Pittsburgh Export Se.: Fill & Download for Free

Ok lets take this point by point shall we?Columbine.Sandy Hook.Charleston.Pulse.Las Vegas.Parkland.Pittsburgh.Now El Paso. Dayton.Starting off strong with a plea to emotion rather than on merits, or what people want.These are just a few of the names etched into the American consciousness, synonymous with senseless loss and enduring grief.It’s been a week since these latest attacks, and on average every day 100 people are killed in the U.S. by a gun — in shootings that occur in our homes, on our streets, at our playgrounds.Fact check. No these people are killed by people, not guns. And more than 2/3 are by themselves. Not exactly the picture she was painting with her emotional appeal in the previous section. Lieing and false framing to the audience, another point against warren. Because if the facts or even the audience are on your side you dont need to decieve like this.The victims are our neighbors and our friends. Someone’s mother, someone’s child, someone’s sibling.Half true but statistically I'd like to point out that women are rarely shot. Instead it's almost exclusively men so it should have been stated as fathers, sons and brothers. Attempting to gender this as a female issue is deceptive and immoral.There is no shortage of horrifying statistics about our gun violence epidemic.Our firearm homicide rate is 25 times higher than other comparable countries.Again, she gave a half truth, in order to make it seem like America is far worse off than it is with framing, and decietful comparisons. We have a fraction the rate of our southern neighbor mexico (which is according to the UN is also an industrialized nation) and only 4-5 times the rate of nations like Canada and Germany.Even if it were true the framing of question is decietful as it tries to make a comparison by the most extreme example, then further fails to address how much is justifiable homicide (see personal defense) and the rate of overall violence and homicide of these nations as well. And it also fails to address three major questions. First, whether their “stricter laws" were the cause their lower firearm homicide rate, or if it was more a result of their cultural homogeny, geography, or other factors. Second if such laws affected the overall rate of violence and homicide in those nations. And third, and most importantly if such laws would have the effect being claimed here in America.Even then trying to compare country like the US, where the minority populations approaching 50%, to nations like those like Brittian and France where the population is over 90% ethnicly identical, and who have different cultutal, economic and philosophical histories is disingenuous to begin with.Or to compare nations like Luxembourg and Portugal to the third most populous nation on this planet is absurd. We fought a revolution specifically to not be a part of Europe and to form our own nation. There were reasons for that. There still are.Considering 80% of our homicide is gang related and most of that is connected to our southern neighbor (which we insulate our northern neighbor from), this lie is particularly awful.Our firearm suicide rate is nearly 10 times higher.Again. Full stop. Completly disingenuous framing.According to google america has a 13.7/100000 for suicide. Japan is at 14.3, finland is at 13.8, Belgium is at 15.7, Lithuania is at 25.7. Overall europe is at 15.4. All higher than america's rate. If guns were the problem our number would be over a 40Women in the U.S. are 21 times more likely to be shot to death than women in other high-income countries, most killed by an intimate partner.But are they more likely to die over all? Does it really make it worse that they are shot rather than beheaded? Stoned to death? Or just beaten as in other countries? Shes painting a picture that is simply not true.21 children and teenagers are shot every day.False framing, an 18 year old is an adult in the USA, most of these shootings are gang related and would not be affected in any meaningful way by gun control. Trying to say its children who are the victims while lumping in adults into the numbers and ignoring that its mostly gang members shooting each other is disingenuous at best.The list goes on.Yes im certain she could lie to us more. Shes a politician after all.And while the majority of Americans — including a majority of gun owners — support sensible gun legislation, even the most basic proposals, like universal background checks, are consistently blocked by far-right ideologues in Congress who are bought and paid for by the gun industry, their NRA partners, and a supporting army of lobbyists and lawyers100% False.They are blocked by everyone who actually reads your proposed laws and finds them to be much different from what is promised or polled for. Meaning they are a defacto ban on any private transfers, which includes letting people borrow them at the range, letting your children use them to hunt, or even your spouse grabbing your gun out of the safe because a burglar broke in in the middle of the night. What is polled on and what is proposed are so terribly different that no one is willing to support the laws. and thats not even getting in to the overreach that is always included in the laws.DeceptionFaced with a complex and entrenched public health crisis,Health crisis? I thought we were talking about gun crimes, an inherent crime and justice issue. Not health one.Outright liesmade worse by the ongoing inability of a corrupt government to do anything about it,A corrupt government that she has been a central leader in for decades.it’s easy to despair. But we are not incapable of solving big problems. We’ve done it before.Yes through ignoring you and passing things like concealed carry laws our crime has halved since the early 90s. And continued to drop after we let the failure that was our last assault weapon ban expire.In 1965, more than five people died in automobile accidents for every 100 million miles traveled. It was a massive crisis. As a nation, we decided to do better. Some things were obvious: seatbelts, safer windshields, and padded dashboards. Other things only became clear over time: things like airbags and better brake systems. But we made changes, we did what worked, and we kept at it. Over fifty years, we reduced per-mile driving deaths by almost 80% and prevented 3.5 million automobile deaths. And we’re still at it.Absolutely irrelevant. And misleading. Many of those deaths were stopped by safety features like, as she pointed out putting in airbags. I dont know how you can realistically put airbags on bullets. Nor do i think it would do much good at 850-4000 feet per second. Safety features wont reduce non-justified gun homicides. Though it may drop the justified number a bit.In 2017, almost 40,000 people died from guns in the United States.Most by suicides, many studies have found that even removing guns does not stop suicide but rather merely changes the method. Not the result.My goal as President, and our goal as a society, will be to reduce that number by 80%. We might not know how to get all the way there yet.So you want to do something but have no idea how. Why are we voting for you again? As prior noted 2/3 are suicides, without addressing that you wont even start. Nothing you propose does that. And 80% of the remainder is from gang violence. Most could be stopped by simply enforcing the laws we have, stop pleading away gun charges, and focusing police work on inner city slums. But Warren and Democrats have, for decades, advocated against such policies and fought against them as racist. You cant fail hard enough to pass here.But we’ll start by implementing solutions that we believe will work.You mean by implementing the same failed laws like the 1994 awb which the federal commission found “no measurable impact on crime”? By wasting our time, money and efforts on things that do not work. At least the religious zelots are praying to something we cannot prove doesn't exist. When you are still worshiping these proven to be wrong policies, what does that say for you?We’ll continue by constantly revisiting and updating those solutions based on new public health research.So you admit what you are proposing is just the start and you're going to keep pushing for more and more till you achive youre adgenda. Sounds like you are advocating for slippery slope, not denying one.And we’ll make structural changes to end the ability of corrupt extremists to block our government from defending the lives of our people — starting with ending the filibuster.So you are planning on subverting the constitution, and silencing the people, because you dont like that they are stopping you from imposing your will upon the unconsenting masses? The president doesn't have that kind of power, and Warren is proposing literal facistic tyranny. America fight wars against that, not votes for it. If all were just that statement would have ended her political career.Here’s what that will look like.As president, I will immediately take executive action to rein in an out-of-control gun industry — and to hold both gun dealers and manufacturers accountable for the violence promoted by their products.Thats literally facismAnd you cant hold the manufacturer accountable for people misusing their products. Thats just crazy. That would be like holding GM accountable for vehicular homicide, DaimlerChrysler for drunken driving, and ford for auto accidents. You cant sue spoon manufacturers or ben and jerries for obesity.I will break the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress by passing sweeping anti-corruption legislation and eliminating the filibuster so that our nation can no longer be held hostage by a small group of well-financed extremists who have already made it perfectly clear that they will never put the safety of the American people first.Again the president has no power over congressional rules like the filibuster. the nra isnt even close to a top lobbying group, and they dont hire ex politicians for cushy jobs. Their power comes from their ability to harness and direct votes. No “anti corruption” laws will touch that. The people holding politicians hostage here are the voters. Thats called democracy.I will send Congress comprehensive gun violence prevention legislation.That will NEVER passI will sign it into law within my first 100 days.How? It wont pass. The president doesn't have supreme power here. Your cake is a lie.And we will revisit this comprehensive legislation every single year — adding new ideas and tweaking existing ones based on new data — to continually reduce the number of gun deaths in America.Again pointing out that everyone warning about slippery slope was right. Your just promising to keep banning more, and harassing gun owners till there are no guns left.Executive Action to Reduce Gun ViolenceReform advocates are engaged in a valuable discussion about gun reforms that can be achieved by executive action. We must pursue these solutions to the fullest extent of the law, including by redefining anyone “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms to include the vast majority of gun sales outside of family-to-family exchanges. This will extend requirements — not only for background checks, but all federal gun rules — to cover all of those sales. This includes:Again beyond executive action, harassing gun owners and not going to affect gun crime. Billy letting his buddy bobby borrow a gun to hunting with does not affect gun crime. And private sales are specifically protected from this under law. This is especially dangerous as a violation of the separation of powers and the power creep of the executive branch. She is an overt tyrant, she has no excuse, being a part of the government for decades, she knows what the limits of the office are.Requiring background checks. We will bring the vast majority of private sales, including at gun shows and online, under the existing background check umbrella.Copy and paste point gets a copy and paste response.Again beyond executive action, harassing gun owners and not going to affect gun crime. Billy letting his buddy bobby borrow a gun to hunting with does not affect gun crime. And private sales are specifically protected from this under law. This is especially dangerous as a violation of the separation of powers and the power creep of the executive branch. She is an overt tyrant, she has no excuse, being a part of the government for decades, she knows what the limits of the office are.Reporting on multiple purchases. We will extend the existing requirement to report bulk sales to nearly all gun sales. And I’ll extend existing reporting requirements on the mass purchase of certain rifles from the southwestern border states to all 50 states.And what purpose does this serve? Why are we wasting time and federal resources on this again. Are we starting another Fast and Furious scandal?Raising the minimum age. We will expand the number of sales covered by existing age restriction provisions that require the purchaser to be at least 18 years old, keeping guns out of the hands of more teenagers.All gun purchasers already need to be 18 or older. There are no exceptions. She needs to stop lieing. This is why no one trusts politicians.My administration will use all the authorities at the federal government’s disposal to investigate and prosecute all those who circumvent or violate existing federal gun laws. This includes:Largely beyond the federal scope of power. This is a state enforcement thing. And the federal authorities already do everything they have the power to do.Prosecuting gun traffickers. Gun trafficking across state linesGotta catch them first, again largely a state issue as the federal government cannot enforce state laws.allows guns to move from states with fewer restrictions to those with strict safety standards,Cant blame those who have the problem on those who dont. And you cannot restrict movement between states. Another violation of the constitution and other laws that she would have zero power to do. Further laws regulating grip style oplacemenet, and muzzle atachments aren't safety standards, they're pointless harrassing of gun owners.and gun trafficking across our southern border contributes to gang violenceIm sorry, isn't that what the government does? Otherwise why would we have had Operation Gun Walker sending literally thousands of guns acrossed the southern border to the cartells?that sends migrants fleeing north.That they walk thousands of miles through the deserts and forests that are the gangs territories entirly unprotected to get here. sorry that makes no sense. Our gun laws aren't harming other countries. Their gang and drug cartel problems are their own.I’ll instruct my Attorney General to go after the interstate and transnational gun trafficking trade with all the resources of the federal government.as opposed to committing this trafficking? A fine turn around of government policy.Revoking licenses for gun dealers who break the rules. Only 1% of gun dealers are responsible for 57% of guns used in crimes. My Administration will direct the ATF to prioritize oversight of dealers with serial compliance violations — and then use its authority to revoke the license of dealers who repeatedly violate the rules.Already the law, already the action.Investigating the NRA and its cronies. The NRA is accused of exploiting loopholes in federal laws governing non-profit spending to divert member dues into lavish payments for its board members and senior leadership. I’ll appoint an attorney general committed to investigating these types of corrupt business practices,Ok, so maaaaaaaybe a single point of common ground.and the banks and third-party vendors — like Wells Fargo — that enabled the NRA to skirt the rules for so long.And she lost it. the banks cannot tell anyone, not even non profits and lobyist groups, what they can and cannot do with their own .money its clear she’s just trying to weaponize the government against political opponents and any who dare to work with them in any fassion. Can you say tyranny.To protect the most vulnerable, my administration will use ATF’s existing regulatory authority to the greatest degree possible, including by:Protecting survivors of domestic abuse. We will close the so-called “boyfriend loophole” by defining intimate partner to include anyone with a domestic violence conviction involving any form of romantic partner.Um.. what nonsense is this? The girlfriend loophole is where the ex-con has his girlfriend buy a gun for him. I assume the boyfriend loophole is the same thing just renamed to try to exculpiate the woman doing the purchase. Either way its a straw purchase and unlawful under the law already.Reversing the Trump administration’s efforts to weaken our existing gun rules. We will rescind the Trump-era rules and policies that weaken our gun safety regime, including rules that lower the standards for purchasing a gun,You mean when he reversed the obama era restrictions on people whos only crime was needing help with finances? How dare the people use accountants and tax firms.and those that make it easier to create untraceable weapons or modify weapons in ways that circumvent the law.Again the law explicitly allows people to make their own guns. Its been this way since 1776. Not a trump era policy.This includes overturning Trump-era policies enabling 3-D printed guns, regulating 80% receivers as firearms, and reversing the ATF ruling that allows a shooter to convert a pistol to a short-barreled rifle using pistol braces.Our right to move data and information is enshrined in our first amendment. The atf ruling is an obama era ruling, not a trump policy. And making your own guns has been legal since before were a country. the misinformation is thick here.Restrict the movement of guns across our borders. We will reverse the Trump administration’s efforts to make it easier to export U.S.-manufactured weapons by transferring exports of semi-automatic firearms and ammunition from the State Department to the Commerce Department, and we will prevent the import of foreign-manufactured assault weapons into the United States.Wait, you want to make it harder for legal businesses to legally export legal products in a legal way to people legally allowed to get them in foreign countries?Fine but dont get upset when people rightly point out that you are anti-business.The shooting in El Paso also reminds us that we need to call out white nationalism for what it is: domestic terrorism.And the one in dayton teaches us the terrorism is as much perpetrated by left wing fanatics and spurred on by a one sided media stoking increasing political divides and glorifying violent actors like anti-faInstead of a president who winks and nods as white nationalism gets stronger in this country, we need a president who will use all the tools available to prevent it. It is completely incompatible with our American values, it is a threat to American safety and security, and a Warren Justice Department will prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law.Again its an equally large problem on the left as it is on the right, will you enforce this evenly on both sides? Your rhetoric makes me think not. These uneven rules and selective enforcement are why we have this problem to begin with.Structural Changes to Pass Gun Safety LegislationThe next president has a moral obligation to use whatever executive authority she has to address the gun crisis.You you've already delcared victory and proclaimed the next President will be a woman, not trump, becareful thats the same arrogance that put trump in the white house to begin with.But it is obvious that executive action is not enough. Durable reform requires legislationSeing as how much of what you proposed is either unconstitutional or misdirected i comend you for at least getting this right. Any change at this point will require legislation. And the population at large opposes yours.— but right now legislation is impossible.Because the american people dont want more, stricter gun control. They oppose what you are proposing and more importantly vote out those who push your policies senator Warren.Why? A virulent mix of corruption and abuse of power.Only if by that you mean its unpopular and people vote accordingly.Big money talks in Washington. And the NRA represents a particularly noxious example of Washington corruption at work.This oughta be goodOver the last two decades, the NRA has spent over $200 million on lobbying Congress,so… nra spent about $10 million a year… as opposed to:$95 million, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2018 alone$73 million, National Association of Realtors in 2018 alone$28 million, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in 2018 aloneIn fact, Pharmaceutical groups together are spending heavily to influence public opinion and policy as rising drug prices become an increasingly mainstream political talking point. The industry claimed the top spot among lobbying spenders in 2018 — roughly $280 million — with no other industry coming close.$31.5 million Open Society Policy Center (aka George Soros' political slush fund) in 2018 aloneIn fact, Every firm in the top 10 has been around a long time with the exception of the Trump-tied Ballard Partners. The group took in more than $18 million last year despite being launched in 2017. More than doubling the NRA'S contribution.influencing elections, and buying off politicians — and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The NRA spends millions poisoning our political discourse with hateful, conspiracy-fueled propaganda, blocking even modest reforms supported by 90% of American voters.Fake news. already addressed. They dont block popular things instead they just incessantly point out your bait and switch on these things.In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, the American people rallied for reform. President Obama suggested several serious legislative changes.Which even proponents admitted wouldnt have prevented the shooting.The Senate voted down an assault weapons ban.Because that is an absurdly unpopular topic and very few want another unpopular awb in this country. Knowing this even your fellow Democrats voted this down for fear of unemployment. again thats democracy.It rejected background checks proposal, even though 54 Senators from both parties voted for it, because of a right-wing-filibuster. These were the bare minimum steps we needed to take. And six years later, Congress still hasn’t done anythingAnd were rewarded by the public by being put into the majority in both houses of congress and the presidency not playing too well on your “its popular” argument.This pattern repeats itself throughout our government. When money and influence can override the will of a huge majority of Americans, that is corruption, pure and simple.I agree we should work to eliminate corruption. But you have just proven yourself unreliable on doing so by conflating the democratic process with corruption and declaring an effective non-actor the greatest villian of all time. youve been on the take from this corruption for decades, you have not a leg to stand on here.It’s time to fight back. I have proposed the most sweeping set of anticorruption reforms since Watergate — a set of big structural changes that includes ending lobbying as we know it and slamming shut the revolving door. My first priority when I’m elected President is to enact this package to get our government working for everyone againThe topic of the post was gun control. This is creeping too far beyond the question of the op.But anti-corruption legislation alone won’t be enough to get gun safety legislation done.Ok you aren't fooling anyone here. You can call it gun safety, but we all know it has nothing to do with safety. But rather just more gun control and gun bans. changing the name because people know what it means and genuinly hate it doesn't change that people hate it.After decades of inaction, Democrats have rallied behind a number of important gun reforms. If we continue to allow bought and paid for extremists in the Senate to thwart the will of the people, we will never enact any of them.Bought and paid for by the votes of the 1 in 3 americans who admit to pollsters have a gun, and vote accordingly?Enough is enough. Lasting gun reform requires the elimination of the filibuster.Because you cannot convince us to give you what you want, we must eliminate our democratic establishments and seperation of powers so you can just take and impose what you want? Thats whats known as tyranny. No thank you.Legislation to Reduce Gun ViolenceWhen I am president, I will send Congress comprehensive legislation containing our best ideas about what will work to reduce gun violence.You mean your ideas, they differ extremely from “our ideas”, and what the american population wants. And noting this I highly doubt it will work to do anything but ensure a republican majority in government for as long as we all live.It starts by ensuring that safe, responsible ownership is the standard for everyone who chooses to own a gun. We’ll do that by:Creating a federal licensing system. States with strict licensing requirements experience lower rates of gun trafficking and violence. A license is required to drive a car, and Congress should establish a similarly straightforward federal licensing system for the purchase of any type of firearm or ammunition.Nope. no way. ever. there will be no license to practice a right in This country. There will be no licence, and there will be no tax. You have already proven far, far, far too much bad faith to even ever consider this. No way. Ever.Requiring universal background checks. I’ll expand background checks via executive action — but Congress should act to permanently mandate universal background checks. And I’ll push Congress to close the so-called “Charleston loophole” that allows a sale to proceed after three days even if the background check is not complete.Again unconstitutional. And no f-ing way.Also THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE! Stop lying to us! If you need to lie we clearly dont want or need what you are trying to thrust onto us.Increasing taxes on gun manufacturers. Since 1919, the federal government has imposed an excise tax on manufacturers and importers of guns and ammunition. Handguns are taxed at 10% and other guns and ammunition are taxed at 11%. These taxes raise less in revenue than the federal excise tax on cigarettes, domestic wine, or even airline tickets. It’s time for Congress to raise those rates — to 30% on guns and 50% on ammunition — both to reduce new gun and ammunition sales overall and to bring in new federal revenue that we can use for gun violence prevention and enforcement of existing gun laws.So clearly people dont want this, its highly unpopular and likely unconstitutional. you cant get what you want through traditional means so you want to tax it out of our hands and keep it only in the hands of the wealthy. You cannot tax right. We will not tolerate this tyrany.Establishing a real waiting period. Waiting periods prevent impulsive gun violence, reducing gun suicides by 7–11% and gun homicides by 17%. Over the past 5 years, a national handgun waiting period would have stopped at least 4,550 gun deaths. The federal government should establish a one-week waiting period for all firearm purchases.So all this for 900 a year, which will probably just change their method, not results? I'll pass.Capping firearms purchases. About one out of four of firearms recovered at the scene of a crime were part of a bulk purchase. Congress should limit the number of guns that can be purchased to one per month, similar to a Virginia law that successfully reduced the likelihood of Virginia-bought guns being used in criminal activity.Citation needed, because this is bullshit. 9 out of 10 firearms used in crimes are obtained through criminal means, most through gangs waiting periods solve nothing.Creating a new federal anti-trafficking law. Congress should make clear that trafficking firearms or engaging in “straw purchases” — when an individual buys a gun on behalf of a prohibited purchaser — are federal crimes. This would give law enforcement new tools to crack down on gun trafficking and help keep guns out of the wrong hands.Already the law.Raising the minimum age for gun purchases. I’ll extend existing age requirements to virtually all sales, but federal law is currently conflicting — for example, a person must be 21 to purchase a handgun from a federally licensed dealer, but only 18 to purchase a rifle. Congress should set the federal minimum age at 21 for all gun sales.So we restrict the rights of adults, who are old enough to vote, enlist in the military and marry because? Because I dont think this does anything but try to keep people from guns longer. Its likely unconstitutional, unreasonable and foolish.We can also do more to keep military-style assault weapons off our streets. We’ll do that by:Military assault weapons arent legally on our streets. Only civilian weapons. Your red herring is poorly constructed.Passing a new federal assault weapons ban.Because the last one failed so well.The 1994 federal assault weapons ban successfully reduced gun deathsNo it didn't, by the comissions own admission it had no measurable impact on crime. And the first mass shooting you listed occured during that ban.but was allowed to expire ten years later.Yes because it was unpopular and had no effect.Congress should again ban the future production, sale, and importation of military-style assault weapons, and require individuals already in possession of assault weapons to register them under the National Firearms Act. Just as we did successfully with machine guns after the passage of that law, we should establish a buyback program to allow those who wish to do so to return their weapon for safe disposal, and individuals who fail to register or return their assault weapon should face penalties.No it should not be reimplimented. And the Hughes amendment points to exactally why there will be no registration. We remember the nfa, we remember the hughes amendment, we will not go through that again.Banning high-capacity ammunition magazines. High-capacity magazines were used in 57% of mass shootings from 2009 to 2015, allowing the shooters to target large numbers of people without stopping to reload. Congress should enact a federal ban on large-capacity magazines for all firearms, setting reasonable limits on the lethality of these weapons.And used in 100% in self defense situtations. Used by 100% of cops. Has no effect (it was part of the 1994 awb and didnt work, because the guns arent the problem.Prohibiting accessories that make weapons more deadly. Gun manufacturers sell increasingly deadly gun accessories, including silencers, trigger cranks, and other mechanisms that increase the rate of fire or make semi-automatic weapons fully automatic. Congress should ban these dangerous accessories entirely.Parts that make semi autos full auto are already illegal, accessories like grips or barrel shrouds dont make a gun more deadly and dishonest made up crap like this is why there can be no discussion on this topic. Stop lying and misinforming so we can have an honest conversation.We should also do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of those at highest risk of violence. We’ll do that by:Im listeningPassing extreme risk protection laws. Extreme risk protection orders allow families and law enforcement to petition to temporarily restrict access to firearms for individuals in crisis or at elevated risk of harming themselves or others. Congress should pass a federal extreme risk law and create a grant system to incentivize states to enact their own laws that clearly define extreme risk.And im done. No f-ing way am I letting you strip me of my rights without due process. The way these laws are made they are too costly, burdensome and unfair to the accused with absolutly no safeguards to prevent abuse. They violate every tennant of our constitution and are absolutely intolerable.Prohibiting anyone convicted of a hate crime from owning a gun.Already the law. Stop straw manning.Too often, guns are used in acts of mass violence intended to provoke fear in minority communities; more than 10,000 hate crimes involve a gun every year. Any individual convicted of a hate crime should be permanently prohibited from owning a gun, full stop.Except there arent that many hate crimes every year. Strawman argumentProtecting survivors of domestic abuse. Domestic violence and gun violence are deeply connected — in an average month, more than 50 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner. I’ll close the boyfriend loophole, but Congress should make that permanent, and expand the law to include individuals with restraining orders or who have been convicted of stalking.Already addressed this strawman paragraphs ago. There is no loophole, she has shelters to go to, and abusers of both genders are pieces of shit. Oh and studies have repeatedly found that women are the abuser 80% of the time.Securing our schools. Parents shouldn’t have to buy bullet-proof backpacks for their children — guns have no place on our campuses or in our schools. Congress should improve the Gun-Free School Zones Act to include college and university campuses, and apply to individuals licensed by a state or locality to carry a firearm.No guns on school campus since a 1993 federal law. It got 10 times worse since then, maybe we should look at repealing that failed policy, not doubling down. Also we shouldnt be depriving adults of Their rights just because they go to a place to learn. no dice.If we want real, long-lasting change, we must also hold the gun industry accountable, including online sites that look the other way when sellers abuse their platforms. We’ll do that by:Already addressed this, no, not gonna let you bog down gun manufacturers with frivolous lawsuits just because you dont like them and the broke no laws.Repealing the Potection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Nearly every other industry has civil liability as a check on irresponsible actions, but a 2005 law insulates firearms and dealers from civil liability when a weapon is used to commit a crime, even in cases when dealers were shockingly irresponsible. No one should be above the law, and that includes the gun industry. Congress should repeal this law, immediately.Again no, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for the misuse of their products. The same goes for every industry, not just guns. Not gonna allow the repeal here and would do nothing even if it was repealed.Holding gun manufacturers strictly liable for the harm they cause through a federal private right of action.Again no. manufactures cannot be held liable for misuse of their productsGun manufacturers make billions in profit by knowingly selling deadly products.Isnt that the point of a gun? Or a weapon in general. they broke no laws you cannt fault them.Then they are let completely off the hook when people take those deadly products and inflict harm on thousands of victims each year.Again not their fault criminals commit crimes and misuse their products.State tort law already recognizes that certain types of products and activities are so abnormally dangerous that the entities responsible for them should be held strictly liable when people are injured.Only when its built with a fault or flaw. Neither exists with guns. The bullet exiting the gun is the feature, not a flaw.Congress should codify that same principle at the federal level for guns by creating a new private right of action allowing survivors of gun violence to hold the manufacturer of the weapon that harmed them strictly liable for compensatory damages to the victim or their family.Again no, not opening up the door to frivolous law suits so you can sue out of business those whom you cannot ban.Strengthening ATF. The NRA has long sought to hobble the ATF, lobbying against staffing and funding increases for the agency and getting its congressional allies to impose absurd restrictions on its work even as the agency struggled to meet its basic responsibilities. Congress should fully fund ATF’s regulatory and compliance programs and remove the riders and restrictions that prevent it from doing its job.Because it has for too long abused its power and been overly corrupt and unaccountable. Have you forgotten ruby ridge already?Regulating firearms for consumer safety. Today there are no federal safety standards for firearms produced in the United States. We can recall unsafe products from trampolines to children’s pajamas — but not defective guns. Congress should repeal the provision of law that prevents the Consumer Product Safety Commission from regulating the safety of firearms and their accessories.All lies, there are safety standards. They're just in place for the guy behind the buttstock, not for the one at the end of the barrel For obvious reasons. Changing who has the power to regulate because you dont like the regulations (because they actually let things onto the market) is an obvious subverting of the law and consititution.Tightening oversight for gun dealers. Today there is no requirement for federally-licensed gun shops to take even simple steps to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. Congress should pass basic safety standards for federally-licensed gun dealers, including employee background checks, locked cabinets, and up-to-date inventories of the weapons they have in stock.Wrong. Lies. Has she not a single honest shread in her existance? Gun stores have to keep inventory, immaculate records and thousands of regulations. the atf checks othese all regularly and with surprise visits.Holding gun industry CEOs personally accountable. I’ve proposed a law that would impose criminal liability and jail time for corporate executives when their company is found guilty of a crime or their negligence causes severe harm to American families — and that includes gun industry CEOs.Already the law, or else not compatibale with existance. Thise responsible go to jail. Those who arent dont. You dont just get to imprison people because they run a business you dont like. usipeTragedies like the shootings we witnessed in El Paso and Dayton capture our attention and dominate the conversation about gun reform. But they’re just the tip of the iceberg of gun violence in America. Everyday, we lose one hundred Americans to gun violence, with hundreds more physically injured and countless more mentally and emotionally traumatized. And Black and Latinx Americans have borne the brunt of the gun violence tragedy in our country.Again lies already addressed. Is she so uncreative that she cannot even make up new lies to ne debunked?In the past, those statistics have been used to justify increased policing and strict sentencing laws. Communities already traumatized by gun violence were doubly victimized by policies that locked up their young people and threw away the key.So now its wrong to lock up the criminals who commit murder?We’ve got a chance to show that we’ve learned from the past and to chart a new path. It starts by acknowledging that gun violence is a public health crisis, one that cannot be solved solely by the criminal justice system.Again no it is not, it is a crime problem. stop blaming bullet wounds on bacteria.We can start to do that by investing in evidence-based community violence intervention programs.Evidence based. In other words the exact opposite of what you propose.Federal grant funding today focuses significantly on law enforcement and incarceration,Because they work.rather than interventions designed to stop gun violence before it occursMinority report is fiction. We cannot see the future.. The data in urban communities indicate that the majority of violence is perpetrated by a small number of offenders,A small number of individuals who, if removed, leave the community crimeless. Yet you have worked to undermine the efforts to remove them and what is the result? More crime, more death, and the Marjorie-Stoneman Douglas highschool shooting. Your policies created our criseese.and many cities have found success with programs that identify those at highest risk of becoming the victim or perpetrator of a violent gun crime, then employing strategies to interrupt the cycle of violence before it escalates.Like they did in Marjorie-Stonman Douglas?Programs that engage the surrounding community, employ mediation to prevent retaliation, build trust with law enforcement, and provide needed long-term social services have been proven to de-escalate tensions and dramatically reduce violence. As president, I’ll establish a grant program to invest in and pilot these types of evidence-based intervention programs at scale.So we can have more mass shootings? No thanks.Annual Research and Annual ReauthorizationHistorically, when Congress works to address big national issues, we don’t simply pass one law and cross our fingers.Since when? Seriously since when ever? And why dont you take the results of those studies into account before proposing another, say, assault weapons ban?Instead, we continue the research — into new policies and around the consequences of our existing policies — and then come back on a regular basis to update the lawBwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!Theres no way shes serious this basically never happens in government.We don’t do this with guns.To be fair we basically dont do this with anything.Not only have we not passed meaningful legislation in almost a generation, but thanks to the NRA, for decades Congress prohibited federal funding from being used to promote gun safety at all,Ok so… why are federal funds being used to promote partisan political issue that are unpopular?effectively freezing nearly all research on ways to reduce gun violence.Nope just prohibited propaganda. Research was still 100% allowedLast year, Congress finally clarified that the CDC could in fact conduct gun violence research — but provided no funding to do so.Actually that was 6 years ago, and they did plenty of research anyway. Including in the years right after the dickie amendment.This ends when I’m President. My budget will include an annual investment of $100 million for DOJ and HHS to conduct research into the root causes of gun violence and the most effective ways to prevent it, including by analyzing gun trafficking patterns, and researching new technologies to improve gun safety. These funds will also be used to study the reforms we enact — to see what’s working, what new ideas should be added, and what existing policies should be tweaked. And every year, I will send Congress an updated set of reforms based on this new information. That’s how we’ll meet our goal.And where will this money come from again? We have a trillion dollar deficit already.The conversation about gun violence in America is shiftingYeah, not in your favor though.— but not just because we’ve seen a spike in violence fueled by the NRA and the Trump administration’s dangerous policies and extremist rhetoric. It’s also because of the tireless work of activists, organizers, and community leaders who have been fighting for reform at the state and local level.You mean the big funded movements by dark political money, egged on by a one sided partisan media. And the “spiking violence” seems to be coming from left wing activist groups, dressed in black, attacking journalists, bystanders and everyone else they see. It's causing people to join the NRA and arm up.If you need proof that the majority of Americans support common sense gun reform, look at what’s happening in state legislatures and city councils across the country. Moms, students, and faith leaders have been packing hearing rooms and taking back spaces formerly reserved for NRA lobbyists. Survivors of mass shootings are doing the critical work of turning our attention to the daily gun violence in cities that doesn’t make headlines.And failing miserably to achieve anything of substance except create backlash.And it’s working. States that pass expanded background checks see lower rates of gun-related deaths and gun trafficking. States that disarm domestic abusers see lower rates of intimate partner gun violence. States with extreme risk laws have been successful in reducing gun suicides and have used them to prevent potential mass shootings. Community-based violence intervention programs are popping up in cities across the country.Which would be nice if literally any of that were true. But unfortunately the laws led no again measurable change in the crimes.Together, we can build on this momentum. We can build a grassroots movement to take back the Senate, eliminate the filibuster, and pass federal gun safety legislation that will save lives. And from the White House, I’ll make sure that the NRA and their cronies are held accountable with executive action. If we turn our heartbreak and our anger into action, I know we can take the power from the NRA and the lawmakers in their pockets and return it to the people.You lost senate seats because of this stuff. you have no momentum. the only democrat gains were made by moderates who opposed all of this.Warren is a fraud who went to college on a minority scholarship, and claimed to be native american despote having effectively nolineage with anytribe. This article is just more proff that she is incapable of honesty.Im just glad im finally at the end of the article. the bullcrap was heavy in this one.

Socialism wasn’t actually tried out in Venezuela; instead, the Bolivarian revolution attempted to introduce a populist form of social democracy.Here is how one commentator (Daniel Kovalik, a human rights lawyer) described the result:===========================I just returned from observing my fourth election in Venezuela in less than a year. Jimmy Carter has called Venezuela’s electoral system “the best in the world,” and what I witnessed was an inspiring process that guarantees one person, one vote, and includes multiple auditing procedures to ensure a free and fair election.I then came home to the United States to see the inevitable “news” coverage referring to Venezuela as a “dictatorship” and as a country in need of saving. This coverage not only ignores the reality of Venezuela, it ignores the fact that the U.S. is the greatest impediment to democracy in Venezuela, just as the U.S. has been an impediment to democracy throughout Latin America since the end of the 19th century.Prior to the Venezuelan presidential election on May 20 — an election which included an opposition candidate, Henri Falcon, from the business community — the U.S. government announced that it would not recognize the outcome, no matter who won. The U.S. had gone so far as to threaten Mr. Falcon with sanctions if he even ran in the election. The U.S. also threatened further economic sanctions on Venezuela if incumbent leftist Nicolas Maduro won — sanctions that even Mr. Falcon’s economic adviser has said were leading to the collapse of the Venezuelan economy. President Donald Trump kept to his promise in this regard, announcing more onerous sanctions the day after the election, which will further immiserate the Venezuelan people.Meanwhile, while members of the more radical, right-wing opposition had themselves been calling for presidential elections and had agreed to hold them in May, the U.S. leaned on them to back out of this deal before it was signed. Following this, the radical opposition, backed by the U.S., called for people to boycott the vote.The result was that Mr. Maduro won in a landslide. But it was not only the boycott — observed mostly in wealthier communities, as I witnessed — that won the day for Mr. Maduro. There were other reasons you will never hear about in the U.S. press.First, the true patriots of Venezuela, not surprisingly, resent the United States’ devastating economic sanctions as well its constant call for regime change. Some U.S. officials even talk of military intervention to overthrow Mr. Maduro. In part, the vote for Mr. Maduro was a vote against U.S. meddling in the affairs of Venezuela.In addition, despite the real hardships in Venezuela — for which the U.S. is largely to blame — most of Venezuela’s poor are better off now than they were before the Bolivarian Revolution of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. For example, over the past 7 years, the government has built 2 million units of housing for low-income Venezuelans. In a country of only some 30 million people, these units are now home to a large proportion of the Venezuelan population. The current government also has provided free health care and subsidized food.Before Chavez, the sprawling poor barrios which ring the cities were literally not on any government maps, and they had no utilities and no election centers. After Chavez, the existence of these barrios was recognized for the first time, and they were provided with utilities, health service, election stations and, most important, dignity. Chavez even started a world-class music program which has now provided 1 million underprivileged children with music education. One graduate of this program, Gustavo Dudamel, is now considered one of the greatest conductors in the world!Grateful for a government on their side and flouting U.S. extortion, the poor came out to vote in large numbers for Mr. Maduro. These are the same poor, by the way, who came down from the mountains in 2002 to demand the return of Hugo Chavez to power after he was overthrown in a U.S.-backed coup and kidnapped.But you never hear the voices of these poor people in the U.S. press. You never hear their side of the story, how they have benefitted from the Bolivarian Revolution and how desperately they do not want to go back to how things were before.While they have been given a voice in Venezuela, it remains muzzled in this country, and by a press which passes off pro-intervention and pro-war propaganda as journalism. It is no wonder the United States continues to careen into one disastrous military adventure after another.Daniel Kovalik teaches international human rights at the University of Pittsburgh Law School. His most recent book is “The Plot to Attack Iran.”The Real Venezuela Is Not What You Think======================And here is an article by a Venezuelan socialist that explains more fully why socialism hasn’t been tried out in Venezuela:=======================AS A Spanish teacher at a university in Portland, Oregon, I've had three students who randomly comment on the tragedy of socialism in Venezuela in the course of the last month:"Aren't you from Venezuela?" one asked me."Yes, I am.""Is your family okay? I've been hearing a lot about people being killed by the socialist dictator."Similarly, at a public meeting of the ISO [International Socialists — RL] titled "The Case for Socialism," a member of the audience commented: "I really want to agree with all of this. But how can we have socialism and avoid what is happening in Venezuela?"This uptick in interest and concern about Venezuela should come as no surprise since the ever-deepening crisis and the latest wave of anti-government protests have featured prominently in the mainstream media.Since the election of the late President Hugo Chávez in 1998, it seemed like the Western media focused every few months on scenes of protest and chaos, involving crowds of young, college-educated Venezuelans who saw middle-class living standards threatened by Chávez's left-wing political and economic agenda.The mainstream media almost never represented the poor majority of Venezuelans and the struggles they faced--either during Chávez's reign when their conditions improved and they took action in support of the government, or now when they bear the brunt of the economic and social crisis.Now, that crisis has been reaching new heights as rising inflation makes minimal wage increases irrelevant, food and medicine shortages threaten people's survival and well-being, and intensifying street violence and clashes between police and armed opposition groups contribute to a mood of fear and confusion.ALL THIS is being associated in people's minds with socialism since Chavez and Venezuela's current President Nicolás Maduro both embraced the project of building "socialism of the 21st century" in Venezuela, with the hopes of extending it regionally.In theory, this new version of socialism wouldn't follow the Russian or Cuban models from the 20th century, but would constitute a new project, based on the cooperation of the state, led by Chávez, and the people to build a mass democratic and egalitarian system.Eventually, an expansive network of local communes would gain representation in the state until the state itself became "a confederation of communal councils," as Chávez described it in the 2005 World Social Forum speech where he introduced his vision of "socialism of the 21st century."This implementation of popular democracy was to be the essence of the Bolivarian revolution, or at least one of its most important aspects. Many socialists in Venezuela and across the world went along with this new vision of socialism and theorized what it could mean for the future of socialism as a worldwide goal.But looking back more than a decade later, it's obvious that the spread and empowerment of communal councils fell far short of a national confederation--while the other "motors" of "socialism" that Chávez described, including laws enabling him to govern by decree in order to establish the conditions of popular participation, have become all the more dominant in the Maduro era.The U.S. media portray Venezuela as an oil-rich country that fell into the hands of a communist-style dictatorship allied with the Castro regime in Cuba. They link the horrible and indefensible conditions that Venezuelans are enduring today with the imposition of a socialist system by a dictatorship.By contrast, revolutionary socialists view what's happening in Venezuela not as a result of socialism failing, but as a consequence of the fact that it was never implemented. What we see in Venezuela is not the crisis of a socialist society, but rather an acute crisis of capitalism that is crystallizing across the region, whether in countries with a more free market-oriented system, or those like Venezuela with a more state-directed economy.Thus, the answer to the question "Did socialism fail in Venezuela?" depends on what we mean by socialism and how we see it being achieved.IN THE 1960s, the American socialist Hal Draper summarized the differences in how socialism is defined by contrasting two traditions: "socialism from below" versus "socialism from above."For Draper, "socialism from below" is the socialism of Karl Marx. Marx and Frederick Engels believed that the rise of capitalism made it possible for the first time in history to achieve a world free from scarcity and inequality, but only if the capitalist system--which puts profits ahead of people's needs, producing poverty, hunger and environmental catastrophe--is swept away and a new society, based on the collective power of workers, is built.Marx and Engels summed up this idea with the famous phrase: "[T]he emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves."The vision of socialism from below draws on the experiences of mass workers' struggles and revolutions, like the Russian Revolution of 1917, where a system of genuinely mass democracy was established through the system of workers' councils, representing working people at the grassroots of society.In his book Ten Days that Shook the World, John Reed the spirit of the workers councils, or "soviets":As all real socialists know, and as we who have seen the Russian Revolution can testify, there is today in Moscow and throughout all the cities and towns of the Russian land a highly complex political structure, which is upheld by the vast majority of the people and which is functioning as well as any newborn popular government ever functioned...No political body more sensitive and responsive to the popular will was ever invented. And this was necessary, for in time of revolution, the popular will changes with great rapidity."The contrast of this system with what Draper called "socialism from above" couldn't be clearer. At the time he was writing, his main argument was directed at the two most prominent forms of "socialism from above": social democracy, mostly dominant in Western Europe, and the so-called communist states of Russia, China and the Eastern bloc. As Draper wrote:These two self-styled socialisms are very different, but they have more in common than they think. The social democracy has typically dreamed of "socializing" capitalism from above. Its principle has always been that increased state intervention in society and economy is per se socialistic. It bears a fatal family resemblance to the Stalinist conception of imposing something called socialism from the top down, and of equating statification with socialism.Draper illustrated the difference between these different "souls" of socialism based on the question of who acts--a small minority or the vast majority in society:What unites the many different forms of Socialism-from-Above is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control in fact. The heart of Socialism-from-Below is its view that socialism can be realized only through the self-emancipation of activized masses in motion, reaching out for freedom with their own hands, mobilized "from below" in a struggle to take charge of their own destiny, as actors (not merely subjects) on the stage of history.BASED ON this understanding of socialism, it is impossible to identify Venezuela under Chávez as anything but a version of socialism from above. The origin of "socialism of the 21st century" in a speech by the president, with its first concrete steps handing more power to that president, is the very definition of "from above."Defenders of the Bolivarian revolution acknowledge, of course, the reality that the first steps have been taken by friendly managers of the state--but they go on to insist that these steps have been crucial to the development of grassroots projects from below advancing the level of democratic engagement. In a recent interview for the print edition of Jacobin magazine, Gregory Wilpert states:The fact is, historically, the government is oftentimes the main obstacle to revolution, right? But in Venezuela, suddenly you had a different kind of government, one that said: "Hey, you can create these communes, you can organize yourselves, and so on." Isn't that the government giving the tools to the people to participate in that revolution? To make their own revolution, in fact?Under this conception, Venezuela's network of communal councils should develop under the sponsorship of the state, but also in opposition to it, as a revolutionary movement from below--one that would need to challenge the state at any point that it becomes an obstacle to the development of communal power.This is a contradiction, to say the least, which can be seen in the very clear limitations on popular power in Venezula--especially when it comes to workers' power over their workplaces.The actual experience of the relationship between the government and working-class organization has been mixed, with the state picking and choosing which initiatives for workers' control it supported and which it didn't.For example, even at the high point of Chavismo a decade ago, the government rejected nationalization as an option for Sanitarios Maracay, a bathroom fixture manufacturer run under workers' control after the employer abandoned negotiations. When the employer succeeded in ousting the workers' occupation, the government refused to intervene--because the factory wasn't "strategic."And it must be remembered that even state-run enterprises, much less those under some real form of workers' control, have always been a minority in the Venezuelan economy. As Anderson Bean wrote in a recent SocialistWorker.org article:Despite its progressive language on participatory democracy and human rights, the 1999 Chavista constitution gives significant protection to private property in Article 15.In fact, between 1999 and 2011, the private sector's share of economic activity actually increased from 65 to 71 percent. The critical oil sector is dominated by a state-owned company, but other important industries, like food imports and processing operations, pharmaceuticals and auto parts, are still controlled by the private sector.The limitations on anything that could be called "popular power" are even more obvious today with the increasing authoritarianism of the Maduro government.But even under Chávez, economic and political power in Venezuela remained overwhelmingly in the hands of a corrupt capitalist elite and an increasingly bureaucratized state that was in a position to control the amount of popular power it was supposedly encouraging.Attempts at grassroots organizing through the communal network, though often very inspiring, remained subordinated to the bureaucracy. And meanwhile, the government, by simultaneously upholding and protecting privately owned industry, weakened its own position in conflicts with Venezuela's capitalists, particularly as the drop in oil prices hit Venezuela's oil export-based economy.THE CHÁVEZ government managed to do what no other leader of Venezuela has done. Using the oil revenues that swelled during the early years of the 2000s, it expanded social programs to provide health care for millions of poor Venezuelans, dramatically increased access to education and attempted to include historically marginalized sectors into the national political process.Additionally, Chávez's opposition to the U.S. and its neoliberal economic doctrines--openly expressed as opposition to capitalism--rightfully inspired millions of people around the world to reconsider socialism as a worthwhile project.These are achievements worth celebrating. But they don't add up to socialism because Chávez never let real power spread to the grassroots of society. Indeed, any initiatives for popular power depended, to receive any funding or support, on loyalty to the government. This kind of clientelist relationship with grassroots campaigns has nothing to do with genuine socialism.Once the boom in basic commodities ended, world oil prices plummeted, and the revenues used to expand social programs dried up, along with any leverage that the state had to hold Venezuela's private capitalists in check.The response of the Maduro administration has been to crack down on opposition, both from the right wing that has always opposed the government, but also supporters of Chavismo that dissent from Maduro's direction for society.This, too, must be completely rejected by revolutionaries. The fight for socialism should always stand for the expansion of democracy, not restrictions on it.With Maduro, the bureaucratic layer that had already emerged under Chávez seems to have consolidated and strengthened its hold over state resources. Not only is it clear that there is massive corruption among "Bolivarian bureaucrats," but this layer has failed to challenge the Venezuelan capitalist class--something that Maduro has shown with his continual overtures and concessions to private capitalists, even as he cracks down on democracy.Venezuela has remained a capitalist country, through and through, despite the social achievements of the last 18 years. What has failed is not socialism, but a system that has been capitalist in its economic and political domination by a minority over the majority.To the extent that Chávez proposed a strategy for achieving socialism in the future by accepting compromises with private capitalist control and the political rule of a minority acting on behalf of the masses of people, that, too, has been proven lacking.Relying on a minority, however well intentioned, to take over a capitalist state and reform the system into socialism has failed before. Socialism from above, in whatever form it takes, is not the successful shortcut we should keep trying.To inspire a new generation of socialists, we need to be able to explain what happened in Venezuela--and to re-raise the banner of socialism from below. As Draper writes at the close of his The Two Souls of Socialism:Since the beginning of society, there has been no end of theories "proving" that tyranny is inevitable and that freedom-in-democracy is impossible; there is no more convenient ideology for a ruling class and its intellectual flunkies. These are self-fulfilling predictions, since they remain true only as long as they are taken to be true. In the last analysis, the only way of proving them false is in the struggle itself. That struggle from below has never been stopped by the theories from above, and it has changed the world time and again. To choose any of the forms of Socialism-from-Above is to look back to the old world, to the "old crap." To choose the road of Socialism-from-Below is to affirm the beginning of a new world.Did socialism fail in Venezuela?================Whenever I answer questions about Venezuela, I invariably attract a number of right-wing critics, all of whom say the same things and advance unsubstantiated allegations about socialism (about which they seem to be almost totally ignorant). After over a year of this I have grown heartily tired of having to listen to the same accusations (often liberally coated with abuse) and make the same points scores of times in response. So, I am not going to bother answering such critics; I will just delete anything they have to say and block the individual concerned.Those who want to be civil and argue like grown-ups will, of course, be listened to.