Clinton Pounces on Sanders for ‘Sandy Hook Shame’

Bernie Sanders, a Democratic candidate for president, does not believe gun manufacturers or gun dealers should be held liable for the criminal misuse of their products. It’s a common sense position that one ought to agree with irrespective of one’s feelings on guns. We don’t allow lawsuits against Ford when a drunk driver kills someone in their F-150.

In an interview with the Daily News, which was later titled “Bernie’s Sandy Hook Shame,” Sanders once again made it clear that he doesn’t believe the families of the victims of Sandy Hook have legal standing to sue Bushmaster, the maker of the long gun allegedly used in the shooting that killed 20 school children and six staff members.

"Bernie's Sandy Hook Shame." Noting to be ashamed about if you ask me.  (Photo: Daily News)

“Bernie’s Sandy Hook Shame.” Nothing to be ashamed about if you ask me. (Photo: Daily News)

Daily News: There’s a case currently waiting to be ruled on in Connecticut. The victims of the Sandy Hook massacre are looking to have the right to sue for damages the manufacturers of the weapons. Do you think that that is something that should be expanded?

Sanders: Do I think the victims of a crime with a gun should be able to sue the manufacturer, is that your question?

Daily News: Correct.

Sanders: No, I don’t.

Daily News: Let me ask you. I know we’re short on time. Two quick questions. Your website talks about…

Sanders: No, let me just…I’m sorry. In the same sense that if you’re a gun dealer and you sell me a gun and I go out and I kill him [gestures to someone in room]…. Do I think that that gun dealer should be sued for selling me a legal product that he misused? [Shakes head no.] But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people. So if somebody walks in and says, “I’d like 10,000 rounds of ammunition,” you know, well, you might be suspicious about that. So I think there are grounds for those suits, but not if you sell me a legal product.

Bernie Sanders.  (Photo: NY Times)

Bernie Sanders. (Photo: NY Times)

It didn’t take long for Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who lost to Sanders in Tuesday’s Wisconsin primary, to pounce on Sanders for his reasonable response.

“That he would place gun manufacturers’ rights and immunity from liability against the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook is just unimaginable to me,” Clinton said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Clinton has made no bones about the fact that she would like gun dealers and gun manufacturers to be open to all sorts of frivolous lawsuits. In essence, Clinton would like the gun industry to be sued out of existence.

Jeff Weaver, the campaign manager for Sanders, responded to the Daily News interview.

“What came up was about small stores in rural areas that support a hunting community,” Weaver said, referencing Sanders home state of Vermont.

“Certainly he does not support people, companies engaged in reckless conduct that puts guns or ammunition in the hands of people who shouldn’t have it. So he is certainly in favor of making sure that anyone who is a bad actor is punished, but anyone that is not a bad actor should not be punished.”

Now, Sanders isn’t perfect on guns. Far from it. He does support a ban on modern sporting rifles. But at least, he is not totally blinded by anti-gun ideology. He has enough good sense and integrity to recognize how intellectually dishonest flat-out stupid it is to hold a gun manufacturer accountable for the criminal acts of a sociopath.

{ 8 comments… add one }
  • Patriot September 12, 2016, 8:49 pm

    This illustrates the real attitude of the liberal biased democrat network news media who are obviously pro-gun control and would like to see gun manufacturers held liable for guns used in crime. Does the media make an effort to show the real dishonesty, lies, greed, corruption, and unlawful and unreasonable gun control statements by Democrat Hillary saying gun manufacturers should be held liable for guns used in crime? However, the network news media, including Rupert Murdoch of CNN, does make an effort to say that Hillary would be a better president than Republican Trump. Does it make any sense? Apparently, it does to the network news media !!!

  • Jay Warren Clark April 10, 2016, 4:55 pm

    I am surprised at the number of gun owners who know of the importance the Founders placed on the right to own and bear arms (primarily to defend against excessive government power) and yet who do not understand the depths to which big government interests will go to make the People subject completely to them–oh, and with a budget, a huge budget, that we (foolishly) give them in taxes.
    Of course I am happy to see a number of comments here that are not at all naive in this way. Thanks for those. JWC

  • B_Cubed April 8, 2016, 12:49 pm

    As an attorney and law professor, Clinton should know and understand product liability laws or is she just pandering for votes.
    “Hillary Clinton has served as secretary of state, senator from New York, first lady of the United States, first lady of Arkansas, a practicing lawyer and law professor, activist, and volunteer—but the first thing her friends and family will tell you is that she’s never forgotten where she came from or who she’s been”

  • Frank Reyes April 8, 2016, 8:10 am

    NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK!! Read the book, you don’t know the whole story…

    • HK-USP April 8, 2016, 9:01 pm

      “Nobody died at Sandy Hook”

      So…where are they? I’m sure the family and friends of them who have been grieving their loss all these years would like to know.

      • Jay Warren Clark April 10, 2016, 4:37 pm

        You know the old saying, “Show me the money,” right? Replace the word “money” with BODIES AND BLOOD and you should be able to see where these Sandy Hook critics are coming from. We saw none. And the crime scene was destroyed! So was the house of the alleged perp! And, there are more questions about Sandy Hook than you can enumerate, good hard critical questions, questions that are being asked by serious and intelligent people. And some of those people have been harassed and threatened for doing the American thing, i.e., seeking to be informed. And that is before we look at the pop this gave to all the anti-gun people and the legislation that was floated immediately after this bit of theater. What about that?
        And if you don’t think that worldwide theater can be created then you don’t know about Vietnam and “dominoes,” or about “weapons of mass destruction,” etc. Do you not know that our media is owned by 5 or 6 multinational corporations, and run by the same people who run Congress and who make sure that they and not the People are placed first? That’s a lot of control (manufactured consent) in just a few hands, eh?
        Surely you’re not one of those good citizens of the Republic who say: “It was on the t.v. and surely the news programs and all those conscientious journalists (Cooper, Maddow, O’Riley, etc.) wouldn’t lie to us.” If you are then you have forgotten the first lesson: “Don’t believe everything you read in the papers.”
        If you are sincere in your position, then just go on line and look at the mass of materials and the huge number of unanswered questions that good people have put together for you. You can’t look at even a part of that and still believe that Sandy Hook was what they said it was. Indeed, my nickname for the town is Stepford, and not Newtown! The whole place is just too too creepy. JWC
        P.S. Have you ever seen a grenade go off? Did you look critically at the vertically directed and nearly concussion-less “Poof” that was the Boston bombing? Did you watch and think about the experiment in martial law that was conducted by a militarized police in the aftermath? Did you notice that the citizens agreed, and were even happy, to be manhandled after by those police? Did you see armored vehicles with guns leveled at people looking out of houses in neighborhoods? Did you see all of that?! Or did you just go along with what the media told you, and say to yourself, “Lions, and tigers, and bears! Oh my!”? Goodness!

  • P April 8, 2016, 6:13 am

    Why are these ZioNazi kowtowing idiots still pedaling that false-flag event…

  • Mark N. April 7, 2016, 11:34 pm

    “That he would place gun manufacturers’ rights and immunity from liability against the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook is just unimaginable to me,” Clinton said.

    Why she says stuff like this completely amazes me, and that she apparently truly believes it shocks me to the core. There is nothing remarkable at all about the “immunity” provided under the federal statute; under common law principles and principles of strict liability in tort, manufacturers are not liable for the criminal misuse of their legal products–all manufacturers of all products. All the act did was to stop the mass of frivolous suits filed by individuals and states against firearms manufacturers seeking to impose a nonexistent liability. That these suits were doomed out the gate did not prevent them from being hideously expensive to defend. When Hillary calls this a special immunity, she lies. Do people not understand that?

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend