Gun-toting Progressives

Don't bring a gun to a Democratic Party Primary

Disturbingly, there has been a recent rash of pro-second amendment sentiment coming from a shocking number of usually reasonable liberals. Apparently, being ‘so progressive’ that you plan on voting for the perpetually lovable Mr. Sanders means you are willing to let firearms manufacturers, the gun lobby and the N.R.A. get away with pretending they don’t play a part in our country’s regularly scheduled mass-murders. 

To use an Obam-ism: ‘Let me be clear:’ No, I am not suggesting that Bernie Sanders is at all responsible for anyone’s death. What I am suggesting is that it becomes troublesome to tout his candidacy as being “the most progressive” when discussing his consistent stance on guns. While many may see Bernie Sanders’ unwavering position as proof of his candor and trustworthiness, personally, and I don’t think I’m alone, I’d be much more convinced of his qualifications to be president if he had humbly ‘flip-flopped’ on his stance in regard to gun-laws.

For more than 25 years, as Bernie has bounced around little Vermont’s State and local government, he has of course, being fervently liberal, supported laws that restrict and monitor the distribution of firearms within the state. While this is impressive seeing as how rural and pro-gun most of the state is, he has consistently not gone far enough. He voted against the most important gun legislation our country has ever successfully passed (the Brady Bill, see previous posts,) suggesting that a seven day waiting period is too long to wait for a background check because individuals purchasing guns “would get caught up in a bureaucracy when all they wanted to do was go for target practice or something.” Just last month Sanders was publicly acknowledged by the N.R.A. who praised him saying that he was “spot-on in his comments about gun-manufacturer liability.”

When he first announced his candidacy for the democratic nomination in the 2016 Presidential election, many people  assumed that he would play politics appropriately and retreat from the gun-friendly positions he had to take in order to be elected in a state like Vermont. But as the months have passed us by, there has been no sign that he plans on adopting the proudly anti-gun positions held by most on the Left. The N.R.A., through gun lobbyists, have assumed such incredible influence over such a significant portion of politicians willing to take pay-offs and bend to their will, that passing any kind of “comprehensive” or even “common-sense” gun-control legislation has become impossible. According to the BBC there were 372 mass-shootings in the United States in 2015, resulting in nearly 500 deaths and nearly 2,000 injured (not counting the thousands of incidents that don’t qualify as mass shootings.) One might think that there would be enough attention and outrage to incite some very drastic changes to our gun-laws. But with the N.R.A., gun manufacturers and the gun lobby doing everything in their power to silence opposition and drum up support from the gun-toting members of our “Civilian Militia”, any mention of reform is snuffed from our national consciousness just days after yet another shooting occurs. 

Considering how effective their pro-gun marketing campaign is and how lethal the results have proven to be time and time again, those of us who can no longer see a good reason for ANY civilian to legally own a gun, must use every weapon in our non-lethal arsenal. That means shutting down gun dealers just like the Right has been so successfully shutting down Planned Parenthood clinics. (MY religious beliefs do not condone any distribution of fire-arms whatsoever.) It also means holding the manufacturers, and the organizations responsible for supporting them, accountable for every death caused by their products. Just recently, Sanders has been quoted as saying: 

“If you go to a store and you legally purchase a gun, and three days later you go out and start killing people, is the point to hold the gun shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable? If that’s the point, I disagree... If they are selling a product to a person who buys it legally, what you’re talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America.” 

In fact, that’s exactly what we’re talking about, but why isn’t he? Considering his favorite talking-points revolve around breaking down large financial institutions and preventing corporations from having any influence in politics and the government, one might think that he’d be staunchly opposed to anything that would promote the infamous and all-powerful gun-lobby’s agenda. Although, I suppose it wouldn’t be a real “Revolution” without arming the troops.