Dems Race to the Bottom on Gun Rights in Latest Debate

(Gun debate starts at around 9:35)

In watching the latest Democratic presidential debate on Saturday night, one thing became clear: It’s a race to the bottom on gun rights.

That’s correct, Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders are all fighting to portray themselves as the ideal anti-gun candidate by attempting to make the others look soft on gun control.

When the issue was brought up, Clinton fired the first salvo at Sanders, bashing the senator for voting for the sensible Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits when crimes have been committed with their products.

“Well, I think that there are different records,” said Clinton. “I — you know, know that Senator Sanders had a different vote than I did when it came to giving immunity to gun makers and sellers. That was a terrible mistake.”

Sanders, who had defended his position in the past by drawing an analogy to a hammer company, arguing that we don’t allow lawsuits against a hammer maker if someone uses it as a weapon, changed his tune on the PLCAA.

“Let’s do more — let’s do more than reverse the immunity,” said a reeling Sanders Saturday night.

Meanwhile, O’Malley struck a blow at Clinton, noting that throughout her political career she’s been all over the board on the gun control.

“But Secretary Clinton, you’ve been on three sides of this,” said O’Malley. “When you ran in 2000, you said that we needed federal robust regulations. Then, in 2008, you were portraying yourself as Annie Oakley and saying that we don’t need those regulations on the federal level and now you’re coming back around here.”

O’Malley, who briefly touted his gun-grabbing accomplishments both as a mayor and governor, which included expanding a ban on modern sporting rifles, was not off the hook. Sanders took an appropriate potshot.

“With all — with all due respect…” said Sanders. “I think it’s fair to say that Baltimore is not now one of the safest cities in America…”

Indeed. The gun-free zones that O’Malley has created both in Baltimore and around Maryland have not done anything but keep more law-abiding citizens from exercising their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But I think Sanders point about O’Malley was that he didn’t go far enough to restrict gun ownership.

Overall, though, the message was really rammed home. Doesn’t matter who the nominee is — O’Malley, Clinton or Sanders — whoever wins is going to wage a full-scale assault on the Second Amendment. You can be certain of it.

{ 16 comments… add one }
  • norman November 27, 2015, 7:50 pm

    These people are beyond contempt- and they have no clue what they’re talking about when it comes to gun rights!

  • 2B or not 2B November 26, 2015, 2:35 am

    Right, Sanders is just a Socialist, pffft.

  • Paul November 21, 2015, 2:50 pm

    I used to be a Republican until they started telling me how I had to live my life and then got real crazy with their economics where they shifted the wealth in our country from the middle class to the wealthy. I own a number of guns and am not afraid of Sanders trying to take them from me. That is why Clinton pushes hard on him, she thinks disarming all of us that abide by the laws is a good idea and feels this is the way the country thinks. Sanders voting record does not seem to be that way. He also comes from a gun savvy state.

  • Mark November 20, 2015, 9:26 pm

    Read last week that murders with guns in 2015 in Baltimore have skyrocketed.

  • rev_dave November 20, 2015, 1:34 pm

    They’d best be careful about a ‘full scale war’ on gun owners. We have the guns.

  • Rich November 20, 2015, 10:26 am

    So Candidates….today when you came here did you have security watching over you? And by chance did the security Guards have Guns? Yes?…that was a yes?….mmmm
    But it’s NOT OK for me to protect my family?? Can you explain?

  • Steve November 20, 2015, 9:01 am

    News for you, that’s why many of us won’t vote for any of you idiots, one reason anyway.

  • Mario November 20, 2015, 8:44 am

    funny thing ismmthe idiots are stupid enough to beleive their own bulsh&t,,NONE of them will EVER be able to disarm US citizens,,it’s simply NOT going to happen,,,no gun owners will ever give up their property,,and there’s not a damn thing politicians can do about it,,,these 400,00 million guns will remain,,and since they dont know where 90% of them are,,,it scares the crap out of them,,they can’t control the people if THEY are armed,,and with having a large majority of sherriffs saying they wont enforce any of their stupid gun laws,,the population will always be armed,,you can bet these big mouths will NEVER give up THEIR armed security,,but you being defenseless if fine with them,,after all if they make enough laws the criminals will have to obey,,LOL..

  • Rick November 20, 2015, 8:11 am

    Lets have a country wide movement to change your political affiliation to Republican. Lets spread the word.

  • Rick November 20, 2015, 8:05 am

    I have been a Democrat for over 40 years. My wife and I are changing
    to Republican. Most of them get it.

  • Matthew Van Camp November 20, 2015, 6:26 am

    These idiots don’t know what the hell they’re talking about when they bring up gun control… They claim that 93% of Americans support gun control? Funny, that isn’t what’s actually true; otherwise Obama would’ve got a more cooperative congress elected into power then. These aren’t dreamers or even wishful thinkers here, these are people who are unreasonably paranoid about guns, they are power-hungry dictators that want to place “We the People” under their thumbs, and they are fully aware of how impossible that is as long as there’s an armed population existing!

  • taxx73 November 17, 2015, 1:10 pm

    As if any intelligent person could believe these traitorous liars. Not one of them is for the American people. All they want is a country of sheep. America can NOT survive another 4 years of self serving politics from either side.
    I believe that the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution for people of sound mind and body should have no restrictions on how they can protect themselves, loved ones, neighbors and country. Sound mind and body meaning any law abiding citizen that can vote and is not prohibited in any current legal way.
    LEAVE OUR RIGHTS ALONE!!!!!!!

    • 2B or not 2B November 26, 2015, 2:31 am

      Your absolutely correct. I pray we can survive ONE MORE YEAR of Barry Hussien!!

  • Tom Horn November 17, 2015, 12:41 pm

    Dems, Put up, or Shut up!

    Since we are a government, “…of the people, for the people, by the people…,” our leaders should just be people (plain folks elected from among us), not elites (such as kings, rulers, and royalty). What ever firearms restrictions they deem worthy for American Citizens, should be followed by their security details. If Sanders wants to restrict us to 10 round magazines, his secret service agents can carry only 10 round magazines. If O’Malley wants to keep you from owning a modern sporting rifle, his security detail will have no modern black rifles, or their variants. If Hilary wants to have have an Australian style buy-back and confiscation, her secret service agents will be the first in line to sell their weapons. Biden’s security detail will have only shotguns, and fire them up in the air when they perceive a threat. No more private security detail with licensed, full-auto weapons for the protection of Bloomberg, he will be restricted to what the average citizen may own.

    Enough of their elitist New World Order!

    • Tom Horn November 17, 2015, 2:36 pm

      P.S.:
      Oh yeah, don’t forget Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. He’ll give up his red light running, gun-toting posse of protection. He can call the police and wait if he feels threatened, just like he wants his constituents to do.

      What’s that? But you are important and special. Well my family is IMPORTANT and SPECIAL, too.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend