Hillary Clinton Challenges Bernie Sanders to ‘Join the Democrats’ on Gun Control

[riversedge]

Source: abc



Hillary Clinton Challenges Bernie Sanders to ‘Join the Democrats’ on Gun Control

By Jordyn Phelps

Dec 19, 2015, 9:40 PM ET

PHOTO: Bernie Sanders, left, speaks while Hillary Clinton listens during a Democratic presidential primary debate, Dec. 19, 2015, at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H.Jim Cole/AP Photo
WATCH Democratic Candidates Debate Gun Control Laws



...................

“I would hope, Sen. Sanders, that you would join the Democrats who are trying to close the Charleston loophole, that you would sponsor or co-sponsor legislation to remove the absolute immunity,” Clinton said, challenging her principle rival in the Democratic primary.

Clinton’s slight at Sanders’ gun record came after former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley took a shot at both Clinton and Sanders record on guns, accusing them both of making it easier for lone wolf terrorists to buy weapons because they haven’t been strong enough on the issue of guns.


Clinton and Sanders both objected to O’Malley’s characterization, with Clinton calling on him to “tell the truth.”


............Sanders’ record on gun control has proven to be an Achilles heel in his campaign, with Sanders' record of voting against the Brady bill that mandated background checks and a formerly held position that gun manufacturers shouldn’t be held responsible for mass shootings coming under scrutiny. .....................

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-challenges-bernie-sanders-join-democrats-gun/story?id=35849109

[Thinkingabout]

1. Again if there is to be a change in background checks it will be lead and passed

By Democrats.

[elias49]

2. That's Clinton for you...promise things that seem so Necessary

but unachievable. Makes her sound so Right!!
And when she can't accomplish what she 'promises', she'll blame the Rethugs...can't say she isn't shrewd.

[trillion]

26. There is nothing un-achievable about doing background checks. Corporations do back ground checks

daily for millions in this country and police do a quick police record check for every person they stop. We have the means, just so far not the will. The court records databases have also been online for 15 years in most states. We can have a unified database and do checks and gunnuts can wait if we're back logged which we wouldn't be if we had the will to get our stuff together.

[Cryptoad]

3. Gun Control can not ,,,,

be accomplished at the State Level. It has to be done at a Federal level. Bernie not knowing that shows a very serious flaw.

[trillion]

27. I agree with you. However he is still the best candidate we have a chance to actually

elect.

[turbinetree]

4. I want a question on bullets-----------------$10,000 dollar bullet tax.......................

that's gun control.

Then Ask every candidate if they truly know why the second amendment was created-----------------and if they don't know, then they shouldn't be president ------------------------it was about slavery, and the containment of slave rebellions

Not one question was asked like that during this debate--------------nope------------- it was about getting those ratings--------that would have been a rating gambit, instead of the rehash question-------------that would have been responsible---------------that would have put the entire issue where it needs to be-------------------you want accountability, here is a user tax on a bullet, you can have all the guns you want, but if you want a bullet--------------pay the tax-------------even on the bozo clown car show--------------------------------------you want fairness in moderating a debate ask the same question to the right wing hypocrites, let's hear the insanity.



Honk-----------------------for a political revolution it is about getting a progressive U.S. Supreme Court, Congress and State legislatures

Bernie 2016

[hack89]

7. Some serious revisionist bs there

Last edited Sun Dec 20, 2015, 11:03 PM - Edit history (1)

the 2A was not about slavery. First off there are no contemporary accounts that support that idea. Secondly, why then did non- slave states put the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitutions?

[turbinetree]

16. Try again..........................

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/second-amendment-ratified-preserve-slavery

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/thom-hartmann-second-amendment-was-ratified-preserve-slavery

[hack89]

17. Give me links to contemporary accounts

show me the words of the people that wrote the 2A. I don't care about modern revisionist history used to support a political agenda.

[turbinetree]

19. Try this ............................

An Indigeous Peoples History of the United States page 80 second paragraph, the book is pretty straight forward, on how the colonist and there lackeys (British, French, Spanish, Dutch, you name it) implemented there doctrine against the First People and the slaves they brought over--------------you might say there Manifest Destiny

But then again, there is what these slave owners said and did and the same very fine folks and and there culture said and did to the Indegeous people-------------the record is pretty clear---------------------it was about power

https://consortiumnews.com/2013/01/21/the-second-amendments-history/


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/16/founding-fathers-words-reveal-2nd-amendment-was-to-preserve-slavery/



http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

[hack89]

20. Considering that the founding fathers had the right to keep and bear arms as Englishmen

isn't more reasonable to assume they simple copied the British Bill of Rights? It is remarkably familiar to ours.

And you haven't addressed the issue of why non-slave state wrote the right to keep and bear arms into their state constitutions. It would appear to me that there may have been various reasons why the 2A was adopted.

The irony of this particular argument is that modern gun control has it's roots in the successful attempt to disarm blacks post-reconstruction. The collective right argument was formulated precisely to ensure that only certain people had guns. Shall issue is a classic example - give the local sheriff the final say as to who can own a gun. We know how that worked in the South, don't we?

[turbinetree]

21. Again.....................

the so called founding fathers had an agenda--------------and it was to stay in power when the situation arose, by any means possible, and in that gambit, from the time they landed until now, they have used some document to justify the actions they took.

They, the insurrectionists in the country needed a ninth colony at that time to ratify the document called the Constitution, to hell with the Indigenous people and the slaves, they needed Georgia to get the ratification. Georgia and Virginia had slave patrols that is a historical fact, and Madison (who wrote the second amendment), Jefferson and Henry had to include some amendment to jusitfy the actions of having a gun---------------it was about economics, the entire rebellion by the colonists was about economics, it always has been

have a good day

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/natturner/slave_rebellions.html

http://libcom.org/history/1619-1741-slavery-slave-rebellion-us

[hack89]

22. No. They copied the English Bill of Rights

they wanted to keep the right they had enjoyed their entire life.

[anigbrowl]

23. You're both right to some extent

There was an English right to bear arms, but it was limited to Protestants, Catholics being considered a subversive minority in England at that time.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

[EX500rider]

12. "$10,000 dollar bullet tax."

Right, so only the very rich can afford self-defense/hunting/target shooting....nice progressive attitude there....lol

[turbinetree]

24. I don't know..................................

make the bullets worth a zillon dollars tax, better than what's going on now, whats your solution
have a nice day

[EX500rider]

29. What ever my solution is it would have to be constitutional...

....which a high bullet tax is not.

Expanded mental heath services to cut down on the suicides which are 2/3 of firearm fatalities.
Mandatory background checks for all sales, incld private to cut down on sales to prohibited persons.
Free safety classes and trigger locks for 1st time buyers to cut down on accidental discharges and misuse.

[turbinetree]

30. My solution------------------

its already in the constitution and for that matter under Article I Section 8 paragraph 1 they can do it, they can tax that bullet, into oblivion as far as I am concerned


Honk--------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016




It is about getting a progressive U.S. Supreme Court, Congress and state and local governments

[EX500rider]

31. No, unconstitutional just like a high tax on ink or paper would be.

[turbinetree]

32. Commerce......................

Article I section 8 paragraph 1 and 3

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause

[EX500rider]

33. Not allowed excessive taxes on constitutional rights..already been ruled on:

Court rules paper and ink tax unconstitutional

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, standing up for freedom of the press, struck down 8-1 Tuesday a Minnesota tax on paper and ink used by large newspapers.

In an important ruling for the newspaper industry, the justices said it is a violation of the Constitution's free press guarantee to impose a special tax only on newspapers -- even if the taxes are lower than those for other businesses.

http://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/03/29/Court-rules-paper-and-ink-tax-unconstitutional/8053417762000/

[stonecutter357]

5. K&R!

[pocoloco]

6. What would a real campaign against gun violence look like?

She hasn't a clue!

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/what-would-a-real-campaign-against-gun-violence-look-like/

[elias49]

8. No she doesn't, but she has polished talking points.

[George II]

9. I caught that - it was excellent.

[SunSeeker]

10. K & R

[EndElectoral]

11. The real question is what constitutional gun control legislation can actually be passed

[MurrayDelph]

13. I see it

as another try to paint her opponent as "other," which worked so well for her in 2008.

[PatrynXX]

14. Doubt it. Dems are pro NRA

why would he join in.

[hollowdweller]

15. I think gun control is still a loser issue for the dems.

Despite the recent high profile mass shootings I do not think the politics of the issue have changed significantly.

What I see is Hillary and a lot of dems pushing an issue that could cause them to lose a lot of seats, maybe even the presidency.

I personally think Hillary is way ahead of the curve on gun control and way behind the curve on economic fairness.

Maybe I'm totally wrong but I'm really curious given that she has made this issue such a top priority if the politics have shifted or if it will cause people to vote republican even more. Obama talked about assault weapons during the campaign but generally kept the issue low key. Even Manchin/Toomey which was very mild and in no way taking peoples guns couldn't pass.

Anyway I think the more she makes herself seem more extreme on guns by attacking Sanders the more she hurts her chances and especially hurts dems on down the ballot.

We'll see if it's a wise move I guess.

[appal_jack]

18. Agreed. I prefer Bernie's support of the Second Amendment.

Though honestly, his belated embrace of an Assault Weapons Ban (i.e.- prohibiting cosmetic features and magazine sizes on guns hardly ever used in crimes) is disappointing. But he's still the best candidaate out there from either Party on rights over all.

-app

[trillion]

25. While I'm not voting for Hillary, I do think she's forcing Bernie to be a better on much

needed gun control. Bernie 16.

[lunamagica]

28. K&R.

[ozone_man]

34. Will it apply to foreign policy too?

It's strange that Hillary is such an MIC loving war hawk, yet is so against gun possession at home. It doesn't wash with me.