together on what should be done. Nobody is willing to work with anybody else and let's be honest, some of the ideas floated around by both sides are just there to get attention and nothing more. The rhetoric is like a game of volleyball.

Some will say "let's ban guns!" which may sound all nice and cheerful but in reality, if we banned guns, we have enough to last us centuries. Heck, it's as easy to buy a gun as it is illegal drugs. That is honestly a joke of a suggestion. Do you think for one second people are going to allow the Gov't come to their houses and knock on their door with Gestapo like tactics? Hell no. There are more handguns in this country than people and cars combined. It's wishful thinking and nothing less.

We need to start someplace where we can get something done. Is that mental health? Yes. However this only covers a small sliver of the the problem. As we all know, if someone wants a gun, they're going to get one, period. This is just an issue which I see going on and on and on and on..our apathy has allowed the problem to continue so long that we are now past the point of no return in solving this, an issue which could have been tackled and handled under Reagan but never was.

So what do we do because honestly I don't have answers anymore. We're screwed.

[moobu2]

44. I imagine Bernie's actions just after the shooting was well planed.

looked like Bernie Sanders had that statement ready for the inevitable mass shooting event with him shifting blame to mental health and crap that he knows isn't the cause.

[Fawke Em]

78. Mental health isn't a factor? Really?

So a person with good mental health would suddenly think to take a weapon and just go kill several people before committing suicide by cop?

I'll allow that a person with good mental health might be pushed to fly off the handle and kill a cheating spouse or kill to defend a loved one from a murderer or abuser, but I don't buy that James Holmes or Adam Lanza or Dylann Roof were in good mental health.

[beam me up scottie]

80. Does Hillary believe that mental health isn't a factor? How about Obama?

How do their positions differ from Bernie's?

[sabrina 1]

49. Just one quibble, not this 'board' just the same few who post anti Bernie OPs repeatedly but so

far have not accomplished much since most DUers are far too intelligent not to recognize deliberate smear campaigns, distortions of a person's record etc.

I just ignore them, let them vent. It isn't harming Bernie one bit.

However I applaud you correctingtherecord as it's always a good think to counter distortions with facts.

[jwirr]

54. That is what I heard him say also.