Hillary Clinton’s push on gun control marks a shift in presidential politics

[riversedge]

Source: washingtonpost





?uuid=uUkUpiaFEeW3LCt9UW4eDg
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigns in Iowa City, Iowa, on Tuesday. (Jim Young/Reuters)



By Philip Rucker July 9 at 7:54 PM

In her standard stump speech, Hillary Rodham Clinton talks about fighting income inequality, celebrating court rulings on gay marriage and health care and, since the Emanuel AME church massacre, toughening the nation’s gun laws.

That last component marks an important evolution in presidential politics. For at least the past several decades, Democrats seeking national office have often been timid on the issue of guns for fear of alienating firearms owners. In 2008, after Barack Obama took heat for his gaffe about people who “cling to guns or religion,” he rarely mentioned guns again — neither that year nor in his 2012 reelection campaign.

But in a sign that the political environment on guns has shifted in the wake of recent mass shootings — and of Clinton’s determination to stake out liberal ground in her primary race against insurgent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Clinton is not only initiating a debate about gun control but also vowing to fight the National Rifle Association.

“I’m going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better,” Clinton said Tuesday in Iowa City, Iowa.

A few days earlier, she said in Hanover, N.H.: “We have to take on the gun lobby. .?.?. This is a controversial issue. I am well aware of that. But I think it is the height of irresponsibility not to talk about it.”.................

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-makes-big-gun-control-pitch-marking-shift-in-presidential-politics/2015/07/09/4309232c-2580-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

---

I am so so glad to see this. You go gal

[George II]

1. Great news, good luck to her and I truly hope she's successful.

(now roll the ugliness)

[onehandle]

2. Good. Gun culture is one of the anchors dragging America to the bottom. nt

[PatrynXX]

3. only conservatives get anywhere on gun control

can she be anymore blunt smh. wonder if she's related to reagan

[LAGC]

6. +1

Of course, she's polling so far ahead of the clown-car posse, she can probably get away with it.

You know she's only doing this to try to dig her heel into Sanders with his more rural base.

We'll see how things work out come the debates.

[Uncle Joe]

4. The U.S. has a domestic arms race going on, the NRA would argue

that "more guns equal less crime" and of course this mentality gives government a strong impetus to send military grade weapons, armor and vehicles to our civilian police forces to counter the growing firepower arrayed against them.

This in turn creates a widening chasm between the police; and the citizenry for which they're sworn to serve and protect.

Add an immoral and corruptive for profit industry and you have the makings of a 21st century version of slavery.

No nation should profit from the imprisonment of its citizens.

Thanks for the thread, riversedge.

[questionseverything]

15. for profit prisons are modern day slavery

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/23-cents-an-hour-heres-the-perfectly-legal-modern-day-slavery-happening-in-21st-century-america/

[Uncle Joe]

18. Thanks for the link, questioneverything, if anything should be illegal,

that would be for profit prisons.

There is no moral, economic or societal reason to tolerate their existence, they have no redeeming value.

The longer they exist, the stronger they become as will that of the ensuing national calamity being birthed by such an abomination.

[brer cat]

5. A major front being opened here.

Taking on the NRA takes guts and confidence. Glad Hillary has both.

[catnhatnh]

7. Hillary figures there are about three points she can press Bernie on...

Gun control, support of Israel, and supposed lack of black support.

This means I expect to soon see her at her next press conference wearing a keffiyeh, holding an AK47 and wearing a Malcolm X T-shirt....

[LAGC]

10. ...

[flamingdem]

12. Too funny

I really hope they both keep it cool for our sakes.

[4now]

8. I am glad she is speaking out on this issue

What are the other Democratic candidates position on this issue?

[madville]

9. The gun industry is loving every minute of it

The will have record sales and profits next year, especially if she wins.

The gun industry doesn't really care if new feel good restrictions are passed because then they just modify the firearms to be "ban compliant" and still make their same profits and sales.

[Fred Sanders]

14. NRA talking point is easily refuted....remember when the Confederate flag would never come down?

320 million guns means the gun market in America is saturated.

[madville]

17. It's very real

It's called "fear buying", when Obama was elected in 2008, after Sandy Hook, etc. 2014 saw record background check numbers, not even close to saturated.

"Gun Industry Already Looking Forward To 2016 Election Paranoia For Even Bigger Profit"

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/17/3175361/gun-industry-looking-forward-2016-election-paranoia-bigger-profit/

[Fred Sanders]

20. Missing the point Clinton raised....another point missed: America has more Gun Shops than grocery stores!

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

At least you can get food at grocery and fast food stores.....try eating a bullet!

[NickB79]

22. And the reason there are so many gun shops is because gun sales are lucrative

Who's buying all those guns and bullets?

Those who are buying out of fear and paranoia. And I'm pretty sure all those gun shop owners just saw dollar signs the moment the words "Clinton" and "gun control" flashed across their news feeds.

[Fred Sanders]

23. What difference does it make? There are already 320 million guns out there ...a few more before the

ludicrous number is brought under control?!

The point is it can de done, the time is right, there is revolution in the air and a flag of hate on the ground....next up, the NRA.

[NickB79]

39. You were talking about missing the point

And I pointed out how you clearly did the same in your reply to the previous poster.

[flamin lib]

30. C'mon Ducky. You know that a FFL can't operate out of their house.

Both retail gun sales and gun smiths must have a retail storefront.

I thought you wuz a expert.

[Shamash]

40. Lots of FFL's operate from home or residential addresses

http://www.ffl123.com/Summary%20of%20Home%20FFL%20Data%20by%20State.pdf?avad=55097_d91783ae

In fact, the FFL application form has check boxes for both "single family dwelling" and "public housing" as acceptable "business premises".

For reference of the reader, flamin lib claims to have an FFL. I thought he wuz an expert.

[NickB79]

24. Guns are like shoes to some people

You can have a closet FULL of them, and yet you just have to buy the newest, flashiest, in style one you see.

I'll believe the market is saturated when gun prices either fall substantially, there's ammo on the shelves again (there have been ammo shortages for the past few years as everyone buys it up as fast as the factories make it), or I see substantial numbers of gun shops going out of business.

[flamingdem]

11. Fantasic!

She went there, and I believe she'll continue.

[Fred Sanders]

13. Clinton has her eye on the real target and prize, gun control, not just the Dixie Swatika which the GOP

are attempting to claim is all that is needed in the wake of the Charleston massacre.

The GOP and their media enablers were able to deflect the Sandy Hook massacre into a debate about mental illness, not 320 million guns in America.

Clinton is calling us all out to not be satisfied with a few antique flags being taken down, the NRA flag still waves and mocks us.

[SunSeeker]

16. Now that's what I call leadership!

[lancer78]

19. Only taking up this issue

so she can attack Sanders from the left since he voted in favor of banning SLAPP lawsuits. Political expediency, that is all. She must be really scared of the Bern though.

[SunSeeker]

31. The victims' lawsuits were not SLAPP suits. They were product liability suits.

And Bernie voted for the law that blocked them. The 2005 law Bernie voted for limits gun manufacturer's liability. It has nothing to go with SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation&quot suits.

[Shamash]

42. No, they were -not- product liability suits

They were deliberate attempts to use "judicial activism" to get a result they could not get in the legislature. Read some of the cases and you'll see a lot of judges stating this outright:

In the view of this Court, the City’s complaint is an improper attempt to have this Court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature, which this Court is neither inclined nor empowered to do. - City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson

The County's frustration cannot be alleviated through litigation as the judiciary is not empowered to 'enact' regulatory measures in the guise of injunctive relief. The power to legislate belongs not to the judicial branch of government but to the legislative branch. - Penelas vs. Arms Technology

Indeed, such lawsuits employed to address a host of societal problems would be invited into the courthouse whether the problems they target are real or perceived; whether the problems are in some way caused by, or perhaps merely preceded by, the defendants completely lawful business practices; regardless of the remoteness of their actual cause or of their foreseeability. - New York vs. Sturm Ruger

Bernie Sanders did not vote for the PLCAA (twice) because he loves gun manufacturers (he is F-rated by the NRA), but because he recognized the ethically bankrupt tactic being used by the plaintiffs and this was the only way to stop it. If every cell phone maker got sued every time a texting driver crashed into someone, we'd have the same law protecting cell phone makers.

[SunSeeker]

52. Bernie does not have an F rating, and the PLCAA does not block SLAPP suits.

Bernie does not have an "F" rating, he has a " D-" rating with the NRA. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-exception-bernie-sanders-liberalism
Bernie was also on TV the other day saying he has a "D-" rating. Having a D- means to me he agrees with at least some of the crazy shit that NRA pushes, like the PLCAA.

The PLCAA does not block SLAPP suits. Please give the link where you got that talking point from.

What the PLCAA did is give gun manufacturers an immunity no other product manufacturer has under the law. It absolves gun manufacturers of negligent and even intentional conduct in supplying guns to gun dealers who have a well-established record of poor inventory control and who routinely sell guns used in crimes. There is minority of gun shops who do this and they are well known--to criminals and gun manufacturers. Only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html The PLCAA lets gun manufacturers continue to sell to these shops with impunity. Are you fine with that?

[Shamash]

55. I am absolutely fine with it

But you are correct, Sanders is D- for the NRA. He is F for Gun Owners of America.

Having a D- means to me he agrees with at least some of the crazy shit that NRA pushes, like the PLCAA.

FYI, 33% of Senate Democrats voted for it and 30% of House Democrats did, so before you shift your fauxtrage machine into high gear, go check whether anyone you voted for back then voted for that crazy NRA shit (4 of California's Democratic House members did).

What the PLCAA did is give gun manufacturers an immunity no other product manufacturer has under the law.

To put this as politely as I can, that statement is only true in head up your redacted land. Every manufacturer has that immunity. The PLCAA simply said it again for gun manufacturers because of lawsuits filed with the intent of doing an end-run around the legislature. As I quoted examples of, and which if you cared enough to investigate you would have found out for yourself.

The manufacturer of an item is not liable for the conduct of a third party using that item. Think about it. Maybe even look up "product liability law for dummies". If the legal principle you think is true was true, we would have no alcoholic beverages in this country. Because clearly the manufacturers of these know for a fact that people are getting drunk and wrapping their cars around trees. And beating their spouses and falling down stairs and a whole bunch of other things. How could they possibly sell to a bar or liquor store knowing full well that these deaths and injuries would result from misuse of their product? It's almost like we have laws in this country that hold individuals responsible for their own actions instead of the makers of inanimate objects. Strange but true.

Seriously, the legal chain of liability stops with the user of the item in almost all cases because once you go further than that, you can't really put an end to it. if you can sue the gun maker, then you can sue the company that knowingly sold the gun maker the machine tools to make guns, the company that sold the gun maker the steel they knew was going to be made into guns, the locality that knowingly issued the business license to let the company make guns, and so on. This has been part of product liability law for the entire history of product liability law.

Gun manufacturers can still be held liable for defective products, and gun sellers for selling guns improperly, as I mentioned in an OP here. The PLCAA does not stop them from being sued if they knowingly sold a product that would be used to commit a crime. They can be sued if they were negligent in selling the product to someone they knew was unfit. If you do not believe this, go read the PLCAA (the relevant exceptions I just mentioned are in section 5A of the law).

Also, your quoted statement above is not correct in other ways. The government can and has granted liability immunity to vaccine makers and there was blanket immunity for the airline industry after 9/11 for someone deliberately crashing a plane into something.

The PLCAA does not block SLAPP suits. Please give the link where you got that talking point from.

Is this statement replying to me? I didn't say anything about SLAPP lawsuits.

[SunSeeker]

58. Please cite the legal authority for your claim that, "Every manufacturer has this immunity."

If every manufacturer had this immunity, there would have been no need for the PLCAA.

You offer no links to legal authority for your contention that every manufacturer is absolved of liability for third party criminal use of the product even when the manufacturer knows or should know that it will be used to commit a crime.

[Shamash]

63. Well, you're not illiterate, so the only other possibility relates to your IQ

First, you obviously have not read the case law on the subject or you would know that I'm right regarding third party liability for misuse of a product.

Second, you just as obviously have not read the PLCAA, or you would have read the exceptions that show the manufacturer can be liable if they know it will be used in the crime or otherwise sold the firearm to a prohibited person who then used it in a crime.

So quit embarrassing yourself and go learn something about an issue you claim to care about. Try starting here.

The manufacturer’s duty, however, does not extend to designing a product that is impossible to abuse or one whose safety features may not be circumvented. - Robison vs. Reed Prentice(1980)

[SunSeeker]

65. Figures. You've got nothing but insults.

The victims' lawsuits are not alleging manufacturers should be responsible for each and every "abuse" of the product. Rather, they allege negligent design in that the product was designed in a way that encourages and facilitates abuse, i.e. makes abuse more likely. No other manufacturer is immune from suits alleging that sort of product defect except for gun manufacturers ( because of the PLCAA). That Robison quote you offer does not support your assertion that every manufacturer has this immunity.

[Recursion]

64. No other manufacturer has had all of their sales proactively ruled non-tortious

Every other manufacturer would have to defend a given sale on facts if sued (e.g. if Ford were selling Mustangs to illegal underground racing promoters)

[NickB79]

21. And yet, she has not laid out any specific gun control legislation she would propose or back

It's easy to talk about "doing something" about gun violence. All legislators say this at some time or another, even those deep in the NRA's pockets.

It's quite another thing to propose realistic solutions that can both make an impact on gun violence rates and pass muster with the voters, legislators, and the courts.

If anyone else has any info on more specifics of what she's proposing, I'd love to read about it.

[Fred Sanders]

26. She hates the NRA, what more do you need to know? And supports the Brady and Bloomberg

detailed legislative initiatives, and the vast majority of Americans in detailed polls, if one insists on the need to know.

[NickB79]

57. What I would like are specific statements on what she thinks is politically possible under her term

Simply stating "I support the Brady and Bloomberg initiatives" is basically saying "We're gonna be accomplishing exactly ZERO in my term", because the Brady and Bloomberg initiatives have been on the table for years and gone exactly nowhere in the past decade.

In fact, the initiatives pushed by these groups have taken massive hits in the past 15 years, as several USSC rulings have sided with gun owners instead of gun control advocates, making some of them unlikely to become law simply based upon legal precedent (see the rulings in favor of conceal-carry in DC and Chicago, for instance).

Beyond that, the next president will have to contend with a GOP-controlled Senate and House for at least part of his or her term, making most other initiatives Brady and Bloomberg propose also likely DOA.

And "the vast majority of Americans in detailed polls?" You'll have to be more specific, as several polls have actually found LESS support for strict gun control laws as time has passed: http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

And this is AFTER Sandy Hook

And that's not even taking into consideration whether or not there's any evidence that the initiatives proposed by Brady and Bloomberg would actually do anything about gun violence rates in this country. There is still debate that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and it's accompanying high-capacity magazine restrictions, had much impact on crime rates: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

Thankfully gun violence rates in this country has fallen by half in the past 30 years, to levels not seen since the 1960's, largely independent of whether or not we have new gun control measures enacted. Hopefully this trend will continue going forward.

[ileus]

25. If she'd be progressive on the 2A it would be a clean sweep in the South.

[Thinkingabout]

29. Hillary is strong and she is not running away from hard issues.

There will be more.

[Cha]

32. Thank you, riversedge.. thanks Hillary!

[L0oniX]

33. This is a dead issue & will only play on emotions. Remember when all those childeren were murdered?

If that wasn't enough to get some or any gun control passed then it will never happen IMO. Remember how disappointed Obama was about it? I wish we could have a better vetting system for gun purchases.

[Fred Sanders]

34. Remember when folks said nothing could be done about the Confederate flag or gay marriage?

[L0oniX]

35. That's not even in the same ball park. Nice try.

[riversedge]

44. Fred made a good comment. If folks

continuously say-- nothing can be done-its impossible--etc --then the issue becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have to try.

[Fred Sanders]

48. The gun lovers are scared like never before that they will lose some of their 320 million guns.

[riversedge]

50. Let them huff and puff. Dems will do what is right...

Greater minds than me have said it is a public health issue. Recall the Tobacco industry fights and lies? (maybe is issue if bigger but we will not know unless we go forward with all we have)---anyway--it took 20 plus years of campaigning--but gradually many have come to see that tobacco is deadly. I for one will try my best to get people's headsets changed on this issue. I think Pres Obama tried real hard --esp after Sandy Hook. It is time to try again.

[hack89]

60. And all those Dem gun owners?

There is a good reason opposition to radical gun control is a bipartisan position.

[riversedge]

61. I think reasonable people will

come to realize that their guns will not be taken away.

[hack89]

62. Good. I enjoy my AR15. Nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

69. That makes zero sense.

Support for gun control (or at least anything beyond universal background checks and improving/expanding the NICS database used to make them) has been waning for a while now. What's to be afraid of?

[tularetom]

36. It sure marks a shift in HER politics

Sure she sounds all gun controlley now,

But in 2008, when she was trying to appeal to "hard working Americans, white Americans"…

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/clinton-touts-her-experience-with-guns/

VALPARAISO, Indiana (CNN) - Hillary Clinton appealed to Second Amendment supporters on Saturday by hinting that she has some experience of her own pulling triggers.

“I disagree with Sen. Obama’s assertion that people in our country cling to guns and have certain attitudes about trade and immigration simply out of frustration,” she began, referring to the Obama comments on small-town Americans that set off a political tumult on Friday.

She then introduced a fond memory from her youth.

“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said.

And then there was this:

[OakCliffDem]

38. Hillary supports gun control. Thats the best thing Bernie Sanders has heard her say all week

Senator Sanders is on the move, and Hillary is damaging her foot.

[Shamash]

41. Didn't anyone find the OP photo backdrop ironic given the subject matter? n/t

[Larry Engels]

46. Yep. That eagle is the symbol of the biggest gun dealer in the world.

The USA.

[TeddyR]

43. So did she actually offer a plan?

All I see is a bunch of vague statements about the general need to do "something" about guns and the NRA being bad. Not much of a platform to build from.

[Shamash]

45. Can't be criticized on particulars if she offers none & vague platitudes are enough for some folks

[Larry Engels]

47. That's her strategy: don't offend anyone.

That's what she thinks she needs to do to win.

[Fred Sanders]

49. The NRA is evil. Clinton knows that and supports the specifics of Bloomberg and Brady..get ready to drop your guns

[Evergreen Emerald]

67. I keep hearing that on DU from liberals

attacking Clinton. Yet, I only hear it regarding Clinton. O'Malley, Sanders have also given their general beliefs and goals, yet offer no specifics on how to accomplish them. Why are you holding Clinton to a higher standard?

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. Since President Obama had no luck, let's see if another Democrat can make headway.

[Beauregard]

53. Hillary should be told that gun reduction should begin at home, with the US government.

How about some nuclear disarmament?

How about pulling our armed troops out of the Middle East?

How about cutting funding to the defense industry?

Does Hillary think that only she and her imperialist government should have guns?

[former9thward]

54. Like all Clinton statements it is vague.

Nothing specific. "We have to take on the gun lobby" What does that mean? It allows anyone to project their own views on to her. 'She supports what I think!'

[William Seger]

56. "Like all Clinton statements..." ?

First, I wasn't aware that Clinton was the stereotype of a vague politician, but second, I don't think that's an especially vague statement to anyone aware of the policies that the gun lobby has opposed.

[Cha]

59. KICk

[BooScout]

66. K&R

[Lizzie Poppet]

68. This is pretty obviously geared towards an advantage in the primaries.

I'm also sure that Ms. Clinton knows perfectly well it's pure poison in the general election...and will unceremoniously bury gun control if she emerges as the nominee.