Connecticut Democratic Senator says "Sanders can not be the party nominee due to stance on guns" - Polidicks

[quote]Sanders, in an exclusive interview with the Daily News last week, said, “No, I don’t,” when asked if victims of a crime with a gun should be able to sue the manufacturer.[/quote] A++ proofreading from this news site, lol. "Should victims of a crime with a gun be able to sue the manufacturer?" "No, I don't."

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50081892]I think expanded background checks, limits on how many guns one can buy, [B]closing gun show and private dealer loopholes are all reasonable.[/B] I don't think an assault weapons (read: "I saw it in a war movie once") ban will be effective in preventing crime or even mass shootings, but I think making sure every purchase of guns in this country is catalogued and registered is important. I think one ought to have a license to sell guns, even over Craigslist so that we can document who owns what guns to tie them back to crimes. Then, if a gun was sold without a license, the seller should be held responsible.[/QUOTE] "gunshow loop hole" doesn't exist, it is on the same tier as "assault weapon" when it comes to making up phrases that don't have any reason to exist besides being spooky to the uninformed. It's not a loop hole. They aren't getting around any laws. Federally, there aren't many laws regulating private sales, nor should there be. Other wise, what does limits on how many guns someone can buy do, and registries are already proven ineffective or at the least, a colossal waste by our northern neighbors. Craigslist doesn't allow firearms, what are you even talking about? No reason I should have to get an expensive license and have my name on the books to sell my grandpas shotgun, or my buddies AR. Anything involving a "license" when it comes to firearms is usually useless, and bordering on unconstitutional.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;50081271]So they are having a go at Sanders because he refuses to agree with them for their right to sue the gun manufacturers, [B]where they really should be attempting to get the AR-15 off the streets instead.[/B][/QUOTE] You don't know what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=cody8295;50081267]Lol my senators make me ashamed to live here. Fuck you Dannel Malloy and fuck you Chris Murphy. Bernies stance is that gun manufacturers should have immunity unless they had knowledge before selling guns/ammo that they would be used for a crime.[/QUOTE] you realize that dannel malloy is governor right [B]edit:[/B] im from ct and i feel that chris murphy is an excellent representative while i disagree with him on this statement i don't find it particularly surprising, he's a young up and coming senator with a long career in front of him and he's not trying to push himself out of the establishment yet. he's also trying to secure his own place as a senator; various individuals across CT have stated that they'll be running as republicans and running against Senator Richard Blumenthal. Murphy is trying to secure his and his senior's positions as CT's senators. Why? Because despite what some of the CT-based facepunchers may think, the state leans in favor of gun control. For a variety of reasons, but Sandy Hook is certainly the most recent event to stir peoples' opinions on it. the state is ranked among the top most unforgiving states in the country regarding punishment of criminals. Crime rates have been decreasing steadily over the years, but the state continues pushing as hard as it can (often to the detriment of minority communities) to crush it down, and part of that is guns. guns play heavily into violence in hartford, new haven, and bridgeport especially. this was pre-sandy hook. CT is full of stuffy old white people (for once of the liberal variety) who've thought this way for years. in '94 a 7 year old got shot and put the state into hardcore mode. but despite that? what some of the more ferverous gun owners would say is that it's impossible to own a gun reasonably in connecticut. it's not. you can open carry easily without harassment in many areas, you can carry loaded weapons in your vehicle if you have a pistol permit, castle doctrine reigns, supressors are legal, it all goes on. i've been shooting for years. no problems. way better than in florida where fuckin idiots sell their guns at private conventions and then run through the town shooting up fucking street signs. means the concept of open carry in florida hardly exists. get shot dead by a hillsborough county deputy immediately if you get spotted with anything. tldr: murphy is being a politician. he's a good representative playing to his base just like everybody else except a few exceptional people like sanders himself. you can't really be a "pro-gun" politician in connecticut, the base isn't there for it.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;50081271]So they are having a go at Sanders because he refuses to agree with them for their right to sue the gun manufacturers, where they really should be attempting to get the AR-15 off the streets instead.[/QUOTE] The vast majority of gun crime is committed with pistols, with shotguns coming second. Semi-automatic rifles are lower on the list.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;50083782]you realize that dannel malloy is governor right[/QUOTE] Yeah, like even if you live in CT and didn't know that it's right in the snippet I posted. Though honestly I posted this less because its about guns, but more about the Democrats next plan of attack against Sanders - his gun views (which Hillary today has been complaining about on Twitter). They're basically trying to pull a "no true scotsman"

[QUOTE=bdd458;50083818]Yeah, like even if you live in CT and didn't know that it's right in the snippet I posted. Though honestly I posted this less because its about guns, but more about the Democrats next plan of attack against Sanders - his gun views (which Hillary today has been complaining about on Twitter)[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what she intends to accomplish doing that, since the Democratic voter base has been divided every which way on gun views for years

[quote]At issue is whether the manufacturer, distributor and seller of shooter Adam Lanza’s AR-15 assault rifle can be sued for the deaths of 20 students and six school staffers killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre. The plaintiffs claim they can sue the companies because manufacturers knew the AR-15 rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting wasn’t suitable for civilian use when it was introduced in the market.[/quote] How is this the company's fault? I could use a car to ran over a fuckton of people, most likely doing more damage than Lanza did, even if he had a gun in each hand, and nobody would say "ban cars!" or would blame the company that made the car. Unsuitable for civilian use? Anything can be unsuitable for civilian use if you have any mental instability ffs.

[QUOTE=lavacano;50083826]I'm not sure what she intends to accomplish doing that, since the Democratic voter base has been divided every which way on gun views for years[/QUOTE] I'd say it's to try to swing voters who are fairly hardline on the guns issue (considering the people these comments are coming from) but like guns haven't been an issue at all in this election. And itms not even like Sander's isn't a liberal on gun issues, he's just less so than her (and really not by a hell of a lot).

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;50083782]you realize that dannel malloy is governor right.[/QUOTE] Yep but he and murphy are quoted, and fuck the other senator too

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50081289]Do you know how uninformed you sound when saying this. In the case of Adam Lanza, he tried to legally acquire a gun and was denied, so he stole his parents legally acquired weaponry, killed his mom then went on a rampage in Newtown. You're not going to prevent gun theft by hurting law abiding citizens in the process.[/QUOTE] ??? if it wasn't legal in the first place how could he have stolen it?

[QUOTE=Boilrig;50081271]So they are having a go at Sanders because he refuses to agree with them for their right to sue the gun manufacturers, where they really should be attempting to get the AR-15 off the streets instead.[/QUOTE] How about illegally owned handguns which account for a vast majority of homicides? More people die from being killed by blunt objects than rifles. [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50081698]I didn't really want to discuss this, but there is a reason why there are so many firearms in the possession of criminals in the US, and it isn't because they suddenly manifested themselves out of the thin air. Either way, I just wanted to put my opinion out there to say you can both be "anti-gun" [I]and[/I] against retarded legislation.[/QUOTE] Illegally owned, ie: many weapons imported from other countries, surprise surprise it still happens.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50082999]Do you know how buying a gun legally works, especially when it comes to legally buying and selling a firearm online? Because if you say yes, you're lying. All of these things you say "happen" don't, at least legally I mean. To legally buy and sell firearms, even online and from third parties, you need an FFL license holder, usually a gun store owner, to be the "transferring" party that legally sees over ownership of the firearm from one person to another, and filing the proper paper work from both parties to the state and federal governments. You can't legally buy a gun from craigslist unless they say they're going through the FFL process, otherwise it's illegal. Same with specialized websites like armslist, there's a lot of guns there but if you're smart you're buying from the people who say "will only meet at an FFL location".[/QUOTE] No, you don't need an FFL if you're just a hobbyist. You need an FFL if you're making a living off of selling guns. I can meet someone in a walmart parking lot and sell my pistol if I want (at least here in Virginia, I can). Also I looked it up just now; craigslist doesn't allow gun sales. Furthermore, the gun show loophole I'm talking about is the lack of a waiting period. When I bought my Ruger at a maryland gun show, all I had was a 30 minute waiting period, not 7 days. But none of this addresses the following I had also said: - Require registration for all guns in the US - Expanded background checks (background check by private dealers) - End private sales, period Personally, I don't buy the "guns are a right" argument. First of all, I think that so-called constitutionalists are too quick to disregard the "militia" and "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment. Even then, I think the 2nd amendment was a huge mistake. Outside of the context of the constitution, I don't think that weapon ownership (of any kind) is a human right. I think countries that ban the ownership of guns aren't infringing on some sort of human right, for example. I think gun ownership ought to be a privilege. Also, I don't believe that guns are an effective deterrent against tyranny. Firstly, I think the exact people that will fight to the death for gun rights are the exact tyrants we would need to fight (conservatives/right wing). I don't think there are many so-called tyrannical policies that the extreme right disagrees with. I think guns are good for self defense (since the ship has sailed for getting rid of guns outright). I just think that every purchase should be between legally registered parties selling legally registered guns to make sure that guns sold in legal channels will only go to legal owners. [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=abcpea;50084447]??? if it wasn't legal in the first place how could he have stolen it?[/QUOTE] His mom legally bought the gun. He stole it from her [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SpaceGhost;50084686]How about illegally owned handguns which account for a vast majority of homicides? More people die from being killed by blunt objects than rifles. [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] Illegally owned, ie: many weapons imported from other countries, surprise surprise it still happens.[/QUOTE] I think a far more common method is straw purchases. Someone legally buys a gun and sells it to someone who could not otherwise get one. Because of some lax laws, the seller is not required to do a background check on the buyer, so if the buyer goes and shoots up a house in a drive by, the seller can't be held responsible since he can claim "I didn't know he was a felon, etc."