Some of you may not remember but back in 2008 when Hillary Clinton needed those “hard working white voters” , to sell the narrative that Obama couldn’t win, she readily attacked Obama for voting to limit hand gun sales in Chicago. Back then she called Obama’s vote an attack on sportsmen and the 2nd Amendment.
Now of course she has a new narrative to sell; that she’s the true liberal champion. That only she will take on the banks and finally get sensible gun control laws passed. She it hitting hard that Bernie’s vote to exempt gun manufactures from lawsuits (by victims of gun violence) is proof that she’s stronger on the issue. I wrote a diary Christmas day that I’ll repost here explaining how I feel about that:
Shortly after 9/11/01 Peter Troy, I man with a history of psychological problems and a multiple restraining orders, purchased a riffle and killed my Aunt Eileen & Father Larry Penzes as he prayed in Our Lady Peace church.
I penned a diary about it back in 2008
Eileen survived the death of two sons, a childhood of poverty and horrible abuse, but she was no match for the mad man with a semi-automatic rifle that opened fire on the parishioners of "Our Lady of Peace" church on March 13th 2002. When the smoke cleared my aunt and Father Lawrence "Larry" Penzes were dead.
I share this background to reinforce that my family has been directly touched by gun violence. Bernie Sanders has come under attack from some Democratic supporters for being “pro-gun” because he does not support providing families of gun violence victims the opportunity to sue the gun manufacture. I guess my family would fall into this category of possible claimants. While the fantasy of suing Browning for the death of my aunt might on the face of it seem swell; I know it’s a absolute non-starter. The wave of suits from all the potential cases that could be brought forward would put every gun manufacturer in the US out of business. That will never happen. The fact is; Peter troy didn’t get the mental health help he needed because we had (and still have) a broken health care system. He was able to buy a gun because the background check system we had (and still have) in place is broken. The gun itself worked exactly the way it was intended. Under current law gun manufacturers are permitted to create devices that accelerate tiny metal projectiles to lethal speeds. The gun manufacture did nothing wrong in building the gun and selling it to a licensed gun dealer. While their lobbying efforts have been hurtful to fixing the background check problem, nothing they did was illegal. So in evaluating which candidate will actually get more done on gun control the ability to sue gun manufacturer (the sole difference in gun control policy between Hillary and Bernie) doesn’t even register. It simply will never happen and probably shouldn’t.
We are to blame for gun violence. You want to make it illegal to produce certain types of weapons or place restrictions on how manufactures can sell to dealers? … Well, then show up and vote at higher than 36% voter turnout. Pass the laws to do it and then sue if manufactures break those laws. Suing a away guns is never going to happen. What can happen is implementing better funded, more accurate and faster background checking systems, reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, and trigger guard sales with gun purchases. I believe Clinton and Sanders will work equally hard for all these things. Past that; a single payer health care system that covers mental health is only being offered by one candidate, Bernie. Bernie is the candidate pushing for an educational system that will give everyone a chance at a higher education. Education that will improve the communities they bring those skills back home to, reducing crime and gun violence. Bernie is the strongest candidate to get a living wage for everyone who wants to work. I living wage that will make a criminal lifestyle less appealing.
In short I think the “we’re gonna sue the gun manufacturers right out of business” is our sides “we’re gonna outlaw abortion”. A wedge that excites some in the base and a poison pill for legislation that 100% insures defeat, thus keeping that wedge issue open for another election cycle.
On Another Note:
Now that the inevitability and electability MSM conventional wisdom myths have fallen. Here is the next myth that will fall: “Clinton has strong support amongst African Americans.” While POC poll respondents may be uttering the name they recognize ( Clinton ) to pollsters I don’t for one minute believe that support is “strong”. POC disproportionately are working longer hour, lower paying, and more exhausting jobs. They are not spending their few resting hours reading political blogs or tuning in to debates, which is about the only place you’ll get a fair view of Bernie Sanders. For many POC who’ve heard of Bernie Sanders it been in 30 second snippets through the MSM “he can’t win” lense. The other factor is that there’s a natural disinterest born by the fact that; for voters under 30 it’s the first presidential election they’ve been eligible to vote in without a POC on the ballot. I don’t believe for a minute however that when they do start to really examine the candidates (and they will) they’ll choose the ex-Goldwater Girl over the guy who marched with King. Anecdotally the African American’s I know who are really politically engaged are all for Sanders. I was heavily involved in canvassing for Obama in the battlegrounds states of Indiana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and everyone I’m still still in touch with from those efforts is either leaning or on team Bernie. I think an Iowa and New Hampshire victory will force the MSM hand in treating him like the electable & legitimate candidate he’s always been. Once that happens and POC start to pay attention to the policy positions and history of the candidates there will be a huge swing in the POC polling numbers.