Hillary one-ups Harry in criticism of the NRA

If you thought Harry Reid was harsh in his criticism of his former friends at the National Rifle Association, wait till you hear what Hillary Clinton called them.

“You know, the NRA’s position reminds me of negotiating with the Iranians or the communists,” she said in Iowa Wednesday. I doubts she wants negotiation, but rather capitulation. Besides, hasn’t Obama been “negotiating” with Iranians and communists? No, wait, he has been capitulating.

“The NRA tries to keep gun owners — the ones who are members — really upset all the time so they can keep collecting their money, because they tell them they’re the only thing that’s going to stop the black helicopters from landing in the front yard and people’s guns being seized,” Clinton also said, basically accusing NRA members of being paranoid nuts. “That’s the argument they make. And it works with some people and it has turned a lot of people into absolutists themselves.”

She put out a statement earlier saying that if Congress did not act to curb the Second Amendment she would act on her own, much as Obama has been doing to write and rewrite laws that are the duty of Congress.

Hillary on guns

“If Congress refuses to act, Clinton will take administrative action to require that any person attempting to sell a significant number of guns be deemed ‘in the business’ of selling firearms. This would ensure that high-volume gun sellers are covered by the same common sense rules that apply to gun stores—including requiring background checks on gun sales,” the statement promised.

She also called for the makers of guns to be held liable if their products are used to do what they are designed to do.

“The NRA lobbied Congress to pass the so-called ‘Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,’ a dangerous law which prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns,” her statement said. “It is past time to repeal this law and hold the gun industry accountable just like everyone else. Clinton voted against this law in 2005 and will lead the charge to repeal it as president.”

Cha-ching for the trial lawyers.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

9 comments on “Hillary one-ups Harry in criticism of the NRA

  1. Rincon says:

    So high volume sellers of firearms will be considered dealers. Dealer definition: 1) A person or business that buys and sells goods. So the objection is that we shouldn’t enforce the law as written?

    Hillary wants to dump the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: “A dangerous law which prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns’. So even if a firearms dealer is negligent, he gets a pass because…why?

    In addition to wanting firearms dealers to have the same rights regarding liability as everyone else, Hillary also proposes that we make it easier to import generic drugs from other countries in response to generic drug makers raising their drugs as much as 8,000%. I believe it’s proper to say she wants to encourage competition, which is an inherent part of capitalism. Republicans, though they call themselves capitalists, appear to be protectionist on this. She also wants Medicare to be allowed to negotiate the prices of drugs, something the Republicans, again, the so called capitalists, don’t want. They want the government run program to include inefficiencies that no business would tolerate. But they say government should be run like a business.

    She also wants companies that benefit from government R&D be required to spend a sufficient amount on R&D of their own. Since government holds the rights to these discoveries, should they not be allowed to negotiate how they are used? (Economist 9/26/15, p. 68)

    Hillary seems to be advocating a lot of the things that I would expect Conservatives to embrace.

  2. Steve says:

    “So even if a firearms dealer is negligent, he gets a pass because…why?”
    Because they aren’t bartenders. They are not in direct contact with their customers throughout the use of their product. They cannot see if their customer is over the edge and should be “cut off” if such would even be possible. This would require the manufacturers to have a person assigned to each of their customers each and every time one of the products is used for the duration of that use.

    Liability is not automatic, in many cases collateral damages must be proven. Consider, your neighbors house burns down, your car is in your driveway which is near their house, it is singed and damaged enough to be totaled. An investigation finds the cause of the fire cannot be proven and the insurance company pays your neighbor to rebuild the house. Who pays for your car? If you want to claim the neighbor has liability it is now on you to prove the fire was 100% caused by something inside the neighbors house and was not an “act of god”. You now have to prove the actual cause of the fire which the investigators could not. Liability is not that simple.

    Drug proposals are as old an idea as opening up health insurance purchases across state lines. Why does she not support that competition?
    Changing how drugs are priced will take a lot more than an executive order.

    Bloom Energy. The core device was developed in NASA using NASA money. Since NASA makes all their research open to the public, when NASA canceled the project, the device became public and it’s inventor grabbed it, filed for a patent and now Bloom box’s are showing up at many large, wealthy, corporations.
    Changing this particular part of government policy will take a lot more than an executive order.

    These last two things are campaign promises that hold little or no chance of ever coming to fruition.

  3. Winston Smith says:

    “Since Congress won’t do it, dag nabbit, I will! ” – sounds of a tyrant

  4. Rincon says:

    “Because they aren’t bartenders. They are not in direct contact with their customers throughout the use of their product. They cannot see if their customer is over the edge and should be “cut off” if such would even be possible”. “Liability is not automatic…” Precisely. In the case you describe, they would not be held negligent under existing law. Why shouldn’t the rules that apply to the rest of us not apply to firearms dealers? Or, phrased differently, Can I get an exclusion like the one they have? Why not?

    “Changing how drugs are priced will take a lot more than an executive order.” “Changing this particular part of government policy will take a lot more than an executive order.” You’re right. The Republicans would fight them both anyway, so neither are likely to pass.

    Hillary is trying to build support for these ideas. If you agree with them, say so; if not, why not?

  5. Steve says:

    You make selective reading an art.
    At the risk of repeating my self ” This would require the manufacturers to have a person assigned to each of their customers each and every time one of the products is used for the duration of that use.”
    And we do not have some kind of “exclusion” from that law, it was created specifically for bartenders.

    So why not open health insurance sales across state lines? OR is that somehow verboten to liberals?

  6. Rincon says:

    If you’re saying the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a parallel to one protecting bartenders because they are in similar situations, I understand, although I do not completely agree. If we have to make laws excluding bartenders, firearms dealers and of course, we agree that doctors need protection from liability as well, then the answer is to make a law that applies to everybody in every situation so we can all have equal protection. I understand that it would be more difficult in practice than in theory, but merely excluding some groups from liability sounds to me like a band-aid when it’s actually surgery that’s needed.

  7. Steve says:

    You have it backwards, 180 degrees wrong. Bartenders aren’t protected, they can (and are) being held accountable by law for the action of their customers after the customer leaves the bar.
    Serving Intoxicated Persons (SIP) Laws are almost as wrong as trying to hold weapons manufacturers legally accountable for the actions of the people who buy weapons from a reseller. At least a bartender can cut off a customer (hopefully) before a DUI happens and the bartender might be able to take away the car keys. How are weapons manufacturers going to be legally provided with the same opportunities to “police” their customers?

  8. Rincon says:

    According to the law, negligence must be shown for liability to occur. It’s hard to imagine you would disagree with that in theory. The problem is the ease with which reasonably responsible actions can be found negligent by our cockamamie legal system.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s