Skip to main content

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks about Syria during an event at the White House in Washington, September 9, 2013. REUTERS
Hillary Clinton spoke about guns at a conference of the National Council for Behavioural Health:
"I think again we're way out of balance. I think that we've got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime," Clinton said. "And I don't believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people. And I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns."
She said she supports a right to bear arms, and noted that when she was a child her father taught her to shoot. But she's clearly willing to take on the extremists.
Clinton told attendees at the mental health conference that "at the rate we're going, we're going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated" in settings like movie theaters where shootings have arisen over seemingly mundane things like loud gum chewing or cellphone use.

"That's what happens in the countries I've visited where there is no rule of law and no self-control and that is something that we cannot just let go without paying attention," she said.

Note the setting. She didn't get specific, but her tone in that setting clearly frames her mindset. Way out of balance. Rein in. The best interest of the vast majority of people. These are not words the NRA and its ilk want to hear. These are not words of someone who intends to work with the NRA and its ilk.

Originally posted to Laurence Lewis on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:20 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), Firearms Law and Policy, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good nt (15+ / 0-)

    I voted today because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:23:59 AM PDT

  •  Nice to hear (6+ / 0-)

    But I'm not so sure that she wouldn't be willing to work with the NRA types after a Dem primary. Call me jaded, or cynical or whatever, but I don't get the feeling that she'll take a hard line against guns should she get the nom.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:27:21 AM PDT

    •  It will be between her and a Repub.... (11+ / 0-)

      and I will go with a Democratic president every time.  Even one more towards the right than I prefer.  

      BTW, polls show most of the country agrees with her, so I tend to think she will maintain this position.  

    •  If she campaigns on this message, I'd expect (13+ / 0-)

      her to push for some sort of gun safety policy.

      The fact that gun safety is part of the national political debate is a big step in the right direction.

      Much of the problem with gun violence and passing gun safety legislation is tied to the culture - what does our culture accept as legitimate and reasonable? With national high profile brands such as Starbucks and Facebook rejecting pro gun advocates, as well as Bloomberg, Giffords and other groups pouring upwards of $75 million annually into messaging, support to activists to speak to legislators and city councils about policy - the message is getting out that gun violence is unacceptable and the pro gun ideas are unacceptable.

      "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

      by We Shall Overcome on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:52:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If she campaigns on this message, she'll lose. n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChuckChuckerson, FrankRose
        •  John Hickenlooper in Colorado signed gun (9+ / 0-)

          safety legislation last year and this year he is a shoe in for re-election to be Colorado's two-term governor. The GOP's most pro-gun gubernatorial candidate has already dropped out of the race - six months before a vote has been cast - because no one knows who he is nor cares.

          The idea the voting for gun safety legislation is a political loser, especially in a national election is so 1990s - get with the times.

          "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

          by We Shall Overcome on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:21:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  She will lose every rural state (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AnnieR, Tominator, FrankRose

          That she has a lead in right now.

          After 2008 I can tell she's great at sabotaging a good lead.

          She was talking to Mental Health Professionals.

          If she would have mentioned the huge problem we have with the mentally ill getting military style weapons and going on a rampage, and how we need prevent this it would have been politically better.

          If she had told them that mental health professionals, families and community members are our first line of defense against these people and the only people who can help us identify and screen out these people from owning guns it would have been WAY better.

          The way she said it, sort of like Bill's comment about Jesse Jackson and the SC primary is guaranteed to lose her votes and mobilize a lot of grassroots opposition to her candidacy.

          •  that is certainly one aspect of the problem (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

            but doesn't account for another large portion of injuries,  called accidents by those who want to make them seem inevitable, called negligent discharge by gun people who are responsible.  Just last week I sat in a gun safety lecture where an experienced shooter who owns more guns of more types than I can count, made it very clear there are no accidents with guns, merely people who didn't follow the rules.

            There is much to be said by identifying those persons with serious mental issues, crises that lead to either mass murder or suicide by gun.   That will save thousands if you count the suicides.    But thousands more are injured or killed by negligence.  Empty guns are responsible for lots of deaths.

            •  Not following you. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              Both gun homicides and gun accidents are at record lows.

              US is still high compared to other countries always room to improve but the steady decline in gun accidents and homicides show we are on the right track there.

              However mass shootings way up.

              So what would you suggest short of her advocating banning guns which for sure would be a non starter to reduce gun accidents?

              •  some figures from (4+ / 0-)

                reliable sources about firearm deaths and or injuries

                http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/...

                http://www.cdc.gov/...

                from a sometimes reliable source

                http://www.factcheck.org/...

                What it seems to me is that mental health officials can address some issues, making sure that overall gun policies address major issues.

                Gun related intentional injuries/deaths, either an assault, murder or suicide are the largest groupings of injuries.

                But "accidental" injuries and deaths can be around 25% of the total.  And perhaps one of the most amenable to be improved without even a suggestion of taking away guns from the vast majority of the public.  Because it is where training and safety can be addressed, shooters skills improved, and ordinary precautions can make a big difference to some of the most tragic injuries/deaths involving children.

                I noticed you immediately went back to the word accident.  It is not an accident if a loaded weapon is left where children can find it.  It is not an accident to shoot yourself or a household member with a loaded gun because no one checked it prior to cleaning it.  It is not an accident to practice dry fire and shoot someone because it wasn't dry fire because no one looked in the chamber, etc. ,etc.

                It is all negligence. And way more people are killed by negligence or injured by negligence than mass shootings.  Mass shootings terrify us, get lots of media attention, but just don't add up to the raw numbers of people killed and injured.

                Mandatory safety courses, refresher courses at time of license renewals,  cars are more dangerous in terms of injuries per thousands of population, but not considering how many cars are on the road every day, and we require a minimal showing of competence. Why not the same for gun ownership?  

                Stricter laws for negligence while impaired by drugs or alcohol,  drunk people shouldn't operate guns any more than drunk drivers should operate cars.  Public awareness campaigns so people take these issues seriously.  Because people die from gun negligence in very large numbers.  And people with a gun don't have a right to be negligent.

                Suicides, mass murders, domestic violence, these also account for lots of deaths that involve issues that mental health workers can help with.  But we need the research, the dollars from Congress, the CDC to be unleashed, etc. so we can make progress.  And that might mean some stricter laws if we can find some things that are red flags that can stop these deaths.

                Tens of thousands of people die or are injured from gun violence and negligence.   That threat to public safety needs to be addressed just as with any other topic.  Guns aren't specially exempt under the 2nd amendment when they are misused. Negligence is misuse.

              •  I am offended at this, Hollowdweller. (4+ / 0-)

                Medical advances have stabilized national gun fatalities, yes, but at a rate 19.5 higher than other high-income properties. (Source: 2013 CDC report.) Your "right track" has settled at a horrifying level for nine years, buck-o.
                After such misinformation, then you push the gun-ban button?

                Shootings have INCREASED, due to gun violence survivors with bullet holes in them. Your statement is at best ignorant and disingenuous, and at worse (to choose a kind word here) outright fibbing.

                FYI THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN GETTING WORSE based on the most recent complete figures:

                Year  Death   Injuries  Total Shot
                2000 28,663 75,685    104,348
                2001 29,573 63,012    92,585
                2002 30,242 58,841    89,083
                2003 30,136 65,834    95,970
                2004 29,569 64,389    93,958
                2005 30,694 69,825  100,519
                2006 30,896 71,417  102,313
                2007 31,224 69,863  101,087
                2008 31,593 78,622  110,215
                http://www.vpc.org/...

                _______________________________________________________________________________________ It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                by reasonablegunsplz on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:52:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The more guns there are, the more gun (0+ / 0-)

                "accidents" there are.

                Apparently that simple math is too complicated for gun-nuts to grasp.

                This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                by JJustin on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:02:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I can see it now - that grassroots opposition will (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, JJustin

            set up check points at voting booths and question whether they are legitimate voters or not.

            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

            by We Shall Overcome on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:49:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There was a time when it was the norm (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, buffie

              that military and armed groups and individuals were prohibited by law being near polling places on election days.

              For obvious reasons.

              But today we have Bunkerville, NV, where gun-nuts have taken it upon themselves, without a shred of legal authority to do so, to set up "checkpoints" on public roads, and stop entering and leaving residents in order to check their papers, exactly like Nazis do.

              This is the "liberty" and "freedumb" intended by the gun-nuts who post spam here that is out-and-out anti-Constitutional lying.

              This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

              by JJustin on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:11:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  If Hickenlooper can win Colorado in a blowout (4+ / 0-)

            after singing the gun safety legislation he did - Clinton can do and say just about anything she wants on guns in a national election.

            The inflated sense of importance of the pro gun crowd will be its downfall - they are in a bubble and only listen to the most extreme voices. Those that hint at the suggestion of reasonable gun safety policy are excommunicated - see the many writers with gun trade industry magazines who have been fired, or gun retailers who are bombarded with death threats for suggesting they would sell smart guns.

            The pro gun community is becoming more and more cult like by the day (ie, roaring applause for Palin's "Waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists" line at the NRA annual meeting a few weeks ago, or the Cliven Bundy thugs) - that is what Clinton is saying when she says "unbalanced" and the fact that she did say it, says a lot about how powerful she thinks the gun community's grassroots opposition to her presidential campaign will be. Not.

            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

            by We Shall Overcome on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:57:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  OK, name them (5+ / 0-)

            Virginia? Just elected Terry MacAuliffe Gov.  North Carolina?  She needs Charlotte, the Research Triangle, and black voters, which this doesn't hurt her with.  Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin?  Traditional Dem.  Not winning Montana is going to be rough, assuming you're right that rural voters can't differentiate between gun owners and gun extremists.  Whatever will we do.  

            I don't think, by the way, "reign in" means just going after spree killers.  Gun culture is out of control when neighborhood watch dudes think they need to pack more than a cell phone to call 911, or when domestic disputes escalate.  It'd be nice if self-regulation works, but it doesn't.    It's not as though mental health professionals don't already worry about their patients, though in reality the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of gun violence, thanks to all the other gun supporters normalizing gun violence.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:08:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There are the mentally ill who shouldn't (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, sethtriggs

            have guns.

            And then there are the mentally "healthy" rageaholics and other irresponsible dunces who shouldn't have guns.

            In short: it is both discriminatory and irresponsible to attempt to scapegoat the mentally ill in effort to distract from the dangerous gun nuts who both aren't mentally ill, and outnumber the mentally ill.

            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

            by JJustin on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:01:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  She'd lose every rural state anyway. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sethtriggs

            See, this is the thing.  Hillary Clinton could join the NRA, divorce Bill, and marry Wayne LaPierre and it wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference in the "rural states."  They're almost all reliably Republican anyway.

            What's more, those states aren't all that significant from an Electoral College perspective.  They're thinly populated and have relatively few electoral votes.  Just count up the number of Republican microstates it takes to balance out California, to say nothing of other big reliably blue states like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

            So this myopic focus on guns is really one big red herring.  It'll have a minimal impact on Hillary Clinton's prospects for the presidency, largely because there are few people in the dedicated gun rights crowd who vote Democratic anyway.  If you doubt that, just look around this site.  RKBA members here regularly talk about how they refuse to vote Democratic over the gun issue.

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Thu May 08, 2014 at 05:14:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  She'll lose what? (3+ / 0-)

          "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

          by Bob Johnson on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:47:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No she won't (5+ / 0-)

          Terry McAuliffe got an F rating from the NRA. He said in his debate with Cuccinelli that he didn't care what rating the NRA gave him.

          Shop Liberally this holiday season at Kos Katalog

          by JamieG from Md on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:02:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And he won the election. In a state that supplies (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JamieG from Md, sethtriggs

            guns which result in deaths in the other 49 states.

            Because gun-nuts are so irresponsible, so out of their minds with arrogated delusions, that they dismiss the murder of the children of Newtown as irrelevant, does not mean the vast majority of the electorate does.  

            What it does mean is that the gun-nuts blind themselves to the legitimate concerns of that vast majority.  We see that with the outright denial of the reality of the polls in CO.  When they crash and burn, will they continue to lie to themselves against reality?

            "The more we lie, the more out of our minds we become." -- R. D. Laing, Psychiatrist.

            Public safety trumps individual stupidity, even when that stupidity is characterized as a "right".

            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

            by JJustin on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:24:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Tomin, it's unlikely to be HC's only message. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, GleninCA, WakeUpNeo

          If you're suggesting gun issues are so third-rail that They Cannot Be Mentioned, that seems like a pretty extreme reaction. I know of no poll that says the majority of the American public is anywhere close to that view.

          Colorado is a special case, I believe, as are many of the other big square states.

          2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Thu May 08, 2014 at 01:17:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Like the board of directors, Turd Nugget? Yes I (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      can see HRC courting that poopy battle pants.

    •  I am sure (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      What Democrats have worked with the NRA types? Zell Miller for one and she's nothing like him. Most of those who work with the NRA tend to be very conservative Dems, way to Clinton's right and ones who basically need NRA support, or at least not it's outtight opposition to get re-elected.

  •  Gun Culture, overall, IS delusional. (14+ / 0-)

    While I don't think bans - which a lot of people here DO fantasize about - will ever work in this country, I do fully think that 'gun culture' is just out of control in terms of its delusional ideas about the overall importance of the damned things.

    Their view of the Gun is nothing short of magical, fraught with all sorts of false beliefs and sheer, out-of-touch ideologies.

    In many people's hands, guns have an impact much like any drug that warps judgment and impairs critical thinking.

    People think guns will do things they cannot do. From this stems a lot of tragedies. The events in which the Ideally Held Delusions of The Good Guy with The Gun are so freaking rare.

    Sure, some people win the lottery: the VAST MAJORITY do not.

    And, much as will marijuana prohibition's reefer mad propaganda, pro-gun propaganda impairs people's judgement of reality. guns cannot do a fraction of the glowing things these people seem to think.

    A dog in the yard is better deterrence than the biggest in-home arsenal because the dog barks to alert everybody somethings up and usually that's it for that home invasion thing.

    I think we should pass laws stiffening penalties for mishaps and negligence; I think there need to be requisite training for anybody that buys a gun. Something more intense than driver's ed.

    I may buy a gun sometime in the future - I haven't ruled it out.

    But I have said this for 30-some years and have yet to lift a finger to even go look at them. It is just at the bottom of my priority list.

    I don't find them that necessary, I guess. I have not had one as an adult and that is just not going to be changing anytime soon.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:38:55 AM PDT

  •  I think $50 mil from Bloomberg + $15-20m from (15+ / 0-)

    Giffords + $10m from the assorted other groups has gotten people's attention - pols aren't going to be able to vote for just any nutty gun bill and get away with it. Rather, voting against reasonable gun control is going to become an albatross around their necks.

    At it's core, the pro gun community is unhinged (or has Hillary put it, out of balance) ... and they are in the process of being marginalized on the national stage. No respectable person or politician is going to want to associate with the 5-10% of the pro gun screamers/threateners. Once that happens, universal background checks pass and even an AWB, which has 50-60% support ... it's the 5-10% of screamers/threateners like Alex Jones, Ted Nugent, DKos's very own FrankRose and this guy: http://www.youtube.com/... - who are able to drown out any semblance of reason in the debate.

    Those days seem to be coming to an end.

    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

    by We Shall Overcome on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:43:33 AM PDT

    •  I think your spot on with this (8+ / 0-)
      I think $50 mil from Bloomberg + $15-20m from (0+ / 0-)

      Giffords + $10m from the assorted other groups has gotten people's attention - pols aren't going to be able to vote for just any nutty gun bill and get away with it. Rather, voting against reasonable gun control is going to become an albatross around their necks.

      Votes matter and we are heading into a period where a candidate's voting record on all the gun bills over the years will come back to bite them in the ass.

      We saw the first instance of this in the IL election last year,  replacing Jesse Jackson, Jr. That was the first election where a pro-NRA candidate got knocked down, in part, BECAUSE of her stance on guns.

      I think you're right WSO. Both the Mayor's group and Gabby Gifford's group have proven themselves by now. They have shown they are focused, patient, smart about how and when they deploy their resources. Everyone now know that people are watching all the pro-NRA gun votes.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:05:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think guns and domestic violence are going to (5+ / 0-)

        be a key part of 2014-2016, that issue fits into the "War on Women" narrative that is already cemented in people's minds.

        The SCOTUS has already ruled on guns and DV but many states are lagging in their gun policy for domestic abusers.

        The NRA/gun lobby is going to have to infringe on people's God given gun rights on the national stage .... and it will be a high profile example that gun rights can and should be taken away.

        And if it is reasonable to take those rights away - why not pass other reasonable policy to keep guns from those who should not have them, ie, national universal background checks, AWB, etc.

        "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

        by We Shall Overcome on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:16:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting synthesis of recent events, WSO (3+ / 0-)

          I had not put that together or seen the connections you see. I feel incredibly proud of Hillary right now. She was my Senator and was I proud of her then. I voted for Barak Obama in the primary and was thrilled that he asked her to be Secretary of State. It's really terrific to see her take on this can of worms, to begin laying the groundwork for future policy action.

          The NRA is no longer going to be the only player. They have lost control of the narrative and are being attacked from the right by Gun Owners of America as being too soft.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:37:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm skeptical of that. I think too many women (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

          turn reflexively to gun ownership when after they experience traumatic events. Obviously, the stats on gun ownership and DV violence don't lie. However, if I had a dollar for every woman who'd told me they bought a gun to keep them safe from violence, I could have a pile of dollars. Emotional truths win elections. Statistical truths, not so much.

          •  Nothing says a women can't own a gun - just that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

            the domestic abuser cannot.

            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

            by We Shall Overcome on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:20:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Okay, I misunderstood you. Sorry! That's kind of a (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber

              no-brainer law, so of course the gun nuts are against it. DV is depressingly common in the US, so that definitely has the potential to bring significant number of women voters her way.

              •  The NRA has recently begun to concede on DV/gun (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber

                policy - in Wisconsin and Washington state, if I'm not mistaken.

                I think it's telling - they don't want to be put in the position of fighting for the gun rights of domestic abusers.

                It is a tricky issue, however. It is probably a significant reason Evie Hudak (Dem state legislator from metro Denver) resigned her seat in the face of a recall challenge. In public hearings, she in-artfully framed the issue of college campus violence against women and guns and whether they should be allowed on campus or not. She did exactly what you pointed out - she used statistics to rebut a victim of such violence and failed miserably.

                "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                by We Shall Overcome on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:45:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Have you looked at a Form 4473? (0+ / 0-)

              Questions 11 b, h & i

              It's the law now.

  •  what would have constituted balance since 1963 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, mrblifil

    or even since the 1920-30s

    Machine Gun Ad

    "I think again we're way out of balance. I think that we've got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime,"

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:06:25 AM PDT

  •  TRIANGULATION. It's BAAAACK! /nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:14:14 AM PDT

  •  Schweitzer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChuckChuckerson

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:17:09 AM PDT

  •  And thats the right tone to strike. (13+ / 0-)

    I oppose the second amendment and think it ought to be repealed. But I am a practical man. I know thats not going to happen anytime soon, which is why I generally agree with Democrats who avoid the gun issue and have no problem with Democrats who live in gun freak states taking a pro gun position. I dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Excellent phrasing and another reason why she will be a superb candidate.

    •  If we don't keep chipping away at this (0+ / 0-)

      Then there's no hope to EVER repeal the 2nd or implement sound gun control. The fact that it's politically dangerous should be no impediment to keeping up the fight. Come on, you're from Brooklyn. When's the last time a week went by without a shooting there? This should be personal to you.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Thu May 08, 2014 at 05:45:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why a mental health conference? (0+ / 0-)

    "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." -- JC, Matthew 6:24

    by Chi on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:26:12 AM PDT

    •  Many mass gun killings have come from mentally ill (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Achillios0311

      We are not giving people the help and treatment they need.  Someone who has been diagnosed with a mental illness shouldn't have access to any kind of gun.  (You can't stop access to all weapons, of course, but note the lack of fatalities during the mass stabbing a few weeks ago.)

      A better support structure for those who are sick will go a long way to curbing gun violence, but we have to admit it's a problem first.

      The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

      by catwho on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:52:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a common misconception. (0+ / 0-)

        Do me a favor, find a case where the shooter actually had a diagnosis. Only one I'm coming up w/ is Loughner, and that's not a mass killing.

        •  Do you NEED a diagnosis to be sick? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Achillios0311, LilithGardener

          You have cancer before you're diagnosed.  Sometimes you die before they catch what it is.

          You are mentally ill before you're diagnosed.  Due to the nature of the illness, you commit a murder-suicide before anyone figures out just how sick you were.

          Part of the support structure we need to add in for mental illness is indeed doing a better job at diagnosing someone, as well as removing the stigma for someone having a verified mental illness.

          Many people don't go in for help because they don't want to be called "crazy."  We're finally beginning to break the stigma of depression, at least, but other psychological diseases are still regarded by society as "things we want to ignore."  Or worse, as some kind of moral failing or character flaw.  

          Like you could have somehow powered through a major chemical imbalance in your mind.

          Just like you can power through cancer if you try hard enough!

          The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

          by catwho on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:49:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  A second assesment was the Cafe Racer Shooter (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          catwho, LilithGardener

          Ian Stawicki killed five for being tossed out of a band.

          Although not formally diagnosed, it was clear to those around him that his mental state was deteriorating 2007-2012. Yet he held a CC permit, and owned six handguns.

          His father approached law enforcement, and because of "shall issue" restrictions, was told by LE "There's nothing we can do."

          Walt Stawicki, in hindsight, wishes he had simply lied about a harmful incident, and used the prevarication to institutionalize his son.

          A buddy of mine from Cape Cod drove the gunman away by throwing barstools. My pal was left on the floor with one dead, and three thrashing, dying of head wounds. He'll never be the same; Larry lives in a bar in an alcoholic stupor now.

          .

          _______________________________________________________________________________________ It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

          by reasonablegunsplz on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:34:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll never forget that one (0+ / 0-)

            I lived just a few miles from there at the time and passed near it all the time on my bike. There were a lot of such mass shootings in my 10 years in Seattle. I find it hard to believe that most of these psychos didn't clearly present psychosis symptoms prior to their attacks.

            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

            by kovie on Thu May 08, 2014 at 05:43:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  NRA offers no safety plan to help people who are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, catwho

        experiencing mental crisis to safely stow their guns while the crisis is on-going.

    •  That bothers me. The mentally ill are more likely (5+ / 0-)

      to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it. I'm sick of "mentaly ill" being conflated with "violent. We have enough stigma on us already.

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        Not all mentally ill people are violent any more than all gun owners are violent. But here at DKos, and especially in gun-related threads, many don't let that get in the way of a not-so-well-thought-out rant sometimes.

        •  Well, the mentally ill in the US fare among the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          worst in the world as far as successful treatment. Gun owners are getting most of what they want in most of the country. The mentally ill and gunowners aren't really in the same boat.

          I do agree, however, that over-generalizations aren't helpful. I have some wonderful friends that hunt for food. They hunt in the most compassionate way possible for deer that would otherwise be dying- in my deer-filled area- on the hood of an SUV. Those kind of gunowners don't deserve blanket condemnation. And I'm a vegetarian whose 95% pacifist. As long as other people are going to eat meat, why shouldn't they be doing it in the most environmentally-friendly, humane way possible?

    •  Framing the gun lobby as unbalanced. (0+ / 0-)

      "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

      by We Shall Overcome on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:08:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tell me about it (4+ / 0-)

    I guy in my neighborhood shot his neighbor and killed him because he was feeding the deer.  

    Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann (and btw, the bike in kayakbiker is a bicycle)

    by Kayakbiker on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:26:25 AM PDT

  •  "Stand your ground" laws and the like (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catwho, LilithGardener, Joy of Fishes

    are especially disturbing. It does happen that guns are used in a way that amounts to legitimate self-defense, but IMO it is not a good idea to stretch "self-defense" to include dubious reasons for shooting someone. I think if you shoot someone and you weren't in danger then there should be legal consequences for you.

  •  Beautiful wedge issue, probably poll-tested. (3+ / 0-)

    Hopefully the Clinton strategists wants to get a Congressional momentum going in 2014 that will be in place in 2016. The rule of law is THE issue, given a wild west S. Ct. that is against it. The Town of Greece case was a travesty, preferred no local due process to it's own spaghetti test, similar in McCutcheon that Congress has no role in regulation, similar in Heller, Shelby County etc., etc.

    The only thing to fear is fear itself, now it's the only law needed is law itself. BTW in a democracy the rule of law is what Congress says and the President signs. Marbury: Court is to stay out of political questions. HRC is nothing without a Congress, if she can get that going again she also will likely get two picks for the Court who will respect the law, just in time for voters to be enfranchised to force the elected branches to deal with system crashing issues lawmakers could impact like militarism, the economy and global warming.

    •  What happened in "Town of Greece" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Musial

      This comment is a request for a cliff note version. Thx in advance.

      What was the case about? What was the decision.?

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:04:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just issued this week, regarding prayers at town (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        meetings. Set forth an elaborate test instead of just ordering the little town to come up with a competent screening system. This I got from listening to the oral argument and reading the news, haven't read the decision. At oral argument Scalia said that legislatures aren't really government, just amateurs (like juries) compared to a court or administrative professionals- so they are more from the community and can reflect their own biased values, as if the prayer could be more important to them than government business. This was against the evidence that such a prayer is like a loyalty oath for those coming before the Christian town council. No Hindus need apply for zoning permits, or if they do, their minority status will be duly noted. Forget it about atheists they are not protected by the first amendment. Or Jeffersonian Deists. The general trend is that the Court is a super-legislature and will take every opportunity to make laws that people have to follow like the Court is supervising the republic's receivership, given the built-in incompetence of legislative bodies, Scalia's slip revealing. This clearly won't work, like many other decision the Roberts Court has imposed as a sort of Guardian Council on the Iranian model.

  •  Running to the left for the primary. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, happymisanthropy

    I also expect her to say mean things about Wall Street that we both know she doesn't mean.

    She is a Clinton. She watched first hand as a legislative majority that had held for two generations turned to smoke over an ill advised attack on gun rights. She will not repeat Bill's mistake.

    •  Is she though? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, FrankRose

      I would have expected at least SOME specific gun control suggestions from her.

       I think being so vague could also be interpreted as running to the right; it's not like the gun control discussion is something that's constantly evolving. She could have said "I would like to reinstate the assault weapons ban that my husband signed in 1994." or something similar.

      •  She IS running to the left, but yes, being vague (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, happymisanthropy

        about it so that she can't be held to the fire later.

        •  I would say that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          running to the left would be strong vocal support for specific  gun control legislation.

           Being wishy-washy and vague about gun control seems to be to the right of where the Democratic Party currently stands.

           Most Democratic candidates outside of red states aren't afraid to say that they support specific gun control proposals like universal background checks and assault weapons restrictions/bans.

          •  Some Kossacks prefer to ignore or misstate (2+ / 0-)

            the obvious.

            In 2013 gun control laws were passed with bipartisan support in Connecticut and New York, and I suspect elsewhere (but I'm not as familiar with other states).

            Heck, even in blue New York, the NY SAFE act was introduced and passed by the Dem-controlled Assembly on the same day. The next day it passed over to the GOP-controlled state Senate. They passed it immediately Cuomo signed it the same day.

            The NY SAFE was passed by a bipartisan state government. Do people really think that GOP voters in upstate districts are going to punish their reps at the polls this fall?

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:10:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  LOL! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, nominalize, WakeUpNeo
      She watched first hand as a legislative majority that had held for two generations turned to smoke over an ill advised attack on gun rights.
      I love claims like this.  It was all about the gunz, huh?  It didn't have anything at all to do with the racially polarized voting in the southern states that brought their congressional voting into line with where they'd been for some time at the presidential level.

      Yep.  Let's just erase important issues like race from the chain of causation.  They make the discussion soooo complicated.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Thu May 08, 2014 at 05:18:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not to mention (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn, WakeUpNeo

        A slew of corruption scandals among high-ranking long-serving Democratic Congressman

        A health care proposal even less popular than Obamacare (and forwarded by the first lady, no less)

        Clinton had won with 40% of the popular vote

        Classic Midterm slump

        AND the major factor--- the long-term political alignment finally worked itself out, as FogCityJohn pointed out

        Not to mention: The AWB scored 70% approval in polls at the time, and passed in September of 1994, after polling already pointed to a Republican rout (i.e. the shift was already coming).

        Blaming it all one guns is classic Washington punditry:  A quick answer one can deliver with confidence, even though there's nothing behind it.  

        Nobody deserves poverty.

        by nominalize on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:30:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Talk about revisionist thinking. 1994 wasn't (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FogCityJohn, WakeUpNeo

      all about guns.  Look at the exit polls of why people voted the way they did then.  Look at the rankings of issues that voters were considering then.  Hate for the AWB was not a driver except among the kookiest and craziest of the gun nuts.

      •  Clinton lost the Congressional Majority (0+ / 0-)

        Over TAXES.  Period.  All of the other stuff contributed, but the primary reason for the defeat was the big tax increase of 1993.  Second reason was the attempt by the Clintons in early 1993 to populate the administration with radical liberals (Donna Shalala?) and policies (gays in the military?) who were way out of touch with the conservative culture of America in 1992.

        Never forget, Bill Clinton (and Hillary) was an accidental president.  America in the 1990's was still a VERY conservative nation.  It took a perfect storm of perceived recession, Ross Perot, and republican fatigue to defeat GHWB (who had 90% approval just a year and a half before the election, and who was presiding over a growing economy that was no longer in recession).  

        The Clintons, as they are wont to do, misinterpreted the election as a Dem mandate.  They tried for a year to govern as liberals.  Once the voters realized what they had done, they made a massive correction in 1994.  Once Clinton shifted right and started triangulating and advocating popular GOP positions (welfare reform, free trade, deregulation, etc) the voters realized he wasn't so bad, and they kind of liked him.  That's how he survived, when republicans were winning everywhere and everything else.

  •  I like the buzzwords she's using (11+ / 0-)

    "Rule of Law"; "Self Control".

    Makes it sound like the NRA people are lawless and out of control.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:47:38 AM PDT

  •  As of last night background checks required (5+ / 0-)

    In Tacoma facilities and there are huge gun shows in Tacoma:

    Thank you Tacoma

    "All firearm purchases at gun shows on Tacoma city property now require a background checks of buyers.

    The Tacoma City Council unanimously approved the change Tuesday, closing the so-called gun-show loophole for events using city space.

    The loophole allows people selling guns from their private collections to skip the federal background checks that are required of licensed gun dealers by state and federal law.

    “In the face of inaction by state and federal lawmakers our community cannot wait,” said Councilman Ryan Mello.

    The change was sparked by a gun show at the Tacoma Dome last month, the first in 23 years. Of the 152 vendors, 12 were private sellers who could sell guns without a background check."

  •  Mae West Revised... (0+ / 0-)

    NRA-Style Gun Owners Revision:  "That is a gun in my pocket, and I'm not glad to see you."

    You meet them halfway with love, peace, and persuasion ~ And expect them to rise for the occasion...

    by paz3 on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:12:22 AM PDT

  •  The moolishas roaming the highways are clearly (0+ / 0-)

    well regulated deciding who shall drive into town. And again, let me be perfectly clear, the 2ndA clearly states all guns for everybody immediately.

    •  No, that's (0+ / 0-)

      the militia act of 1792.

      What do the Defend-NSAers-at-any-cost hope for society to gain from Snowden turning himself in and standing trial? I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before any of them finally give a reasonable, coherent answer to that question.

      by happymisanthropy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:33:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  For some guns convert anger into homicidal rage (4+ / 0-)

    Guns are a force multiplier. That's why they work in military battle. That's why we fear them.

    In some ways the force multiplier of guns act like a catalyst that accelerates a chemical reaction. The reaction occurs in the brain. The mind contemplates the gun before the hand picks it up. The mind contemplates the trigger before the finger pulls it.

    While I'm not comfortable with any presumption of mental illness in a shooter, a presumption of rational thinking is starting to seem absurd.

    The "it's just an inanimate object" meme is hollow. The absurdity is easily revealed just by considering shooters like Michael Dunn, the theater guy, and the man in WV.

    To accept the inanimate object theory we are asked to conclude that those men had murder on their mind, and if they had no gun, they would have used other means to kill.

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:54:58 AM PDT

    •  The presumption of rational thinking means the gun (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

      aficionados will never advocate any safety precautions in case a mental crisis made a gun owner unable to make a rational decision about point and shoot.

      They are so scared that their guns will be taken they absolutely cannot admit the possibility of a mental crisis impairing shooting decisions. Unless it does, then society should have done something not gun safety organizations like the NRA.

      However the moolisha in Nevada has given pause. Maybe this will last several more months before the aficionados get a grip and go home.

      •  Yes, I hope there is a growing campaign (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        88kathy, Glen The Plumber

        teaching and encouraging people not to handle guns when they are impaired. It's part of human experience that we do not think clearly when we are tired, have consumed alcohol (and some other drugs), and when we are experiencing strong emotions.

        Celebratory shots in the air are one example. It's not mental illness that makes a man pull out his pistol and shoot into the air in jubilee. It's just part of the normal range of human behavior. The catch is most other forms of jubilee don't have the power to kill at a distance.

        FWIW, I propose the term gun libertarians instead of what you used. There are plenty of people who are experienced with guns, experts even, who want regulations and improved safety laws. The problem is that we/they have been mostly silent until now. I'm one of the guilty and hadn't been paying attention to gun violence until Hurricane Sandy brought it to my attention.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:04:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We should start posting your moolisha (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        88kathy, Glen The Plumber

        term with the TM symbol. That's a meme that should spread.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:04:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is HUGE, LG (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

      It was what was so darned funny about Tom Tomorrow's cartoon where the display guns were compelling the customer, who had stars in his eyes.

      What did Michael Dunn say on videotape during his police interview? ""...and quicker than a flash, I fired..."

      Beyond how you have laid it out, Lillith, such an impulse is compounded by two other contributors: 1. pre-visualization (I'm a good guy with a gun, "prepared" to shoot at wrong-doers) and 2. muscle memory (practice in front of a support group down at the ol' gun range against human sillouettes).

      In Dunn's case, add alcohol as #3.

      A rash shooter's behavior is far from entirely unpredictable: it is precipitated by the presence of the gun itself, and further by the pre-conditioning of the U.S. gun mentality. The gun is even considered an "agent" in each incident by public health professionals, one of three required components.

      _______________________________________________________________________________________ It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

      by reasonablegunsplz on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:05:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Try "imbalanced," "unstable," "unhinged," (0+ / 0-)

    "untethered," "de-marbled."

    I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

    Trust, but verify. - Reagan
    Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

    by Words In Action on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:55:08 AM PDT

  •  bbbbutt we don't know where she stands on (0+ / 0-)

    ANYTHING!!!!!!!!
    (heavy snark for those keeping score at home)

    •  and? (0+ / 0-)

      "I don't want to piss anybody off.  Let's end gun violence while still respecting second amendment rights!"

      She didn't say anything.

      What do the Defend-NSAers-at-any-cost hope for society to gain from Snowden turning himself in and standing trial? I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before any of them finally give a reasonable, coherent answer to that question.

      by happymisanthropy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:36:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "right to bear arms" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i saw an old tree today

    Are those her words?  Or are they yours?  

    Those words do not apply to a private, individual right to own guns.  That phrase, in its several forms, appear exclusively in Militia Clauses.  

    Along with injunctions concerning standing armies, and the stipulation that the military is always to be in subordination to and governed by the civil gov't.

    Don't adopt legal terms misappropriated by the gun-nut cult, as doing so constitutes a capitulation to and perpetuation of that propaganda effort.

    In short: if you don't buy their rhetoric, then don't use their rhetoric.

    This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

    by JJustin on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:20:57 PM PDT

    •  Too late (0+ / 0-)

      Nationally speaking, and for the time being, that is.  Until the needle moves back towards at least general ambivalence over the supposed individual right theory, it's irresponsible for a national candidate to assert otherwise.

      •  It is irresponsible to capitulate to (2+ / 0-)

        corruption and deceit.

        "the right to (keep and) bear arms" is a technical legal term, a term of art.  It is not defined according to Webster's.  It is found exclusively in state constitutional Militia Clauses.  A militia is not an individual; and the arming of the militia is determined not by the SC, the NRA, or gun-nuts.

        And it is never too late to begin telling the truth against corruption and lies.

        And there is no "individual right theory"; that is a lie.  The debates of the WRITING of the Second Amendment by the Congress that WROTE it are conclusively clear against the fake "controversy":

        1.  The purpose of the Amendment was to establish NATIONAL DEFENSE.

        2.  There were two parts to the debate, the first being whether to rely for National Defense on a standing army, or on the militia.  As the AUTHORS of the Amendment viewed standing armies as a threat to self-gov't -- you know, military overthrow of civilian gov't -- they chose to rely on militia.  It follows that they DID NOT intend that the militia be a "take up arms against" threat to gov't/rule of law.

        And that is consistent with the stipulation in the already--ratified Constitution at Art. I., S. 8., C. 15:

        The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [enforce] the Laws of the Union [the militia's purpose on the state level being the same] [and] suppress Insurrections.
        Thus the Second Amendment both secures the states' right to keep its well regulated militia (which militia and well-regulation already existed) -- "well regulated militia" being the subject of the Amendment -- for National Defense -- and extends the control of Congress over those militia.  (Even when not Federalized the states' militia must comply with FEDERAL Militia Acts.)

        Further, the already-ratified Constitution stipulates that the Congress -- not the SC, and not gun-nuts -- shall determine how the Militia shall be armed:

        Art. I., S. 8., C. 16.  The Congress shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia.

        And it does that (and otherwise regulates the Militia) through statutes called "Militia Acts".  (I have posted such elsewhere on DK.)

        3.  The second part of the debate was of the ONLY "individual right" debated concerning this Amendment, the first-draft language of which reads:

        but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well regulated militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well regulated militia] in person.
        Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E. Veit, et al., at 12.

        That posited individual right having been obviously dropped, the Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything.  

        The "ambivalence" about the intent of the Amendment is not in the facts and law; it is in the ignorance of the facts and law.

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Thu May 08, 2014 at 08:39:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Impressed With That Comment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildthumb, Laurence Lewis

    Going relatively high profile on this issue when it did seem that her strength at least during the 2008 primaries was in the more rural 2008 "Gods and Guns" areas.

  •  She's right. The gun culture is out of (3+ / 0-)

    balance.  Has been for a long time.  

    I don't think she lost any voters she would have had to begin with.  She may have reinforced several she did have.  

    I like that the tone of her remarks places tacit emphasis on higher-level interactions to face our national problems.  

    Dirty Harry sold a lot of movie tickets but I don't want Dirty Harry bringing his Make My Day tactics to public service.  

    "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

    by Remediator on Thu May 08, 2014 at 05:23:04 PM PDT

    •  "Gun Culture" Is Awkward Substitute For "Fascism" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Remediator

      These people would be dangerous if they were armed with machetes and crowbars, and labeling that "gun culture" largely misses the point.

      Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

      by bernardpliers on Thu May 08, 2014 at 05:49:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it rounds the edges of a sharp (0+ / 0-)

        object.

        She likely knows the spectrum of expression across the country, and there may be some brainy calculation on her part that she can appeal to the demographic groups she needs to win and isn't interested in "winning" the argument.  

        There's a tasty underpinning to her remarks that isolates the gun nuts, that positions them at a remove from where actual problems are addressed in the public arena.  

        There's an interesting hinge connecting 'culture' and 'violence.'  I think she was playing that angle, and IMO, she got it right.  

        "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

        by Remediator on Thu May 08, 2014 at 05:54:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This, I support. i know a lot of people in this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli

    diary think guns are the only problem. They are not. Hillary's right when she says, we only have our social and moral structure stopping us from being a lawless 3rd world country. If we didn't have guns, bombs would be more frequent, a la Britain and Ireland.

    I am not unrealistic enough to think that it would be possible to take everyone's guns away and yes, we DO lose elections because of this mindset of some Dems.

    Many millions of people have grown up using guns safely, in this country and others, and don't ever kill people!

    “You can say any fool thing to a dog and the dog will just give you this look that says, 'My GOSH, you're RIGHT! I NEVER would've thought of that!” ― Dave Barry

    by Merry Light on Thu May 08, 2014 at 05:33:49 PM PDT

  •  Damn, she just lost Glenn Beck voters (3+ / 0-)

    And most of Oklahoma, Texas, the Dakotas and Wyoming. She mght as well oppose KSXL while she's at it as there's no political downside there anymore.

    Seriously, gutsy and commendable move on her part given the potential political peril of wading in these waters. But she was probably not going to get the vote of people for whom gun control is anathema anyway. Politically, this was a play for the suburban centrist vote, and a smart one at that.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Thu May 08, 2014 at 05:36:08 PM PDT

  •  Her Supporters Will Need To Work Extra Hard (0+ / 0-)

    ....to pick up the slack left by the most vocal gun control advocates, who seem to include a lot of people living as virtual recluses. Or maybe that's just the folks here.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Thu May 08, 2014 at 05:47:05 PM PDT

  •  Not buying! On Jan. 20, 2017 ... (0+ / 0-)

    She'll supply every Wall Streeter with an Uzi!

    Wow are you Hillary people suckers!

  •  The lack of specifics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nominalize

    to me suggest it's just talk.

    Well calculated, but without a shape or form.

    •  "just talk" is what wins elections (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare

      She made it very clear to set an opposition between the law (i.e. civil society) and our current gun culture, with its emphasis on self-help justice.    

      All these cases you hear about of people abusing self-defense laws are cases where people decide to take justice into their own hands.  And of course, more broadly, most violent crimes have the same mindset.  Studies find that most killers felt justified at the time, like they were righting some perceived wrong.  Even most mass killers (who survive) indicate as much.

      They felt wronged, and they got self-help "justice".  And it's this violence that a justice system is specifically designed to reduce, by introducing third-parties and specific procedures for gaining justice.  (And a justice system does a great job of doing so, as history shows.)  

      If Americans want a sustainable gun culture for the long term, it will have to work in line with our justice system anchored in an actually civil society.  They might counter with paranoia about not counting on the police, but you know what--- we can fix that as a society, instead of giving up on it and arming ourselves against whatever fears flit through our mind.

      An armed society is no society at all.  And history shows that when everyone is armed, violence is extremely high.  Guns aren't really the problem: The unhealthy, "out of balance" gun culture is.  And going after its current form is the right strategy long-term, so that we end up with an in-balance gun culture, or none at all.  

      Nobody deserves poverty.

      by nominalize on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:42:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can see the ads now! (0+ / 0-)

    The GOP ads and robo-calls will say:

    "Hillary is going to come take your guns. Stop her now.  Donate $25, $50, $100, $500"

    The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

    by LiberalLady on Thu May 08, 2014 at 07:15:48 PM PDT

    •  They'd have said that ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare

      even if she'd never given this speech.  It's part of the GOP DNA to claim Democrats are going to grab people's precious gunz.

      And the rubes fall for it every. single. time.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:25:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  tina1 (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    WakeUpNeo

    <<<<>>>>>>
    Hi ! I am Jenna, and i will be your personal coach and will guide you in starting with an online business and earning online... So if you are interested in making $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month then follow link at the bottom and sign up and you can have your first check by the end of this week...­­WORK71.C­­O­­M

  •  It's not a bug, it's a Libertarian feature. (0+ / 0-)
    "[Senseless shootings over nothing are] what happens in the countries I've visited where there is no rule of law and no self-control and that is something that we cannot just let go without paying attention," she said.

    Not surprising, considering that the wingnuts want to substitute the public "tyranny" of a government that makes you pay taxes and grazing fees "at the barrel of a gun" with the private tyranny of gangs of rich white guys with guns at roadside checkpoints.

    "Elect Republicans, and they will burn the place down. And they will laugh while they do it and have a great time. And then what?" -- Rachel Maddow

    by LumineHall on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:06:58 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site