Bernie Sanders wants to ‘bring us to the middle’ on guns cnn.com‘s headline proclaims. And what middle might that be? “If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about,” Sanders told Jake Tapper. Fair enough! Only leaving gunmakers alone doesn’t mean leaving gun owners alone . . .
But he touted several other votes, pointing to his support for banning semi-automatic weapons, for instant background checks for gun owners and for doing away with loopholes that allow buyers at gun shows to skirt some regulations.
He said there’s a major difference between Vermont, a rural state with little gun control where hunting is a way of life, and cities like Chicago, where guns are used by gangs.
You may be surprised to learn – or not – that this “gun control for big cities, firearms freedom for rural folks” proposition is the exact same position staked out by Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush. Just thought I’d mention that. Anyway, talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time is a prerequisite for a politician. Here’s an awesome example of the Senator’s skill:
“Folks who do not like guns is fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country — 99.9% of those people obey the law,” Sanders said. “I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle.”
Note to Sanders: there is no middle. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand – other than the bit which loses you support amongst members of the Democratic Party committed to civilian disarmament? Which would be — statistically speaking — all of them.