O’Malley Goes After Sanders: Bernie Doesn’t Support ‘Common Sense’ Gun Reforms

[Cali_Democrat]

by Josh Feldman | 1:59 pm, October 6th, 2015

The Democratic race for the presidency is starting to heat up, and Martin O’Malley is targeting rival Bernie Sanders for not supporting “common sense” gun control measures.

Sanders’ views on gun control have not exactly been totally aligned with the Democratic party’s over the years. After Sandy Hook, he said passing the “strongest gun control legislation tomorrow” wouldn’t solve the issue, and when confronted recently by someone who said he sounds like the NRA, Sanders argued against blaming gun manufacturers for acts of gun violence.

When O’Malley was on Concord News Radio yesterday, he said of Sanders, “I think his opinions and his position on this are different than the mainstream of the Democratic Party.”

He said one of Sanders’ only accomplishments in Congress was getting immunity for gun manufacturers, saying, “I think he’s just of the opinion that there’s no reason we should have common sense gun safety requirements like background checks.”

Read more:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/omalley-goes-after-sanders-doesnt-support-common-sense-gun-reforms/

+ audio @ link.

[elleng]

1. Posted earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017298836

[ibegurpard]

2. Except he does

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Except that one time when he voted against the Brady bill....

...and that other time when he voted to give immunity to gun manufactures.

....and that other time when he voted to repeal the DC asssault weapons ban and firearm registration.

....and that other time when the NRA supported his candidacy in 1990.

Other than that, he totally supports common sense gun reforms.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

35. Fellthebern.

The Independent Socialist from Vermont doesn't fit in with the Democratic party? It's the parties fault!

[randys1]

3. In reality many background check laws or systems wouldnt stop assholes who havent

gone full asshole yet, from getting one and shooting everybody.

Which is why you have to allow states, on an individual basis, to outlaw guns that are not part of a militia, if they want to, given the 2nd amendment ONLY protects guns within militias.


I am in favor of background checks, but I also know many people will still die from guns when NOBODY should EVER have to die again from a gun.

[pipoman]

7. Wrong

All SCOTUS justices agreed that the 2nd amendment is an individual right not dependent on militia in any way...the Democratic platform states the same...the collective theory is dead forever.

[randys1]

8. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

[pipoman]

30. Yes, both opinions accept the individual right...

It will not be overturned...or even heard again in any of our lifetimes.... now what?

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. All?

Stevens dissent McDonald vs Chicago

Fourth, the Second Amendment differs in kind from the Amendments that surround it, with the consequence that its inclusion in the Bill of Rights is not merely unhelpful but positively harmful to petitioners’ claim. Generally, the inclusion of a liberty interest in the Bill of Rights points toward the conclusion that it is of fundamental significance and ought to be enforceable against the States. But the Second Amendment plays a peculiar role within the Bill, as announced by its peculiar opening clause. 39 Even accepting the Heller Court’s view that the Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms disconnected from militia service, it remains undeniable that “the purpose for which the right was codified” was “to prevent elimination of the militia.” Heller , 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also United States v. Miller , 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) ( Second Amendment was enacted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces”). It was the States, not private persons, on whose immediate behalf the Second Amendment was adopted. Notwithstanding the Heller Court’s efforts to write the Second Amendment ’s preamble out of the Constitution, the Amendment still serves the structural function of protecting the States from encroachment by an overreaching Federal Government.

US vs Miller still stands, and upholds prohibition on sawed-off shotguns because they are not a militia-useful weapon.

[pipoman]

29. Yes, both opinions stated an individual right apart from militia eligibility or membership

And the Democratic platform states the same.

Oh, and Miller...lol...do you mean the Miller case which went before SCOTUS after the death of Miller and with absolutely no representation for Miller? Didn't the US Attorneys present their case to the supremes in explicit detail? Then, when it was time for Miller to defend himself from the charges against him....there was not a single word in his defense because nobody was there?

Do you mean the Miller case which coined the term, "in common use for lawful purposes"? And then determined that sawn off shotguns were not "in common use for lawful purposes" based on only the case made by the US Attorneys? FYI, in the 1930's there were large areas of the US which sawn off shotguns were very much "in common use for lawful purposes". They were very routinely used for woodland grouse, and other types of woodland small game....the argument could have been made and demonstrated....if there had been a defense present....yeah, I've heard of Miller


Btw...the "common use for lawful purposes" is a pretty good standard imho...

[HerbChestnut]

5. And this is why I don't support O'Malley

Just when you think he's a good candidate and is saying all the right things, he comes out and does this. Really, Martin? Bernie has voted for instant background checks and other gun control measures throughout his political career. He's campaigning on enforcement and enhancement of the current background check system, banning assault weapons, and overhauling our mental healthcare system. How is that not in the democratic mainstream?

[Raine1967]

11. HE's differentiating himself from Sanders.

That is called politics.

Sometimes it is a system shock when people running for a primary nomination do that, but it does happen.

I have no problem with him doing this. There ARE differences between our candidates.

[HerbChestnut]

14. That's not what he did though

He specifically said that Bernie doesn't support "common sense" gun control, which is simply not true. He didn't differentiate himself, he mischaracterized Bernie's positions.

[retrowire]

15. +1

Yeah, it's one thing to point out differences and differentiate yourself, but to lie and try taking advantage of the misinformation going around?

Now O'Malley is just another "do whatever it takes" politician to me.

The fact that Bernie is running without mudslinging is seriously one of the HIGH marks that have me in his club.

[pipoman]

6. Dumb

Bernie comes the closest to telling the truth about what is and isn't possible when it comes to gun legislation.

O'Malley is either ignorant, posturing, or lying about what he would do...hint...he won't do most of what he claims because a president swears to uphold the constitution and most of his statements have already been determined to be unconstitutional.

[FSogol]

33. "and most of his statements have already been determined to be unconstitutional."

LOL, by who, the NRA?

[pipoman]

34. Name one and I will tell you...

[oasis]

9. Debate title: Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

[floriduck]

12. Why hold a manufacturer liable if the product

works and is not defective. Can I sue my car manufacturer if I drive into a pedestrian and the car was working as designed? When someone uses a product and breaks the law, it is not the manufacturer at fault. And THAT has been Bernie 's position. He is correct.

Stop the spin on this topic.

[retrowire]

16. Someone said that Bernie put it this way...

“If somebody has a gun, if somebody steals that gun, and they shoot somebody, do you really think it makes sense to blame the manufacturer of that weapon?… If somebody sells you a baseball bat and hits you over the head, you’re not gonna sue the baseball bat manufacturer.”

Exactly, it doesn't make sense.

Bernie is on the right side with all of this, and Hillary and O'Malley pushing this "We'll allow people to sue gun manufacturers" thing does NOT solve the bigger problem.

What I'm getting out of this is that Hillary and O'Malley are just posturing when the time is right. It's essentially promising ponies to people.

[DCBob]

17. Guns manufacturers sell extremely dangerous products and should be held to a higher standard.

Im shocked a serious progressive could vote with the NRA on this.

[floriduck]

19. They sell them because our current law allows it.

I don't like oil companies either but oil train spills are not the liability of big oil. And I don't like that either but it is the law.

[DCBob]

20. Yes, but I think the debate is about changing some laws to help stop the carnage.

I guess you dont care about that.

[floriduck]

21. Reread my post.

I and Bernie support gun control. The reason he voted against holding the gun maker's liable is because the laws didn't support it then. And until the gun laws change, they STILL don't. Understand this one thing, neither Bernie nor I are against gun control. Can I make that any clearer?!

[DCBob]

22. Do you support changing the laws to make gun manufacturers liable for their products?

[ibegurpard]

23. They are

Do some research and actually READ the legislation. You can sue manufacturers for harm from defects. Allowing lawsuits against manufacturers of legal products is EXTREMELY AWFUL PUBLIC POLICY.

[DCBob]

24. The laws need to be stiffened.

Guns are deadly and dangerous. Much more control is needed from top to bottom.

[ibegurpard]

25. you can't sue manufacturers of legal products

You want to talk about stricter controls of sales, licensing, insurance, training, background checks...those sorts of things then we can have a discussion. Outright bans and lawsuits for legal activities are non-starters.

[DCBob]

26. Guns are different. They are extremely dangerous devices which only function as weapons.

Devices like that need special laws.

[ibegurpard]

28. we know they are weapons

And their function is to kill. And the 2nd amendment is a big roadblock that you can't get by if you are trying to get rid of them. And milIions of Americans, many of them liberals own and use guns. And allowing lawsuits against manufacturers of legal products cannot be done narrowly enough to prevent abuse of such a precedent across the board. It's like free speech...sometimes you have to find other ways of discouraging hate speech because banning it creates worse problems.

[Armstead]

31. Their product is legal. You want to try and make them illegal? Go ahead

Otherwise the focus should be on controlling distribution, not holding manufacturers accountable (as long as they are behaving legaly and not manufacturing a defective product).

[DCBob]

36. Who said anything about making guns illegal??

That's the same old desperate retort we get from the NRA and Republicans when confronted with an argument about guns they dont like.

[Armstead]

37. Its very simple

Gun manufacturers make a product that is designed to send a bullet through the air. It can be aimed at a target, a tin can, an animal or a person. It doesn't matter in a legal sense. That is its sole purpose. What people choose to do with that is up to them.

Unless the gun misfires or is otherwise defective, if some criminal or nut chooses to use the gun to fire a bullet at a person, the product is still performing its lawful function. And the manufacturer is adhering to the law.

Therefore it should not be sued on that basis, unless it is actively supporting illegal distribution or making false claims ("This gun won't hurt people, even if fired in their direction."

In that sense it is like any other product.

Therefore, if people want to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands, the focus should be on regulating distribution and sale.

If you want to eliminate the possibility of guns being used for nefarious purposes, they should be made illegal. Although that would not be practical either, it is the only alternative to a Catch 22 of "Your product is totally legal, but you are also legally responsible for what other people choose to do with that product."

[DCBob]

38. Of course you cant "eliminate the possibility of guns being used for nefarious purposes".

Good grief, anyone knows that. Such a nonsensical argument.

[Armstead]

39. Then please explain why the maker of a totally legal product should be sued for use of that product

I am not referring to product liability for product defects or violating the law regarding distribution and sale, or false advertising claims.

But the legal justification for someone to sue the manufacturer if someone has purchased their legal product, and used it in a bad and destructive way.

[DCBob]

41. My argument is that the gun manufacturers should bear much more responsibility for their products..

than they do now. How that plays out in the specifics of the laws and regulations needs to be worked out by people smarter and more knowledgeable than me. But this has nothing to do with banning guns or making them illegal.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. Martin, that's not going to work!

[hrmjustin]

18. Good for O'Malley!

[tularetom]

27. He has to do something to make himself stand out

I think he's wrong, but I don't fault him for making this statement.

He's a good man, but his campaign isn't getting any traction.

[slipslidingaway]

32. Disappointed to hear this from O'Malley ...

"He said one of Sanders’ only accomplishments in Congress was getting immunity for gun manufacturers, saying, “I think he’s just of the opinion that there’s no reason we should have common sense gun safety requirements like background checks.”

[Reter]

40. Who?

n/t

[99Forever]

42. I guess ehen you don't stand a snowballs chance...

....in hell of becoming a serious contender, ya gotta try sumptin, evem if it is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Damn Marty. I was just getting to like you.