Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Sanders is wrong about the lawsuit we filed after our son’s murder in Newtown
Our son, our sweet little Daniel, was just 7 when he was murdered in his first-grade classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. We are among the 10 families suing the manufacturer, distributor and retail seller of the assault rifle that took 26 lives in less than five minutes on that terrible day.
We write in response to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s comments about our lawsuit at the recent Democratic presidential debate in Michigan. Sanders suggested that the “point” of our case is to hold Remington Arms Co. liable simply because one of its guns was used to commit mass murder. With all due respect, this is simplistic and wrong.
This case is about a particular weapon, Remington’s Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians. It is not about handguns or hunting rifles, and the success of our lawsuit would not mean the end of firearm manufacturing in this country, as Sanders warned. This case is about the AR-15 because the AR-15 is not an ordinary weapon; it was designed and manufactured for the military to increase casualties in combat. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars: uniquely deadly and suitable for specialized use only.
We have never suggested that Remington should be held liable simply for manufacturing the AR-15. In fact, we believe that Remington and other manufacturers’ production of the AR-15 is essential for our armed forces and law enforcement. But Remington is responsible for its calculated choice to sell that same weapon to the public, and for emphasizing the military and assaultive capacities of the weapon in its marketing to civilians.
Indeed, Remington promotes the AR-15’s capacity to inflict mass casualities. It markets its AR-15s with images of soldiers and SWAT teams; it dubs various models the “patrolman” and the “adaptive combat rifle” and declares that they are “as mission-adaptable as you are”; it encourages the notion that the AR-15 is a weapon that bestows power and glory upon those who wield it. Advertising copy for Remington’s AR-15s has included the following: “Consider your man card reissued,” and “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”
We write in response to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s comments about our lawsuit at the recent Democratic presidential debate in Michigan. Sanders suggested that the “point” of our case is to hold Remington Arms Co. liable simply because one of its guns was used to commit mass murder. With all due respect, this is simplistic and wrong.
This case is about a particular weapon, Remington’s Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians. It is not about handguns or hunting rifles, and the success of our lawsuit would not mean the end of firearm manufacturing in this country, as Sanders warned. This case is about the AR-15 because the AR-15 is not an ordinary weapon; it was designed and manufactured for the military to increase casualties in combat. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars: uniquely deadly and suitable for specialized use only.
We have never suggested that Remington should be held liable simply for manufacturing the AR-15. In fact, we believe that Remington and other manufacturers’ production of the AR-15 is essential for our armed forces and law enforcement. But Remington is responsible for its calculated choice to sell that same weapon to the public, and for emphasizing the military and assaultive capacities of the weapon in its marketing to civilians.
Indeed, Remington promotes the AR-15’s capacity to inflict mass casualities. It markets its AR-15s with images of soldiers and SWAT teams; it dubs various models the “patrolman” and the “adaptive combat rifle” and declares that they are “as mission-adaptable as you are”; it encourages the notion that the AR-15 is a weapon that bestows power and glory upon those who wield it. Advertising copy for Remington’s AR-15s has included the following: “Consider your man card reissued,” and “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanders-is-wrong-about-the-lawsuit-we-filed-after-our-son-was-murdered-in-newtown/2016/03/18/d5892e2a-ebbb-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?wpisrc=nl_az_most
52 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
That the AR-15 at issue is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle available for civilian purchase? It isn't an automatic rifle (i.e., a "machine gun"
, but rather a firearm that fires one round every time the trigger is pulled. In other words, it works exactly the same as semi-automatic handguns and any other number of rifles. With these facts in mind, why do you think the AR-15 rifle should be banned and other firearms should not?
Especially considering how your candidate pandered to the NRA in 2008:
Hillary hits Obama on faith, guns
Yesterday, Clinton hit Obama for calling Pennsylvanians "bitter," ground on which he fairly ably engaged.
Today, she's onto the other half of his San Francisco remarks, in which he linked economic frustration to clinging to religion and guns (the part he sought to walk back this morning in Muncie, Ind.).
"Sen. Obama's remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch," Clinton said. "The people of faith I know don't 'cling to' religion because they're bitter. ... I also disagree with Sen. Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration. People of all walks of life hunt — and they enjoy doing so because it's an important part of their life, not because they are bitter."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/04/hillary-hits-obama-on-faith-guns-007747
Yesterday, Clinton hit Obama for calling Pennsylvanians "bitter," ground on which he fairly ably engaged.
Today, she's onto the other half of his San Francisco remarks, in which he linked economic frustration to clinging to religion and guns (the part he sought to walk back this morning in Muncie, Ind.).
"Sen. Obama's remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch," Clinton said. "The people of faith I know don't 'cling to' religion because they're bitter. ... I also disagree with Sen. Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration. People of all walks of life hunt — and they enjoy doing so because it's an important part of their life, not because they are bitter."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/04/hillary-hits-obama-on-faith-guns-007747
Hillary Clinton goes bold on gun safety — but she sounded a different note in 2008
But Clinton hasn’t always been so forceful in her fight for gun control. As the Post highlights, Clinton has dramatically shifted her tone on gun control since the 2008 campaign. While Clinton touted her husband’s record record on gun control (former President Bill Clinton signed into the law an assault weapons ban that has since lapsed) she also heralded personal memories of learning to shoot with her father and defend gun ownership, saying, “there is not a contradiction between protecting Second Amendment rights” and the effort to reduce crime.
You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” Clinton said while campaigning ahead of the Indiana primary, where white working class Democrats propelled her to a narrow victory over then-Sen. Barack Obama. “You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter,” she continued, in a dig at Obama’s remark at a fundraiser that disenfranchised Americans often “cling” to cultural symbols like guns and religion.
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/10/hillary_clinton_goes_bold_on_gun_safety_but_she_sounded_a_different_note_in_2008/
But Clinton hasn’t always been so forceful in her fight for gun control. As the Post highlights, Clinton has dramatically shifted her tone on gun control since the 2008 campaign. While Clinton touted her husband’s record record on gun control (former President Bill Clinton signed into the law an assault weapons ban that has since lapsed) she also heralded personal memories of learning to shoot with her father and defend gun ownership, saying, “there is not a contradiction between protecting Second Amendment rights” and the effort to reduce crime.
You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” Clinton said while campaigning ahead of the Indiana primary, where white working class Democrats propelled her to a narrow victory over then-Sen. Barack Obama. “You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter,” she continued, in a dig at Obama’s remark at a fundraiser that disenfranchised Americans often “cling” to cultural symbols like guns and religion.
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/10/hillary_clinton_goes_bold_on_gun_safety_but_she_sounded_a_different_note_in_2008/
Clinton's Hunting History
WAUSAU, WIS. -- At a campaign stop this afternoon, Hillary Clinton's focus was on the economy and health care but some in the crowd had other things on their minds. Clinton was asked to discuss gun control which prompted Clinton to talk about her days holding a rifle in the cold, shallow waters in backwoods Arkansas.
"I've hunted. My father taught me how to hunt. I went duck hunting in Arkansas. I remember standing in that cold water, so cold, at first light. I was with a bunch of my friends, all men. The sun's up, the ducks are flying and they are playing a trick on me. They said, 'we're not going to shoot, you shoot.' They wanted to embarrass me. The pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck and they were surprised as I was," Clinton said drawing laughter from the crowd.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clintons-hunting-history/
WAUSAU, WIS. -- At a campaign stop this afternoon, Hillary Clinton's focus was on the economy and health care but some in the crowd had other things on their minds. Clinton was asked to discuss gun control which prompted Clinton to talk about her days holding a rifle in the cold, shallow waters in backwoods Arkansas.
"I've hunted. My father taught me how to hunt. I went duck hunting in Arkansas. I remember standing in that cold water, so cold, at first light. I was with a bunch of my friends, all men. The sun's up, the ducks are flying and they are playing a trick on me. They said, 'we're not going to shoot, you shoot.' They wanted to embarrass me. The pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck and they were surprised as I was," Clinton said drawing laughter from the crowd.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clintons-hunting-history/
Let states & cities determine local gun laws
Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?
A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you’re referring to is before the Supreme Court.
Q: But what do you support?
A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.
Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?
A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else [should be able to] come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.
Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?
A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?
A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you’re referring to is before the Supreme Court.
Q: But what do you support?
A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.
Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?
A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else [should be able to] come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.
Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?
A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
You don't want the facts posted because they don't fit the narrative, that doesn't give you the right to exploit this issue and claim others don't care when we push back.
