Is Bernie Backing off Gun Control One-Upmanship?

Bernie Sanders

It seemed to me the Democratic Primary had devolved into who wants to have more control, with Bernie backing away from some of his previous positions, chiefly voting for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Apparently in the last Dem debate, Bernie wasn’t backing down this time, even drawing praise from the NRA. Of course, Hillary is doubling down.

Is Bernie Sanders finally recognizing that gun control is a losing issue? He was running from his PLCAA vote just a few weeks ago. What has changed?

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Bernie Sanders Upsetting the Mouth Foamers
  2. Bloomberg Piles on the Hillary Train to Save Her
  3. The Dem Debate Still Convinces Me This is a Cartoon Race

20 thoughts on “Is Bernie Backing off Gun Control One-Upmanship?”

  1. He’s campaigning in Midwestern States, that Despite their blue trending since 1992, are very much pro-gun ownership. It’s seen as a blue collar thing, as those people view gun ownership as way to protect themselves from corporate threats.

  2. I heard he was defending the PLCAA. Maybe there is a good portion of the left that’s anti-gun, now that they’ve seen what happens when only government has guns.

  3. This was about defending manufacturing jobs in a region where I’ll considered Clinton Administration laws has wrecked havoc on blue collar workers and also allowing him to satisfy the need of the large numbers of John Dingell union members who hunt and vote. He was quick to point out multiple times that Hillary’s position would shut down Manufacturing. Which the people of Michigan realize is the primary cause of their states financial troubles. Forget agreeing with the NRA. They need manufacturing jobs. That’s what the candidates are fighting over. And Hillary wants to eliminate those jobs. 300 here, 3000 There. No big deal.

      1. That doesn’t really matter. What working-class voters hear is “This woman doesn’t care about people like me.”

  4. I disagree with the tax and spend stuff. But at least he’s pretty honest about that. He’s a peace candidate, relatively speaking, and (again, relatively speaking) good on civil liberties. For a (modern) Democrat he’s been relatively not awful on guns. If he keeps moving this direction, and wins the nomination, I might even vote for him. Again.

  6. I think Bernie Sanders is kind of clueless, but at least he’s honest.

    The main thing that offends me about him is that he prefers tilting at windmills to accomplishing anything meaningful. For example, instead of proposing something relatively easy to accomplish like making student loans dischargable in bankruptcy, he wants to “make college free” which a far more complicated and messy proposition (and it also does nothing to help the people currently being screwed by enormous piles of student loan debt). He hasn’t said a peep about 1st mortgage cramdown, about repealing BAPCPA or a million other relatively easy things that would free millions of poor people from debt servitude. Nope, instead we’ll get an unwinnable battle over single payer.

  7. Bernie was trying to get the progressive vote so he ran toward gun control Now he thinks he has chance at the nomination and thinking of the general so running away from gun control.

    1. Yup and if he was elected he would go full steam on gun control. To believe otherwise is to lack any discernment.

      1. My thoughts exactly. But until then we’ll have to endure people saying that Bernie doesn’t really hate guns and wants reasonable restrictions on guns because that won’t hurt anybody.

        1. The only time I EVER believe a politician is when he says he wants to screw me over.

    1. Looking at the other side, I have been saying that it may not be important whether Trump gets the nomination or becomes president, because he has already let a genie — America’s latent fascism — out of the bottle, and it may never be put back.

      Perhaps the same is true of Sanders, only with a different genie.

      Reagan didn’t get the nomination in 1976.

    2. You never know, there’s still a chance that Hillary will be wearing and orange jumpsuit, not a pants suit! With the revelation of immunity to one of Hillary’s peeps, that means the DoJ is involved; only they can agree to immunity, not the FBI. If the DoJ is involved then there was a criminal act, they are just leveraging a minor offense for solid evidence of a more substantial crime. They know their case must be solid three ways to Sunday before presenting it to the public.

      1. Is he turning blue?

        Jeff O, quit holding your breath. Breathe man! It isn’t going to happen. No matter how much we all wish for it, the only way to get Hillary indited is for someone other than Hillary or Trump to be elected. The current DoJ won’t do it. If/when Hillary is elected, Her DoJ is obviously not going to do it. If, somehow, Trump manages to get elected (which I don’t see as likely because he’s hitting as much as 67% unfavorable in some polls) he’s not likely to want to put his friend in jail. The only caveat there is if somehow Trump decides that promising to put Hillary in jail would get him some votes. Then, MAYBE, he might do it… Although trusting Trump to make good on ANYTHING is another “don’t hold your breath” type scenario as far as I’m concerned.

  9. Sanders was supposed to lose Michigan by 20%, and instead he won by 2%. I wonder if Sanders less strident stance on gun-control during the last debate had anything to do with that?

Comments are closed.