[* Off-topic update: A new ABC/WaPo poll shows that, if elected, only Senator Bernie Sanders comes out ahead in net terms of comfort vs. anxiety.]
But Giffords wasn't always a gun control advocate. In 2008 Giffords — who was once a Republican and a longtime supporter of gun rights — opposed government prohibitions on the possession of handguns in the home, and signed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to support its overturn.
But that was before the tragic shooting in 2011 — when she was shot in the head outside a Safeway grocery store in Casas Adobes, Arizona. Now her and her husband are stout gun control advocates. In a recent statement she writes why she and her husband are supporting Hillary Clinton:
"Only one candidate for president has the determination and toughness to stand up to the corporate gun lobby — and the record to prove it. That candidate is Hillary Clinton."
Only one candidate? Really? Well, everyone has a right to their opinion — just like me ;)
But if the gun laws were any different, would Giffords now be suing the manufacturer of the gun that injured her, because it was used in the commission of that horrible crime? And if Gabby Giffords and her husband can "evolve" on this issue, shouldn't it be acceptable for others to change their minds when presented with persuasive counter-arguments?
Personally, I find it rather despicable that Hillary Clinton would use Gabby Gifford's tragedy as a campaign tool in an attempt to win votes from Bernie Sanders. It's obvious Hillary wants to make this Democratic primary a single issue campaign because it's THE ONLY ISSUE where she has voted more strongly than Bernie (even though Bernie's stand on gun laws weren't really all that draconian at all.)
But Hillary is still banging that drum, even though Bernie has since "evolved" on this issue — just like Hillary has flip-flopped on a slew of other issues. Hillary Clinton recently said on MSNBC: "Maybe it's time for Senator Sanders to stand up and say, 'I got this one wrong.'"
Via the Guardian: Bernie Sanders said he will co-sponsor legislation to repeal the 2005 law that grants gun manufacturers legal immunity if weapons were used to commit crime. And Hillary knows this. But even so, the 2005 federal statute, known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, only ensures immunity from strict liability, not negligence or willful misconduct regarding criminal use of the product by a purchaser.
The article at the Guardian also says the Brady bill, named after Ronald Reagan’s press secretary Jim Brady, was eventually passed with "Reagan’s endorsement". But it was Bill Clinton who signed it into law. This little detail is always glossed over in the media.
In the comments section of the Guardian article, Bernie Sanders' supporters are upset that he flip-flopped on this particular issue. And I agree. As much as I hate the way the NRA lobbies for gun manufacturers, it's not right that they can be sued unless they willfully or negligently did something wrong — besides just legally manufacture something. (Who's next, the makers of automobiles, bats, knives, rat poison, etc?
This campaign is not just ONE ISSUE --- it's many issues. For example, Hillary Clinton takes $$$ from Wall Street, while saying she'll reform Wall Street. Should we ignore this?
Hillary has said that her vote for 4,486 American deaths in the Iraq war was a "mistake". At an event in Iowa last year Hillary Clinton told reporters: "I made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple. And I have written about it in my book, I have talked about it in the past". (She's always pimping her books.) Should we ignore that as well, and just focus on guns and only guns?
Although Gabby Gifford has every right to endorse anyone she pleases, I still find it distasteful that Hillary would use this as a reason why she thinks she should be our president.