Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (courtesy cnn.com)

Tonight’s Democratic debate was punctuated by a great deal of baying for blood cheering. In the segment on gun control, Hillary Clinton ignored a question about her ridiculous assertion that Vermont fuels New York’s “gun violence” with illegal guns. Once again, Ms. Clinton [falsely] asserted that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act gives the firearms industry unique protection from legal liability. “We hear a lot from Senator Sanders about the greed and recklessness of Wall Street,” Clinton said, “what about the greed and recklessness of the gun manufacturers in America?” And the crowd goes wild! Sanders responded by highlighting his longstanding support for an “assault weapons” ban and his D- NRA rating. While the comment got a relatively minor cheer, only in the Democratic Party can a failing grade be a major source of pride. Just sayin’. Here’s a transcript of the whole gun control segment . . .

(APPLAUSE)

We’re going to turn to another critically important issue right now, guns in America. Secretary Clinton, you’ve said that Vermont, Senator Sanders’ home state, has, quote, “the highest per capita number of guns that end up committing crimes in New York.” But only 1.2 percent of the guns recovered in New York in 2014 were from Vermont. Are you seriously blaming Vermont, and implicitly Senator Sanders, for New York’s gun violence?

CLINTON: No, of course not. Of course not. This is — this is a serious difference between us.

(LAUGHTER)

And what I want to start by saying — it’s not a laughing matter — 90 people on average a day are killed or commit suicide or die in accidents from guns, 33,000 people a year. I take it really seriously, because I have spent more time than I care to remember being with people who have lost their loved ones.

So, yes, we have a problem in America. We need a president who will stand up against the gun lobby. We need a president who will fight for commonsense gun safety reforms.

(APPLAUSE)

And what we have here is a big difference. Senator Sanders voted against the Brady Bill five times. He voted for the most important NRA priority, namely giving immunity from liability to gun-makers and dealers, something that is at the root of a lot of the problems that we are facing.

Then he doubled down on that in the New York Daily News interview, when asked whether he would support the Sandy Hook parents suing to try to do something to rein in the advertising of the AR-15, which is advertised to young people as being a combat weapon, killing on the battlefield. He said they didn’t deserve their day in court.

CLINTON: I could not disagree more.

And, finally, this is the only industry in America, the only one.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: That has this kind of special protection. We hear a lot from Senator Sanders about the greed and recklessness of Wall Street, and I agree. We’ve got to hold Wall Street accountable…

BLITZER: … Thank you…

CLINTON: … Well, what about the greed and recklessness of gun manufacturers and dealers in America?

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

BLITZER: Senator? Well, the only problem is, Wolf, she didn’t answer your question.

You asked her whether she thought that Vermont was responsible. You asked her whether she thought that Vermont was responsible for a lot of the gun violence. You made the point what she said was totally absurd.

BLITZER: I asked her, are you seriously blaming Vermont and implicitly Senator Sanders for New York’s gun violence. She said no. But, go ahead.

SANDERS: Then why did she put out that statement?

CLINTON: I put it out…

SANDERS: … Excuse me, I think I’m responding now.

BLITZER: Please, go ahead sir.

SANDERS: A statement that was refuted by the governor of the state of Vermont, who was a supporter of hers, who said, yeah, in campaigns people tend to exaggerate.

Here is the fact on guns. Let’s talk about guns. That horrible, horrible Sandy Hook — what’s the word we want to use, murder, assault, slaughter, unspeakable act.

Back in 1988, I ran for the United States Congress one seat in the state of Vermont. I probably lost that election, which I lost by three points, because I was the only candidate running who said, you know what? We should ban assault weapons, not seen them sold or distributed in the United States of America.

I’ve got a D-minus voting record from the NRA.

(APPLAUSE)

And, in fact, because I come from a state which has virtually no gun control, I believe that I am the best qualified candidate to bring back together that consensus that is desperately needed in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator. Thank you.

(CHEERING)

BLITZER: Secretary Clinton, I want you to respond to that, but why did you put out that statement blaming Vermont and its gun policy for some of the death of — by guns in New York?

CLINTON: Well, the facts are that most of the guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from out of state. They come from the states that don’t have kind of serious efforts to control guns that we do in New York.

But let me say this — in 1988, as we’ve heard on every debate occasion, Senator Sanders did run for the Congress and he lost. He came back in 1990 and he won, and during that campaign he made a commitment to the NRA that he would be against waiting periods.

And, in fact, in his own book, he talks about his 1990 campaign, and here’s what he said. He clearly was helped by the NRA, because they ran ads against his opponent. So, then he went to the Congress, where he has been a largely very reliable supporter of the NRA. Voting — he kept his word to the NRA, he voted against the Brady Bill five times because it had waiting periods in it.

Thankfully, enough people finally voted for it to keep guns out of the hands of who should not have them.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator, I want you to respond, but I also want you to respond to this. You recently said you do not think crime victims should be able to sue gun makers for damages. The daughter of the Sandy Hook Elementary School who was killed back in the 2012 mass shooting, says you owe her and families an apology. Do you?

SANDERS: What we need to do is to do everything that we can to make certain that guns do not fall into the hands of people who do not have them.

Now, I voted against this gun liability law because I was concerned that in rural areas all over this country, if a gun shop owner sells a weapon legally to somebody, and that person then goes out and kills somebody, I don’t believe it is appropriate that that gun shop owner who just sold a legal weapon to be held accountable and be sued.

But, what I do believe is when gun shop owners and others knowingly are selling weapons to people who should not have them — somebody walks in.

SANDERS: They want thousands of rounds of ammunition, or they want a whole lot of guns, yes, that gun shop owner or that gun manufacturer should be held liable.

BLITZER: So, Senator, do you owe the Sandy Hook families an apology?

SANDERS: No, I don’t think I owe them an apology. They are in court today, and actually they won a preliminary decision today. They have the right to sue, and I support them and anyone else who wants the right to sue.

CLINTON: Well, I believe that the law that Senator Sanders voted for that I voted against, giving this special protection to gun manufacturers and to dealers, is an absolute abdication of responsibility on the part of those who voted for it.

This is a — this is a unique gift given to only one industry in the world by the United States Congress, as Senator Murphy from Connecticut said, we have tougher standards holding toy gun manufacturers and sellers to account than we do for real guns.

And the point that Senator Sanders keeps making about how he wouldn’t want a mom and pop store — that was not the point of this. And if he can point to any, any incident where that happened, I would love to hear about it.

What was really going on, I’ll tell you, because it has a lot to do with New York City. New York City was on the brink of being able to hold manufacturers and dealers accountable through a very carefully crafted legal strategy.

BLITZER: Thank you.

CLINTON: The NRA came to their supporters in the Congress and said, stop it, stop it now, and Senator Sanders joined those who did.

BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.

Senator, go ahead.

SANDERS: Let me just reiterate — just reiterate so there is no confusion, decades ago, before it was popular, in a rural state with no gun control, Bernie Sanders said, let’s ban assault weapons, not see them distributed in the United States of America.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

94 Responses to Hillary Clinton: What About the Greed and Recklessness of the Gun Manufacturers in America?

    • The guns will be rounded up next spring if Hillary gets elected and has a democrat Congress to back her up. Google “Australian Gun Control” to see what she has promised.

      Even pellet guns will be registered. Nothing military-looking will be allowed, not even the British style straight-pull AR’s. No semi-autos or pumps either.

      He economic policies will trash the economy too, so it will be a truly fine mess.

      • It’s all giggles until it gets real. If that happens you’ll see the largest sick leave by law enforcement in the history of the Republic.

        • Many LEOs may like the feeling of superiority and authority that the position conveys. However, pretty much all of them like the feeling of not being dead from trying to defend a tyrant from an angry mob. I think that was what Mk10108 was implying that they would be staying home sick from.

      • Please explain to me how it is that she is going to bypass the supreme court and congress. Fear mongering does us no good gentleman. If she is elected it certainly will not be a victory for gun owners, but they will not be rounding up our weapons in the spring.

        • She has a blackberry and a pen. Congress is the Exectutive’s bitch and the Judical is one vote away from punting 2A.

        • Cute. You think a liberal congress and liberal SCOTUS will stop her? Man I want to know what drugs you’re on. Because I sure as hell would like some.

        • Start with a supreme appointment and issue EOs she knows they won’t touch. The 5 to 4 Balance was the only throttle on Big O

    • Exactly. Please, everyone carefully think about this before you proudly proclaim your never Trump or never Cruz jackassery. That you’d honestly consider a Hillary presidency, with a solid chance shed gain the congress… Honestly… It’s this simple… I don’t want me, or my kids to be killed in a civil war. I don’t want my grandkids to grow up in what would be either a liberal fascist nation or a war torn wasteland. I can’t Imagine that’s what you want either…. With Hillary… I garuntee it will happen….

      • I wouldn’t say that it is certain to happen under a Clinton admin, but at the very least the country will be pushed another step in that direction. I agree that the Progs will never stop trying to disarm the civilian population. Many Americans will never allow themselves to be disarmed. Historically speaking, when that kind of impasse finally breaks, it breaks ugly.

      • Still don’t think it will be actual, in person goons for the vast majority of people. I think it will be the IRS attaching your pay check because you haven’t paid your $1000/year per gun “firearm safely tax.” Or, if they finally succeed in nationalizing health care, no treatment for you until you turn ’em in. Or something along those lines.

        • Thank you.

          As I pointed out many times, the government does not need to stomp into your house and snatch your guns in order to disarm the public. There are a number of ways that accomplish the goal, but do not instigate an armed rebellion.

    • Whoe’est me the 23rd of this month I go to court, court appointed lawyer, Im on probation now. Im going to county for six months, lost 2A , after the six months Im not going to be able to meet “their” parole requirements. Man Im fcked. Jail sux for me, 94 did two years, swore Id never go back.I just cant keep ftom fckin up cause I break unjust laws. No stealing or violence, I take the constitution for what it says. G damn I hate being locked up with them drug addict, car stealin meth heads. Being a country boy, not hearing the wind blow or smellin dirt just kills me. Fck Fck Fck. ….. PEACE i

    • Now wait just a minute. We’re all worried about Hilary coming for our guns, me included. She’s said she admires Australia’s gun control laws, which implies confiscation.

      But the thought just hit me: every single thing thing I’ve ever heard this “woman” say has been a lie. Everything. She’s pathological.

      So, there’s roughly a 98% chance that she’s lying about gun control and will, instead, do absolutely nothing about it while claiming she did.

      Maybe you CAN trust a dishonest person to be dishonest.

      • I seriously doubt she gives a rats ass about the issue one way or another. Won’t affect her, after all. I think Bernie is an honest Marxist. Clinton is way more cosa nostra than Bolshevik. Won’t stop her from screwing us, of course. If she can, for instance, get some huge juicy donations to the Clinton Foundation from the insurance industry in exchange for laws mandating liability insurance for all gun owners, she’ll be all over that. And she’ll probably sign any gun control law that crosses her desk to please her base. But she won’t be a crusader on the issue.

      • What about all the ‘greed and recklessness’ in the Clinton Massage Parlor and Treasonous Favors Foundation?

    • How disgusting is it that anyone that high up in our government can openly state a position so antithetical to the fabric of this Republic and maintain a government job let alone run for President. Isn’t this the very definition of treason?

      Enemies foreign and domestic. The domestic ones concern me.

      • Unfortunately no, it’s not treason. Perjury and probably sedition. But the constitution defines treason as overt war or providing aid and comfort to our enemies. Just breaking her oath doesn’t apply.

        There’s a lot about her tenure as SOS that could be considered treason, but she’d probably get around that because technically we’re not at war, therefore ISIS isn’t technically our enemy.

        My God thinking in strictly legal terms hurts, I don’t know how lawyers do it.

        • Justice is an ideal. The law is a tool. Very healthy to never lose sight of that.

  1. Just because it will aggravate so many….

    I do not support any notion that a person or business can or should be required to make good any criminal act by another person or business. The only situations where a person or business should be even remotely considered culpable is IF a person or business knowingly promotes the criminal actions of another person or business (criminal facilitation).

    It is insane on the part of anyone trying to improve gun safety to try to hold people responsible for second and third order effects of a crime committed through the use of a legal product purchased legitimately. Such thinking does nothing to improve gun safety, or the safety of society.

    There are crazies on the gun sense side of the argument.

    • I agree. You would have to sue car makers for drunk drivers, drug companies for overdoses, and so on and so on. This is just more political posturing just like Trump and his “I will wall off America and throw everyone out” speal.

      • There is no “common sense” in proposals to make criminal accomplices of people producing and selling a legal product; only vengeance. Frankly, these ideas divert attention from real measures that can better protect society. But, in the political season….stupid ideas reign supreme everywhere.

        • Our resident troll has emerged from lurking in the shadows. What knowledge will he bestow upon us villainous constitution loving 2A folk today? Me thinks “common sense”, “feels”, and “for the children”….because gunz.

        • It’s quite “common sense” if you realize the purpose.

          I mean, obviously, the broad support that this notion of liability has is, to a significant extent, vengeance and the general desire to see the “bad guys” suffer. But if you look at the people behind the lawsuits, they want something else – they want to enact gun control through the courts. From their perspective, if Congress isn’t willing to pass AWB, UBC etc, then they will create a legal climate in which the same (if not more severe) restrictions are imposed on the industry in practice under threat of being found negligent. If such laws result in numerous “mom and pop” stores closing, they don’t care – or rather they do, because that means fewer guns, which to them is a good thing, period.

          Simply put, it’s the “ends justify the means” party. They believe that their goal is just, and that therefore any available means are valid, no matter the consequences. I’m not sure they fully realize that, if they are successful, the consequences would be reaching far beyond the gun industry. It won’t take long before someone injured in a car accident involving speeding sues the manufacturer for making and advertising a car that can go significantly faster than speed limit, for example.

        • No you can’t. Nice try though. Mother Jones is down the way on the left. Have a nice day.

        • So now the term is common sense gun ownership.
          I guess gun owners need liberals to grant us common sense.

        • Hey 2Asux, are we back into “I’m not against guns, I only want to make sure gun owners are responsible” mode? What happened to, “once we get the guns away from all the law-abiding, then we can concentrate on the criminals and move to a gun-free utopia” mode? Like I said, you’re a little better troll than most, sowing a little confusion with a nod to actual rationality here.

        • Sam person, and not inconsistent. Two propositions, two theories. If we can elevate the capabilities of gun owners to the point none can become “a bad guy with a gun” without confiscation, great ! If not, confiscation is an alternative. For those who see no future without confiscation, the pressure and responsibility will be on them to then turn the screws on criminals and gangers, doing whatever it takes to disarm that crowd. I don’t see how anyone can claim to be rational while demanding non-criminals be stripped of guns and, after the round-up, letting gun crime run rampant. (BTW, I get a lot of crap for even considering that criminals be treated as criminals)

    • 2asux,

      I think it has been part of the Clinton plan for some time now. The plan to seize control of the gun industry by side stepping Congress and using litigation, intimidation, and back room negotiations to force dealers and manufacturers to do whatever they command.

      Make no mistake, Hillary doesn’t think that any manufacturers of anything should be held accountable for second, third, or twelveth order crimes. She is not crazy or dumb. She has a plan. And is simply looking to implement it. It helps if you have millions of cheering supporters who are crazy enough to support manufactures being liable for the third order crime thing.

      The plan (from 1999):
      http://armsandthelaw.com/Clinton%20settlement%20gun%20suits.pdf

    • Please refrain from using the term “gun sense” when advocating your framework for civilian disarmament. There has never been, nor will ever be, anything remotely sensible about your position. Sorry if this is one of those “challenge my preconceived notions” sort of things. Well, not really.

      • When it comes to “gun sense”, there are measures that will make wide-spread gun ownership more acceptable to the larger population, such as receiving professional training. But when it comes to gun confiscation, the object will be to do what citizens will not do…act responsibly to ensure the safety of others. Voluntary actions are the best options, but confiscation is the last resort. And you will have earned your consequence.

    • 2A; I dig. You can just feel Bernie Clause cringing when she does this. He’s trying to tell them “NOOOO! THIS IS STUPID!!! THEY WILL DESTROOOOY US!!!”

  2. Greed and recklessness, eh? Isn’t that what caused the financial meltdown in 2008? And weren’t the prime actors the investment bankers that are now majorly supporting Hillary’s campaign? Hmmm.
    I suppose she thinks that any company that makes guns is “reckless.” Just “because guns.” So no surprise there. As to greed, I guess they must be greedy because they are selling the guns they make, not because their profit margins are massively inflated–or is she arguing that manufacturers should lower their prices so that everyone can buy one? Hmmm.
    If you are a Democrat, or if you are an independent or Republican who can’t stomach voting for either of the two leading candidates, please please please vote for Bernie. I mean, he has no friends, no party, and and no power to accomplish anything, which is far preferable to the catastrophe if Hillary takes the White House.

  3. FLAME DELETED The whole reason for the law stopping the suing of gun manufactures in the first place is because every nut job and their mothers brother keeps trying to make gun companies responsible for what some third party nut job misused their product. The judge in this case is not a judge but a pure activist that needs to be removed from the bench for dereliction of duty. Why are they suing Remington? There must be 25 other manufactures at least who make AR15s. Not to mention that a 12 ga shotgun with buck shot would do great damage also. What is too deadly? Since the round used in most ARs a 223 5.56 is anemic compared to a 308 or 3006 or 8mm and most other full size rifle rounds what is dangerous? Semi auto? what about the Rem 7400 or Browning bar hunting rifles? If not that then what mag size? This is a quagmire and should have been stomped out now, but we get this bitch judge who is obviously anti gun. Hope on appeal we get someone who wants to actually follow the law even if they don’t like guns.

      • It is a little curious that the AF program manager (3-star general) was hard-over on getting Lockheed to perform to schedule and contract a year ago, but in recent testimony to Congress he sounded like number one cheerleader. Guess that happens when you finally face the fact that you soon will retire, and need a job.

        • Military brass overseeing major defense department contractors often have a cushy job waiting for them from those same contractors so they can use their military contacts to grease the next contract…

  4. She’s yapping about guns to divert attention from pay to play with Billy and the Clinton Foundation. Policies she enforces allowing illegals free health care, phones, and jobs to get votes.

  5. Sadly, Hitlery will win because one of two scenarios happen. Trump gets the nomination and the GOP establishment and the “neverTrump” crowd March Hillary into the whitehouse thinking they can contain her like they did Obama, then realize that’s hard to do after congress turns blue. Or the GOP screws Trump out of the nomination, then half the people who would’ve voted, simply don’t, and Hillary wins in a landslide..

    • Only have the GOP splitter vote strategy to blame. Starting to think they support the UNI party and the best way to flush democrats is to get rid of republicans.

    • You are part right on the second half, Republicans elect anyond but Trump, he runs independent and splits the vote, handing Clinton the keys to the Big White House.

      • Seems to me the Republican Party elites are splitting the party, refusing to vote for a nominee they don’t like.

        • To remind, more of Republicans have voted against Trump (i.e. for one of the other candidates) in the primaries so far than have voted for him. It would be silly to chalk it down to “party elites” alone. The split runs within the party itself, between regular supporters. The elites are certainly favoring one side of that split, thereby exacerbating it; but even if they didn’t, it would still be ruinous.

      • Gun owners should vote Hillary into the people’s house. No need to prolong the assimilation. College kids indoctrinated whining for free stuff, getting votes from Blacks, feminist, Latinos, stupid white people, and Muslims, trillions in new taxes for the 51% who pay them. A new Supreme judge rolling 2A into a grave, people wiping their asses with the flag, roads & airports to nowhere….let the Republic die and in its place another rise another shit hole.

        • Over the course of our Nation’s history the “popular ” opinion has swung back and forth constantly. I feel there is some hope left for our once great nation, it’s just going to take a very large reality check. I don’t know what that will be but I prefer it, not be caused by us voting for Clinton 2.0! I do feel that our nation is sick, reality shows, MSM encouraging our children to be lgbt to be cool, a laughable election cycle, major metro areas so full of corruption at the local level that the states are going broke (ie, Detroit public schools), public outcry at a black president when he says “all lives matter”, not just the dark skinned ones, criminal justice system that costs more than or education system, “men” wearing their girlfriend’s skinny jeans. We are very sick, I have even said the Nation is at a point where a major plague or an atomic bomb would help right some of the wrongs in this country, hell if I have to be one of the people that die in the process so be it.

    • Not getting to 1237 and not getting the nomination is not “getting screwed over”.

      1237 is not “a random number” that someone “just made up”. It’s known as a simple majority. The guy is a F’ing moron.

      However, I WILL vote for the moron if he is the nominee. But I’m sure most Trump supports will sit on their hands in Nov. if Cruz is the candidate. Oh well, what do I expect from the “Stupid party”. At least I can say I’m not a member of the “dangerous party”.

      http://www.dennisprager.com/hes-mean-but-is-he-at-least-bright/

      http://www.dennisprager.com/gratuitous-hatred-is-destroying-republicans-just-as-in-ancient-israel/

  6. Well, I can imagine a response should she be “debating” someone with the courage of their convictions:

    “Well, Senator, I’m glad you brought that up. Guns are involved in 90 deaths a day, is a bit disingenuous. Most of those are associated with thuggery and organized crime, in our cities, associated with drugs: consequences of failures of other long-standing policies. That 90 a day includes suicides, and defensive gun uses that result in the death of the attacker, so I’d be inclined to count those differently, Meanwhile, there are assaults shunted aside, or attackers scared of by the simple presence of a citizen able to fight back, which don’t get reported.

    So, I think your number is at least disingenuous. But no matter. Somebody was killed using a gun, so those count the same for you without regard for who got killed, doing what. I think who was doing what, who got killed, and who lived matters a lot.

    For example, Chicago has been running about 8 drug-related gun deaths a week (Do I recall that stat correctly? – ed.) That is, despite gun restrictions among the strongest in the country the drug thugs have plenty of guns. (Similar to DC.) Meanwhile, how many peaceful, lawful citizens in Chicago get caught in the crossfire? With no means to fight back, because Chicago, which can’t keep guns out of thugs’ hands, won’t allow guns in citizens’ hands.

    Really, I think we should be paying attention to actual gun control: more getting guns out of the hands of criminals and thugs, less keeping guns out of the hands of peaceful citizens. Even getting guns out of criminals’ hands isn’t as helpful as we’d like, as NYC is demonstrating with their epidemic of knife attacks. It’s not OK with me leaving peaceful citizens facing knife attacks unarmed, even if the bad guys “only” have knives. So, really, we should count deaths regardless of the tool the thugs choose. And really, we should probably count attacks – it’s no fun getting cut up.

    But, again, no matter. It’s all deaths – doesn’t matter who’s – using guns, but not any deaths using something else, and no counting times using a gun protected a good guy.

    I think that if you can’t protect our citizens, who are you to deny them the tools to protect themselves? Indeed, this is exactly one reason the federal government is enjoined from restricting citizens’ “arms.” Protecting yourself is a natural right. It’s convenient to get people all wee-wee-ed up over a gross statistic – like “gun deaths” – to make a talking point, and leave innocent people for dead for a political gain.

    So, yeah, gun control. What do you want to do about controlling guns used to kill people by crazies, thugs, whack-jobs and terrorists? What do you want to do about putting defensive guns in the hands of innocent people who would otherwise be victims?

    And among that fake number 90, it matters intensely who gets killed, by who, and why. It is a crime bordering on genocide that US gun & crime laws contribute to so many young black men, mainly in cities, getting killed. It is an appalling assault on women to deny them the means to equalize a physical confrontation, if they choose to. It is disgusting to deny the means to defend themselves to people too poor to live in gated communities, to hire personal security, to go to weeks of run-around and training before they are “permitted” to protect themselves. (See “Emily Gets a Gun” for what it takes in DC. Who can afford that much run-around?)

    And yes, that’s racist too. Let’s recall how the local gun restrictions, like the rest of the Jim Crow laws in the house, kept the means to defend themselves away from black people to keep them helpless; to prevent them from exercising the rights finally codified in the federal amendments after the civil war.

    Morally, your position is indefensible. Politically, it’s nothing but good for me. So yeah, keep bringing up guns.

    Anything further to say about gun control, Senator?”

    • FOR THE RECORD, there are no major gun control in Chicago. A FOID card costs $10 for 10 years and is much easier to get that a driver licence, You can do everything online, just have to wait for the stupid thing. There are NO handgun restriction at all for FOID card holders in Chicago. Yes there are long gun magazine limits of 15 rounds, but how often are they used in crimes. And even if the cost is on the high side, Chicago is shall issue for a CCL.
      I carry all the time in the city. I have had my carry spotted by CPD (law is mostly concealed), never an issue. Honestly, I think if you carry in a holster, the cops are fairly sure you are not a gang banger.

        • Illinois Public Act 098-0063
          Section 90. Preemption.
          The regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and
          transportation of handguns and ammunition for handguns by
          licensees are exclusive powers and functions of the State. Any
          ordinance or regulation, or portion thereof, enacted on or
          before the effective date of this Act that purports to impose
          regulations or restrictions on licensees or handguns and
          ammunition for handguns in a manner inconsistent with this Act
          shall be invalid in its application to licensees under this Act
          on the effective date of this Act. This Section is a denial and
          limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection
          (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

          Chicago needs to follow state law when it comes to handguns. I can’t find the Chicago Ordnance right now, but they do list restrictions on handguns. However at the end of the ordinance there is a line stating it is invalid were it conflicts with state law.

        • Found the Chicago Codes

          “High capacity magazine” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of more than 15 rounds of ammunition. A “high capacity magazine” does not include an attached tubular device to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”

          The cool line at the end
          “Nothing in this section shall be construed to regulate any firearm or ammunition to the extent that such regulation is preempted.”

          Now there are a bunch of listed prohibited firearms by type, but that is another mess, but like I said, handguns have no real restrictions.

      • Carry permit is easier to get than a driver’s license?

        This is confusing. Everything I read claims Shytown has some of the toughest gun controls in the nation. Chicago (that toddlin’ town) is the poster child for how tough gun laws don’t work in controlling crimes using guns.

        ????

        • No,he said the FOID is easier to get than the driver’s license. You shouldn’t need one, but apparently it’s fairly easy to get.

          The carry permit, OTOH, is expensive and time consuming to get, but once you invest all that, it’s shall issue.

        • Also the city want people to think the laws are worse than they are. Also it will cost minimum of $250 to get a CCL, I spent 275 and it took 9 hours or so of my time. There are ways of substituting 8 of the 16 hours of class tine. And it is actually easier to get then a library card as you don’t have to leave you house.

        • Sorry about the last reply, never comment from the commode.
          The City of Chicago wants there to be as much confusion as possible regarding firearms law. That confusion is the only real hindrance (other than your time) to owning any handgun you want. (Long guns are another subject)
          Getting a FOID (Firearm Owner ID Card) is an online form and cost $10 for 10 years. It is easier to get than a library card as you don’t need to go anywhere. https://www.ispfsb.com/
          As for the CCL, It will cost you $250 minimum ($100 for 8 hours training and another $150 for the application). Did you notice that I put in 8 hours and not 16? That’s because there are substitutions for the other 8 hours. Nice part is that you don’t need any fingerprints. Also typically a trainer will wrap up Florida and Utah permits in the same class.

      • Hello Binder. Two parts: I was writing an off the cuff polemic, like an extemporaneous “debate” response. And “major” as in “less than these other places” is kind of weak. Especially on the heels of an exaggerated statement like persumptive-nominee Clinton used to begin her set-piece, you can get away with being a bit sloppy with your facts, especially if it’s something “everybody just knows.”

  7. If Stalin and Hitler had a debate when they were alive, it would have probably sounded much like this debate.

    • “If Stalin and Hitler had a debate when they were alive, it would have probably sounded much like this debate.”

      Both were Socialists, in charge of large killing machines, each knowing the other was a great threat. Stalin’s killing machine was more effective and efficient.

      • No, The Nazi war machine was more effective and efficient at killing, the Soviets were just more numerous and larger.

    • The degree of political myopia routinely exhibited by right-wing voters never ceases to amaze me. It gets kinda boring, though – why Stalin and Hitler all the time, and maybe occasionally Pol Pot? Why not, say, Genghis Khan, or Nero, or Ante Pavelic? Spice it up.

  8. Think of the balls required of his woman, in particular, to accuse another of greed and recklessness. No honor, no integrity and no ethics !

  9. Did you catch this one?

    “SANDERS: What we need to do is to do everything that we can to make certain that guns do not fall into the hands of people who do not have them.”

    Well that’s pretty bold and clear, right there.

    • OK, where is the flaw in the argument? People who don’t have guns shouldn’t have them. We have to stop the proliferation somehow, and starting with prohibiting non gun owners from acquiring guns is a first step toward stemming the tide. Can’t hurt someone with something you don’t have.

  10. “CLINTON: Well, the facts are that most of the guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from out of state. They come from the states that don’t have kind of serious efforts to control guns that we do in New York.”

    I find it interesting that Hillary thinks guns commit crimes.

  11. Pay attention to the Fat Broad. She doesn’t know much about guns but she is quite the expert on recklessness and greed.

  12. God fucking damnit, Sanders, you’ve been the Senator for years of the safest state which also has the best gun laws in the country — YOU SHOULD HAVE REALIZED REALITY DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOUR DOGMA THIS TIME! Do you not remember the words of great working class Socialists, those who said that the working man’s rights are never in jeopardy so long as a rife is within his grasp, that freedom is something won by the gun, that free men are distinct from slaves by their right to arms and self-defense? Bernie Bernie Bernie, you have disappointed me so badly that if you get the nomination, I’m only voting for you if you’re against Trump!

  13. As far aѕ eateries go, tɦere іs none аѕ funky oг
    idiosyncratic aѕ tɦe Galata House, housed inwide tthe ersrwhile British
    Jail. Тhink homemade hummus, feta, rice wrapped iin grape
    leaves. Consumers wuthin tҺіѕ industry aⅼsߋ depict trends as ԝell though.

  14. Here aге somе tips:Legal actions to repossess cars:
    – tricking οr lying tο consumers. Tһere aare strategies offering,
    Ƅut are not tied to, short sales, loan mitigation, loan forgiveness аnd more.
    Do all yοu are аble to shield yourself from house
    repossessions since yоu wiⅼl sincerely regret Ԁoing nothing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *