Bernie Sanders hits Hillary! on Guns

Did you watch the Democrat debate on the TV last night? Me neither, but I gather that there was an astonishing moment where the elderly Marxist actually took the elderly busybody to task for wanting to ban guns. This was so out of character for a Democrat debate that I actually had to look up the video before I would believe it. Yahoo! News has the clip here.

For those who would rather read it, Time has kindly made the transcript available as well.

SANDERS: Well, this is what I say, if I understand it — and correct me if I’m wrong. If you go to a gun store and you legally purchase a gun, and then, three days later, if you go out and start killing people, is the point of this lawsuit to hold the gun shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable?

If that is the point, I have to tell you I disagree. I disagree because you hold people — in terms of this liability thing, where you hold manufacturers’ liability is if they understand that they’re selling guns into an area that — it’s getting into the hands of criminals, of course they should be held liable.

But if they are selling a product to a person who buys it legally, what you’re really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don’t agree with that.

Hillary! then went on a rant about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (which Sanders voted for in 2005,) completely misrepresenting its purpose and effect. Mrs. Clinton claimed it gave arms manufacturers “absolute immunity” against lawsuits, which sounds to me as though she has either misunderstood the language of the statute, or is simply lying for immediate political gain. (Based on past history, I’d say it’s even money there.) Indeed, there have been a number of lawsuits against arms manufacturers and sellers that have succeeded based on actual misconduct or violations of the law.

For example: back in 2011, Kahr Arms paid out a $600,000 settlement to the family of a man murdered by a firearms stolen by a Kahr employee, after it came to light that Kahr’s record keeping and security measures were inadequate. More recently, Badger Guns in Wisconsin was found liable to the tune of $6,000,000 for injuries sustained by Milwaukee PD officers for allowing straw purchases. So the PLCAA most definitely does not prevent lawsuits against arms manufacturers where there was actual misconduct. What it does prevent, contra Hillary!, are lawsuits aimed against gun manufacturers solely because someone acquired one of their guns and used it in the commission of a crime.

The setup for this little exchange between the socialist septuagenarian and the bitter sexagenarian came when the moderator, Anderson Cooper, tried to help Hillary! a little by bringing up Sandy Hook:

COOPER: Secretary Clinton — actually, Senator Sanders, let me continue to follow-up, because Secretary Clinton mentioned the liability.

Right now, families of Sandy Hook victims announced that they are going to sue Remington, who made the AR-15 which was used in the Newtown massacre.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, they believe — those families believe that — that Remington, the distributors, the sellers — should be held legally responsible for how that gun — how their product is used.

Now, the lawsuit may not go anywhere because of the bill you voted for — legislation that prevents gun makers from being sued. Tonight, what do you say to those families?

Pro-tip: if you’re moderating a political debate and the questions you ask, by themselves, create an applause line for the partisans in the debate audience, that’s a sign that you might not be doing it right. If your objective was to be a neutral moderator, that is.

Clinton tried to bring up something about Bernie’s position being the NRA’s position (which, I guess for people who run in Hillary’s circles is supposed to be bad…?) Red Bernie was having none of it though (in his usual milquetoast, don’t-mind-the-crazy-old-uncle at Thanksgiving manner):

SANDERS: As I understand it — and maybe I’m wrong on this, but what you were essentially saying, and what people are saying, is that, if somebody who is crazy or a criminal or a horrible person goes around shooting people, the manufacturer of that gun should be held liable.

And if that is your position, then what you are saying, essentially — if that is the case, as I understand it — it’s not what Secretary Clinton is talking about. I agree with what she said.

But if that is the case, then essentially, your position is there should not be any guns in America, period.

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: That is like the NRA position. No.

SANDERS: Can I — can I finish, please? All right?
And you can — there are people who hold that view. And that’s fine, if you hold it. I think what you do is you hold those people who have used the gun accountable. You try to make…

COOPER: We’re gonna move on.

Thank god Anderson Cooper was there to help out Hillary, because Sanders might have actually gotten her to come out and say that yes, she was perfectly fine with completely banning guns.

Don’t mistake this for any support for Sen. Sanders, of course — he has made it clear that whatever votes he’s made that have gone our way come out of a pragmatic recognition that his constituents in Vermont don’t want to ban guns, not because of any devotion to the right to keep and bear arms. He has come out in favor of bans on certain kinds of rifles, universal background checks, and the usual list of desired way stations on the road to total firearms bans desired by extremists like Clinton and Feinstein. Just let this be an object lesson on the state of Democratic Party elites (if you still needed one): the likely nominee wants to take down gun owners, gun retailers, and gun manufacturers. The ineffective elderly Marxist in opposition to her merely wants to ban some of them.

This is an important election for anyone who supports the right to keep and bear arms. Don’t forget that.