[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49999970]Aren't they both in favor of strong gun control? I recall Hillary being pro weapon bans, and Sanders wanting to prosecute manufacturers if their weapons are used in a crime. Both of these are completely absurd.[/QUOTE]
Both are pro AWB and both are pro manufacturer prosecution, although Sanders changed to his current position on the 2nd recently. And yes, both of these things are very silly.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49999970]Aren't they both in favor of strong gun control? I recall Hillary being pro weapon bans, and Sanders wanting to prosecute manufacturers if their weapons are used in a crime. Both of these are completely absurd.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Sanders ever said anything about prosecuting manufacturers, I think that was Clinton. Actually, I don't think he is really against the whole "assault weapons" thing as much as he is for things like improving background checks.
He is pretty lax on gun control for as liberal as he is. I feel comfortable voting for him as a gun-toting, AR-15 building, hog hunting Floridian.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49999970]Aren't they both in favor of strong gun control? I recall Hillary being pro weapon bans, and Sanders wanting to prosecute manufacturers if their weapons are used in a crime. Both of these are completely absurd.[/QUOTE]
Bernie sanders opposed legislation to sue manufacturers live at a debate, he couldn't really be more against it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49999970]Aren't they both in favor of strong gun control? I recall Hillary being pro weapon bans, and Sanders wanting to prosecute manufacturers if their weapons are used in a crime. Both of these are completely absurd.[/QUOTE]
Uhm
[QUOTE]Voted to pass a bill that would prohibit liability lawsuits from being brought against gun manufacturers and dealers based on the criminal misuse of firearms. The bill would also block these actions from being brought up against gun trade organizations and against ammunition makers and sellers. The measure would apply immediately to any pending cases. Several specific exceptions to the ban exist. This includes civil suits would be allowed against a maker or dealer who "knowingly and willfully violated" state or federal laws in the selling or marketing of a weapon. Design and manufacturing defect lawsuits are also permitted when weapons are "used as intended.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Q: For a decade, you said that holding gun manufacturers legally responsible for mass shootings is a bad idea. Do you want to shield gun companies from lawsuits?
SANDERS: Of course not. This was a large and complicated bill. There were provisions in it that I think made sense. For example, do I think that a gun shop in the state of Vermont that sells legally a gun to somebody, and that somebody goes out and does something crazy, that that gun shop owner should be held responsible? I don't. On the other hand, where you have manufacturers and where you have gun shops knowingly giving guns to criminals or aiding and abetting that, of course we should take action.
[/QUOTE]
He wants to close the gun show loophole and prevent straw-man purchasers, not hold manufacturers and shops liable for legally purchased weapons.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49999970]Aren't they both in favor of strong gun control? I recall Hillary being pro weapon bans, and Sanders wanting to prosecute manufacturers if their weapons are used in a crime. Both of these are completely absurd.[/QUOTE]
To quote Sanders, "punishing gun manufacturers would be like punishing hammer manufacturers if somebody beat somebody over the head with a hammer."
He has in the past voted for protection for manufacturers from lawsuits over the usage of their products, and all he said recently (when Hillary was pressing him over being "pro-gun") was that any manufacturer that negligently sold guns to a dealer that they knew was selling guns without doing background checks etc should be punished (kind of a moot point, because any such dealer should be closed down rapidly under existing law). Basically a little bit of excusable fluff, he knows that doesn't really change anything, you've got to remember he's currently trying to win democrat votes right now.
He's also in favour of state by state gun legislation rather than trying to impose nationwide bans and considers a 7 day waiting period too long. So way to the right of Hilary on gun control then, she's the one who is rabidly anti-gun and has made that a key point of her campaign.
On Meet The Press, Sanders said:
"If you are a gun shop owner in Vermont and you sell somebody a gun and that person flips out and then kills somebody, I don’t think it’s really fair to hold that person responsible, the gun shop owner.
On the other hand, where there is a problem is there is evidence that manufacturers, gun manufacturers, do know that they’re selling a whole lot of guns in an area that really should not be buying that many guns. That many of those guns are going to other areas, probably for criminal purposes. So can we take another look at that liability issue? Yes." ([url]http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/compressed-a-gop-house-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-542544963551[/url])
So his position seems to be a little grey on the issue.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50001135]On Meet The Press, Sanders said:
"If you are a gun shop owner in Vermont and you sell somebody a gun and that person flips out and then kills somebody, I don’t think it’s really fair to hold that person responsible, the gun shop owner.
On the other hand, where there is a problem is there is evidence that manufacturers, gun manufacturers, do know that they’re selling a whole lot of guns in an area that really should not be buying that many guns. That many of those guns are going to other areas, probably for criminal purposes. So can we take another look at that liability issue? Yes." ([url]http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/compressed-a-gop-house-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-542544963551[/url])
So his position seems to be a little grey on the issue.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't seem particularly grey. It seems pretty clear, in the sense that he believes when someone is knowingly funneling guns in to 'front' areas, where people who shouldn't be buying guns are buying them, then they should be liable. Not the gunshop owner, who themselves did due diligence.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49995292]Because you cant confirm (at a minimum) the age of someone voting via phone number.[/QUOTE]
You could have folks take a picture of their ID cards and then upload those, then have image recognition scan the barcodes at the bottom to get all the info on the folks voting
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;50001405]That doesn't seem particularly grey. It seems pretty clear, in the sense that he believes when someone is knowingly funneling guns in to 'front' areas, where people who shouldn't be buying guns are buying them, then they should be liable. Not the gunshop owner, who themselves did due diligence.[/QUOTE]
In my mind, it's grey because he's not saying that they're selling illegally, just that they're selling it vaguely to "an area that really should not be buying that many guns."
I, personally, have no idea what that means. The average liberal would probably define the entire country as "an area that really should not be buying that many guns."
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49998089]Except republics and democracies aren't mutually exclusive. America is pretty much a de facto democracy[/QUOTE]
It's a representative democracy, not just a straight-up democracy (thankfully)
A true democracy would be what Greece had, with a bunch of people in a forum yelling over each other to establish law
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;50001405]That doesn't seem particularly grey. It seems pretty clear, in the sense that he believes when someone is knowingly funneling guns in to 'front' areas, where people who shouldn't be buying guns are buying them, then they should be liable. Not the gunshop owner, who themselves did due diligence.[/QUOTE]
And then you would probably end up not selling in areas with large minority populations therefore racial discrimination. Not to mention, you could still purchase firearms online and have them sent to an FFL, which mitigates any sense in having that law in the first place.
[QUOTE=phygon;50001496]You could have folks take a picture of their ID cards and then upload those, then have image recognition scan the barcodes at the bottom to get all the info on the folks voting[/QUOTE]
I still dont see how this would validate someone's age at all. That opens a lot of doors for voting fraud.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/PgZtz0j.gif[/img]
That's really well made
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;50003239][img]http://i.imgur.com/PgZtz0j.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
the 1% is trying to take the 99% of my fries!
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50003653]Moderate means status quo. Can't be more moderate than Hillary.[/QUOTE]
I find it hard to believe Hillary is "status quo" beyond only the most broadest of terms. I can't understand how she's the "Obama's 3rd Term" candidate. They have had two very different voting records, especially when it comes to foreign relations, which I feel is Obama's strongest in terms of policy. Clinton may as well be a closet GOP warhawk with her past voting records and that's something I can't abide by while calling her Obama's Third Term.
I can see Clinton sending troops into Iraq (and not those little expeditionary forces, either) and I can never see Hillary having opened relations with Cuba like Obama did.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50003754]I find it hard to believe Hillary is "status quo" beyond only the most broadest of terms. I can't understand how she's the "Obama's 3rd Term" candidate. They have had two very different voting records, especially when it comes to foreign relations, which I feel is Obama's strongest in terms of policy. Clinton may as well be a closet GOP warhawk with her past voting records and that's something I can't abide by while calling her Obama's Third Term.
I can see Clinton sending troops into Iraq (and not those little expeditionary forces, either) and I can never see Hillary having opened relations with Cuba like Obama did.[/QUOTE]
True. Clinton is left of Obama on domestic issues and more hawkish on foreign policy. I think that's her weakest point to me, as Obama did very well in foreign policy; except for the Syrian red line, which he shouldn't have done in the first place anyway. Clinton is more destructive. Libya showcased this.
However, Hillary won't invade Iraq, but would follow the formula done in Libya. She won't open up to Cuba, hwoever, she will if she can squeeze some concessions from them. She's a Realist too, but more hawkish.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
