Hillary shifting blame to Bernie for Mass shootings

[Morphine Prince 109,648]

Just now, FATCAT said:

It's what she's implying, I should probably remove the quotes, makes it look direct.

Well, I think that's subjective. 

But I find it low to use this tragedy for her campaign. Can't say I'm surprised. 

[FATCAT 60,886]

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

Well, I think that's subjective. 

But I find it low to use this tragedy for her campaign. Can't say I'm surprised. 

It's a dark move, especially since it's such a hit or miss, and from recent reactions (since this was posted very recently) it's a miss. Could haunt her for the next few primaries.

[Sexxx 5,737]

18 minutes ago, Temple said:

This is more scandalous than Scandal...

Good evening, lovers of liberty 

 

[Kabexuela 1,184]

She's a pig from hell, next!

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, FATCAT said:

It's what she's implying, I should probably remove the quotes, makes it look direct.

No, she's not. She is referring to what he said in a recent interview. The media has been talking about his poor answers in that interview all day. 

[Goosey 3,017]

She's a moron. Gun manufacturers aren't immune from liability. This legislation was passed after a wave of frivolous lawsuits in the 1990s.

 

Politifact rated her statements FALSE.

 

"... fact checker Politifact rated the statement false, noting that other businesses and entities in America have similar or greater levels of protection against liability, and that firearms dealers and manufacturers are still susceptible to lawsuits and liability."

 

Clinton said the gun industry is "the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability."

Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits.

Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry.

We rate Clinton’s claim False.

 

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products ... manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."

 

This law is just common sense. Hillary is appealing to emotions and being deceitful.

 

Bernie Sanders, who as a congressman voted for the law in 2005, defended the law in October 2015, saying: "If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer."

 

 

[Himeros26 1,688]

35 minutes ago, Whispering said:

No, she's not. She is referring to what he said in a recent interview. The media has been talking about his poor answers in that interview all day. 

But doesn't that newspaper donate to her campaign?

Sigh. HilLiary is threatened by The Bern.

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

I still don't understand how it makes sense to prosecute gun manufacturers for mass shootings. It's a constitutional right to make and sell and purchase firearms whether you like it or not, Hillary. You look like an idiot when you say it. No wonder why every young, sharp-minded voter hates you.

[Goosey 3,017]

12 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I still don't understand how it makes sense to prosecute gun manufacturers for mass shootings. It's a constitutional right to make and sell and purchase firearms whether you like it or not, Hillary. You look like an idiot when you say it. No wonder why every young, sharp-minded voter hates you.

It doesn't need to make sense, it just needs to make votes.

The specific lawsuit she mentioned is absurd.

 

A lawsuit filed Monday by 10 Sandy Hook victims’ families claims Adam Lanza would not have been able to kill 26 people in five minutes without his “weapon of choice,” a Bushmaster AR-15.

“The number of lives lost in those 264 seconds was made possible” by the rifle that was “engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency,” according to the lawsuit against AR-15 manufacturer Bushmaster.

These defendants know that “as a result of selling AR-15s to the civilian market, individuals unfit to operate these weapons gain access to them... Despite that knowledge, defendants continue to sell the XM15-E52 rifle to the civilian market.”

[MJHolland 12,725]

20 minutes ago, Goosey said:

It doesn't need to make sense, it just needs to make votes.

The specific lawsuit she mentioned is absurd.

 

A lawsuit filed Monday by 10 Sandy Hook victims’ families claims Adam Lanza would not have been able to kill 26 people in five minutes without his “weapon of choice,” a Bushmaster AR-15.

“The number of lives lost in those 264 seconds was made possible” by the rifle that was “engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency,” according to the lawsuit against AR-15 manufacturer Bushmaster.

These defendants know that “as a result of selling AR-15s to the civilian market, individuals unfit to operate these weapons gain access to them... Despite that knowledge, defendants continue to sell the XM15-E52 rifle to the civilian market.”

Don't get me wrong, my heart goes out to those families and it was a horrific and senseless thing and maybe civilians should have assault weapons, but it was legal to make at the time and was sold to someone illegally too.