We have been told the billionaires group was just that.

Any comment or care to discuss?

She is doing what Bloomberg has been trying for years with his billions.

wants a group who will get Democrats elected.

The current billionaire financed "National Movement" on gun control doesn't have much movement nationally and seems it can only get Democrats elected out of office.

Trying to form such a movement herself would require taking effort away from her campaign so I don't think we will see much action anytime soon.

Non-billionaire financed gun control borders on mythical and I am not seeing any early support for pro-gun control Democrats from the billionaire's groups. I expect they will stay quiet until the general election then voice support for the Democratic Presidential candidate but work against Congressional Democrats who do not have enough doctrinal purity. Again.

But what tends to happen is start reasonable then do a major over reach and turn most firearms owners off that would actually support reasonable measures.

Mrs. Clinton knows full well why most of her gun control fantasies do not happen....it hasn't shit to do with the NRA. It has to do with constitutionally impossible desires....bills which are determined by house and/or senate judiciary committees to no be able to withstand a constitutional challenge.

A prime example is "universal background checks". Why were sales between neighbors exempted in 1994? Hint, it has nothing to do with the NRA....beyond the NRA pointing out that the federal government has no jurisdiction to regulate intrastate sales of anything legal between private citizen residents of the same state....never have...the "commerce clause" prohibits just that. It will not happen without a constitutional amendment...and that isn't very likely.

No, the NRA only "wins" because most "reasonable restrictions" suggested by gun controllers are simply not constitutionally possible...they will fail under constitutional challenge with or without the NRA...the NRA only points this out.

Now I can't stand the leadership or politics of the NRA, but lying about the actual reality of this issue in favor of pointing toward a unicorn is no way to make improvement...it just insures more failure...vicious circle of the last 20 years...

I am sure the OP will be right along to discuss this

a LONG time__but think how it IS working with tobacco. I am NOT talking confiscation program. It will help reduce killings and suicides like it did in Australia. We need to start somewhere.

With millions more every year....people who intend to criminally misuse their guns will not be turn8ng them in for a $100 walmart gift card unless they don't work.

They get a gun to mass murder...the absence of one gun, which you have dramatically over paid, changes nobody's mind about committing any crime..why waste the money? There are many other ways to better use the same money.

We don't have to play a fools game throwing money that we don't have into the trash...."gun buybacks" are not just unfortunately named, they are statistically idiotic...

More honestly -- you will stay in the fantasy realm. Nearly all of our gun violence is caused by a very small percentage of the population......that segment known as criminals. Given that less than 2% of all guns will ever be used in violent crime -- much less murder -- you're facing a serious needle-in-the-haystack dilemna.

Even if we could accomplish the absolutely impossible, and reduce the number of guns in the nation by half, that would still be much more than enough to supply the small criminal element with guns. But keep pushing for the insane, while you push citizens to vote GOP.

the downward trend started before the NFA and continued at the same rate. The use of guns in suicide decreased, but not the suicide rate. Meanwhile, there are more gun owners and legal guns in Australia now. Port Authur was a one time event, even then the killer didn't have a license to by any gun, given his low IQ and history of violence. On of the rifles used was stolen from the police.

Your article actually supports the claims made.

"circumstantial", of the nature of a circumstance; secondary; incidental. The law may have helped, but the rate was falling so it is not conclusive the buyback helped. The US fell nearly as much without similar laws.

So you agree the Australian decline in homicide rate " isn't statistically significant".

and the blog writer misread it. Since the NFA banned some long guns, all have which have been replaced by NFA compliant guns and then some. Also, there are more legal gun owners and guns than since then. The Australian National Police still have no idea how many illegal guns there are. The fact that the Baker and McPhedran study passed peer review and was published in a British criminology journal. Hemenway's critique does not phase the quality of the paper given his reputation in criminology circles.

decrease the killing epidemic in our country. No one is saying the NRA will be gone. No need to make fun or down play Democrats and their plans.

How can anyone "make fun" of plans which manifestly are not very clear -- except the "politicizing" call made by Obama?

Respectfully, you miss the point. I asked if there was no NRA (which Hillary explicitly referenced in her "plans&quot , would that have any effect on her " movement.". What do you think?

I doubt Ms. Clinton's exhortations will cause a "movement" to spring forth from the head of Zeus. She might have broached this as a way to end-run Sanders, but she won't dawdle on the issue for long for she must know that 2A activists will be Quick to join the battle because That is a truly powerful movement.

Those controller/banners here on DU should ask themselves: How much discussion have you heard, organizing have you seen in your coffee house, restaurant, and bar scenes? Get past Obama's "politicizing" and Hillary's "calls for," and there is little shelf life to this outlook.

Seriously, it probably won't work, but it might get the ball rolling in the right direction.

So, GO HILLARY!

And he has proposed more policies for restricting guns than she has. If anyone has more information on her policies for gun control, please post.

Campaign a movement. Sanders is the only one leading a movement.

... to draft a charter for the new organization. Then get 4.5 million people to pony up $35 a year to belong to it. That would give it the basic operational structure and operating capital.

The next step would be to solicit donations from the membership and corporate sponsors in order to fund lobbying and other political action efforts. Relentless fundraising will be imperative; members will be asked to dig deep and often to help the organization achieve its goals.

On your marks, get set ...

I saved a link which has now gone sideways of Chuckie talking with Rachel Maddow wherein he states that in his position he will continue to fight to preserve the party 'core values'. Said values include continuing to pursue the "assault weapon" ban among other utterly worthless "gun control" measures.

Dog help us. I'd like to think otherwise, but I believe that we're f*cked.

Chuckie was their pushing for the 94 ban, he is one of the few supporters that managed to KEEP their seat after that diabolical legislation.

He is still there, and still pushing...

About 2/3's of Democratic reps now come from TWO states...