Democrat Candidates Work To Outdo Each Other On Being Anti-2nd Amendment

The Democrats held a debate Sunday night, the perfect time to make sure as few people as possible watch, a way to ensure that Hillary Clinton can continue her march to her coronation as the Democratic Party Establishment Candidate. They discussed a variety of talking points, including who is the toughest on ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens

(Yahoo News) The three Democratic presidential candidates sparred over gun control early on in their debate in Charleston, S.C., on Sunday night.

Their exchange began with questions about the shifting position of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on a bill limiting liability for gun manufacturers and sellers whose products are used in crimes. As Sanders has gained in the polls, frontrunner Hillary Clinton has attacked him on the issue.

Though the spotlight was on Clinton and Sanders, the long-shot third-place candidate Martin O’Malley got in the last word on gun control. O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, argued that both Clinton and Sanders are “inconsistent” on guns. (snip)

The exchange began with the moderators asking Sanders about reversing his position on a 2005 bill that gave some gun manufacturers and sellers immunity from liability. Sanders voted for the legislation, and Clinton had been attacking him for it before he announced a change of heart on Saturday, just before the debate.

Placing liability on the manufacturers for their products working correctly would be a death knell on the industry, which is exactly the point in pushing this issue. Do we sue alcohol makers for people getting drunk and killing themselves or others?

Anyhow, Bernie is super enthused that the NRA has given him a D-minus rating. Hillary has an F. So does O’Malley, who fought back against his two rivals

“When it comes to this issue, I’m the one candidate on this stage that actually brought people together to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation,” he said, later adding, “It did have a ban on combat assault weapons, universal background checks, and you know, we did not interrupt a single person’s hunting season. I’ve never met a self-respecting deer hunter that needed an AR-15 to down a deer.”

A couple points. First, for all his gun safety legislation, many cities in Maryland are very violent, especially Baltimore, which has seen a massive uptick in “gun violence” in 2015. If these universal background checks work so well, what’s up with all the shootings? Why is Baltimore, a city he was mayor of from 2000-2007, known for the massive use of bullet proof plexiglass in stores to protect the workers from extreme violence, often from people illegally in possession of guns?

This may play well to the Democratic base, and those few who actually watch these debates, but it won’t do well during the General election season.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

14 Comments

Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-18 08:30:15

Democrat (sic) Candidates Work To Outdo Each Other On Being Anti-2nd Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Are any and all government regulations of Arms “Anti-2nd Amendment” by nature?

Do we sue alcohol makers for people getting drunk and killing themselves or others?

No, yet we do prosecute establishments who sell alcohol to those obviously impaired. We do prosecute those who purchase alcohol and supply to those who aren’t legally entitled. Isn’t that what a background check is supposed to accomplish regarding arms sales?

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-18 08:47:25

In the US, about 30,000 residents die as a result of firearms. About 20,000 are suicides (many who likely kill themselves by other, but less lethal, means), about 10,000 are homicides (again, some would have been killed by other, less lethal, means) and fewer than 1000 by accidents (almost all would be alive without arms). Every year we have a few mass shootings usually motivated by political, religious, ideological or just plain crazy reasons.

The important questions are: 1. Should we reasonably try to reduce any or all of these numbers? and 2. If we decide we should reasonably try, how do we accomplish this under the umbrella of our 2nd Amendment?

I’m not optimistic that we can effect change without violating the 2nd Amendment.

 
Comment by Dana
2016-01-18 09:09:10

If a guy robbing a convenience store is wearing Air Jordans, to help him run away faster, should we be able to sue Nike because their product was used to commit a crime?

 
Comment by Dana
2016-01-18 09:14:52

Jeffrey says something with which I can agree:

I’m not optimistic that we can effect change without violating the 2nd Amendment.

Odd how almost none of the left suggest amending the Constitution to change or repeal the Second Amendment. Of course, they all know that such an effort would fail.

 
Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-01-18 10:25:21

Should we reasonably try to reduce any or all of these numbers?

Who says we’re not?

 
Comment by rwm
2016-01-18 12:24:17

To O’Malley’s squawk about the ‘deer hunter that needed an AR-15 to down a deer.’: 1)’Need’ is a rather strange word to use; 2)2nd Amendment ain’t about deer hunting; and 3) the last deer I took was with an AR-15, chambered for 7.62×39. One shot. p.s., I’m a Maryland resident, Marty, so STFU.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2016-01-18 14:59:07

No, yet we do prosecute establishments who sell alcohol to those obviously impaired.

And that prosecution is ridiculous. It is allowed because there is no right to a drink, but to think that a person is not responsible for what they knowingly put in their own bodies is ridiculous. Furthermore, we don’t allow for lawsuits or criminal prosecution of the makers of alcohol for making and selling a legal product that is legally purchased. We prosecute the criminals.

We do prosecute those who purchase alcohol and supply to those who aren’t legally entitled.

Because alcohol is a privilege and not a right.

Your point here actually hurts your overall point. We prosecute people for illegally buying alcohol. We prosecute people who illegally purchase guns. So where do you want to go? Do you want to say that legal ownership of a gun should be made illegal?

Isn’t that what a background check is supposed to accomplish regarding arms sales?

The problem Jeffery is that people who want to control guns lie about “background checks.” The “gun show” loophole doesn’t exist. Obama claimed that you can go on the internet and get guns and ammunition without checks. That is a lie.

If you talk to gun owners, they don’t mind background checks but the NICS is broken. It doesn’t work well at all. Most gun owners I talk to say that if the NICS were allowed for private purchases, they would have no issue with it as long as the data was destroyed after a time. The retention of data is a real issue.

What you and other anti-gun people don’t understand is that the laws we have now are not being enforced. Yet you claim that more laws will fix the problem of …….wait? What is the problem again?

Oh yeah….. the problem of illegal activity with guns. Because, after all, criminals follow the law all the time.

 
Comment by david7134
2016-01-18 15:03:36

Jeff,
So, you desire to keep guns away from those that desire to commit suicide, why? If someone is in such pain and distress that they feel the only way to cope with it is to take their life, why is it that the government feels that it should stop them?

Your other comments all are reflective of the progressive, you feel that government is smarter and better than the individual and can make decisions that are superior. So, you take away a gun and the person is left with the choice of hanging or a knife. Either way they have a much more painful passing. Now, you are not alone, conservative progressives desire to take away the decision of women as to what to do with their bodies. Both parties desire to limit drugs and make people suffer to a greater extent and have to seek expensive medical consultation (especially under Obamacare).

You used alcohol as an analogy, that is a joke. The government has no business regulating alcohol and their efforts are abysmal. By the way, did you know that in order to make sure that those that consume alcohol in the US pay taxes on the product, poison is inserted into any alcohol that is not meant for consumption? That is right, our great government, the land of the free, will poison its citizens if they don’t pony up. That was a progressive idea. The poison that is inserted makes it very difficult to use alcohol to cut shellac as it causes flaws in the finish.

Then the concept of the assault rifle, I love shooting a semi-automatic gun and feel that those the deer hunt with dogs without a semi should be put in jail (not really, just using progressive logic). But our law makers don’t like the “look” of the gun and thus desire to ban them. That is our country, for no logical reason, we pass laws that restrict our freedom and choices. Banning the assault rifle will not save one life, but it establishes a precedent from which future laws and regulations can evolve.

The fact is that due to low information, mentally challenged individuals like you and the rest that desire for government to do something, we have lost our freedom. We are seeing our economy melt. Our wealth is going down the tube. And we are very, very close to world war. All because you want government to do something.

 
Comment by William Teach
2016-01-18 15:44:43

We do prosecute those who purchase alcohol and supply to those who aren’t legally entitled. Isn’t that what a background check is supposed to accomplish regarding arms sales?

And we prosecute those who sell guns illegaly. Unless they are forced to sell them to members of the DOJ, who then proceed to run them to Mexico

Firearms are meant to be used in two ways: shooting something legally, and protection (which hopefully means not having to shoot). Alcohol is meant to get people drunk. We don’t sue Jim Beam because someone drank too much and walked in front of a train (someone I knew at ECU did just that). If a bartender serves someone they know is tanked, they can be held partially responsible. If a gun shop owner sells a firearm to someone not legally entitled, they can be held criminally and civilly liable.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-18 15:49:38

So, you desire to keep guns away from those that desire to commit suicide, why? If someone is in such pain and distress that they feel the only way to cope with it is to take their life, why is it that the government feels that it should stop them? <>

Then the concept of the assault rifle, I love shooting a semi-automatic gun and feel that those the deer hunt with dogs without a semi should be put in jail (not really, just using progressive logic). But our law makers don’t like the “look” of the gun and thus desire to ban them. That is our country, for no logical reason, we pass laws that restrict our freedom and choices. Banning the assault rifle will not save one life, but it establishes a precedent from which future laws and regulations can evolve. <>

The fact is that due to low information, mentally hallenged individuals like you and the rest that desire for government to do something, we have lost our freedom. We are seeing our economy melt. Our wealth is going down the tube. And we are very, very close to world war. All because you want government to do something. <>>

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-18 23:43:16

In Ohio today and in Utah yesterday, Caucasian gun nuts assassinated police officers.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2016-01-19 10:22:33

Of course Jeffery leaves out the fact that both shooters were career criminals, and gotten their weapons illegally.

So because two criminals acted like criminals, we should not allow legal ownership of guns.

At least, that is the way people like Jeffery think.

BTW Jeffery, have you turned in your guns yet?

 
Comment by john
2016-01-19 17:05:35

Each year in the USA toddlers ,4 years old with guns kill more Americans here than jihadists
At least let’s do something to prevent the toddlers from killing us like demanding all guns must be storedin secure areas

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-19 21:50:21

we should not allow legal ownership of guns.

At least, that is the way people like Jeffery think.

The relentlessly dishonest gitarcarver lies again.

I support the legal ownership of firearms and you know it, liar-liar pants on fire.

We certainly need better ways to keep firearms out the hands of white men like those who assassinated two police officers, likely for ideological reasons.

Go and lie no more, my son!

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6741 access attempts in the last 7 days.