I think O'Malley and Hillary are just posturing after this recent gun tragedy.

[retrowire]

Look, it's pretty convenient. They've gotta attack Bernie on something. They really do, it's not like they can beat him on integrity or the issues or anything.

So what we've seen is that both Hillary and O'Malley are trying to differentiate themselves from the rest by promising to push legislation that would allow those wronged by gun manufacturers products to sue that gun manufacturer.

I'll get to why that solution isn't really practical, but let's talk about why it's not a very productive solution... At most, what is that legislation supposed to do? Make the manufacturers scared of getting sued, thus they'll... stop making guns? They'll have the money to pay for it, they will also, still have the mass demand to supply the guns that they make...

We're wanting common sense gun laws, so let's use some common sense. Suing the manufacturers will NOT solve the problem.

What would solve the problem?

-Closing gun show and internet sales loopholes.
-Stricter background checks.
-Banning assault weapons.

All three of those? They're ALL supported by ALL three of our serious candidates (sorry chafee).

So again, I believe Hillary and O'Malley are just posturing here. To me, they're just promising ponies and they're catering to that catharsis that people want so bad, "You hate all this gun violence?! I know what feels good, lawsuits! We'll hit them where it hurts! Make em' pay! That'll make you feel better!"

But remember, the gun manufacturers didn't kill anyone. Crazy people did. Remember folks, guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Better solutions to include with the aforementioned 3 from above would be greater mental health care, and a campaign to encourage us all to look at our damn culture.

Male toxicity disorder leading young men to literally kill because they aren't getting attention from the women that they're taught to believe they deserve, kids that are completely forgotten in basements, left to be raised by mentally unstable but like minded people they'll meet in that message board online, we need to encourage society to get our heads out of our asses and get to know one another.

But in all this hubbub, Hillary and O'Malley are just coming off as opportunists to me, seeking out some way to make Bernie look like a greater evil. Bernie said it himself in a way that makes perfect sense to me:

"If somebody has a gun, if somebody steals that gun, and they shoot somebody, do you really think it makes sense to blame the manufacturer of that weapon?… If somebody sells you a baseball bat and hits you over the head, you’re not gonna sue the baseball bat manufacturer.”

If the product works and is not defective then it doesn't really make sense to be able to sue that manufacturer. You can't sue the manufacturer of your car if you intentionally drive into a pedestrian and the car was working as designed. And that pedestrian can't sue them either.

I'll say it again, Hillary and O'Malley are just trying to make it seem like they've got something Bernie doesn't.

But I think it's showing yet again that Bernie has something they don't, integrity and common sense.

[hrmjustin]

1. Bull! This is an important issue and needs to be addressed.

Is the president taking advantage?

[retrowire]

2. Whaddya mean bull? Of course it's an important issue and it is being addressed. n/t

[hrmjustin]

4. And Hillary and o'Malley are doing the right thing by addressing it.

Sorry but i don't buy the premise of your op.

[retrowire]

6. They're all addressing it though.

It's just Hillary and O'Malley are addressing it in an additional way that isn't really so much productive as it sounds really nice and cathartic. That's what I believe anyways.

[hrmjustin]

10. You said they are posturing. I say Hillary and Martin are standing on principle.

[retrowire]

15. Hmmm

Well I call it posturing because that standing won't really solve the problem. They should know that. If they don't then they're naive. If they do, then yeah, they're only doing it to cater to the catharsis reaction everyone wants. Posturing.

[hrmjustin]

19. Well you can call it whatever you want but I love her proposal.

[retrowire]

23. Fair enough! Good talk. n/t

[roguevalley]

90. go to the link and read what Ben Carson said. No bullet riddled body is reason

to lose your gun rights or something like that. GAH!

http://www.examiner.com/article/ben-carson-more-devastating-than-a-bullet-riddled-body-is-losing-gun-rights

[hrmjustin]

94. He is such a horrible person.

[ronnykmarshall]

98. He is repulsive.

[leftofcool]

3. No, they are both willing to risk political capital by taking a stand!

And I praise both of them.

[retrowire]

5. Risking political capital?

What do they have to lose by proposing something that has no chance of happening?

If it does happen, I guess that's neat but... It won't stop shootings. Not one bit.

[leftofcool]

7. Hillary risks losing some Dems by calling out the NRA

Although not that many.

[retrowire]

11. They're all calling out the NRA though.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/05/bernie-sanders-terrifies-nra-consensus-plan-reduce-mass-shootings.html

[Bread and Circus]

29. the BS is so thick in here I need a shovel.

First off look aat what hillary was saying about gun owners back in 2008.... very different tone indeed.

And to say Hillary is risking political capital right now in the dem primary to run left on a gun issue right after another mass shooting is just stupid.


Lets see Hillary run so hard and vocal to the left on this issue during the general.... bow that would actually be political courage.

[leftofcool]

64. Yea, gun control is so BS

Get a grip.

[retrowire]

101. that's not what he's calling BS. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. WOW ... That makes my support for Martin O'Malley all the stronger ...

if he can strike a "posture" a year and a half BEFORE an incident.

What he is now talking about, largely mirrors the legislation he championed and got passed and signed as Governor of Maryland (back in 2013).

[retrowire]

9. Before? n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. Yes ... before! ...

The measures he is calling for today, largely, mirrors the gun control legislation he championed, got passed and signed as Governor, back in 2013.

[retrowire]

46. You mean this one?

Sorry if my google-fu is weak but....

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Governor-Martin-OMalley-to-sign-gun-control-legislation--207695891.html

That says absolutely nothing about legislation that would allow people to sue the manufacturers.

This legislation from the article is very practical and I think it's great!

The legislation I'm talking about in my OP, the one that would allow people to sue manufacturers is not very practical and... It's not mentioned at all in this article.

Can you please cite an article where he signed legislation that does that?

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. Oh. Okay ... I didn't know you were focusing on that piece of the legislation. ...

But a question ... why is suing the manufacturer of guns, anymore impractical than suing a tobacco company?

[retrowire]

103. i think both are impractical

but look at this way.

one is a weapon that can be used for good and evil. we need to stop the evil.

the other is a drug that is used for pleasure and its got a bad side effect.

suing cigarette manufacturers forced their hands into marketing the cigs differently (goodbye camel mascot) and putting surgeon general's warnings on the packaging.

what could suing gun manufacturers do? well in another post I guessed that they'd have to change their marketing. but you don't really see much marketing from them in the same form as cigs.

what advertises guns? movies, games, media in general and it's free advertising that honestly, the gun industry doesn't have much control over.

outside of printing gun responsibility ads and warnings (which we already have) what else could suing the gun manufacturers do?

it wouldn't decrease gun violence.

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. Hmmm ...

suing cigarette manufacturers forced their hands into marketing the cigs differently (goodbye camel mascot) and putting surgeon general's warnings on the packaging.

what could suing gun manufacturers do? well in another post I guessed that they'd have to change their marketing. but you don't really see much marketing from them in the same form as cigs.

The gun industry markets its product by lobbying Congress ... I'd be cool with the NRA stopping buying Congress. Wouldn't you agree?

[retrowire]

116. They market their product by lobbying congress?

I've got a disconnect going on...

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they thought guns were cool or that they were going to buy a gun because of activity in politics.

I would totally love lobbyists out of the congress! But... Guns are marketed and made popular by culture and media. Not by commercials or ads like cigarettes are.

[LuvLoogie]

131. The gun industry markets to kids

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/gun-industry-kids_n_3248127.html

[retrowire]

133. oh geez... that's terrible! :/ n/t

[elleng]

111. THANKS!!!

again!

[Maedhros]

12. Yes, they're trying to land blows when the opportunity presents itself.

Sanders is above this kind of thing.

[hrmjustin]

22. Is the president trying to land blows?

[Armstead]

41. The president isn't a candidate

He's acting totally on principle, and pushing for a policy that has nothing to do with seeking to take advantage of a tragedy in a political campaign .

Big difference.

[hrmjustin]

45. The candidates are running for office and are advocating policies.

The fact that Snders suppirters are going this route is Sad, Telling, and Pathetic.

[Armstead]

52. And they shoukld advicate poilicies. No problem with that

But

1) Sanders is also in favor of gun control and has the same position on most aspects. Want to disagree with him on specifics, lik the lawsuit thing, fine. But all this crap that he's a pro-gun NRA stuff is a flat out lie.

2) The timing sucks. The immediate aftermath of a tragedy is NOT the time to score cheap points in a campaign. It's in horrible taste.

[hrmjustin]

55. Sorry but i find it very difficult to believe. If Sanders was out front like this you and the

other pro gun control Sanders supporters would be with him.

Seems like sour grapes that your candidate is comprimised on this and mine has the bolder position.

[Armstead]

70. Saying he's "compromised" is the kind of lie I am referring to

The attempt to mischaracterize him for political advantage is EXACTLY the bullshit I am referring to.

1)Regardless of the candidate -- or even the party -- when something like what happened in Oregon happens, they ought to state their sorrow, perhaps reiterate their support for gun control in a general sense without engaging in political attacks,, and leave it at that until the immediate aftermath is over.

2)Sanders is not compromised in the least on this. He is staunchly pro gun control. His approach to a few specifics may be somewhat different but it's not like he's speaking at NRA rallies and saying "You'll only pry my gun from my cold dead hands."

In fact

[hrmjustin]

72. He voted go protect gun manufacturers and against the brady bill.

He is compromised imho on this issue.

[Armstead]

78. If that's your humble opinion you are welcome to it

But my humble opinion is that calling him "compromised" is either deliberately twisting his actual position today or very rigid and inflexible on this issue, and not likely to get anything constructive done.

The Brady Bill was 20 years ago. The gun manufacturer stuff is totally debatable, but not supporting it does not mean he is "compromised" on the whole issue of whether or not we should have strong gun control. He agrees with Clinton and O'Malley on te basic principle of strong regulation of guns. period.

[hrmjustin]

80. It is his record. You guys have no problem criticizing positions Hillary took in the 90's

but it is not ok for Sanders. I am done wasting my time.

[Duckhunter935]

83. Would that have changed this?

A 26 year old passing a background check and purchasing a legal weapon?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

120. Compromised. Good one. Do I even need to start posting HC gun statements?

I don't stop to think about it often, but it's really easy to be a Sanders supporter. There's not a single lie or flip-flop I need to worry about trying to hide or deflect from. Life is pretty good.

[hrmjustin]

121. Good enjoy your superiority complex.

[tularetom]

13. That was tried once before and failed

It is an idiotic idea. Bernie Sanders was right to oppose it.

Of course Clinton would try to jump on the bandwagon and capitalize on an emotional issue like this so soon after a firearms related tragedy. It's the kind of cheap stunt she has done in the past. She is desperate to try to get on the left side of Sanders on something and this looked like a possibility to her media gurus and focus group advisors.

O'Malley on the other hand has not had much luck gaining traction for his campaign so it sort of make sense for him to make such a proposal. Plus I think he is sincere in his belief that it might do some good.

[DCBob]

14. At what point are we allowed to get serious about this issue...

and not be criticized for it?? Its time to make some changes. Long overdue.

[retrowire]

17. Totally agree. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Amazing isn't it? n/t.

[hrmjustin]

27. Amazing how many posters on this site have done a 180 on the gun issue because

Sanders is running. Not the op but other posters.

Amazing.

[DCBob]

32. Indeed.

Suddenly they are all gunsters.

[hrmjustin]

33. The turnaround is just sad and dissappointing.

[retrowire]

36. Oh wait,

you're implying that the mass of users here have become pro gun because Sanders is running?

[hrmjustin]

39. I am saying some posters who were here in during the Newtown Tragedy were very

pro gun control but want to avoid the issue or did a turn around because they support Sanders.

[Armstead]

57. "They" still are pro gun control, as is Sanders

People responding to lies because Sanders is being misrepresented is not "turning."

And speaking fot myself, I've always believed that sung gun makers for what people do with their products is ridiculous.

If people want to try and make guns illegal, feel free. But it's ridiculous to sue the maker of a legal product, as long as manufacturers don't make defective products, or engage in illegal or unethical distribution practices.

[hrmjustin]

62. Was not talking about you. Plenty of us see what happened here.

[retrowire]

37. How?

Because they oppose supposedly unproductive legislation like the one that Hillary and O'Malley are promoting?

I don't know anyone here that is shouting "Pro gun! Pro gun! Pro gun!"

[DCBob]

40. Who says its unproductive?? You, Bernie and the NRA?

Nonsense. There are real effective meaningful changes that can be made if the fking gun lobby would get out of the way.

[retrowire]

42. Plenty of changes that could work, yes.

Read my OP to see which ones I believe are productive and the one that is not.

[DCBob]

47. Those are good... but I think we need even more.

I would like some discussion on something like "3 strikes you're out". If a person has 3 red flag incidents in his/her record then they cannot purchase or own a firearm. Things like a criminal record, serious drug issues, mental health problems, etc. If they add up to three then no gun for you! If would take some effort to implement but I think once setup correctly it could work.

[retrowire]

53. I agree with all of those great ideas.

Don't get me wrong. I want more control of guns, absolutely.

But I just don't think that allowing people to sue gun manufacturers would decrease shootings in the least bit. It wouldn't hurt their wallets, it wouldn't phase them.

[DCBob]

54. I still think manufacturers bear alot of the responsiblity.

I dont know exactly how to implement it to make it fair but it needs to be done.. imo.

[retrowire]

60. I don't see how they're responsible for the idiots that use their products.

If you were a rubber band manufacturer and I took out someones eye with it, would you think it's fair that YOU have to foot the bill?

Would you getting sued stop other morons like myself from taking out peoples eyes with rubber bands?

[DCBob]

65. Guns are different. They are extremely dangerous devices which only function as weapons.

Devices like that need special laws.

[retrowire]

68. We have those laws.

We can make those laws.

But suing the manufacturer would make them no less dangerous and no less available to the masses.

[DCBob]

69. The laws need to be stiffened.

It will help.

[Armstead]

85. Which is what all Democratic candiates are pushing for

Well, I don't know about Webb...but the rest.

[jack_krass]

109. I don't think it will

Politicians taking halfass, warmed over measures in response to these tragedies (followed by patting themselves on the back and "moving on" ) is the WORST possibility. I see it happen again and again and it makes me sick.

If we don't have the will to ban and confiscate firearms, we need to look at some fresh ideas like media reform, outreach to socially isolated narcissists, and others.

[Duckhunter935]

86. They do

Unlike other products the manufacturer by federal law can only sell to federally licensed dealers. They are barred by federal law from selling to consumers. Tell me one other legal product that has that restriction.

[Dawson Leery]

105. Hypocracy at it's worst.

Bernie's supporters by far and large are anti-gun. Now they are making excuses.
This is no different from the far right who attempt to make excuses for Trump's policies to which they disagree with.

[retrowire]

107. What?

My entire OP is anti-gun. I'm just saying one proposal by Hillary and O'Malley is unproductive and they're using it to make it look like they're ahead of Bernie on the issue when in fact they are tied with him. lol

[Armstead]

44. When it's not used to score political points and misrepresent a candidate who is also....

for gun control. Especially not when it's an attempt to capitalize on a tragedy.

[retrowire]

49. +1 n/t

[slipslidingaway]

61. ^^^^^^ Exactly, both are trying to score political points from the latest tragedy. n/t

[DCBob]

63. Bernie is welcome to come on board to help the cause.

I see he's made some effort but I dont think its enough. I assume because his constituents wouldn't like it.

[Armstead]

74. He IS on board

He might disagree with a couple of points, but in all the other ways that matter is is firmly FOR strong gun control.

If you do not do the following, then you can ignore the following statement.

It is a double standard to complain that on one hand Sanders is "too far left" and rigidly ideological to get anything done, while simultaneously criticizing him for being too pragmatic, and too willing to look for middle ground to try and get things done.

[Gloria]

21. OH, get over it!

Jeesh, fact free is really not cool!

[sadoldgirl]

24. I want to hear both candidates

talking in that strong way here in the West,
and see how many voters they will get for
their efforts! Good luck!

I hate guns, but learned some time ago
that we can lose dems in the legislature
due to a lot of gun control efforts.

[99Forever]

25. I hate to say it, but...

You've pissed off the right people.

[retrowire]

26. Huh? n/t

[hrmjustin]

30. Sad response on your point.

This is an important issue.

[99Forever]

43. Oh please.

Paint me a freakin' picture of just how this grandstanding hoo ha becomes the law of the land.

With 90% of America IN FAVOR of much more doable, realistic gun legislation after Newtown, NOTHING GOT DONE.

NOTHING.

Babies shot dead by the dozen.

NOT A SINGLE RESTRICTION ON A SINGLE GUN AS A RESULT. NONE.

So save your FALSE FUCKING CAMPAIGN PROMISES for someone a whole lot more gullible than I.

BTW, Obama ever find those comfortable shoes?

[hrmjustin]

48. Wtf are you talking about Obama's shoes for? Is that an attack on him.

And I support Hillary taking a true stand for gun control. You can support the guy who doesn't have the courage to do it.

[retrowire]

50. What guy doesn't have the courage to do it?

You can't be talkin' bout my man Bernie...

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/05/bernie-sanders-terrifies-nra-consensus-plan-reduce-mass-shootings.html

[hrmjustin]

51. He does not go as far as Hillary.

[retrowire]

56. Far enough to allow people to sue gun manufacturers?

I just don't think that's very productive. It won't decrease shootings at all.

Would Bernie match up if he went up on stage and said, "You see what the other candidates are doing? Well, I'm going to put the CEO of a gun manufacturer in a dunk tank, and if you can hit that target with this wiffle ball, then he'll go splash and get all wet! That'll show him!"

Because that's essentially what Hillary and O'Malley are promising.

It's just kind of a meaningless idea. A gesture. Posturing.

[hrmjustin]

58. I think it is very productive.

[retrowire]

67. How? Please explain how.

My logic must not be working right now.

To quote a pretty logical analogy that I wrote to another user:

If you were a rubber band manufacturer and I took out someones eye with it, would you think it's fair that YOU have to foot the bill?

Would you getting sued stop other morons like myself from taking out peoples eyes with rubber bands?

How would suing the rubber band manufacturer make people stop losing their eyes to careless idiots with rubber bands hrmjustin?

[hrmjustin]

71. It will make the gun makers want to be a part of the solution.

If they lose money from these lawsuits they will have a come to Jesus moment and reasonable gun laws can be passed.

[retrowire]

75. Don't they already print warning labels saying not to point this gun at someones face?

What can they do?

Encourage more responsibility when marketing their guns? That's about it.

[hrmjustin]

76. Stop making so many guns.

[retrowire]

81. ...Ok.

That's obviously not how this works.

They are a corporation that makes and sells guns. That's how they earn profit right?

Now, a law is passed that means they get sued whenever someone is wronged by their product.

Takes from their profits right?

How do they make those profits back?

.....They make more guns.

To suggest that they'd make less is a bit naive. They'd only make less guns if the lawsuits were SO degrading to their profits that they couldn't feasibly stay in business anymore because of how expensive the lawsuits were.

But guns are BIG money, and they rely on more than normal citizens for purchasing those products. Our military and police support them, and I'm pretty sure they get a FATTTTTT check from those organizations. Much more money from those groups than from the people at gun shows.

So no... This couldn't possibly make them say, "wow, this is hurting our profits so bad that we can't make as many guns."

Their answer would more likely be, "Welp, another lawsuit, better cash that check from the military."

[hrmjustin]

84. I don't give two shits if gun makers won't make more money.

They need to stop making so many guns.

[retrowire]

87. well

there's already more guns in America than there are people so we already have a saturation problem.

that said, suing them will not decrease the output of guns.

[hrmjustin]

88. We disagree!

[Armstead]

82. That would create a nice black market

I can just see the epidemic of violence and criminality that would create. We can add a Gun War to the Drug War we've already got because of an illegal product with high demand.

[askew]

89. And she doesn't go as far as O'Malley.,

And O'Malley's been consistent on guns for years. This isn't a flip-flop.

And he has action to back-up his words. He's passed gun control already.

[hrmjustin]

93. Good on him. He was a governor and was in a position to do this.

Good on him.

[retrowire]

108. Yes his work as governor was excellent regarding this issue.

But I gotta knock him for outright lying about Bernie's position on it. That's misinformation and low brow... And as an American citizen, I don't very much like being lied to.

When O’Malley was on Concord News Radio yesterday, he said of Sanders, “I think his opinions and his position on this are different than the mainstream of the Democratic Party.”

He said one of Sanders’ only accomplishments in Congress was getting immunity for gun manufacturers, saying, “I think he’s just of the opinion that there’s no reason we should have common sense gun safety requirements like background checks.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/omalley-goes-after-sanders-doesnt-support-common-sense-gun-reforms/

That's blatantly saying Bernie is against background checks. I'm not an idiot, you're not an idiot, none of us are idiots. O'Malley outright lied.

[askew]

126. Bernie voted against background checks multiple times in the Senate.

His actions show that he's against background checks. He may have "evolved" on this issue, but O'Malley isn't lying. Sanders' record is awful on guns.

[retrowire]

127. UPDATE, no need for a source, I did my own research.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

Reading the whole context of the thing, it seems he wasn't against background checks absolutely.

When the time came, although it was early, he amended the brady bill to have instant background checks. It seems to me that he didn't want the people to have to wait 5 days to hear if they could make their purchase.

[99Forever]

77. Because promises on the campaign stump, are forgotten after taking office, that's why.

Candidate Comfortable Shoes has become President TPP. That's why. Neoliberals can't be trusted. That's why.

Now, back to the subject at hand:

Paint me a picture of HOW this pie in the sky promise GETS DONE.

Please proceed.

[hrmjustin]

79. Neo liberal? Go sell that on free republic.

Not wasting my time with you.

[99Forever]

132. Fuck the "free republic."

You are wasting your time with me, because I'll NEVER buy your silly bullshit.

[NuclearDem]

66. Oh spare us your fake fucking outrage.

Obama tried, but the NRA-owned Republicans and spineless Democrats who joined them refused to go along.

Clinton has a good record on gun control. O'Malley has a good record on gun control.

Sanders, on the other hand, voted to protect the fucking death merchants.

Go pound sand.

[retrowire]

73. Bernie has a great record on gun control as well.

He's just not trying to push legislation that would do nothing but make a CEO pay a few pennies for a law suit.

That wouldn't reduce shootings. At all.

That's literally the only difference between Bernie and the others. He wouldn't pass a meaningless legislation that would allow people to sue gun manufacturers.

I have yet for anyone to tell me how suing the manufacturer would reduce gun violence. That legislation is time and effort better spent on mental health reform and other more practical gun control laws. Plain and simple.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

123. That's quite a display of anger.

I'd alert if I gave much of a shit. But I don't.

[99Forever]

136. Don't bother.

That character is his own worst enemy. And funnier still, is that these sorts hostile, angry outbursts only serve to show exactly what his kind are all about. doesn't even rate a reply from me. He is irrelevant to any adult discussion.

[in_cog_ni_to]

135. LOL!

That means he posted the TRUTH. They prefer TRUTHINESS. Or flat-out lies.

[PoliticAverse]

28. How would any of that have prevented the shooting in Oregon? n/t

[retrowire]

34. Well remember the male toxicity thing I mentioned?

http://news.yahoo.com/pastors-sermon-violence-not-last-word-054629283.html

This kid was isolated and obviously had low self esteem. He wanted what the world promised him. He was after all, a young man and from what he's heard from peers, media and society, he should have all the female attention he wants, he should have money and be independent and everything!

This can drive people mad when they're in the conditions that he was likely in. No positive support groups, no good influences. Just a young male libido with no one to tell him that he's thinking about it the wrong way.

Of course, I'm kind of theorizing here. But this is a great motivator. There are other shooters that were motivated by that aspect.

Plus, I don't believe ordinary people become shooters. I believe ordinary people get pushed to be disturbed enough, to the point that they break.

[Evergreen Emerald]

35. what ideas do you have that would stop mass gun shootings?

[DCBob]

38. Do you think that gun control is totally meaningless?

I suspect there have been hundreds of incidents avoided every year because of current gun control laws. How many more if we we can just strengthen and refine them.

[Hoyt]

31. Background checks would definitely help. Assault weapon ban would cool down the gun market.

Yahoos just can't get enough of the dang things.

[Duckhunter935]

91. Yep you get interesting looking

Functional semi-auto rifles that are NY SAFE compliant. Function the same as the old banned ones.

[Hoyt]

99. But the yahoos want the military and militia flavored ones. Banning them will

reduce demand for silly gunz, and gunz overall.

[Duckhunter935]

100. yep

I am sure you are for bans and confiscation. At least you will go ahead and say and not weasel around the issue like others.

[Hoyt]

104. I don't care if you have a 6 shooter at home, but other than hunting (animals, not people)

no one needs the darn silly war zone looking weapons. Anyone who wants one, should be disqualified, the Ole Catch 22.

[ibegurpard]

59. of course they are

As has been pointed out many times Hillary actually tried running to Obama's right on the issue.

[one_voice]

92. I haven't seen where they're...

saying they want to allow gun manufacturers to be sued (will do the google), that being said, O'Malley has been on the right side of the gun debate. What he did while gov would be an excellent way to start regulations on a national level, imo. No posturing from on front.

[retrowire]

115. I'll help you out

An informed voter is the best kind of voter.

Regarding O'Malley's plan:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/14/1421150/-O-Malley-s-Releases-Bold-Gun-Control-Platform

The proposal includes:

Require background check for every gun sale.
End background check exemptions that allow permit holders to avoid background checks and allow gun sales to automatically proceed if background check isn't completed in 3-business days.

End unregulated internet sales.

Improve information sharing between states so background checks can be completed properly.

Ban guns for those subject to emergency restraining orders not just permanent.

End immunity for gun manufacturers.

Ban sale/distribution of assault weapons.

Regarding Hillary's plan:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-unveil-plan-major-new-gun-restrictions-n438361

She would also push to repeal a law backed by the National Rifle Association that prevents crime victims from suing gun manufacturers. And her proposal would revoke the licenses of "bad actor" dealers who knowingly supply guns to straw purchasers and traffickers.

And the thing is, I think all these candidates have been on the right side of the gun control issue!

My problem is that 2 of them are touting this one unproductive idea as if it sets them apart from Bernie, saying that Bernie is doing nothing and that's just a lie. They're all great for gun control. It's just that 2 of them are lying about the third and that third one is politely minding his own business and worrying about he issues at hand.

[one_voice]

128. Well...here's the thing...

End immunity for gun manufacturers. Every state holds manufacturers accountable for producing and selling products that cause harm. But in 2005, the Republican-controlled Congress protected gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally: the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act effectively wiped out gun liability laws in all 50 states. O’Malley will fight to overturn the Act, allowing states and cities to better protect their citizens from negligence, and giving victims of mass shootings the ability to hold irresponsible gun manufacturers and dealers accountable.

https://martinomalley.com/the-latest/preventing-and-reducing-gun-violence/

In 2005:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - The Republican-controlled Congress delivered a long-sought victory to the gun industry on Thursday when the House voted to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits. The bill now goes to President Bush, who has promised to sign it.

The gun liability bill has for years been the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association, which has lobbied lawmakers intensely for it. Its final passage, by a vote of 283 to 144, with considerable Democratic support, reflected the changing politics of gun control, an issue many Democrats began shying away from after Al Gore, who promoted it, was defeated in the 2000 presidential race.

"It's a historic piece of legislation," said Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, who said the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20, the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."

*snip*

But opponents called the bill shameful -- "bought and paid for by the N.R.A.," in the words of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, whose constituents include victims of the 2002 sniper shootings in Washington and its suburbs, called the measure "a cruel hoax" on victims of gun violence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/congress-passes-new-legal-shield-for-gun-industry.html

So what he wants to is overturn an existing law...it's very specific.

Apparently the same thing Hillary wants to do. I'd have to dig to see if O'Malley was always in favor of this being repealed--that could take a minute. He did a lot for gun control as Gov...I'd have to search to see if he spoke to this specific issue.

The first debate is a week away, Bernie can call them out on it & all three of them can and should be grilled about specific of all their policies.

[retrowire]

130. thanks for the info! n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

97. Thud!

[url=https://flic.kr/p/vWJXgc][img][/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/vWJXgc]

[Dawson Leery]

102. Not this poor little Bernie nonsense again.

He is going to face much more if he is the nominee.

Bernie is not the candidate for gun safety.

[retrowire]

106. Actually.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/05/bernie-sanders-terrifies-nra-consensus-plan-reduce-mass-shootings.html

All three are pushing laws for gun control. And that's excellent news!

Regarding my OP, I'm only criticizing two of them for pushing a (imo) unproductive idea as legislation.

[elleng]

110. BALONEY!

Governor O'Malley fought this issue HARD in Maryland!

ROCHESTER, N.H. — Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley on Sunday touted a package of gun-control measures passed during his tenure and challenged his two leading rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination to embrace several initiatives on the national level. . .

“We banded together. We drove consensus,” O’Malley told a gathering of the Strafford County Democrats as he recalled legislation passed in Maryland in 2013. “We need to apply the same persistence today as a nation.”

The Maryland legislation, prompted by the 2012 school shootings in Newtown, Conn., included new fingerprinting and training requirements for handgun purchasers, as well as a ban on 45 types of assault rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. . .

But O’Malley said lawmakers in his state faced and overcame great pressure from the National Rifle Association and held more diverse views on gun control than their party labels suggested.

“We had huge crowds descend on Annapolis. Practically closed down the hallways,” he told the gathering of more than 100 Democratic activists here. “There were many people that said the mountain was too high. We had to take on people in our own party who had some cultural affinities with North Carolina that were closer than their affinities with North Baltimore. But we did it. We never gave up.”'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/04/martin-omalley-citing-his-record-in-maryland-asserts-himself-on-gun-control/

Martin O'Malley is no Johnny come Lately to this issue. The other candidates ARE.

[retrowire]

117. no no no.... O'Malley is great for gun control, I agree BUT

That's not what I'm talking about. Read the OP.

I'm saying that they're posturing with this one thing here...

"Ending immunity for gun manufacturers."

Suing gun manufacturers will not decrease gun violence. No way. It is a waste of time and effort on laws that could actually change things.

They're posturing by acting as if it's what puts them ahead of Sanders. But really, since the law wouldn't decrease the violence... It changes nothing. They're actually equal with Bernie.

[elleng]

122. Gotcha. We can discuss.

'Encouraging' gun manufacturers to include 'safety' features, by enabling them to be sued for NOT doing so, is a significant issue, imo.

[retrowire]

124. Hmmm

So suing them for not following regulations? That sounds productive.

I'm just against the idea of suing them for someone else misusing their product.

[FSogol]

142. Doesn't anyone care about the companies? Students and kids are getting killed, not gun companies.

[FSogol]

112. Except that O'Malley fought the NRA and won in Maryland. He has a record

of enacting the stuff he talks about.

Sorry, but O'Malley is more progressive on this issue than all other candidates. Does that make everyone happy or solve all the problems with crime, guns, and public safety? Nope, but that's real life for you.

[retrowire]

119. That's not what I'm talking about. Read the OP.

O'Malley is great on gun control, I agree! They all are actually.

But I'm saying that Hillary and O'Malley are posturing with this one thing here...

"Ending immunity for gun manufacturers."

Suing gun manufacturers will not decrease gun violence. No way. It is a waste of time and effort on laws that could actually change things.

They're posturing by acting as if it's what puts them ahead of Sanders. But really, since the law wouldn't decrease the violence... It changes nothing. They're actually equal with Bernie.

[FSogol]

137. You are cherry picking from a whole slew of proposed changes to reach the conclusion you want.

Good luck with that.

[retrowire]

139. I'm not really going out of my way here

I'm just telling it how I see it.

the primaries are a time for intense scrutiny anyways. no doubt in my mind that we're all guilty of cherry picking candidates about stuff.

[Jim Lane]

114. I agree with you about manufacturer liability, BUT...

I do think that Sanders has some vulnerability from his vote against the Brady Bill.

That was a while ago (1993). Has he more recently spoken or voted in ways that indicate a change of heart about any of the specifics in the Brady Bill?

[retrowire]

118. Here ya go.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/05/bernie-sanders-terrifies-nra-consensus-plan-reduce-mass-shootings.html

[delrem]

125. Bernie is correct.

There is no sense in suing gun manufacturers for crimes committed with their products.
To solve the problem of bank robberies, should we sue Ford for providing the getaway car in a heist?
What a ludicrous "solution" to any problem.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

129. Welcome to the big leagues Bernie!

The arguments that I hear about Bernie is a whole lot about consistency. Well, the Senator has been kind of a mess on this. Let's call it the Vermont effect. That effect explains a lot of why Bernie's going to have lots of trouble ahead. The politics of Vermont aren't exactly the politics that Democrats as a whole are comfortable with, let alone the national electorate. Expect more of this.

[in_cog_ni_to]

134. I really detest that phrase -

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

If people didn't have guns, people wouldn't be able to kill people with guns. Triggers are pulled by people. They don't fire by themselves.


"Look, it's pretty convenient. They've gotta attack Bernie on something. They really do, it's not like they can beat him on integrity or the issues or anything." So, so true! They've got nothing!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[retrowire]

138. totally agree

but on the flip side, and I'm sorry you hate the phrase, a gun couldn't kill anyone without a person using/misusing it.

but go Bernie!!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

140. and

a gun couldn't be used /misused if a person couldn't get one.

I'm not anti-gun. I grew up in a house full of guns. My dad and 3 brothers were hunters. I've fired their shotguns and rifles. I personally don't use them, will never own one or have my children around them, but that's my personal choice. I don't need to hunt. I have a grocery store 2 minutes away, but I do understand rural people who need guns to hunt for food (I could never kill an innocent animal) and for protection against large dangerous animals.

Mental Health screenings and having gun show loopholes closed is not unreasonable. Bernie is right on this issue. Suing gun manufacturers for people shooting other people isn't going to do squat to stop all the mass shootings.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[retrowire]

141. totally agree again, yeah it's a double edged sword

less guns would help. less availability would help. tighter regulations and more stringent backgroind checks would help.

I'm all for it.

my only experience with guns was when my alcoholic father went nuts and shot every TV and window out in the house.

I owned a bb gun when I was a kid. it taught me safety.

but I've never wanted a gun because I don't trust myself with one. :/