Clinton to Sanders: 'If you have something to say, say it'

[riversedge]

Source: cnn



Clinton to Sanders: 'If you have something to say, say it'
Stephen Collinson Profile

By Stephen Collinson, CNN

Updated 4:50 AM ET, Fri February 5, 2016 | Video Source: CNN

=

(CNN)Hillary Clinton -- a veteran political brawler -- on Thursday flashed genuine anger and disbelief that Democratic presidential rival Bernie Sanders is casting doubt on her authenticity as a warrior in the left's great battles against Republicans.

The former secretary of state accused Sanders of delivering an "artful smear" by suggesting her political favor could be bought by rich donors.

"If you have something to say, say it," Clinton said as she and Sanders met at a debate in New Hampshire that was broadcast on MSNBC.


A fight has been brewing between Sanders and Clinton for days over who is the most genuine progressive after the Vermont senator said that she could not be a moderate and a progressive at the same time. They sparred five days before their next nominating clash, in the New Hampshire primary.......................

"I am not making promises that I can't keep," she said.

Clinton said that by Sanders' definition of progressive politics, there would be nobody left in the movement, including President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, who was a hero to liberals.....................

"I don't think it was particularly progressive to vote against the Brady bill five times," Clinton said, referring to past votes by Sanders on gun control...................




Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/democratic-debate-highlights/index.html?eref=rss_latest

---

Hillary is talking no guff from anyone!! You go gal.

[daleanime]

1. Clinton tired of polite dialog....

film at eleven.

[uhnope]

55. yes she lost her cool. not presidential at all

[riversedge]

57. Hillary was assertive against Sanders camp smears. So what. Bernie yells -so what!

[uhnope]

59. she lost control of herself & looked desperate. It was painful to watch

[riversedge]

60. Get used to Hillary being assertive. She will not take any more smears from

Sanders camp.

[uhnope]

61. you mean playing passive-aggressive games? That's not assertive.

That's dishonest. Honesty is a big problem for HRC.

[roguevalley]

62. it isn't even assertiveness. its content. she could give a damn about the left. she failed the

biggest test of our age and her own character by voting for the Iraq War to save her own political viability at a time when way too many others were doing the same thing. They never believed that there would be a political price for their cowardice. But there is and she's paying it now. She is dishonest and the reason she is falling like a rock is the simple fact that no one believes in or believes her.

[uhnope]

75. "the biggest test of our age". WELL PUT.

I sincerely wish she weren't running. I know that's not realistic but I keep getting that "what if" feeling. She has really made a mess by running. The smart/sane know when to quit, & getting slam-dunked by Obama eight years ago was a pivotal moment. If only she'd just go away, maybe Elizabeth Warren would be running.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

74. When women are assertive and confident, they are labeled "unhinged" or angry. As a black

woman, I know this all too well--with the "Angry Black Woman" stereotype.

Hillary owned Sanders in last night's debate. And I'm no lover to the Clintons.

In fact, I've been banned in both groups here on DU.

Still, HRC beat Sanders handily, and she looked rather presidential. I always thought she was a masterful debater. As much as I love Obama, she handled him, too.

[wordpix]

84. don't forget that other label, "controversial"

I was labeled this by my own Dem Town Comm. on which I sit, b/c I have been involved in controversial local issues. Heaven forbid a reasonably intelligent woman should get involved in such issues and speak and write about them.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

85. They couldn't have been that far apart because Sanders kept prefacing his responses with

"I agree". So she couldn't have been that unhinged.

[trueblue2007]

73. you said she looked desperate and it was PAINFUL TO WATCH?

you are a silly person

[riversedge]

101. I feel your painful concern

[LanternWaste]

103. We often rationalize what we see via the mechanism of bias.

We often rationalize what we see via the mechanism of bias. It's human nature to do so-- and painful to watch otherwise rational posters doing as much.

[Nitram]

76. Even presidents get angry.

Clinton makes an excellent point: by Bernie's standards (and apparently those of his followers) no one is a liberal progressive but him (and maybe Elizabeth Warren). I'm really getting tired of Bernie's dishonesty.

[uhnope]

77. people who see the world as My Team Vs Their Team cannot judge things on their own merits

So they think it's legitimate in this context to use phrases like "Bernie's dishonesty"

[Nitram]

96. What's not My Team vs Your Team about insisting that your team is the only liberal team?

Thanks, uhnope, you just confirmed my point.

[uhnope]

97. actually, you're shooting yrself in the foot every time you do that

[Nitram]

98. Actually you don't make any sense at all when you fail to even make an attempt to address the point.

Throwing in a worn-out cliche doesn't make your comment any more interesting or true. I'd guess it wasn't your foot that got shot.

[uhnope]

100. kind of a childish argument

"insisting that your team is the only liberal team" is what you are projecting onto me. When did I say that? That's called a strawman argument. This whole thing started with your slam about "Bernie's dishonesty" which you haven't even attempted to back up. It's sad really but whatever. I guess that's what happens when people rationalize support for someone like HRC

[MynameisBlarney]

2. LOL

That challenge might come back to haunt her.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. I do believe even Sherlock would say, "No shit."

It already has, from what I see on the 'tubes.

[thesquanderer]

39. It already did.

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511147943

[Akicita]

46. We might find out soon.

Supposedly President Obama's FBI are also investigating possible connections between Hillary's SOS actions and the Clinton Foundation
or Bill's exorbitant speaking fees. This involves the personal emails Hillary deleted that the FBI may have managed to recover from her server.

[leveymg]

3. Hillary wrote the books on The Art of the Smear and the Art of Serving Curried Donors.

She's not one to be casting aspersions about either topic.

[mcar]

4. K&R

[livetohike]

5. Slam dunk! Mr. More Progressive Than Thou and every one else in politics . She

nailed him. Glad she pointed out his hypocrisy. It's about time.

[redstateblues]

19. Loved it. Bernie was speechless

[livetohike]

26. That moment in the debate would make a good ad. Especially the look on

Bernie's face.

[riversedge]

32. It was priceless. He was blistering with his eyeballs.

[roguevalley]

63. Iraq.

[frylock]

68. Yes yes! Please do use that in an ad!

[Juneboarder]

36. I thought the response by Bernie was excellent.

He didn't skip a beat one bit. She said to say it to her face, and he sure did.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. I'll say it: Hillary, you are bought and paid for by Wall Street... release the transcripts of your paid speeches... or are you afraid it'll show I'm right?!

There, I said it.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[livetohike]

27. Seriously no one outside of DU cares about this. n/t

[roguevalley]

64. they do but enjoy your bliss while it lasts

[riversedge]

66. your bernie bubble that you live in, leads you to say silly things.

[lob1]

78. Oh yeah? Ask Mitt Romney.

His exposed speech to donors sunk him.

[Sunlei]

7. They both did well. I think Mrs. Clinton shines in debate format. I don't like debate format-to fast

'To fast' meaning cut off constantly. Personally, I don't like an audience we & they can hear- either. It's annoying.

[elias49]

8. Is that when she got booed?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. she interrupted and began attacking

[restorefreedom]

43. yes. nt

[peace13]

9. Nothing, and I mean nothing trumps the Iraq War vote!

End of story.

[Fuddnik]

12. That's arguable.

You've got cluster bombs, free trade agreements........

A pretty horrendous right-wing progressive ( ) voting record.

[peace13]

16. LOL

There are those. I stand my ground though. Too many dead soldiers and Iraqis. Too many maimed soldiers and Iraqis. Too many families destroyed here and there. It busted the Middle East wide open and brought us the world we have today. The list goes on. Last but not least, the wasted and missing money. Gotta give it to you, with Clinton, there is a buffet of bad choices.

[lunamagica]

51. How about voting five times against the Brady Bill?

She made a big mistake. Once. He voted FIVE TIMES. And he has never apologized for it

[Beacool]

53. Oh, please........

[wordpix]

86. I'm for Bernie but his voting against the Brady Bill doesn't sit well

There were other gun control bills he also voted against, too.

[humbled_opinion]

10. Has everyone here forgotten

Hillary's go to issue of gun control is a non starter in the GE so what exactly is she trying to do? Hillary's vote for the IWR caused more gun deaths than all the NRA lobbying has ever caused so what is she really saying? Hillary is spreading misinformation and lies, yeah that's gonna get her trustworthy numbers up.... She loses any GE by a landslide we only have one chance to get this right....

[humbled_opinion]

11. You know what they call men

that do this ....."a veteran political brawler -- on Thursday flashed genuine anger and disbelief"......

BULLY....

[Bonobo]

13. It was hilarious and she would have been better off not saying it because

she got her ass kicked rhetorically about 30 seconds after it.

[Geronimoe]

14. The Clinton's made $30 million last year

because everyone loves them, especially Wall Street, Big Pharma, and the healthcare insurance providers.

[riversedge]

31. Jealousy is not a good character trait

[GummyBearz]

35. Is telling the truth a good character trait? Because that is what the above poster did...

[frylock]

69. Envy is the word I believe that you're looking for.

[wordpix]

87. link, please? Of course the donors want something for their million$

Even The Donald got what he wanted for his donation$ when he was a donor

[nyabingi]

15. Hillary is starting to get mad

because she sees it all slipping away.

She'll probably physically attack Bernie at the next debate lol.

[blackspade]

17. HRC hitches herself to the legacy of others as usual.

Using a dead man as part of her shtick is a new low as well.

[Joe Nation]

18. I believe....The rest of you are Dinos

[A Simple Game]

20. That's a mighty short list you have there. Why don't we try a larger one? n/t

Isn't this one much better?

[elias49]

71. Oh snap.

Seems like Hillary has nothing but stridency.

[Fuddnik]

21. This is news?

Let us know when Hillary "suspends" her campaign.

[jtuck004]

23. Hot air built up inside and overflowed...oh, wait, that was the volcano... n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Wellstone is a hero to straight Democrats who don't mind his smug DOMA vote. I am a critic of

the late Senator's very nasty attitudes toward LGBT who expected his progressive support and instead got insulted prior to his eager yes vote.

Wellstone's peers told him before his vote exactly what it was wrong. Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Ill.):

“I hope that every person on this floor who is going to look at and vote on this bill considers for a moment what the judgment of history might be if 50 years from now their grandchildren look at their debates and look at their words in support of this mean-spirited legislation, and consider the judgment that will be cast upon them then.”


The DOMA branch of the Party is past it's shelf life.

[Jarqui]

28. Elizabeth Warren explained it pretty well

You can be sure the GOP will fully brief Americans on the State Department-Clinton Foundation allegations.

Not easy to cover it in a few seconds of a debate. Bernie will probably have a better answer for the next debate.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. It wasn't complicated for Hillary because she never had to vote on 5 versions of the bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

You can't say Bernie voted against the bill five times as if it was re-raised in the same form over and over, the bill evolved considerably.

According to Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ reason for opposing the Brady bill was two-fold. First, he believed implementing a national waiting period was federal overreach. And second, he was doing his job.

"He wasn't opposed to states having (waiting periods) if they wanted to. The Republicans wanted to repeal waiting periods in states that had them, and Bernie voted that down," Weaver said. "He said he would be against waiting periods, and he kept his word to the people of Vermont."

In April 1991, Sanders’ then-chief of staff Anthony Pollina echoed the idea that Sanders was simply representing the will of his constituents.

"Bernie’s response is that he doesn’t just represent liberals and progressives. He was sent to Washington to present all of Vermont," Pollina said. "It’s not inappropriate for a congressman to support a majority position, particularly on something Vermonters have been very clear about."

Shame on Sanders for having a principled stance Hillary never even had to consider. Even her husband, the man who signed it into law, only had to face one version of the bill to decide upon.

[SunSeeker]

33. No, the shame is all on Bernie for voting No on ANY version of the Brady Bill.

Hillary may not have had a chance to vote on the Brady Bill, but she was in the Senate when the hideous NRA wet dream that is the PLCAA came up and she voted NO. Bernie showed his true colors again and voted YES.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. There's nothing wrong with the PLCAA.

"However, both 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 in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."

If a gun is defective, or marketed/sold in a means that bypasses background checks, the maker/dealer can still be held liable.

It brings gun manufacturer liability into line with any other commercial venture.

[SunSeeker]

41. Then why did Bernie flip flop and is now pushing to repeal the PLCAA?

Spare me the NRA talking points on the PLCAA. Even Bernie is too embarrassed to carry their water on it any more.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. I don't know the NRA's current talking points because I don't know the NRA's position on it.

I assume they are in favor of it, but I don't really care, because I do not base my political positions on a popularity test of 'who likes it'.

I highly doubt that Sanders ever once 'carried water' for the NRA. That's incredibly disingenuous.

It's sad that Hillary is confused on what the law does.

Hillary Clinton stated that she would repeal the law if elected[17] saying "They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn't, and they won't be sued. There will be no consequences."[18] Shortly after Clinton made this claim, 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.[19]

Doubly sad, since Hillary is an accomplished lawyer, and a former Senator.

[SunSeeker]

58. No businesses have the special consumer product liability immunity given gun manufacterers.

Hillary was talking about consumer product liability. Obviously gun manufacturers are still subject to tax liability, contract law, etc. But the PLCAA takes a case away from a jury if the defendent is a gun manufacturer and the the discharge of the firearm constituted a criminal act, which all mass shootings are.

The PLCAA shields gun manufacturers from liability for marketing unreasonably dangerous military style semi-automatic weapons that are the go-to tool of the mass murderer. The NRA was in a rush to get the PLCAA passed in 2005 because the gun manufacturers were flooding the market with AR-15s after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. They wanted to be shielded from liability for the readily forseeable spike in mass shootings. And Bernie was happy to oblige.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. No, it doesn't.

Politifact spelled it out for you. If I buy a ford 'performance' model mustang, and launch it off the side of the road at 150mph into a house, Ford is not liable for my mis-use of the product. Paul Walker's family isn't going to get anything from Porsche for the driver's mis-use of that GT Carrera, utilizing it at an unlawful speed on a public road.

You don't get to pretend a semi-auto with a detachable magazine is 'unreasonably dangerous'. There are tens of millions of them in circulation, from as far back as the 1940's. The ~70 year old M1-carbine is MORE dangerous than your modern civilian AR-15, in every single meaningful metric.

I don't know what measuring stick you use to claim 'unreasonably dangerous' but it's a figment of your imagination.

[SunSeeker]

92. Yes, it does.

Porsche could still get sued. The plaintiffs might lose their case, but they would still get their day in court, they would get a chance for a jury to hear their argument. But not victims of a mass murderer. The gun lobby made sure of that, through the PLCAA. You are right, I don't get to decide what is unreasonably dangerous. A jury does - - except when it comes to guns. Unlike any other consumer product manufacturer, gun manufacturers get to decide what is unreasonably dangerous for their own product, and they get to do it to victims of murderers who used that manufacturers product. It is unconscionable and Bernie voted for it.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. The Porsche case will be DISMISSED, just like a suit against a gun manufacturer.

And gun sellers CAN be held accountable for actual illegal behavior. Both of these cases were brought AFTER the PLCAA took effect, and both had motions for dismissal that were denied.

City of New York v. A-1 Jewelry & Pawn et al. (Eastern District, New York)
City of New York v. Bob Moates’ Sport Shop, Inc., et al. (Eastern District, New York)

So, you're wrong. I can see why you might think what you think, as there is a rather large lobby engaged in misinformation to engineer just the opinion you keep repeating, but it is wrong, and there's two separate cases to prove it.

By all means, show a defective or unlawfully marketed/sold firearm related case where the PLCAA was used to improperly dismiss the case. Just one.

You don't get to make up 'unreasonably dangerous'. These terms have meanings, best set by legislatures. And the Legislature of, say, the State of New York, doesn't get to determine what is 'unreasonably dangerous' for sale in New Jersey. That's not how interstate commerce works. New York is free to determine a detachable mag with a pistol grip is unreasonably dangerous. Fine. They don't get to impose that on the nation. That's what the Congress is for, if any avenue is to be used for that purpose.

[SunSeeker]

106. No, a product doesn't have to be an "illegal" product or behavior to incur product liability.

I'm not wrong. It appears you have a disagreement with consumer product liability law. The two cases you cite are not consumer product liability cases.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Both cases were about firearms trafficked in inappropriate ways.

Both went through, despite provisions in the PLCAA about gun sellers.

This is the kind of bullshit you are trying to bring to court.

http://www.law360.com/articles/139230/supreme-court-rejects-gun-liability-case

In its decision in March, the Illinois Supreme Court said that Beretta was not liable for the fatal shooting of Joshua Adames at the hands of 13-year-old Billy Swan. Swan shot his friend while playing with the service weapon of his father, a correctional officer.

The parents of Adames brought a suit accusing Beretta of product liability design defect, negligent design, failure to warn and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Among other things, the suit said that the firearm was dangerous and defective because it didn't incorporate safety features, including personalized gun technology that would have prevented unauthorized users from firing the weapon.

Two months before the PLCAA was enacted, an Illinois trial court granted summary judgment to Beretta.

A correctional officer's weapon did what it was designed to do; go BANG when you pull the trigger. Period. There is no product liability here.

And while the appellate court also said that the suit's failure to warn claim should have gone forward, the judges said that the firearm was not unreasonably dangerous or defectively designed.

[SunSeeker]

109. MSJs get overturned all the time--unless you are protected by the PLCAA.

Your link goes to a pay wall, so I can't read the article, but the visible text indicates the case went no further because of the PLCAA, not because the case was "bullshit."

You may think expecting gun manufacturers to use available technology to prevent unauthorized use is "bullshit," but a jury might not. That MSJ may indeed have been ultimately upheld, but the PLCAA would block such a case whether meritorious or not. This is wrong.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. Here's the SCOTUS Blog link.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/08/tracking-new-cases-suing-gun-makers/


The case was raised prior to the PLCAA, and the law only applied to an appeal, after the courts had ruled against the plaintiffs for other reasons.

There is no means to 'prevent unauthorized use'. Certainly none that have been adopted by ANY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE COUNTRY.

If there was such a technology, in use, approved, proven, and adopted by a significant number of police departments, I would grant we could have a different conversation here. It's not like Beretta is leaving out standard safety features. No other manufacturer offers it.

In THAT case, some other manufacturers DO offer a magazine disconnect, a safety that would have prevented the trigger from being pulled in that situation. But it's hardly a standard feature either. It is NOT SAFE to pick up a gun, and pull the mag out, then point it at a human being and pull the trigger. Never in the history of firearms has removing the mag, unloaded the chamber. Not once.

Proper avenue for redress in that case was to sue the officer for negligence, leaving the firearm where it could be accessed by an unauthorized user.

Beretta didn't do anything wrong.

[SunSeeker]

111. Yup, the appeal was blocked by the PLCAA.

MSJs are notoriously tough to defend on appeal; the PLCAA was a gift to the gun manufacturer.

You have made your opinion quite clear. Putting it in bold does not make it right, nor does it justify taking the decision away from a jury.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. It was already through the courts once.

They had a chance to make a case the weapon was defective. It wasn't. They had a chance to make the case the weapon was badly/unsafely designed. (Like the Corvair, where even a small set of users like myself are capable of MAKING USE of snap-oversteer, it was deemed a bad design) court rejected it.

The weapon wasn't defective, and wasn't badly designed.

The owner was negligent and a child died.

[SunSeeker]

113. No, they never had a chance to "make their case." They never got in front of a jury.

Certainly the parent was negligent, but that does not mean the manufacturer could not have been partially at fault.

You can keep saying the weapon wasn't defective if that is what makes you feel good.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. It functioned exactly as designed.

A design predicated upon military design requirements, and consequentially, the same requirements a police department would use for a service weapon, as this was.

Magazine disconnects are more common now (but not universal) in civilian firearms. One could argue, the weapon in question was not truly purchased for 'civilian' use, being for Law Enforcement use in this case.

That kind of taints the case, and not in your favor.

[SunSeeker]

115. No one claimed it didn't function as designed. It was the design that was at issue. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

116. A design that was intentional. One can make a case for a law enforcement officer NEEDING the

gun to still go bang even if the mag has fallen out of the mag well.

In fact, the mag disconnect is a compromise that could get someone killed in a CQB situation where someone is grappling with your gun.

A scenario police officers sometimes have occasion to deal with.

Edit: One could also make a case that the police department was negligent sending that service weapon home with him, rather than providing or requiring civilian weapons for off-duty use.

[SunSeeker]

117. Then let it go to a jury and see who has the better case. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

118. I think the judge handled it fine.

The first time.

[SunSeeker]

119. Of course you do. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

120. Of course.

I do not operate under the delusion that a weapon, that is actually designed to kill people, in the hands of law enforcement, can be made 'safe' to be handled by a 13 year old child without adult supervision.

[SunSeeker]

121. It can be made safe, but gun manufacturers have no insentive to do so.

The threat of litigation, the incentive that causes other consumer product manufacturers to spend money making their products safer, has been removed by PLCAA immunity in all but the narrowest of cases (e.g., if the gun doesn't shoot).

[AtheistCrusader]

122. So, you'd hand a loaded gun to a child if the missing safety mechanism (mag disconnect)

was present in this firearm?

That's what you are saying. Because in this scenario, a round was in the chamber, the weapon was cocked and ready, and the only action taken to make it 'safe' was removing the mag.

My carry pistol has the mag disconnect, and 5 separate safety mechanisms, and I wouldn't hand it to a child if you put a gun to my head and demanded I do so.

[SunSeeker]

123. No, I would not. A "mag disconnect" is not the only type of safety mechanism.

For example, a smart gun would not fire at all:

"The future of the firearm. Now." That's the slogan of Armatix, the German manufacturer of the iP1 pistol, a .22-caliber semiautomatic pistol with a 10-round magazine.

The gun can only fire when activated by a wristwatch worn by the owner, who enters a PIN code to enable the weapon. It also features a time-controlled deactivation of the weapon.

If a criminal steals the gun, he or she won't be able to use it in a crime without knowing the PIN code.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/technology/obama-gun-control-gun-tech/

[AtheistCrusader]

124. That technology is not ready for prime time.

When it is, police and military will voluntarily purchase and adopt it. The benefits it promises would save lives. That they are not adopting it tells you the effective readiness of the technology.

[SunSeeker]

125. They're not adopting it because the PLCAA takes away incentive to do so. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

126. That technology has been vaporware for at least 5 years prior to the PLCAA.

And the PLCAA is not a mechanism by which to make the tech work. There's demand for it. LOTS of demand for it. As a gun owner, I would purchase a new firearm that could do it, if it worked. It does not. The 'watch' method isn't even 'working' yet. Not in production.

There is literally consumer demand for this technology. Once it hits prime time, there are states with standing laws on the books that will require the tech.

You are simply wrong that the PLCAA is causing this.

[SunSeeker]

127. Not true.

Smart guns are a new technology that didn't even exist when New Jersey passed a law in 2002 requiring retailers to sell them.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/technology/obama-gun-control-gun-tech/

The PLCAA was passed in 2005.

[AtheistCrusader]

128. Vaporware.

MetalStorm's 'VLE' model was filed for IP in 1999. It doesn't work either. It was specifically designed in the hopes of meeting US requirements for 'smart gun' technology.


The PLCAA didn't cause this:

In November 2014, John Jay Hoffman, the Attorney General of New Jersey, released a report to the governor and the legislature that said: "After careful consideration of the iP1?s design, we have determined that it does not satisfy the statutory definition because, as a matter of design, the pistol may be fired by a person who is not an authorized or recognized user. That is, as long as the pistol is situated within 10 inches of the enabling wristwatch, it may be fired by anyone – the authorized user or any other person who is able to pull the trigger."

Still doesn't work.

[SunSeeker]

129. Link?

[AtheistCrusader]

130. Five manufacturers down in the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_gun

Metalstorm itself is, largely, vaporware.
http://business-bankruptcies.com/cases/metal-storm-inc


They could electronically ignite the rounds, but I don't think they ever got, or delivered on a single defense contract, if memory serves.

You can find PR commentary on the VLE model, all hyped up with potential, as-yet unrealized by any manufacturer worldwide.


I'm not against the technology. I would like for it to work. I would consider purchasing it, if it worked.

[SunSeeker]

131. None of your links say the new Armatix smart gun doesn't work. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

132. New Jersey's attorney general detailed a failure of the device to do what is intended.

I quoted it for you.

It also stops working if the rightful user switches to their off-hand.
It also stops working if the rightful user hands it to a different user that is 'authorized'. (Can't hand it to my wife.)

There are a number of scenarios where it stops working when the user actually needs a firearm to work. Most of the design effort that goes into making a quality firearm, is the effort to make sure it DOES work when it is supposed to. In this case, it may STOP working when it is supposed to work.

NJ AG explained it can be made to work when it IS NOT supposed to fire. So it didn't even meet the bar of tripping the NJ legal requirement that guns have that technology when it becomes 'available'.

[SunSeeker]

133. That quote was from 2 years ago. It's not evident it applies to the current design.

Why are so intent on sitting on gun safety innovation?

[AtheistCrusader]

134. It's not innovative.

My preference would be a RFID chip I could have implanted in both hands, that the gun could read.

Then, to abuse the system, the abuser would need MY HAND or the access to cut my hand open, to accomplish it.

That won't satisfy all gun owners though. Just me.


I'm not actively trying to stifle that company either. I await a viable product. I'm simply not buying the half-baked shit, or considering the solution anything other than vaporware, until it isn't.

[SunSeeker]

30. K & R

[TipTok]

34. The Brady Bill was garbage...

Good for him...

[Wernothelpless]

37. She has poor judgement ... be happy to say it ...

It's all a judgement question. Her judgement when it comes to interventionism is poor. Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria...Hillary supports intervention in all those cases. In all those cases, there has been nothing but failure. Experience means nothing when that experience is based on poor judgment.

And her interaction and poor judgement on Wall Street ...

"More and more people are coming to the conclusion that we must deal with the fundamental question of the very nature of society itself."

- Tommy Douglas, the greatest Canadian and father of Canadian public health care. (Canadian Parliament speech, 1938 - 68 years ago)

Capitalism has had a "free" ride. It's premise has been that it encourages competition.

Even a cursory glance finds that contention a complete fraud. The unbridled ruthlessness of Wall Street and its minions have destroyed any semblance of competition as they collude, conspire and commit fraud against those they pretend to serve.

Wars are manufactured, thousands lose their life's saving and people die needlessly while the oligarchs play in their capitalist ivory towers.

One wonders why they have gotten away with murder for this long.

And the answer is ... we let them ... or more to the point, SHE lets them and gets paid to do so ...

[harun]

40. With Sanders on this one

[restorefreedom]

44. he said something, and so did the audience

https://m.

[Jefferson23]

45. He did say something, her record and she has not denied those fees. He wants people

to connect the dots, not hard to do. Release the full transcripts too....let the
American people be the judge of why they paid her that amount of
money.

I don't think she saw that one coming.

[Gothmog]

47. That was a great line

[Android3.14]

48. It's pretty obvious that he said it

Her response?
"I'll look into it."

[EndElectoral]

49. Posturing. He already said it to her face in an earlier debate.

Anyone, who beleives you can take millions of dollars from multi national corporations and it will not influence access and policy has got their head in the sand. She knows it. Her posturing that it impugns her integrity is deflection. Of course it impugns her integrity and credibilty. WHICH IT SHOULD. So stop taking the bribes.

[xocet]

50. #ReleaseTheTranscripts n/t

[Beacool]

52. Well, she did have a point.

Who died and left him and his supporters to decide who is the "real" progressive? Heck, the man refused to be a Democrat for decades and even ran against them for office. He only became a Democrat out of political expediency. So I give three figs in the wind if she and her supporters don't pass his purity test.

Screw that!!!!

[roguevalley]

65. he is more of a dem accidentally than her on purpose. but that's okay. the electorate will show who

they favor and it won't be Mrs. Iraq Vote

[Beacool]

81. It won't be the Socialist.

[frylock]

72. Hillary voted for IWR out of political expediency.

Which one was the bigger blunder?

[Beacool]

79. Back to that?

[frylock]

82. Yeah. Pick up a newspaper. It's still ongoing.

[uhnope]

54. spoken like a goading bully

one of her worst moments in the debate. Only a rabid fan could see that as a positive for her

[emulatorloo]

80. Yes, it was thrilling when Sanders responded with a couple paragraphs from his stump speech

[uhnope]

89. Don't worry, Trump will be onstage tomorrow night if you want theatrics

the fact that Sanders wasn't goaded into making it personal is to his credit and detracts from hers

it's exactly the kind of campaign he's running. Sorry if stump speech was disappointing when you wanted theatrics. Don't worry, Trump will be onstage tomorrow night. Clinton reminded me of him a couple times last night

[emulatorloo]

93. Happily Bernie has too much integrity to lie

Despite the best efforts of failed political operative Tad Devine to get him to do so.

[uhnope]

94. WOW! I think I smell a conspiracy theory. nt

[LanternWaste]

104. And if he did it it would have been considered "courageous and shining"

And if he did it it would have been considered "courageous and shining"

Goodness, your bias seems particularly shrill today.

[uhnope]

105. "it would have"

you might want to loan that crystal ball to the HRC campaign, they need it desperately

[Spitfire of ATJ]

56. "flashed genuine anger and disbelief"

You call that "genuine"?

[frylock]

67. Come at me, Berniebro!

[treestar]

70. She's not putting up with his crap!

[ancianita]

83. That right there is focused confrontation. Key to public trust is integrity vs. being bought.

Both candidates might find chinks in each other's armor in future debates due to this challenge, and we'll see. She can find examples of his inconsistency of principle as much as he can with her.

Neither candidate will be proven a saint. And when that issue is settled, the practical judgment issue will remain.

[ShrimpPoboy]

88. Not planning to vote for her

But I thought she looked good in that exchange. IMO, she often does well in debates and comes off as presidential, even when angry.

[mhatrw]

91. I'll say it. "You have been irredeemably corrupted by our corrupt pay to play system." nt

[elias49]

99. He's an old-fashioned gentleman.

He won't embarrass her on national TV.Though he wanted to, and bit his lip.

[riversedge]

102. He just comes in the back door and tweets nasty smears-not to her face.

[ucrdem]

107. +1

[mgmaggiemg]

135. great post