How Bernie Sanders Helped Derail a Promising Legal Fight Against Gun Violence

[sheshe2]

The most viable effort in decades to stem the flow of guns onto the black market ended with the immunity bill Sanders helped pass.

[/b]In the fall of 2005, the city of New York was preparing a mammoth lawsuit against 14 gun manufacturers and 27 distributors and dealers. The suit set out to prove that the gun industry bore a responsibility for the volume of guns illegally trafficked into the city.

To make its case, the city had marshaled significant evidence showing that gun manufacturers were unwilling to take simple steps to keep their guns out of criminals’ hands—and even knowingly fed the criminal gun market. The lawsuit highlighted federal data from 1996 to 1998 that had traced more than 34,000 guns used to perpetrate crimes back to just 137 dealers. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms informed gun manufacturers every time a gun used in a crime was traced to their companies, information that would have made it easy for manufacturers to determine which of their distributors and dealers were supplying the black market, yet manufacturers continued to sell guns to those “bad apple” dealers.

snip
“New York was a very strong case,” says Jonathan Lowy, an attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence who worked on the case. “We were completely ready for trial.”

snip

]Sanders, who hails from a rural state with lax gun laws, has defended his vote as a way to protect the “small mom-and-pop gun shop” in Vermont from frivolous lawsuits.

But Sanders’ argument obfuscates the true impact of his vote—namely, that the lawsuits he helped derail once represented the most viable effort in decades to stem the flow of guns onto the black market.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/bernie-sanders-announces-presidential-run/index.html

You do not defend this by saying you are protecting mom and pop stores in VERMONT. This is about people being slaughtered.


Attention alerters. This vote is far before the primaries.

It was the day the music died.

David Hogg is correct.

Thanks
Tavarious Jackson
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210610602#top




.......................................................................................

[Fullduplexxx]

1. Hey why let divisions heal when they can be used to help us lose more elections

[Hekate]

3. Yeah, there's just something about that Sanders guy

[HenryWallace]

191. It's called popularity...

[link:|

Granted, you may not have a lot of experience here.

[sheshe2]

242. The Harvard Harris Poll once again.

What a hoot.

Debunked.

[HenryWallace]

301. Here is another one....

With your relative position pointed out....

[link:|

[lapucelle]

316. Do you have an actual link rather than a blurred picture?

Is the source for that data Fox News? That's what it says in the upper left hand corner.

[sheshe2]

317. You are quoting Faux Snooze on Democratic Underground?

[ehrnst]

328. A year ago. On Fox News. Did they poll people in Vermont?

He's down from 2016 among his constituents.

Whereas Hillary seems to continue to make Most Admired Woman in the world consistently, along with Obama as most admired man.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/224672/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-retain-admired-titles.aspx

It will be interesting to see what happens if Bernie is vetted, should he run a second time for POTUS.

[lapucelle]

264. That's old data.

The last time BS's name appeared on the Harvard-Harris Poll's most popular politicians list was in January.

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Final_HHP_April2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Final_HHP_March2018_RegisteredVoters_Xtabs_Memo.pdf

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Final_HHP_20Feb2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf

[lapucelle]

315. That's old data as well, and it concerns a private citizen,

so it's odd that anyone would bring up HRC in the context of currently serving politicians.

But as long as we're on the subject, the same month Gallup poll respondents named HRC the most admired woman living anywhere in the world in their annual poll.

"The 2017 survey marks the 16th consecutive year Clinton has been the most admired woman. She has held the title 22 times in total, more than anyone else. Eleanor Roosevelt is second with 13 wins."

http://news.gallup.com/poll/224672/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-retain-admired-titles.aspx

[George II]

319. Is that the same Hillary Clinton that has been the most admired woman in the WORLD...

for 19 of the last 20 years?

[calimary]

326. Yep. The very same.

[ehrnst]

329. Yep.

[ehrnst]

332. Interesting. She's sure pulling in the crowds and standing ovations IRL for someone so "unliked"

Standing Ovation in Wisconsin

New York crowd cheers Hillary Clinton at book signing; Trump spokeswoman has different reaction
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/ct-hillary-clinton-new-book-reaction-20170912-story.html

Standing ovation when she goes to a restaurant
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/dining/sns-dailymeal-1888547-entertain-hillary-clinton-standing-ovation-nyc-upland-20180222-story.html

Hillary Clinton Book Signing In New Jersey Draws Huge Crowd Of Fans (And Some Foes)
https://patch.com/new-jersey/montclair/hillary-clinton-book-signing-essex-county-draws-huge-crowd-photos

MASSIVE CROWD WELCOMES HILLARY CLINTON TO MONTCLAIR’S WATCHUNG BOOKSELLERS
http://www.montclairlocal.news/wp/index.php/2017/09/26/massive-crowd-welcomes-hillary-clinton-montclairs-watchung-booksellers/

Hillary Clinton receives a standing ovation at Tony Award-winning show Oslo as she visits her second Broadway show with Bill in two weeks
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4660814/Hillary-Clinton-gets-standing-ovation-Broadway-s-

I guess her being named most admired in the world for the 19th year, and packing in the crowds wherever she goes just PROVES how unlikeable she is...

Fear, anger and rage at women leaders: Hillary Clinton and Julia Gillard agree

https://www.afr.com/news/politics/fear-anger-and-rage-at-women-leaders-hillary-clinton-and-julia-gillard-agree-20180510-h0zx7l


But by all means, please continue with the desperate attempt to disprove real life with Fox News polls and carefully edited gallup polls....

[ehrnst]

333. You left a little something out of your post that's in that poll

In the past six months, Hillary Clinton's image has declined among Republicans and independents but not among Democrats.

Are you a Democrat?

[Kahuna7]

277. Harvard-Harris Survey...DRINK!!!!

[HenryWallace]

307. You know what they say...

What's drinking? A mere pause from thinking!

..........................................................George Gordon

But after two and a half years, you have got a problem!

[George II]

321. So, you're saying that a DU member who you have NEVER met has a drinking problem? Really?????

[ehrnst]

331. Oh, my. What a reposte.

Being all like, "I can't believe that you are DRINKING right now! You have a problem!"

Just because someone rolled their eyes at you? Lighten up, Hon!

Maybe you need a drink....

[George II]

318. "Granted, you may not have a lot of experience here."

How insulting can you get?

[George II]

320. Do you know what that "poll" represents? Look at the methodology (and it's old, too) Hint...

...since you're not very experienced here on DU, when you post something it would be good if you include a link to your information.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. So true... the Bernie bashing shtick is getting tiresome and borrrring...

They need to come up with some new material.

[Ninsianna]

28. Stating simple facts about his record is getting old, huh?

[marble falls]

90. You mean like Hillary Clinton being a Goldwater campaign volunteer? Lets stop all this purity crap..

based on where we stood years ago.

Just remember: Hillary voted for the Iraq war. She was for the war before she was against it. And Bernie was against gun control before he was for it.

We are killing the blue wave we need for Nov.

[betsuni]

92. Goldwater Girl, Iraq War: "she was for the war before she was against it"

[Demsrule86]

102. All that had no effect on policy...what Sen. Sanders did had a big effect...how many school

shootings since 2005? I understand why he did it, but it is a fair criticism.

[betsuni]

103. What? Did you think I agreed with that post?

[Demsrule86]

105. Sorry wrong poster....I know you don't.

[betsuni]

106. Whew!

[SammyWinstonJack]

232. A vote for the War on Iraq is funny?

[betsuni]

235. Some people want us to believe HRC started/wanted the Iraq War

and is a Republican warmonger corporatist. Anyone repeating this propaganda either does it on purpose to bash the Democratic Party or is too lazy to do the lightest research. No excuse for it here,

[Ninsianna]

262. which vote?

There have been several votes for regime change in Iraq, Bernie was for it twice before he cast a vote against it, and then turned around and funded it.

This notion that elected officials cannot. E criticized for their votes, which at the time were problematic and either ignored or recast as something they were not is ridicilous.

Literally the only person who gets to claim purity on Iraq is Rep. Barbara Lee. She stood in principle, even if she didn't have the clearance to be on the committees where the Comgress was being lied to by a corrupt admin, even if she wasn't facing the pressure of representing the families 3,000 people killed in the worst terrorist act in American history, she stood on her principles, and in hindsight was proven correct.

I find it interesting that people are still using these right wing tactics to attack Democrats while shielding the people who voted with Republicans in issues that Americans have been United against.

The families of those who were killed in the WTC are equivalent to the mom and pop gun dealers vites fir that vote that was bought by the NRA and that was a terrible vote then and has always been. No hindsight required.

[ehrnst]

334. Definitely not as "funny" as voting against the Brady Bill five times.

“Sanders voted repeatedly against the Brady bill, which in its original version had a 10-day waiting period. But he did vote for an NRA-backed amendment, sponsored by then-Rep. George Gekas (R-Pa.), that altered the Brady bill to require instant criminal background checks five years after enactment, even though the technology did not exist at the time. The waiting period would sunset within five years, once the system was expected to be operational."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/17/fact-checking-the-fourth-democratic-debate/?utm_term=.4c5e885f1a77

[betsuni]

338. Gun control is funny?

[mountain grammy]

94. Agree.

[Cha]

97. Why are you bringing Hillary into this.. she's

not running for anything.

David Hogg called out sanders for a reason.. I trust the intelligent and passionate young man who was in the line of fire.

[marble falls]

116. I'm not criticizing Hillary. I am criticizing the useless splintering of the Democratic Party just..

as we're poised to take Congress, yet again.

I was totally against any sort of gun control 10 years ago on Constitutional grounds having very, very little to do with the second amendment, and more to do with privacy issues. Now I am almost totally against possession of any weapons beyond a very limited possession of handguns because these weapons are obviously a public health and safety danger. My feelings about privacy haven't changed but the nature surrounding the possession of weapons has.

I've never, ever owned a firearm.

It wasn't Bernie's support of firearms possession that killed anyone, it was the changing nature of the gun owning public that did. And now we need a very strict period of gun control and serious self examination by the public over how it seems logical to some to feel and say in public that dead children are the price of gun-nuts' freedom to carry and be OK with that.

BTW: the first campaign I ever worked on was Barry Goldwater's, the next was George McGovern's. We all change and evolve our positions. Well, at least Hillary, Bernie and I have.

[betsuni]

117. "I'm not criticizing Hillary" says the person who called her Goldwater Girl.

[marble falls]

122. I'll give you $10.00 to point out one place where in my entire life I ever said that....

and you give DU $10.00 for a star if I post a YouTube video of Hillary Clinton self referring as a "Goldwater-girl". What do you say?

I deplore the sexism of that sort of tag, "Goldwater-girl". I think Hillary Clinton has the all the strengths, talents, experience we need in a person to be a truly great US President. And I think Bernie, like me, is too old, too much an iconoclast to be truly a uniting figure. But he has been a good Senator who's voted with the Democratic Party at least 90% of the time.

But could we PLEASE stop this circle execution and get a Democratic Congress first. Please?

[betsuni]

123. Your comment #90

[marble falls]

128. You have better vision than I. Where is the "Goldwater-girl"?

[betsuni]

134. Huh? Hillary did refer to herself as a Goldwater Girl.

That's what Goldwater supporters were called. Duh. "I was an active Young Republican, and, later, a Goldwater girl." When she was 16.

Why are you worried about my star? I'm flattered.

[marble falls]

197. I'm not worried about your star. But just because and only because you asked for it....

Now, please can we stop all this divisive purity testing? We all have evolved our positions over the years.

[sheshe2]

222. She was 16 and she sure as hell has evolved.

Sanders never has changed his no vote on simple gun laws.

[marble falls]

233. My point is that we need to be working together and that Nov and unity is what we have to....

dump Trump's rubber stamp Congress.

But to respond to how Bernie may or may not have evolved his position (and none of us here are single issue voters, that is in another world another time none of would stay home and not vote fro Bernie over gun control just to allow Trump to win the Presidency) on gun control.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/ This is what Bernie's gun policy is.


What I found elsewhere:

Sanders frequently makes two points about his gun record: He has a D-minus rating from the NRA, and the NRA’s endorsement of his opponents during his first congressional race in 1988 may have cost him the election. Sanders’s most recent grade from the NRA was a D-minus. Since 1992, the first year the NRA issued a grade for Sanders, he has received between a C-minus and F. Since 1988, Sanders has been consistent on restricting the use of semiautomatic firearms (often called “assault weapons”). But now, he suggests that his stance against assault weapons cost him the 1988 election — because his two opponents in the three-way race opposed banning such firearms and had the NRA’s support. Was that really the case? The evidence is mixed. He could have just as easily lost the election because he split votes with a Democrat, as opposed to being the only candidate without an NRA endorsement.


Clinton has attacked Sanders for voting five times against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which established a background check system and wait periods for people buying handguns from licensed dealers. Sanders often responds to this attack by highlighting his long-time support for “instant background checks.” That’s true, but there’s more to the story. When the Brady bill was being debated, the “instant” background checks that Sanders supported actually would’ve killed the Brady bill. That’s because the technology for such an instant check did not exist then, and the provision would’ve rendered the background check ineffective. After the 2012 shootings in Newtown, Conn., Sanders did vote in support of several amendments seeking to expand background checks for all firearm sales and to prohibit straw purchases.


The above two paragraphs come from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/26/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-bernie-sanderss-record-on-guns/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.222a69f92397




I am not involved with this discussion to defend any candidate. I voted wholeheartedly for Hillary Clinton. I think she would have made a very good President, as good any other successful Preisdent. My issue is why are we cutting either former candidate when that election is over and the one we need to worry about is in Nov. That we are here bashing either Clinton or Sanders is wrong headed and highly counter productive particularly since neither Clinton or Sanders are engaged in bashing each other and both are out supporting Democrats all over the nation and by and largely support the same candidates.

Something we all need to be doing.

[sheshe2]

237. One is no longer a government employee or seeking office.

Only one is a government representative, a Senator. One is no longer holding office and has clearly stated that they have no interest in running in 2020.

He needs vetting. She does not. That her name is brought up every time his is today is ridiculous. Some can only support and praise him by bashing her. Why is that?

Thanks for the link, not sure that it says what you want it to say. Sanders stinks on gun legislation.

[marble falls]

239. Its safe to say neither you nor I think Bernie goes far enough in his gun control position....

I think his voters know how he feels about it and they return him to office. I do not want Bernie in the White House. And I do not want to turn anyone out of the Party or the process over either Bernie or Hillary.

But the NRA's grading of Bernie at D and F to me indicates that he does do some things right regarding guns: he wants assault weapons banned and he wants owners registered and cleared before a gun purchase. To me that is an acceptable barest minimum.

[sheshe2]

241. It is not about a grade from the frigging NRA.

Which I take with more than a grain of salt.

It is about his votes which are frankly, horrifying.

The children see him and they will in fact be voting.

[sheshe2]

243. If Bernie is in the primary for 2020

I will not just vote against him for his stance on guns. I am not a single issue voter. I will not vote for him in a primary unless he embraces all my issues. I believe social issues are equal to economic issues. He does not. I will not vote for a man that believes money matters more than peoples lives. This is a fact, he believes economic justice far out weighs social justice. It does not. One without the other is meaningless.

[MicaelS]

303. Nice of you to clarify that.

So we can take your Bernie bashing with the grain of salt it needs.

[sheshe2]

322. Glad I could clarify that for you.

I also have a question for you. How is talking about his votes that are in fact on record 'bashing' him? How are his exact quotes bashing him?


I mean, if I was just making stuff up and posting links to faux snooze as someone did up thread, then yes you could say I was bashing him. Posting his congressional and senate records is not. Quoting him verbatim is not.

I await your reply.

[MicaelS]

342. This is about him prioritizing Economic Justice which you obviously disagree with.

Economic Justice will ALWAYS be more important to me than Social Justice because Economic Justice affects many more people. I am NOT saying that Social Justice is unimportant, rather it takes second place to Economic Justice.

The fact that Sanders became so popular was because he articulated the view that Economic Justice was and is important. To me, he is the first candidate in a long time to explicitly articulate that view. The push back against him is very telling.

I think that many of the upper class / wealthy Democrats don’t give a damn about Economic Justice, because real Economic Justice would hurt their pocketbook. It’s easy for them to be in favor of Social Justice because Social Justice does not affect their pocketbook, plus it makes them appear to be Liberal / Progressive.

The real touchstone of anyone is how an issue affects their pocketbook. If a person is not explicitly in favor of Economic Justice, then they sure as hell are not a Progressive, no matter what they call themselves.

I also believe that one of the reason Democrats have lost support in the past decades is that they have appeared to be only in favor of Social Justice, while not caring about Economic Justice. This is because I have spoken to a number of people who have articulated just this position.

If all this makes me a Social Democrat, then so be it.

[betsuni]

238. I didn't ask for anything. I already quoted Hillary saying that.

Maybe people shouldn't call Hillary a Goldwater girl in an attempt to insinuate she's a Republican. Why not try that!

[marble falls]

240. Please do not put words into my mouth.

[krawhitham]

139. Bernie Sanders is not a member of the Democratic Party

Even though his campaign claimed he was a dem for life after running for president

https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democrat-independent-222228

[LiberalLovinLug]

187. "For all intents and purposes, Bernie Sanders is a Democrat. (nt)" - Skinner

https://www.democraticunderground.com/125912901#post1

[kstewart33]

223. I respect Skinner but a whole lot of people disagree with that.

If you want to reap the benefits of party membership, join the party.

[Ninsianna]

263. So splintering it further by the use of these divisive right wing tactics

is meant to be criticism? How ow that supposed to work again?

If you're a grown ass adult and an elected official, guess what, you owe some explanations, to your constituents and to people you"re soliciting money and votes from.

The former Senator from NY has done that, the Representative and Senator from Vermont has failed to do so, and is protected from even the slightest of questions by people who keep telling us all that they are not Democrats and that their sole aim is to force us to "bend the knee" to them as they silence and dominate us because they're too lazy to understand how basic civics/government works and if we do not submit, that they are going to burn us all down and that we deserve the lethal, abusive actions of the monster they supported out of pique.

Letting these extremists play these purity games is how we got here and we're not letting it happen again. The divisive forces are coming from the outside, believe them when they repeatedly tell you what they are.

Attacking a venerable Democrat, who is now retired is shameful, and the fact that the same script is being recycled shows you how desperate they are. Never again.

[Demsrule86]

99. She was a teenager...Sen. Sanders was a grown man and holding office...

[ehrnst]

107. Whataboutism - when you have no other response.

And you are holding her to political beliefs when she was a teenager?

That's digging deep.



But since you brought it up - how about Bernie's vote against the Brady Bill - five times? He was not only grown up, but a career politician by that time.

Please explain that one.

[marble falls]

125. I'm not holding anybody to anything they've ever said. I'm saying we all evolve, this constant...

digging into the past and ignoring where we stand right now is going to be the death of yet another Democratic opportunity to take Congress and make things better.

Guililand's former 100 rating with NRA must really trouble people, ignoring the fact she's strongly pro-gun control now.

No one would be able to run if we ignore who they are vs who they were.

Lets just win this next election is only thing I am saying. Let's just stop splintering the party.

[ehrnst]

133. Yes, I hear that whenever someone criticizes Bernie's votes.

But seldom Democrats who might be 2020 candidates.

"Splintering the party" doesn't happen with Independents....

And actually, you used holding HRC to her politicial beliefs in her teen years as some sort of analogy of what people here are doing with Sanders' actual voting record.

It's the title of your post.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

255. There's LOTS more, but, we need to look forward not back and UNITE...

lest we kill the blue wave, as you say.

[Ninsianna]

260. yes, because what one does as a teenager is exactly equal to

One's votes as a sitting US Reoresentative and Senator. Yeah, let us stop this purity ceap, let us stop this false equivalence ceap and judge elected officials by their damned votes as elected officials.

Just a reminder, everyone but Rep. Barbara Lee voted for the AUMF, so whatever some Representative of a small state with a population less than the city of Detroit might have done as a political stunt as opposed to the actual freaking Senator representing NYC after 911 after a crooked admin manufactured intelligence and lied to the Cingress with clearance, is meaningless.

Guess who voted to fund everything th st happened in Iraq. And who voted two other times for regime change there.

Voting records matter. Who is voting for what and why matters.

"We" are not killing the blue wave, we get the blue wave by not playing the games being played here, with equating teenage volunteerism to grown ass adults making bad vites and then pretending they did it for noble reasons that they never bother explaining.

The blue wave requires honest assessments of who candidates are and evaluations of their on the record votes. Like why no on the Brady Bill 5x? Why the hell would you vote to keep the HIV status of rapists from their victims when prevention requires a potent and expensive cocktail of drugs and added stress?

What the fuck about the Amber Alert offended you so much you voted against it?

These are legitimate questions, ones that should have been answered when constituents asked them, should have been party of vetting, and it damn well will be now.

Enough of this petty right wing false equivalence already. I want explanations of why purity meant voting AGAiNST UHC! If this is not a concern then sit back and let people who are actually ensuring the blue wave is a legitimate one do the work the purists are too lazy to do. No more of the purity police using right wing tactics and bull shit to conceal the qntinprogressive records of those who aid and abet the Right.

[betsuni]

261. +1!

[ehrnst]

335. She was never "for" the Iraq war.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

You're welcome.

You are right about Bernie. And he is still to the right of the entire Democratic "establishment" leadership concerning gun safety laws - according to the NRA.

[betsuni]

339. +1

[elmac]

31. yep, Divide and Conquer, right out of the russian bot playbook. nt

[elleng]

54. Exactly!

[betsuni]

101. You're calling DUers Russian bots?

Do you not know what bots are?

[elmac]

143. are you? Do you?

but thanks for adding to my ignore list

[betsuni]

146. I'm not going to be ignored, Dan!

Many a man has wept bitterly
Because dreams and visions are
But vain imaginings and lies,
But I believe that they may truthfully
Forecast the future.

[sheshe2]

38. Stated comments from Bernie is now bashing?

His votes are bashing?

How so? Please enlighten us.

[betsuni]

56. This phenomenon of verbatim quotes and voting records as "bashing" is being studied

by scientists. Hopefully they will 'splain on which planet it is true.

Also, "two minute hate" and "circular firing squad" is getting boring. Needs new script.

[sheshe2]

141. Ding ding ding!

[arthritisR_US]

59. Ya really. He stands on his record. The facts

are what they are and he should answer for them as any other person in office. Why is the vetting of him so feeble?

[LiberalLovinLug]

192. "Stated comments from Bernie is now bashing?"

Don't be so intentionally obtuse. You know very well what you are doing and why. Of course you are bashing Sanders, who is one of our most important allies, and considered "by all intents and purposes" a Democrat by Skinner on these boards. Finding one weakness you can exploit in his record to publicize and splash loudly for all to hear and presumably get all riled up with you, about that damned pesky old man that annoyed you in the primary two years ago.

Anyone here could pick out a Democrat's record and find probably even more than one instance that went against what the base wanted. coughIraqwarvotecough.

Why stop at Bernie? Lets find others on our side we can poke holes and dig up any and all past moments where they did not live up to expectations, and highlight those times so we can all have a good laugh and finger wag? We still have a few months before the mid terms, we should be able to dissect a few more Democrats records in that time.

The point some on here are trying to make is why now? Why do Republican and Putin's work for them?

What is so difficult about simply not going out of your way to besmirch a "by all intents and purposes" a Democrat on these boards? Even if you don't consider him one, the GOP regards him as the enemy. And they know, even if some here don't, how dangerous he is to them, and how big an influence he has on millions of Americans. Why can't you at the very least go by the motto, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" or at the very very least "is reluctantly my ally"?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

253. +1,000,000!!!

[R B Garr]

271. You should take your own advice about obtuseness. Nothing in your

post mentions the subject matter of the thread, which is Bernie's voting history on gun legislation, although you admit it's a "weakness" and apparently think everyone should just shut up about it. Wrong. That idyllic period is long gone with way too many negative consequences from not vetting him and demanding he answer for his votes. How lame that you tell people to shut up about a Senator's voting record. How utterly absurd.

[LiberalLovinLug]

275. Sounds like a plan

So your bold plan for building up the party is to pick holes and find any "weakness" in OUR candidates and Senators. Not Republicans, but Democrats and any allies regarded as Democrats "for all intents and purposes" not only by this board, but by Democrats in Washington whom he caucuses with. Because Fox News and the RW media just don't talk enough about all our "weaknesses".

And you call me absurd.

[R B Garr]

276. Voting records are only weaknesses if they are weak. Do you think

they can be hidden? Trying to protect one Senator from vetting, especially when his whole platform is based on critiquing the supposed failures of others is rather absurd. Continually trying to make observations about him to be personal towards posters here is also absurd. Rather transparently so.

We can hear what Bernie himself talks about. Lots of people discuss Senators' public comments and their voting records.

[LiberalLovinLug]

280. I guess its only fair

Maybe you're right. The right wing voters will appreciate us going through our sides past records for decades and find anything we can that might be a weakness to being elected, and shout it out. Going after Republican Senator's records are just too damn easy. (And not very nice) Their voters will see our open transparency with our own mistakes, will admire our self deprecation, that they will go "hmmmm" maybe I'll switch parties and vote Dem.

Brilliant!

[R B Garr]

281. I have to laugh at your concern over voting records when you

clearly tried to impugn another Democrat upthread for a previous vote. These concerns tend to come and go based on who is being promoted, obviously.

[LiberalLovinLug]

285. lol. That was exactly my point

Although you forgot to mention I was just using that as an example as an extension of the OPs train of thought. Which I did not initiate.
But I'm glad you finally figured it out.

[R B Garr]

286. Your post 192 was not doing what you mention. It wasn't an

extension of the OP's train of thought. It was an attack, and a very transparent attack. The OP is very detailed as to Bernie's voting record. You should take your own advice about obtuseness.

[LiberalLovinLug]

287. Oh...Here I thought bringing up past Senators actual voting records was something we should be doing

That is not attacking or bashing, right?

Now you're going around in circles. (Do you get it yet?)

I know how you like to get the last word in. Go ahead. Its pointless to keep trying to get through.

[R B Garr]

288. LOL. Oh, I get it. I read your post 192, which was accusing

the OP of something to do with the primary. That looks pretty intentionally obtuse. David Hogg is a recent victim of gun violence, and Bernie's voting record on gun legislation is the subject matter. It's a shame that gun violence victims are trivialized just to try and shut people up about Bernie's record.

[sheshe2]

344. Thank you for each and everyone of your posts in this subthread.

Brava, RB.

[R B Garr]

349. My pleasure, she

Thanks for your timely and informative threads, always supportive of Democrats and women.

And it's looking pretty obtuse in that subthread to say or imply current events are related to the primary, coming up on two years ago now. Just... no.....

[NurseJackie]

183. Nobody is "bashing" Bernie.

... the Bernie bashing shtick is getting tiresome and borrrring...

Nobody is "bashing" Bernie. This criticism is totally deserved. Should we just sweep it all under the rug and never talk about it again? Whatever happened to "holding politicians' feet to the fire" and all that?

They need to come up with some new material.

Oh, the irony. But amusing nonetheless.

[onit2day]

190. so petty And tiresome. Give it up. I still want this man to be president

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

254. Bernie wud make a great Prez. Hillary too btw, despite her bad votes. We hafta look fwd now & unite!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!

[stevenleser]

26. So holding feet to the fire was only for the black guy? We can't do it to Sanders?

Please explain how that works.

[SunSeeker]

40. Boom!

[arthritisR_US]

60. No kidding!

[betsuni]

64. Holding some feet to the fire good, two particular feet bad.

The latter results in flop-sweat exclamations of circular firing squads, two-minute hate, insinuations of divisiveness by Russian bots, and just for the heck of it, throwing in a Hillary Clinton Whataboutism.

[sheshe2]

142. Bazinga!

[elmac]

29. yep, all the circular firing squads pretty much guarantees 8 years of tRump

[SunSeeker]

43. Seems to me it was the idiots who ate up NRA/Russian propaganda that guaranteed us Trump.

Way past time to call that shit out. And the PLCAA which passed with Bernie's vote in 2005 is the NRA's crowning propaganda achievement. The NRA made PLCAA its top legislative priority in 2005 and the group’s CEO Wayne LaPierre called it “the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years.” It is what allowed the gun manufacturers to sell assault rifles with impunity when the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Gun manufacturers now sell 1.5 MILLION assault weapons each year. And thanks to the PLCAA, they do it without fear of liability for selling a wildly inappropriate product to civilian consumers, so long as whoever was using it was committing a criminal act (which is always the case in mass shootings). No other consumer product manufacturers enjoys such an immunity. You can be illegally speeding, but if the car is partially to blame for an accident, the auto manufacturer is still liable. Not so with gun manufacturers.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence, called the PLCAA a “truly evil law” and “one of the worst pieces of special interest-backed legislation ever.” It's way past time we held the people who passed it accountable.

[betsuni]

53. +1

[arthritisR_US]

61. +1000!

[jrthin]

129. +1

[sheshe2]

144. If I might highlight part of your response, SunSeeker.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence, called the PLCAA a “truly evil law” and “one of the worst pieces of special interest-backed legislation ever.” It's way past time we held the people who passed it accountable.

[ehrnst]

136. So posting statements concerning Sanders voting record, here on DU, will "guarantee"

eight more years of Trump?

I think that's a bit hyperbolic.

[disillusioned73]

119. Exactly..

The folks that complain about Bernie the loudest.. bring him up the most.. I wonder why.. hmm

[WhiteTara]

145. I tell the truth and

they call it hell. Harry Truman.

[appal_jack]

2. I stand with Bernie on this.

Might as well expect car manufacturers to take responsibility for drunk drivers making auto purchasers from particular showrooms.

Bernie served his rural constituents well in his choice here. New York City does not get to govern Vermont, or the whole friggin' country like it proposed to here for that matter.

-app

[George II]

4. Cars aren't designed to kill, guns are.

[sheshe2]

11. Full Stop

The most viable effort in decades to stem the flow of guns onto the black market ended with the immunity bill Sanders helped pass.
'

Children among others are being slaughtger in their schools and churches and events. Sandy Hook, they were just babies. Babies slaughtered. Bodies unrecognizable from the bullets damage.

Bernie served his rural constituents well in his choice here. New York City does not get to govern Vermont, or the whole friggin' country like it proposed to here for that matter.

Oh, Bernie is not just for VT and his mom and pop stores, he is all over these united states these days singing his song. Not sure,yet it seems like he is on an early campaign trail. Rallies galore.

From your quote? A Twist

Bernie does not get to govern all our states or the whole friggin' country.

[Hoyt]

13. Bull. Auto manufacturers don't fund a white wing racist organization like NRA. The manufacturers,

through the NRA and similar groups, have run ad campaigns like the one below that just incite gun violence. Car manufacturers don’t back stand your ground laws, they didn’t overtly campaign against Obama, they didn’t elect Ollie North as Prez, they don’t support racist gun owners.

[SunSeeker]

19. No, Bernie gave gun manufacturers special immunities NOT available to car manufacturers.

The law he voted for and still supports, the shamelessly named "Protection of Lawful Commerce in in Arms Act" (PLCAA) protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products---EVEN if they are partially at fault. It completely absolves them of any liability for causation.

We DO hold car manufacturers responsible if they knew or should have known that drunk drivers are making auto purchasers from particular showrooms. No such lawsuits that I am aware of have been brought because no sane salesman would let someone drive a car off the lot who appeared impaired (plus, anyone who had a drink before coming to the lot would dry out by the time the hours-long car buying paperwork ordeal concluded, unlike gun purchases).

But as the article points out, when dealers and gun manufactures knew or should have known their guns were being sold to criminals (as has been widely reported, a handful of dealers account for the lion's share of sales to criminals), the PLCAA gets them off the hook. That is unconscionable.

[MicaelS]

304. The PLCAA got passed because governments and lawyers...

Were trying to essentially sue gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers out of existence.

They could not achieve massive gun control by the way it should be done, which is through people voting their belief system by electing for legislators who supported their position. If gun control has not passed, it is because the advocates of it have not copied the NRA's tactics, and make it a single issue position.

I believe laws should be made by legislators, not courts, and that the courts should only step in as a last resort.

Now, the political winds are changing, the NRA is on the run, and gun control is now at the forefront of politics, and hopefully we will see some serious gun control after the midterms.

[SunSeeker]

312. The PLCAA was passed so gun manufacturers could sell assault weapons with impunity.

The AR ban expired in 2004. The PLCAA was passed in 2005. Not a cooincidence.

The gun manufacturers knew they faced liability under consumer products law for selling a wildly inappropriate weapon for the consumer market. So, they drew up the PLCAA, which granted them immunity not available to any other consumer product manufacturer. Now they sell 1.5 million assault weapons a year, without having to pay a dime for the havoc their product has reaped on the American public.

[Ninsianna]

30. I stand against Bernie on this, and the right wingers who originated this talking point.

Last edited Mon May 14, 2018, 04:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Progressives do not stand with the NRA. Period.

[Fresh_Start]

112. So you don't think that the drug company that sent 9 million opiod pills to a town of

400, did anything wrong?

Cause that is pretty much the same thing that gun manufacturers have been doing to more than a decade. They are delighted to sell guns to dealers even knowing that the dealers are knowingly selling to criminals.

[MicaelS]

305. I am on the side of suffering of pain.

And the Opiod Crisis hysteria is hurting them.

[NurseJackie]

5. Thank you for sharing the truth.

And you're correct... That was waaaay before 2016.

[sheshe2]

25. You are most welcome NurseJackie.

Yes.

You know what? The best is yet to come. It is the children NJ. The children found their voice.

[SunSeeker]

47. I'm so glad they did she.

Like that video you posted so powerfully portrayed, it appeared the music died. But these kids have found their voice. And given me hope again.

[sheshe2]

147. They give me hope as well, SunSeeker.

They are woke and they can damn well vote now, most of them anyway. Every politician better be listening.

Thanks.

[SunSeeker]

42. 2005 to be exact. nt

[PoliticAverse]

6. BTW the bill passed the Senate 65-31, and the House 283-144. n/t

[George II]

9. And?

[QC]

10. You'll never get a good Two Minutes Hate going

if you insist on dragging facts into everything!!!

[emulatorloo]

21. I know! Why can't people just pretend Bernie's shitty votes didn't happen?

[SunSeeker]

39. LOL

[NurseJackie]

23. Aw.

[Ninsianna]

34. That seems to be how the forces attacking Democrata work, it's why

actual facts seem to cause so much angst in the people who never actually knew Bernie's record. Facts are ever so hard for some people.to deal with. Fomenting hate, abusing Democrats etc. that all works so much better without those pesky facts.

[guillaumeb]

20. So there were 64 other votes.

[sheshe2]

149. Are those 64 gearing up for a 2020 presidential run?

For that matter are they still in office?

[NurseJackie]

216. *Crickets!* Chirp-chirp!

You make an excellent point that's impossible to dismiss.

Better to vet potential candidates and other "all-but-declared" candidates NOW before it's too late.

[sheshe2]

219. Thanks, Jackie.

Yup, crickets.

[disillusioned73]

120. So, what your saying is...

there must have been a whole bunch of D's that voted exactly as Mr. Sanders?? .. I wonder if we'll see posts about those specific politicians... I guess we'll have to wait & see...

[Tavarious Jackson]

126. If they're running for president in 2020, YES you will see them NT

[disillusioned73]

127. I look forward to seeing them ;)

[Tavarious Jackson]

157. Absolutely. Me too

No democrat who has EVER voted against better gun laws should be the democratic nominee. No one.

[disillusioned73]

158. Let's keep the spotlight on this issue..

especially recent votes..

"52 senators have an A-minus NRA rating or higher — including four Democrats"

[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/15/52-senators-have-an-a-minus-nra-rating-or-higher-including-four-democrats/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d74f9047b4c|

[Tavarious Jackson]

160. 100% agree.

None of those people should be our standard bearer.

[Me.]

7. Blood On Hands Will Always Be Denied

David Hogg is stunning

[sheshe2]

12. David.

Emma.

My hero's and our future.

[Me.]

14. ...

[Gothmog]

184. Agreed-he is an amazing young man

[Tavarious Jackson]

8. We're democrats

As democrats we should do everything in our power to minimize gun violence.

I don't think it is against the rules to criticize a vote.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1036 This is the bill David Hogg is taliking about but Sanders also voted against the brady bill 5 times.

We have a lot of single issue voter young people. This is their issue.

[sheshe2]

15. Correct.

Five dayum times. He voted against it five effing times!

I understand there single issue vote now. They watched their friends slaughtered while some politicians slaughtered them over and over again verbally abusing them for speaking the truth. They will be growing and expanding their beliefs, no doubt in my mind. They are awoke and angry and looking to the future. They are the ones we have been waiting for. Finally we have found the voices that will take up the mantle. Us elders will still be here, yet we need them to take the weight.

[George II]

16. Why would anyone who calls him/herself a "progressive" vote against the Brady Bill?

[sheshe2]

18. I do not know George.

I am at a loss for words. I can not explain it.

[NurseJackie]

22. I could explain it... but for obvious reasons I won't.

And that's all I say about that.

[SunSeeker]

37. +1

[Hekate]

50. It really makes me wonder...

But you know, any post in DU pointing this kind of thing out is stomped on as "two minute hate" and the "Dem circular firing squad." What crap.

[TheSmarterDog]

87. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

91. No, Bernie is a "Democrat's Democrat," voting with the Democrats more often...

than any other Democrat. Guess, technically, that makes Bernie the greatest Democrat!

[ehrnst]

108. Except when he votes against them on progressive issues

Opposed legislation that would've maintained or created over 300,000 small business jobs through loans
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll188.xml

Opposed attempts to prevent GOP cuts for benefits for legal immigrants, Medicaid, the disabled, and children safety nets http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll329.xml

Opposed Democratic attempts to increase funding for legal immigrants and child care http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll329.xml

Opposed federal funding to help the homeless http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increased funding for nutritional programs for women infants and children http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll708.xml

Opposed funding for assisting prospective homeowners with AIDS http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed allowing breastfeeding on federal grounds http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll426.xml

Opposed legiation requiring federal agencies to create and enforce anti-sex discrimination policies http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed legislation banning imports from forced child labor http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1997/roll474.xml

Opposed funding going towards investigations of unfair trade practices http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increased education funding http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increases funding for poor students http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed legislation increasing financial aid http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Supported gutting oversight for agricultural marketing practices http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll550.xml

Opposed increased food safety and inspection http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

And then there's Sierra Blanca - which Paul Wellstone called "environmental racism." Just google it.

[betsuni]

113. +1

[Jamaal510]

131. +1

[sheshe2]

151. +++

[Gothmog]

186. Great post

[ucrdem]

336. Feel the burn!

[NurseJackie]

362. Truth. Thank you.

[MrsCoffee]

121. Bernie is doubleplusgood!

[George II]

132. "....voting with the Democrats more often than any other Democrat."

ANY other Democrat?

First, even if it were true, it would be "any Democrat", including "other" is incorrect. And I respectfully think that is an exaggeration anyway. He's voted against them more often than we'd like.

Case in point, particularly with recent events with respect to trump's decisions.

Both houses of the Congress voted collectively 517-5 (419-3 in the House, 98-2 in the Senate), yet one of the two Senators who voted no was Sanders, presumably to "protect" the Iran nuclear deal.

There are many other examples where he bucked the Democrats on progressive votes.

[sheshe2]

152. Excellent post, George.

[TheSmarterDog]

171. But he can't seem to ever actually JOIN THE FUCKING PARTY!

[Wwcd]

17. ⚘Thank you SheShe. He took care of the voters in his own State at the behest of all others.

No one should be defending this.

I am so proud of David Hogg in calling out Sanders.
His NO vote at such a crucial juncture deserves to follow him.
What makes me even more sickened was the day of the youth rally when Sanders took the stage, uninvited, cameras watching & megaphone in hand to address the atrocity of the Parkland slaughter.
No mention of his own atrocious vote in favor of weapons manufacturers

Sanders needed a campaign photo op & damn straight if young David Hogg & his supporters saw it for what it was, and now stand up to name his name among the many who voted in favor of weapons traffickers, when they finally had one clear chance to limit them.

This was Sanders's choice. There are not enough but..but..buts..to justify voting for the benefit of the gun manufacturers. EVER.

Isn't Sanders the big vocal voice that decries corporate power & money?!

Today the NRA is a Global arm of the international crime syndicate. They launder money, buy political influence, and deal in illegal sales of weapons to some of the biggest dicators & crime lords in the world.

David Hogg and his mighty brave team are justified in staring down & never again trusting the shallow words of any patronizing political leaders.

They have watched their friends hunted down & murdered in cold blood in their own safe world of their school.

It is right that Sanders decision, years ago, is held to account.
He doesn't get to rewrite nor water down the script of his own legislative decisions.

The impact of Sanders' NO vote still is felt in our schools & homes & streets.

He could have made a difference.

We're not talking quaint mom & pop shops.

This is about what opened the door to corporate power, money laundering thru the illegal sales & movement of weapons of war.
This is about weapons & the global crime syndicate today, & how they came to be so powerful.
Critical legislation died when the few votes that could have prevent the illegal movement of weapons were just not thought important enough at the time..

There is no defence in that vote.
None.


Kudos to you Mr Hogg, may you persist wisely & remain true to those who horrifically lost their young lives, right in front of you.

His strong shoulders will carry their weight.

[sheshe2]

33. Yes

He took care of the voters in his own State at the behest of all others.

He voted for his states "concerns" at the behest of all others. Of all the slaughters, Wwcd I think Sandy Hook hit me the hardest. Babies. They were just babies. I cried all day. I could not stop. Ummm,. When I read what happened to those children ripped apart by the bullets. Their bodies torn apart, I cried.

[oasis]

27. I was saddened to find out Bernie has not cut ties with Killer Mike.

You would at least think he would distance himself from such a staunch advocate of assault rifles.

Last Friday, Killer Mike spoke of his close relationship with Bernie on Bill Maher's "Real Time".

[George II]

135. Is that the same Killer Mike that extols the virtues of donald trump?

[oasis]

148. The Killer Mike who called gun control activists, "lackeys" in an

interview on NRA-TV is also good pal of Bernie's.

[BigmanPigman]

32. Great song.

I remember when it played on the radio and I would sing along the best I could since I was too young to understand a lot of the references at the time.

[elmac]

35. I do appreciate this thread

it lets me replenish my ignore list with Bernie haters.

[royable]

46. I was just thinking the exact same thing.

In the lead-up to the primaries, I put at least a couple hundred rabidly anti-Bernie Sanders people (trolls?) on ignore. Checking in many months later, after the elections, I found it interesting that only about 5% of them were continuing to be active posters. It's almost as if, having accomplished their goal of divisiveness, they then left for better hunting grounds.

[elmac]

49. exactly, all this Bernie hate is very unattractive

and very unnecessary. I don't think he will ever run for a higher office again, mostly do to age, but I may be wrong. He is a true progressive that we should embrace, not bash.

[csziggy]

124. Yeah, Bernie is a "true progressive" - "Except when he votes against them on progressive issues"

Why is posting the facts considered "Bernie hate"? If his history can't stand up to scrutiny then he deserves to be criticized.

Except when he votes against them on progressive issues

Opposed legislation that would've maintained or created over 300,000 small business jobs through loans
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll188.xml

Opposed attempts to prevent GOP cuts for benefits for legal immigrants, Medicaid, the disabled, and children safety nets http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll329.xml

Opposed Democratic attempts to increase funding for legal immigrants and child care http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll329.xml

Opposed federal funding to help the homeless http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increased funding for nutritional programs for women infants and children http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll708.xml

Opposed funding for assisting prospective homeowners with AIDS http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed allowing breastfeeding on federal grounds http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll426.xml

Opposed legiation requiring federal agencies to create and enforce anti-sex discrimination policies http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed legislation banning imports from forced child labor http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1997/roll474.xml

Opposed funding going towards investigations of unfair trade practices http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increased education funding http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increases funding for poor students http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed legislation increasing financial aid http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Supported gutting oversight for agricultural marketing practices http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll550.xml

Opposed increased food safety and inspection http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10612463

[elmac]

140. yawn

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

93. You shouldn't put the Bernie haters on ignore... we need to try change hearts and minds.

It's the only way we're going to unite to defeat the true enemy, that despicable shitstain occupying the Oval Office.

[sheshe2]

155. I for one have no such list.

I like to hear all sides and will never shut out anyone's voice.

Have a great day, elmac.

[JCanete]

354. hear hear. Our ability to shape the bubbles we want to exist in is going to erode our

critical thinking skills.


that's not a knock on those posters who use the ignore, since I'm sure there are valid reasons to not want the stress of whatever they deal with in the outside world to follow them into this sanctuary, but I appreciate your perspective nonetheless.

[jes06c]

36. I'm a big Sanders fan

But Unfortunately his record on gun control is pretty lame

[elmac]

41. yep, the NRA D- rating is earth shaking! nt

[sheshe2]

45. What I find earth shaking are his five votes against the brady bill.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1036

[George II]

137. He's got the 9th BEST NRA rating of the 49 Democrats/Independents currently in the Senate.

[DemoHack]

44. I am not a Sanders fan...

I'm a hard partisan Democrat all the way.

But correct me if I'm wrong, this was 14 years ago?

Come on.

[SunSeeker]

48. You do realize the PLCAA is still in effect and Bernie still supports it, right?

Come on.

[DemoHack]

215. So let's blame Sanders for America's gun problem.

Got it.

Clinton's Crime Bill, and Reagan defunded all mental health institutions, but this thread is going to blame America's gun problem on dopey Bernie Sanders.

Read some history. Come on.

[SunSeeker]

218. Oh come on. Drama much? No one is blaming Bernie for America's gun problem.

Why can't we factually point out some horrendous pro-gun votes Bernie took, and how he still supports the PLCAA, without people claiming we're bashing him?

What happened to the old "keep their feet to the fire"? Did that only apply to Obama? We want Bernie to renounce his support of the PLCAA.

Why can't you address the PLCAA issue? Why do you deflect by bringing up Clinton?

[comradebillyboy]

278. Bernie voted for the crime bill didn't he?

[Cha]

51. Mahalo for getting the facts out

here, she.

[sheshe2]

156. Cha..

You are welcome.

[Glamrock]

52. How Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein Helped Derail a Promising Legal Fight Against Gun Violence

And Tim Murphy, etc, etc, etc.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/h534

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/s219

[Glamrock]

62. Mmm hmmm

[SunSeeker]

63. Reid is no longer in office. Feinstein did not vote yes, like Bernie did.

Feinstein was not there for the vote. The PLCAA passed 65-31 in the Senate.

Dianne Feinstein did not "help" the PLCAA get passed. Feinstein does not support the PLCAA, unlike Bernie.

[Glamrock]

65. Her non vote helped.

Just like a non vote for Hillary helped Trump get elected. The point is, plenty of Dems voted with Bernie. But somehow, he's the only one called out.

[SunSeeker]

66. Bernie supports the PLCAA, unlike Feinstein. That's why.

[Glamrock]

67. As did many democrats in the House and Senate.

Including the last Senate majority leader.

[SunSeeker]

68. And which of those yes votes are publicly gearing up a 2020 presidential campaign?

[Glamrock]

69. I've yet to see him declare.

I do see him doing the job that Senate Democrats gave him which is being in charge of outreach for the Democratic party.

[SunSeeker]

70. So we can't discuss his horrible pro-gun votes unless he officially declares?

I don't see him doing much outreach to benefit the Democratic Party. I just see him gearing up for a presidential run. Who knows if he'll actually declare. But as long as he is in the spotlight and in the Senate, we should hold him accountable for his yes vote on the PLCAA and his continued support of the PLCAA. He should renounce his support of the PLCAA and start speaking about the horrors of the PLCAA to his audiences. Especially if he claims to be doing "outreach" for the Democratic Party.

[Glamrock]

71. No.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is if he's to be criticized, and that's fair, the rest should be criticized right along with him. Otherwise it looks like ax grinding, which I'm sure it is.

[SunSeeker]

75. There is nothing "unfair" about holding any of our representatived accountable.

What's unfair is you implying Dianne Feinstein supported the PLCAA, when she did not...all to distract from criticism of Bernie...because you think it's disingenuous "ax grinding."

I am not aware of any other progressive Congresspersons who support the PLCAA. Are you? Trying to talk sense to conservatives is not a good use of our time. If we can't convince our allies to take our position, then they're not allies. And if you are in the spotlight, you can't complain if people call you out on important issues where you got it horribly wrong.

[Glamrock]

76. Agreed

But we aren't holding any of our representatives accountable. We're holding one accountable. And if we're going to declare this vote so important that people have died because of it then yeah, I'm going to hold a rep responsible for not voting on it. I made it perfectly clear that her non vote helped get this passed. I never suggested she supported it.

[SunSeeker]

77. Feinstein's nonvote did not help get the bill passed.

But Bernie's continued support of the PLCAA is giving the NRA cover that the bill can't be all bad, since a major liberal supports it.

[Glamrock]

79. We'll have to agree to disagree at this point.

But I appreciate the back and forth Sun...

[lapucelle]

351. Obama, Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Schumer, and Kennedy

all voted "nay", as did Pelosi, Clyburn, Cummings, Frank, Rangel, Wasserman Schultz, and Waters. But you are right about Reid.

Maybe it's time for all those who voted "yea" to take responsibility, admit their mistake, and publicly apologize.

The repeal of this law is articulated as a legislative goal in the 2016 platform.

[Glamrock]

74. But of course it was.

Sometimes, and it pains me to say it, this place resembles FR. Truth is sometimes not acceptable. I mean, hey criticizing Sanders for this vote is absolutely acceptable. I totally back that play. As long as, we're not pretending his vote was the one vote on our side that killed the bill. That's just utter bullshit.

[SunSeeker]

80. Oh, so now you think criticising Sanders for his vote is "absolutely acceptable"?

Good to know. Just up the thread you said it was unfair ax grinding.

No one here is "pretending his vote was the one vote on our side that killed the bill."

What "truth" is "not acceptable" here?

[Glamrock]

81. Cmon Sun.

I said it was unfair to criticize him alone. And the post title backs up my claim.

[SunSeeker]

83. Damn, I thought we had a breakthrough.

I guess we're back to we can't talk about Bernie unless we talk about EVERYONE.

[Glamrock]

86. Yes.

That's been the point of my post since the beginning brother, or sister as the case may be. A whole lot of democrats voted for that bill. I think it's unfair to single out him alone. That's it in a nutshell. And yes, based on the hatred of him stemming from the election yeah, I think it's ax grinding. That's all I gots baby. I posted the voting records for the House and the Senate to back up my claim. If you still disagree? Cool. But that's where I'm at. Have a good night and a pleasant tomorrow Sun.

[SunSeeker]

166. Bernie "singled out" himself by his abhorant support of the PLCAA.

Please state what other elected progressive in Congress, let alone one actively preparing to be a 2020 candidate, supports the PLCAA.

[ehrnst]

110. Sort of like pretending HRC's was the one vote on our side

for the Iraq resolution?

[mcar]

130. Boom!

[Glamrock]

169. Exactly

[NurseJackie]

212. Allow me to quote Prince Harry...

[betsuni]

114. Pretending his vote was the one vote on our side that killed the bill

LOL. But Hillary Clinton and the Iraq resolution, even though Hillary didn't vote for the crime bill ...

[ehrnst]

109. So, Sanders went to the right of the Democratic Establishment on that vote

Interesting.

[Straw Man]

55. Could somebody please explain ...

... the logic by which gun manufacturers are expected to perform law-enforcement functions?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms informed gun manufacturers every time a gun used in a crime was traced to their companies, information that would have made it easy for manufacturers to determine which of their distributors and dealers were supplying the black market, yet manufacturers continued to sell guns to those “bad apple” dealers.

Were these dealers making illegal sales? If so, shouldn't they have been investigated and prosecuted? Is it up to the gun manufacturers to carry out these investigations?

The lawsuit highlighted federal data from 1996 to 1998 that had traced more than 34,000 guns used to perpetrate crimes back to just 137 dealers.

Yes -- just 137 dealers: the extremely large-volume dealers who are the manufacturers' best customers. Retailers who sell more guns will show up as the source of more crime guns than retailers who sell fewer guns. This does not mean that those retailers did anything wrong. How many hands did the gun pass through before it became a tool of crime? How was it acquired? These are all relevant questions that don't necessarily have anything to do with any culpability on the part of the manufacturer or retailer.

The illogic is stunning: Gun manufacturers should cut off their best customers because those customers are selling too many guns? Sorry, but this attempted harassment of a legal industry legally selling its products is the exact reason that the legislation was enacted.

[SunSeeker]

58. Your question has a false premise, Straw Man.

No one is asking gun manufacturers to "perform law-enforcement functions." That is NRA dribble. We are simple asking that gun manufacturers not be exempted from the same consumers product liability laws that all other consumer product manufacturers are subjected to.

That's it. Repeal the PLCAA and make gun manufacturers play on a level playing field. Nothing "illogical" about it.

If dealers or manufacturers knew or had reason to know their guns were being sold to criminals and did not act reasonably to stop those sales, then the victims should be able to sue them. The PLCAA prevents such civil suits. That is unconscionable. Victims should be able to recover damages from those dealers and manufacturers to the extent those entities' acts or failure to act were negligent and a proximate cause of the victim's injuries...just like any other consumer product manufacturer.

Before the PLCAA was passed in 2005, gun manufacturers did not have that immunity, yet did not have to "perform law-enforcement functions." They just had to act responsibly, like all consumer product manufacturers.

[Cha]

73. Mahalo for this, SunSeeker.. Well Stated.

[Straw Man]

78. Not at all.

No one is asking gun manufacturers to "perform law-enforcement functions." That is NRA dribble. We are simple asking that gun manufacturers not be exempted from the same consumers product liability laws that all other consumer product manufacturers are subjected to.

Can you tell me which other product manufacturers are held liable for the criminal misuse of their products? And can you tell me how gun manufacturers are supposed to prevent their product from falling into the wrong hands when they no longer have any control of that product once possession goes over to the retailer? Short of conducting their own investigative activities, that is?

That's it. Repeal the PLCAA and make gun manufacturers play on a level playing field. Nothing "illogical" about it.

The playing field is hardly level when gun-control activists are seeking to do with civil suits what they are unable to do through legislation, which is to do severely curtail the trade in firearms in the US.

Victims should be able to recover damages from those dealers and manufacturers to the extent those entities' acts or failure to act were negligent and a proximate cause of the victim's injuries...just like any other consumer product manufacturer.

Which consumer product manufacturers were those again? And how is a manufacturer's legal sale of a legal product to a legal buyer a "proximate cause" of anyone's injuries?

Before the PLCAA was passed in 2005, gun manufacturers did not have that immunity, yet did not have to "perform law-enforcement functions." They just had to act responsibly, like all consumer product manufacturers.

They did not need that immunity because they were not being subjected to nuisance lawsuits that were intended to drive them out of business.

The false premise is that there are numerous "bad apple" dealers that are being knowingly supplied by the manufacturers. It's a kind of conspiracy theory that ignores the varied and complex reality of how guns come into criminal hands.

[SunSeeker]

82. Car manufacturers are held liabile for criminal misuse of their products, why not gun manufacturers?

Just because a driver was wrecklessly speeding or drunk does not absolve a car manufacturer of product liability if something they did or failed to do was a proximate cause of a victim's injury.

Just because a product is "legal," i.e. whose production does not violate criminal laws, does not mean it was not negligently made and negligently marketed.

You are confusing criminal law and civil (tort, consumer product liability) law.

The bad apple dealers are not a "conspiracy theory." I suggest you read this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/one-quick-answer-to-sandy-hook-repeal-the-2005-arms-act/266371/

[Straw Man]

84. No -- they are held liable for defects in their products.

Just because a driver was wrecklessly speeding or drunk does not absolve a car manufacturer of product liability if something they did or failed to do was a proximate cause of a victim's injury.

If the product was in no way defective, then there would be no grounds for this suit. If the criminal actions are the proximate cause, then the manufacturer cannot be hold responsible for the misuse of their product. If the dealer allowed a drunken man to drive the car off the lot, the fault is the dealer's, not the manufacturer's.

Just because a product is "legal," i.e. whose production does not violate criminal laws, does not mean it was not negligently made and negligently marketed.

Tell me how a gun being "negligently made" makes it more prone to criminal misuse. Tell me how guns are being "negligently marketed" when they are sold to dealers who are licensed by the federal government, who can suspend or revoke that license at any time if the dealer is suspected of illegal practices.

You are confusing criminal law and civil (tort, consumer product liability) law.

Actually, I believe that YOU are confusing the two.

[SunSeeker]

85. A product can be negligently marketed as well as negligently made.

I can tell you did not read the article.

This is a waste of time since you do not understand consumer product liability law, and do not care to read information I offer you.

Good night.

[Hoyt]

96. Exactly. If car manufacturers advertised their products the way gun manufacturers do, they'd be in

court every time some fool causes an accident speeding, racing, etc.

And, car manufacturers don't fund a lobbying organization with leadership like Ollie North, Ted Nugent, etc.

[Straw Man]

172. I did read the article. I stand by my interpretations.

The "negligent marketing" charge is a canard, and an easily disproven one. But it costs the manufacturers a substantial amount in legal fees, which is, after all, the ultimate goal. It's a textbook example of a nuisance suit.

Good morning.

[SunSeeker]

185. If negligent marketing is an "easily disproven canard," why not let it go to the jury?

Why not let case law be established? That will make future litigation less costly and more predictable. It is unconscionable for the PLCAA to deny an injured victim their day in court just because they were injured by a gun.

[Straw Man]

188. Maybe it should.

When it loses in court, both plaintiff and defendant will be out-of-pocket for legal fees. The only beneficiaries will be the lawyers.

It's reminds me of Chicago's lawsuits against neighboring municipalities for insufficient regulation of gun shops. Those failed in court, at great expense to the taxpayers of Chicago.

[EX500rider]

198. Is there some gun marketing that shows them being used in a dangerous or illegal manner?

[SunSeeker]

199. Yes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/one-quick-answer-to-sandy-hook-repeal-the-2005-arms-act/266371/

[EX500rider]

200. That link had zero examples of gun ads of people doing illegal or dangerous things with guns.

I suspect there are no such ads.

And I don't count Hoyts many posting's of "Your man card has been reissued" ads. Appearing to machismo is a central core to many ad campaigns.

[SunSeeker]

203. Marketing is not just ads. It is how you sell. They knowingly sold to a bad seed dealer.

And using machismo in AR ads is indeed dangerous. It makes the gun appealing exactly to the type of person who should not have the gun: the wannabe rambo nutcase who feels he needs to prove his manhood by wielding a military weapon. We've seen how that all too frequently ends. Kind of like how cute Joe Camel cartoon ads made cigarettes appealing to children.

[DanTex]

111. Wrong. For the 100th time. The exemption carved out is for the gun industry *only*.

The car industry doesn't enjoy the same special protection. The car industry can be held liable for unlawful misuse of their products.

If Bernie and the NRA wanted to have some consistency, they could have pushed a bill that provides blanket immunity to every corporation in the cases of product misuse. But, of course, they didn't.

The fact that the gun industry was singled out for special protection is an admission that this was a sheer giveaway to the NRA, and not based on any kind of principle. The gun industry should play by the same rules as everyone else. Obviously. It's pretty crazy that anyone even tries to defend this special exemption.

[Straw Man]

174. Not wrong. I never claimed ...

... that the car industry enjoys any special protection. What I said is that they are not the target of such lawsuits. This is because nobody is trying to harass them out of existence.

The car industry can be held liable for unlawful misuse of their products.

Could you please cite a case where a car manufacturer has been sued, not for a faulty product, but for "negligent marketing" when someone has used one of their vehicles in the commission of a crime?

[DanTex]

177. Umm, that's because car manufacturers don't knowingly and intentionally profit from crime.

You can try and sue them for that if you want, but, unlike the gun lawsuits, your case would be meritless, and unlike the gun lawsuits, it would get thrown out of court and you would have to pay the defendant's legal fees.

There are already in place legal protections for corporations against frivolous lawsuits. The PLCAA was explicitly designed to protect the gun industry against non-frivolous lawsuits.

[Straw Man]

179. Nor do the gun manufacturers.

If you suggest that they are, why are the ATF taking action? Pulling the licenses of the supposed "bad apple" dealers is in their purview. The manufacturers could be pursued as accessories.

The PLCAA was explicitly designed to protect the gun industry against non-frivolous lawsuits.

Umm... beg the question much?

[DanTex]

201. Yes, they are. That's what they were being sued for.

And that's the reason the lawsuits were succeeding. That's the reason NRA pushed so hard for the legal immunity.

If the gun industry were really the kindly innocent do-gooders that you and the NRA portray them to be, then they wouldn't need special legal immunity. It's really not complicated.

[Straw Man]

236. What lawsuits were succeeding?

Could you provide us with a few examples? Then we could discuss the merits of actual cases.

Gun sellers can still be sued for negligent entrustment and for product liability. Such suits have been successful, even after PLCAA. Beyond that, it's just a matter of trying to sue gun makers for making guns. It's a shoddy end-run occasioned by the failure to pass desired gun-control legislation.

[DanTex]

245. Google the Smith and Wesson lawsuit.

Nobody was "suing gun makers for making guns". You read waaaay too much NRA propaganda.

A lawsuit like that would be frivolous, and would not have gotten anywhere without PLCAA. Protections against frivolous lawsuits already existed in the law before PLCAA, not just for gun companies, but for everyone.

[Straw Man]

252. You mean the lawsuit that wasn't a lawsuit?

Last edited Tue May 15, 2018, 02:36 AM - Edit history (1)

This one?

http://www.businessinsider.com/smith-and-wesson-almost-went-out-of-business-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-2013-1

It was a voluntary agreement that S&W entered into with the government in order to forestall potential lawsuits. They drastically misread the backlash, and it almost killed the company.

Nope -- not only not a successful lawsuit, but not a lawsuit at all.

[DanTex]

269. Umm... a lawsuit that settles out of court is still a lawsuit.

And if the settlement is agreeable to the plaintiffs, then it is indeed "successful".


Yes, it did almost kill the company. Turns out that those "law abiding gun owners" we keep hearing about were so upset about the possibility of the rate of gun violence dropping that they tried to boycott the company out of existence. Good folks, the NRA!

[Straw Man]

272. It was deal to exempt the company from lawsuits.

You know -- kind of like a blanket immunity?

No judgement was ever rendered. And the settlement ultimately didn't prove agreeable to either party.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-04-13/news/0004140330_1_wesson-products-wesson-guns-smith-wesson

If you want to call that a "successful lawsuit," you're going to have to radically revise the definitions of both "successful" and "lawsuit."

[DanTex]

282. Umm, yeah, that was part of the settlement.

I'm sure that neither party got everything they wanted out of it. That's the nature of settlements.

But, because of the changes S&W agreed to, most people considered the lawsuit successful. Also, whether you personally think it was successful is totally irrelevant. What matters is that the lawsuits were not thrown out of court as frivolous. Instead, like tobacco companies or polluters or any other industry that causes harm, the gun industry was being held accountable for its actions.

The NRA obviously considered the lawsuits successful, which is why they bribed their congresspersons to carve out a special loophole for the gun industry. If, as you seem to believe, these were simply frivolous lawsuits with no consequences, then the NRA wouldn't have cared. It is precisely because the lawsuits were succeeding that the NRA placed so much importance on ensuring that the gun industry was above the law.

[Straw Man]

290. You are merely confirming my contention.

Under the threat of lawsuits, S&W agreed to a course of action that very nearly destroyed their business by alienating their customer base, incorporating undesirable and unnecessary design elements in their firearms (internal locks that are less accessible and usable then external ones, for example), and shrinking their market to only those outlets who agreed not to sell guns made by manufacturers that didn't adhere to the same "voluntary" measures that S&W had signed up for.

You call it a "successful lawsuit." I call it coercion under the threat of "death by a thousand cuts."

[DanTex]

292. Well, if your contention was that S&W was successfully sued, then I guess I am.

But, it seems you think that the only way a lawsuit can be "successful" is if it actually goes to court. That's obviously absurd. The rest of your post is standard NRA nonsense about how what S&W agreed to was "undesirable and unnecessary". That's an opinion, and you have a right to it, but people who care about gun violence naturally will have a different opinion than the NRA. But people's opinions about whether or not those changes were good or not are irrelevant to the question at hand.

Because there can be no arguing that the changes were significant, and that is what makes the lawsuit successful. If a chemical company is sued and forced to clean up toxic waste, I'm sure some right-wing nuts would similarly argue that the clean up was "undesirable and unnecessary" because they don't care about the environment any more than the NRA does about gun violence. In fact, the way the NRA reacted only further proves just how successful the lawsuit was. After all, if the changes were tiny and insignificant, the NRA wouldn't have gone on to organize a boycott. The fact that they did further proves how impactful the lawsuit settlement actually was.

If the lawsuit were actually frivolous, as you contend, none of that would have happened. Instead, it would have been thrown out of court and the plaintiffs would have been forced to pay S&W's legal costs.

Being subject to the same civil laws as everyone is not "coercion", no matter how hard you try to paint it that way. The fact of the matter is, the gun industry was (and, thanks to PLCAA, continues to be) acting in a way that would result in serious civil liabilities if they were any other industry without special immunity.

[Straw Man]

295. Threats of suits are not suits.

Being subject to the same civil laws as everyone is not "coercion", no matter how hard you try to paint it that way. The fact of the matter is, the gun industry was (and, thanks to PLCAA, continues to be) acting in a way that would result in serious civil liabilities if they were any other industry without special immunity.

Could you point me to a specific lawsuit? All I see in contemporary articles is the threat of lawsuits. When a public official threatens "death by a thousand cuts" if a company doesn't comply with the government's demands, I call that coercion. And again, I call it an end-run aimed at achieving through litigation that which was not achievable through legislation.

[DanTex]

299. Threats of lawsuits can also be effective (obviously). But in this case suits actually were filed.

For example, if you steal something from me, and then I threaten to sue you, and you decide to simply give me my stuff back first, obviously the law against stealing was effective for me in that case. It would be absurd to use the fact that I never filed a lawsuit to argue that the law against stealing is unnecessary and I was just harassing you.

So it doesn't actually matter, but I'm happy to help you google:

The agreement, which was negotiated with the help of the Clinton administration, settled litigation by 15 cities that had sought to collect damages from Smith & Wesson for gun violence. In addition, the administration and the attorney generals of New York State and Connecticut signed the deal, agreeing not to bring suits against the company. The agreement does not end litigation by the cities against other gun makers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/us/under-legal-siege-gun-maker-agrees-to-accept-curbs.html

What you are consistently (and intentionally) missing is that if these lawsuits were actually frivolous, then there would be no need for PLCAA, because the frivolous lawsuits would get tossed out of court and the plaintiffs would be liable for their legal costs. Your personal opinion is that the lawsuits were frivolous and so it's "death by a thousand cuts", but the way the justice system works, neither you nor the NRA get to decide that. A jury decides. And since both you and the NRA know full well that outside of a small group of hardened gun fanatics, nobody actually believes the NRA talking points, the gun industry decided to bribe congress rather than let an impartial jury decide.

They didn't want to abide by the law, so they bribed congress to change it. It's pure corruption, plain and simple.

[Straw Man]

313. A few points.

1) In a barrage of frivolous lawsuits, some may succeed due to a lack of impartiality by judge/jury. What company would wish to subject itself to that?

2) Bribery is a rather serious allegation. Do you have any evidence that it actually took place, or is it just hyperbole on your point.

3) "NRA talking points" is itself a talking point, a kind of rhetorical tic that is designed to deflect discussion of the actual topic at hand.

[DanTex]

314. You have no basis for calling the lawsuits "frivolous".

All the evidence points to the contrary. You don't get to decide what's frivolous, a jury does. And, of course, no company would want to be held liable for the damage it causes. Companies want profit.

Bribery is the exchange of money for political favors, which is what the NRA does.

"NRA talking points", quite simply, are talking points used by the NRA. A good example of an NRA talking point is this idea that the successful lawsuits brought against gun corporations were "frivolous".

[Straw Man]

323. Would you prefer "misguided" or "coercive"?

Suing a company for making a legal product and marketing it legally is all those things, regardless of what the end user does with the product. That is self-evident.

A charge of bribery requires an explicit quid pro quo. NRA campaign support of pro-gun candidates does not rise (or rather, sink) to that level. You could just as easily say that labor unions "bribe" Democratic candidates to vote for pro-labor bills. That wouldn't be accurate either.

"NRA talking points" is a phrase that is used to poison the well of any discussion by implying that any argument that has even been used by that organization is invalid and that anyone who invokes such an argument is a stooge of that organization.

Let's try an analogy. Let's say you are on the board of a large medical group that performs abortions. Let's say a right-wing politician presents you with a list of demands that would place restrictions on you far beyond what the law does, and threatens to sue you out of existence if you don't comply. Would you comply? Would you say "Bring it on -- we'll win these suits anyway." Or would you welcome legislation that would provide you with blanket immunity from those lawsuits?

[DanTex]

324. Pick whatever word you want, there's still no basis for it.

Again, a jury gets to decide that, not you. You seem to have trouble with that concept.

And again, if the "principle" that companies should not be able to be sued for what end users do with their product made any sense, then it should be codified into law for all companies, not just gun companies. But it's not, because nobody actually believes that.

And again, the reason all your absurd hypotheticals make no sense is because in all of those cases, plaintiffs can actually bring lawsuits. But those lawsuits, unlike the ones against gun companies, would be thrown out of court as frivolous.

You don't seem to be aware that the law already provides protection against frivolous lawsuits. Maybe you think there should be more protection. Fine. In fact, many other right-wingers agree with you -- one of the big pushes from Koch Brothers/ALEC types is to make it more difficult to hold corporations responsible in civil court. But even if you and the Koch Brothers are right, the protection should be for all companies, not just one industry with powerful lobbyists.

It's bribery and corruption, plain and simple.

[Straw Man]

325. If you don't want to answer, just say so.

I posed a question in my analogy. Would you care to respond to it? Nowhere in my "absurd hypothetical" did I deny that the plaintiffs can bring lawsuits. The question is how you feel about anti-abortion groups trying to sue providers out of existence. Is that OK with you, or do you think they deserve some protection?

And again, if the "principle" that companies should not be able to be sued for what end users do with their product made any sense, then it should be codified into law for all companies, not just gun companies.

Perhaps it should be, but so far no one has tried to sue auto makers for vehicular homicide or distillers for crimes committed by drunks.

If government entities were throwing their weight into coercive lawsuits against any industry, I would favor legal protection for that industry. Government should not be able to use civil courts to achieve what legislation couldn't.

[DanTex]

330. LOL. You're the one who has consistently refused to answer.

You have consistently refused to acknowledge that protections against frivolous lawsuits already exist in the law.

Automakers already have protection against frivolous lawsuits. So do distillers and abortion clinics and everyone else. In fact, I notice that in your abortion clinic example, you didn't even specify what these right-wingers might be suing the abortion clinics for. The reason people don't try to sue automakers for vehicular homicide (or any of your other absurd examples) is because that lawsuit would get thrown out of court.

That's the reason your hypotheticals remain hypothetical.

Of course, if vehicular homicide was ravaging communities, and automakers designed cars with features that had no practical purpose other than vehicular homicide, and marketed their cars to murderers, and placed dealerships in areas where they knew they would be driving up the homicide rate, and so on, then maybe there would be a valid lawsuit.

Or maybe not. The courts would decide that. Exactly how it should be.

The only reason you think the lawsuits are "coercive" is because you carry an extreme right-wing ideology when it comes to the issue of guns. You think gun makers are special and shouldn't be subject to equal justice under the law.

Obviously, everyone who has every been sued for anything would love to be able to simply turn to politicians they own to be able to label the lawsuits "coercive" and carve out a special loophole for them. But that isn't justice. Justice should be applied equally to everyone. No special laws for industries with powerful lobbyists.

[Straw Man]

345. Oh -- have you asked a question?

You have consistently refused to acknowledge that protections against frivolous lawsuits already exist in the law.

I think you're confusing refusal to answer with disagreement. Nowhere did I deny that protections exist. What I am saying is that they are insufficient.

Automakers already have protection against frivolous lawsuits. So do distillers and abortion clinics and everyone else. In fact, I notice that in your abortion clinic example, you didn't even specify what these right-wingers might be suing the abortion clinics for. The reason people don't try to sue automakers for vehicular homicide (or any of your other absurd examples) is because that lawsuit would get thrown out of court.

Do tell: What is that protection? Is it statutory? Or is it just the judgement of the court? Can you show me examples of interest groups and government entities threatening concerted lawsuit campaigns against distillers and abortion clinics?

Oh, let's see. Right-wingers might be suing to mandate all the claptrap they push in anti-abortion legislation anywhere: coercive "counseling," parental consent, extreme deadlines for "late-term" abortions.

The only reason you think the lawsuits are "coercive" is because you carry an extreme right-wing ideology when it comes to the issue of guns. You think gun makers are special and shouldn't be subject to equal justice under the law.

I have clearly stated that I would support similar protections for any industry that is being coerced. Please don't presume to tell me what I think.

[DanTex]

346. What makes you think the protections against frivolous lawsuits are insufficient?

It's fine for you to disagree. You are on the side of ALEC and other pro-corporate organizations have been pushing to weaken civil liability suits across the board. Yours is a classic right-wing view, that corporations are victims. And you are welcome to it.

Being a progressive, naturally I disagree. But even your right-wing perspective on tort law doesn't justify PLCAA, because as I've been saying, it's a carve-out for a specific industry with powerful lobbyists. As far as I can tell, your justification for PLCAA is that you personally find the lawsuits frivolous, you don't trust the courts to decide. Obviously, that's not a justification that anyone who believes in equal justice under the law could possibly accept. It's not based on any standard except for your personal opinion, and the fact that gun manufacturers have a strong lobby. If you have some defensible justification for why industries with powerful lobbyist shouldn't have to be subject to the same laws as everyone else, I'd love to hear it. But so far, after many attempts, you have produced nothing.

What is that protection? Is it statutory? Or is it just the judgement of the court?

It's both statutory and the judgement of the court. Courts interpret and apply statutes. Tort reform is a pretty big issue, so if you don't know much about it, it's probably a good idea to read up before jumping onto the bandwagon with ALEC and the Club for Growth. Try Google.

Can you show me examples of interest groups and government entities threatening concerted lawsuit campaigns against distillers and abortion clinics?

Not that I know of. Apparently, unlike the gun industry, those industries aren't behaving in ways that cause massive judicially rectifiable damages.

I have clearly stated that I would support similar protections for any industry that is being coerced.

Again, this isn't a standard because it depends on your personal opinion of who is "being coerced" and who isn't. The whole point a code of laws is to have specific rules and procedures for determining things like this. If anyone who gets sued can just claim they are "being coerced" then the whole system falls apart.

[Straw Man]

347. Because the threat of lawsuits was being used to regulate an industry.

That's pretty much textbook coercion. Legislate the regulation if you can. If you can't, don't resort to civil litigation to get what you want. That's not what it's for.

Not that I know of. Apparently, unlike the gun industry, those industries aren't behaving in ways that cause massive judicially rectifiable damages.

Begging the question again, eh? You've already found the gun industry guilty for acts that were clearly beyond their control.

Again, this isn't a standard because it depends on your personal opinion of who is "being coerced" and who isn't. The whole point a code of laws is to have specific rules and procedures for determining things like this. If anyone who gets sued can just claim they are "being coerced" then the whole system falls apart.

When Andrew Cuomo told S&W that if they didn't comply with the government's demands they would suffer "death by a thousand cuts," he wasn't pressing a specific lawsuit. He was threatening a campaign designed to punish the company if they didn't comply. No court had yet found them culpable for anything. How can you see that as anything but coercion?

[DanTex]

355. I guess you know nothing about auto safety or environmental legislation, just for starters.

Without civil lawsuits the rate of automobile deaths would not have dropped the way it has. And protection from civil lawsuits is one of the reasons that the rate of gun deaths hasn't dropped similarly. How about the climate change lawsuits? Do you think there should be special civil protections for carbon emitters? More generally, is there any issue regarding civil law where you don't defend the hard-right-wing standpoint?

Begging the question again, eh? You've already found the gun industry guilty for acts that were clearly beyond their control.

LOL. Precisely the opposite. I want the courts to decide. You have already found them innocent despite all the evidence against them. Yeah, I think they are guilty, but unlike you, I don't seek to replace the court system with my personal opinion. In fact, I would argue that the very fact that you are afraid of letting an impartial jury decide amounts to a tacit admission that even you understand that they are guilty.

When Andrew Cuomo told S&W that if they didn't comply with the government's demands they would suffer "death by a thousand cuts," he wasn't pressing a specific lawsuit. He was threatening a campaign designed to punish the company if they didn't comply. No court had yet found them culpable for anything. How can you see that as anything but coercion?

This is truly hilarious. Yeah, when seeking settlements, parties involved in lawsuits threaten each other. Even watching a single episode of Law and Order, you would understand that. Do you really want to start throwing out lawsuits based on the language used during settlement negotiations? "Your honor, the plaintiff was mean to me in the negotiation, I insist that I be immune from all lawsuits from now on".

[Straw Man]

356. Chalk and cheese.

Without civil lawsuits the rate of automobile deaths would not have dropped the way it has.

Two words: product liability. Not the case with the gun lawsuits at all. A car that is dangerous when used as directed is a defective car. A gun that is NOT dangerous when used as directed is a defective gun. If it is used criminally, that is not the fault of the maker, unless the maker has negligently entrusted it to the end user, something that is NOT protected under PLCAA.

And protection from civil lawsuits is one of the reasons that the rate of gun deaths hasn't dropped similarly.

Mere speculation and absolutely unproven.

How about the climate change lawsuits? Do you think there should be special civil protections for carbon emitters?

Let's see: Are carbon emitters carrying on a legal activity under current environmental regulations? Nope. Is there any kind of positive benefit to carbon emissions? Nope. Are carbon emissions protected by a constitutional amendment? Nope. Hardly seems an apt analogy.

Yeah, when seeking settlements, parties involved in lawsuits threaten each other.

Except that Cuomo wasn't involved in any particular lawsuit at that time, and therefore wasn't negotiating a settlement. He was encouraging local authorities to bring the suits. He was threatening the gun industry with wave of lawsuits from anywhere and everywhere. And he was offering them immunity if they would comply with the government's demands: a kind of protection racket.

[DanTex]

357. Aha. So now you're changing your story. Again.

Before it was that civil lawsuits that had regulatory implications were invalid. Now it's that only certain specific product liability lawsuits should be allowed. And, of course, since that doesn't apply to civil environmental lawsuits, you'll have to change your story again for that.

And, once again, if this were a general principle, that civil courts can only be used for narrowly defined product liability, and not for broader harms inflicted on society by business practices, then that should be codified into law, rather than a special loophole for a single industry with powerful lobbyists. But, of course, that's a horrible principle, which is why it isn't.

Let all corporations play by the same civil litigation rules. And let the courts decide. If a corporation, be it automobile, chemical, petroleum, gun, whatever, thinks that lawsuits against them don't have merit, they have every opportunity to argue that in court.

Let's see: Are carbon emitters carrying on a legal activity under current environmental regulations? Nope. Is there any kind of positive benefit to carbon emissions? Nope. Are carbon emissions protected by a constitutional amendment? Nope. Hardly seems an apt analogy.

Actually, the answers to the first two questions are "yes", and the third is irrelevant to civil litigation. Though gun companies are certainly welcome to use their second amendment fetishization in a court of law and see of they can convince a jury that it absolves them of the harm they cause and profit from.

Except that Cuomo wasn't involved in any particular lawsuit at that time, and therefore wasn't negotiating a settlement. He was encouraging local authorities to bring the suits. He was threatening the gun industry with wave of lawsuits from anywhere and everywhere. And he was offering them immunity if they would comply with the government's demands: a kind of protection racket.

Actually, he was involved in settling the S&W lawsuit. But if he hadn't been involved, than the statements he made to the public, as a politician, are even more irrelevant. I happen to agree with Cuomo that local authorities who were being harmed by crime-promoting practices of the gun industry were right to seek redress in civil court. I'm sure you disagree. People can say whatever they want. Now, if gun companies thought they couldn't get a fair trial because of the things that some politician said, they certainly had the right to plead that argument in front of a court.

[Straw Man]

358. No, I'm not.

I'm merely pointing out that some of your analogies aren't accurate or useful.

I'm amused that you claim to find a positive benefit in carbon emissions: not a necessary evil as a byproduct of energy generation, but an actual positive benefit. What might that be?

"The harm that they cause and profit from"? Again, you're blaming gun makers for making guns. I repeat: negative entrustment is NOT protected. In what other way are they culpable?

[MicaelS]

309. Show us just how many times in the last 50 years...

"Car manufacturers have been held liable for criminal misuse of their products". Cite some case law, so we can judge for ourselves.

Applying your logic, car manufacturers could be held liable for building cars that can exceed the speed limit, people then use them to drive faster then the speed limit, and kill themselves and others. Or not equipping cars with breathalyzer interlocks to prevent people from driving drunk.

They tried that ignition interlock to seat belt use bullshit back in the 70s, and it was repealed because people hated them.

[DanTex]

310. You are free to sue car manufacturers for that, if you want.

You'll probably lose, of course, because unlike the lawsuits against the gun industry, that would be silly and frivolous, and would get tossed out of court, and you'd have to pay the defendants' legal fees.

[thucythucy]

150. A hypothetical question:

If a bar was cited numerous times for selling alcohol to minors, including minors who drove drunk which resulted in injury and death to others, and this on numerous occasions;

and if, somehow, that bar eluded being shut down by the responsible law enforcement agencies, either through lack of funding or corruption of local officials or some other reason;

and if a liquor manufacturer, knowing all this to be the case, continued to sell alcohol products to that particular bar, despite ample documentation that their product was therefore directly responsible for multiple deaths and injuries;

would you be opposed to victims who were injured or whose loved ones were killed as a result of these facts bringing civil lawsuits against that brewery? Would you to the contrary be in favor of legislation exempting such a manufacturer from any civil liability whatsoever?

To me this analogy is more to the point than that of car manufacturers, so I'm curious to hear your response.

[Straw Man]

168. A hypothetical answer.

You've got a lot of "ifs" there -- and the "ample documentation" you invoke does not exist in the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which depend solely a weak correlation derived from raw numbers.

And again, you're talking civil action as a recourse after multiple failures of law enforcement. As I said, it's a substitution of civil litigation for effective law enforcement. Finaly why, may I ask, should this lawsuit not be launched against the bar, who were the ones serving the minors and causing the deaths?

[thucythucy]

175. You didn't answer the question.

Even so, I'll answer yours,

Yes, the bar should be held accountable, just as the various gun shops should be prosecuted both criminally and, if possible, in civil court. This however doesn't preclude civil action against the brewery, given the circumstances I outlined. My sense is, given the hypotheticals outlined above, a plaintiff would stand a very good chance of prevailing in court. At the very least I think he or she should be allowed at least to try, and not be shut down by some arbitrary legislation specifically exempting breweries from civil litigation. You disagree?

And there are numerous examples of where criminal or even civil regulation breaks down, and leaves as a recourse civil litigation by those damaged by negligence or out and out flaunting of relevant laws and regulations. You're saying that just because law enforcement falls down on the job, people injured by the wrongful actions of others should be denied all recourse in the civil courts? So if the EPA does a shitty job regulating toxic waste dumps, those whose health is damaged by the illegal dumping of such toxins should be precluded from bringing civil action? If the manufacturer of toxic materials knows a subcontractor is violating the law, the fact that the feds don't catch up with the subcontractor means the manufacturer is home free?

Yes, I'd launch an action against the bar as well. One party's culpability doesn't negate or preclude another party also being culpable. There may be varying degrees of culpability, but I'd leave that to the courts to decide, not some arbitrary piece of legislation.

As for the documentation in the suits filed against the gun manufacturers, you're saying this documentation "doesn't exist"? Since the suits never went to trial I wonder how you've reached such a conclusion. Have you read all the briefs that were filed or about to be filed, and had an opportunity to depose witnesses or read their testimony? In my experience, it's often astounding how much documentation of wrong doing might exist, once subpoenas are issued and witnesses are actually deposed. The tobacco industry left voluminous documentation of its efforts to misinform the public after the Surgeon General's 1964 report. You'd be surprised how arrogant corporate players can be, once they believe they'll never be held to account. Surely you've seen instances where that is true.

I answered your questions. Now, if you would, please answer mine. Given the hypotheticals which I've outlined above (which I believe comprise a fairly close analogy to what gun manufacturers have been doing lo these many years), would you be in favor of legislation granting blanket exemption from civil liability to breweries guilty of such knowing and blatant disregard for public safety?

It's a yes or no question. I suspect your discomfort in answering is related to the aptness of my analogy.

[Straw Man]

176. The only documentation ...

... that I've seen referenced is that "X number of crime guns came from Y number of guns shops." There is no evidence of knowledge of wrongdoing on the part of manufacturers. Of course the agencies who were prevented from bringing the suits will say "We had a good case." That proves nothing but their hubris.

You believe your example to be "a fairly close analogy to what gun manufacturers have been doing lo these many years"? I don't. You talk about egregious and obvious flouting (not "flaunting&quot of the law, none of which is manifest in the case of the gun manufacturer lawsuits.

[thucythucy]

178. But still no answer to the question.

If there is indeed "no evidence of knowledge of wrongdoing on the part of manufacturers" then this would soon become evident in court, and the suits would have been dismissed. The fact that gun manufacturers were so intent on carving out such a specific exemption would indicate otherwise. Despite all the right wing propaganda about "frivolous lawsuits" I think plaintiffs offering "no evidence" get weeded out pretty quickly. The gun manufacturers have no problem finding high powered attorneys to defend them in court. The fact that they felt compelled to sidestep the courts by having their pet legislators carve out this specific exemption I think speaks volumes.

But let's set all that aside. You say my analogy isn't apt. Okay. So, given its inaptitude, would you still be in favor of allowing such a brewery (or in my other example, the manufacturer of toxic waste) blanket immunity from civil litigation?

[Straw Man]

182. I would not be in favor of granting blanket immunity ...

... to any industry that has not been the target of baseless nuisance lawsuits. In the case of the brewery or toxic waste, I would oppose blanket immunity. But the situations are not analogous to the case of the gun manufacturers.

I firmly believe the gun manufacturers would prevail in court against these suits, but that suits would continue to be brought in an effort to bleed them financially. Lawyers cost money.

[thucythucy]

196. "Lawyers cost money." And plaintiffs who bring frivolous lawsuits

for purely PR or political reasons get punished by the courts. At the very least, a plaintiff bringing such a case would be docked court costs and required to pay the defendant's attorney fees. A plaintiff who is a repeat offender could be found in contempt of court, which would entail fines or even, in extraordinary cases, jail time.

I'm afraid your concern about the poor gun manufacturers being victimized by unscrupulous attorneys and plaintiffs is misplaced. One heard the same arguments about the poor helpless tobacco industry, until it was proved that they indeed colluded to misinform the public, target minors, and as a result contributed to the premature deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. It's fortunate the tobacco lobby didn't have the foresight to push through legislation protecting them from "baseless nuisance lawsuits." Otherwise we'd be back to the days when "scientists disagree" about whether tobacco smoke causes cancer.

To sum up, your argument seems to be--these cases were so bogus there's no doubt that the gun manufacturers would have won. Which is why they needed extraordinary, unprecedented protections from Americans seeking their day in court.

I'm glad though that you finally answered the question. Blanket protections for breweries, toxic waste manufacturers, and presumably any other industry, no. Blanket protection for the gun industry, yes. It's a shame so many people buy this industry line.

[Straw Man]

234. Right.

Last edited Mon May 14, 2018, 11:40 PM - Edit history (1)

"Lawyers cost money." And plaintiffs who bring frivolous lawsuits

for purely PR or political reasons get punished by the courts. At the very least, a plaintiff bringing such a case would be docked court costs and required to pay the defendant's attorney fees. A plaintiff who is a repeat offender could be found in contempt of court, which would entail fines or even, in extraordinary cases, jail time.

Winning defendants are not always "made whole" when plaintiff's suits fail. And what if the plaintiffs are not "repeat offenders"? What if they are hapless crime victims who are encouraged by anti-gun activist groups to bring these suits, and are then left holding the bag when the suits fail? What if they are municipalities who pass the costs of their failed suits on to their taxpayers, as happened in Chicago?

Blanket protections for breweries, toxic waste manufacturers, and presumably any other industry, no. Blanket protection for the gun industry, yes. It's a shame so many people buy this industry line.

Blanket protection for the gun industry was only needed because they were targeted by anti-gun groups who hoped to drag them down with the cost of repeated defense against merit-less lawsuits.

No one seems to be answering my question about why no one is pursuing these "bad apple" dealers who, if the allegations are to be believed, really did collude to break the law, as opposed to the manufacturers, who are at several removes from any criminal or negligent activity.

[thucythucy]

265. Right indeed.

"What if the plaintiffs are not "repeat offenders"? What if they are hapless victims....

They might, and often are, still required to pay court costs and the defendant's legal fees.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/my-daughter-was-murdered-in-a-mass-shooting-then-i-was-ordered-to-pay-her-killers-gun-dealer/

Your concern for multi-billion dollar corporations is duly noted. The same corporations that bankroll the NRA, an anti-Democratic organization with Ted Nugent as a board member, and Oliver North as president. The same organization and industry that spews lies about progressive candidates and does everything in their power to put people like Trump in office. An organization that calls victims of gun violence terrorists. I can think of no single entity--aside from Fox "News"--that has done as much to thwart any progressive agenda as the NRA, and the gun manufacturers that fund it.

As for why law enforcement isn't going after these dealers, I can think of a variety of reasons, assuming that in fact these dealers aren't being prosecuted (and I have at the moment only your word that they aren't). In the case of Indiana dealers selling to Chicago criminals, it might be that Indiana authorities, representing a deep red state, don't see it as a priority. Maybe, like so many others, they're intimidated by the NRA. Maybe--again thanks to NRA lobbying--that division of law enforcement is underfunded, and hamstrung by elected officials kowtowing to the gun lobby and dependent on NRA campaign contributions. Maybe, and here I'm taking a leap--the mostly white law enforcement officials of Indiana and its various localities don't give two solid shits about crimes that target predominantly black people in a predominantly blue city, as long as local businesses continue to pay taxes and fund the Indiana GOP. Ever consider the thought that maybe the main obstacle to going after these gun shops is the very industry you are so dedicated to protecting?

According to the link provided by the OP, the gun manufacturers aren't "at several removes from any criminal or negligent activity." They've been informed of the identity of the gun shops in question, and yet continue to sell to them. That right there is at the very least "negligent activity."

Again, it's too bad none of this will ever be tested in court. But thank God that gun manufacturers will continue to rake in the bucks, and the NRA will continue to be a blight on our politics. Heaven forfend that either institution should ever be held accountable for the harm they do to our society.

Oh, BTW, the family whose story is told at the link had to file for bankruptcy after losing their case against the dealer who sold the gun that killed their daughter. Hopefully that will at last put to rest the terrific anxiety you apparently feel for all those poor, persecuted businesses. It's just strange to encounter such support on this board for a multi-billion dollar industry that has been so successful in quashing the due process rights of victimized individuals.

[Straw Man]

273. One wonders ...

... why the Brady Campaign didn't help this family out.

Working for the Brady Campaign became a flurry of media appearances and meetings with politicians, police, and survivors. The Brady leadership also encouraged Lonnie and me to sue Lucky Gunner, the dealer that sold the stockpile of ammo to Jessi’s killer.

Oh, BTW, the family whose story is told at the link had to file for bankruptcy after losing their case against the dealer who sold the gun that killed their daughter.

That's exactly what I meant by "hapless crime victims who are encouraged by anti-gun activist groups to bring these suits, and are then left holding the bag when the suits fail." Thank you for helping me make my point.

They've been informed of the identity of the gun shops in question, and yet continue to sell to them. That right there is at the very least "negligent activity."

All I saw was a correlation of raw numbers. Large volume dealers will account for a larger number of crime guns than smaller dealers. That's simple mathematics. Absent any proof of questionable practices by these gun shops, we're back to the practice of suing gun makers for making guns.

[thucythucy]

274. Funny how you keep shifting your arguments.

The gun industry needs this exceptional protection to keep it from being bled dry by frivolous lawsuits. But then too, the gun industry needs this exceptional protection to keep innocent victims of gun violence from being exploited by the evil machinations of the Brady organization, who will end up bearing the cost of these worthless lawsuits. How terrifically decent of gun manufacturers to care so deeply about the victims of the violence that is such an integral part of their profitability. Good thing those folks are prevented from having their day in court. Their rights are being truncated, sure, but it's for their own damn good!

Why doesn't the Brady organization help this family? I dunno. I suspect I might be because they don't have the obscenely deep pockets of the gun industry and the NRA.

Again, if all there is is "a correlation of raw numbers" then the courts and/or jurors would have ruled against the plaintiffs, with no need to carve out this exceptional, nearly unprecedented legal protection.

I don't think we can make any more progress in this discussion. Absent court proceedings and all they entail--discovery of evidence, subpoenas and motions and counter motions, testimony under oath, examination and cross examination of expert witnesses--we'll never know for certain whether or not these lawsuits would have prevailed.

Which is, of course, precisely why this protection was carved out for the gun industry in the first place.

[Straw Man]

279. I'll include anything I think relevant.

But then too, the gun industry needs this exceptional protection to keep innocent victims of gun violence from being exploited by the evil machinations of the Brady organization, who will end up bearing the cost of these worthless lawsuits.

The Brady organization should put its money where its mouth is. Why are they encouraging these families to sue and then walking away from the results? If they are so confident of the merits of these suits, they should be backing them. At the very least, they should assume some of the risks.

Why doesn't the Brady organization help this family? I dunno. I suspect I might be because they don't have the obscenely deep pockets of the gun industry and the NRA.

So instead of lifting a finger or contributing a dollar of their assets, they let this family fall into bankruptcy? Not very supportive when they were the prime movers behind the suit in the first place.

[thucythucy]

340. Of course you will,

as is your right.

And I'll continue to point out that your arguments in this thread are mutually contradictory.

On the one hand, the law was passed to protect the poor defenseless gun industry from being bankrupted by frivolous lawsuits entirely without merit, because the legal system is somehow skewed in favor of those bringing such lawsuits. This is of course a favorite right wing talking point, why we need "tort reform" to protect the corporate sector from conniving lawyers and get-rich-quick scam artist plaintiffs.

On the other hand the Brady organization (and presumably the states attorneys general bringing such suits) are to be lambasted for sucking innocent survivors into losing their shirts due to the dire consequences that await people filing and losing suits that have no merit.

I think the reasoning behind this almost unprecedented legal cut out for the gun industry is obvious, and is stated in the OP. Industry lobbyists and their political enablers saw the writing on the wall. They recognized that the suits might indeed be successful if they ever came before a judge and jury, and so scrambled to enact this patch. And no efforts at diversion or what-about-ism do anything to weaken that argument.

[Straw Man]

343. The two scenarios are NOT mutually contradictory.

The impetus behind the suits is to force gun manufacturers into concessions that have not been achievable through legislation. The prime movers -- Brady, Everytown, etc. -- are essentially gambling with someone else's money. They have no reason not to promote as many suits as possible in the hope that some of them will stick.

I've asked before, and I'll ask again: What other industry has been targeted over the criminal use of its legal product?

[mythology]

163. Not just defects. Car manufacturers were sued for lack of safety features

Recently the Supreme Court ruled Mazda could be sued for only having lap seat belts that resulted in at least one death.

Gun manufacturers could be proactive about safety measures like biometric locks, like selling large magazine clips etc. But they don't have to be because they are shielded by a specific law.

[Straw Man]

170. If you want the safety features, then mandate them.

Recently the Supreme Court ruled Mazda could be sued for only having lap seat belts that resulted in at least one death.

And that's a bullshit ruling, IMO. The law states that the shoulder belt for the center rear seat is optional. How many other non-mandated safety features should manufacturers be liable for? The human imagination is the only limit.

Gun manufacturers could be proactive about safety measures like biometric locks, like selling large magazine clips etc. But they don't have to be because they are shielded by a specific law.

These "safety features" are not in any sense proven, and in fact may hamper the use of a firearm in self-defense. Why should gun manufacturers voluntary render their products less effective and therefore less desirable to their market?

[MicaelS]

308. Show us just how many times in the last 50 years...

"Car manufacturers have been held liable for criminal misuse of their products". Cite some case law, so we can judge for ourselves.

Applying your logic, car manufacturers could be held liable for building cars that can exceed the speed limit, then people use them to drive faster then the speed limit, and kill themselves and others. Or not equipping cars with breathalyzer interlocks to prevent people from driving drunk.

They tried that ignition interlock to seat belt bullshit use back in the 70s, and it was repealed because people hated them.

[SunSeeker]

311. Here you go:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2002/02/20/nyregion/widow-of-drunken-driver-can-sue-car-manufacturer-court-says.html

Cour held that even though the driver was driving drunk (he had twice the legal limit) when he slammed into a pole, his widow could recover damages for the automaker's percentage of fault in causing her injuries (she alleges the car frame.could have been made stronger).

Comparative fault is a pretty basic concept in consumer product liability cases. The manufacturer is liable to the extent that their percentage of fault contributed to the victim's injuries, regardless if their product was being negligently or even criminally misused. It is still left up to the jury to decide what percentage of fault to assign to the manufacturer.

Gun manufacturers are the ONLY consumer product manufacturers who are exempted from this comparative fault concept. Under the PLCAA, if a gun manufacturer's product was being misused criminally, then it exempts it from any liability for the victim's injuries. That means victims of shooters could never recover since shooting someone is almost always a criminal act.

Denying victims of gun violence their day in court is unconscionable.

P.S. Who is "us"? Or we you using the "royal we"?

[MicaelS]

341. The "us" is everyone who objects to this line of thought. n/t

[MicaelS]

306. Fantastic post. Thank you. n/t

[thewhollytoast]

353. Perhaps, I can help. What is the difference between "Items of Metal" that go boom.

We don't see many ice-pick murders anymore, because we don't have ice-boxes anymore.

A 9 inch chefs knife might make a pretty decent hole in somebody, but it's kinda hard to run after somebody, and finish the job, in work clothes.

Military weapons are made for military things, like, killing everything in sight.

Still, some person of "ill will," might try to break into your abode while you are sleeping.

OK, If you must, keep a shotgun next to your bed. Try not to shoot the dog. Or, your youngest trying to crawl in bed with you.


Toast

[lunamagica]

57. K&R! Thank you, Sheshe!

[TheSmarterDog]

88. Once again, it's pointed out that St Bernie has no clothes, and his worshipers ignore it

Instead they attack the Democrats who can see his bare ass.

[Sancho]

89. K&R

This special exemption for the gun manufacturers has been a pet peeve of mine for years! Thanks sheshe!!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gun-manufacturers-crimes-products/

Gun Manufacturers Can’t Be Sued For Crimes Committed With Their Products?
There are almost no circumstances under which someone can sue a manufacturer in civil court for a crime committed with a gun.

Rating: Mostly True

This law, officially adopted on 26 October 2005, is the law to which Hillary Clinton was referring in 2015 when she stated “the gun industry and gun sellers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior.” Claims that they are totally free of liability, however, are not totally precise.

The liability exceptions provided to the gun industry for crimes committed with their products, though extremely narrowly defined, do exist. Because of this, we rank the claim that gun manufacturers have legal immunity from crimes committed with the weapons or ammunition they sell as mostly true.

[sheshe2]

159. Snopes.

Thank you, Sancho.

The liability exceptions provided to the gun industry for crimes committed with their products, though extremely narrowly defined, do exist. Because of this, we rank the claim that gun manufacturers have legal immunity from crimes committed with the weapons or ammunition they sell as mostly true.

[NCTraveler]

95. He is like a weathervane.

He is looking for votes and will dramatically change numerous horrific positions to get them.

Next he will act like he cares about abusive military expenditures and rail against the MIC. The hypocrisy is blatant to all but the religious minded.

[betsuni]

98. Camp Weathervane!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[aikoaiko]

100. I stand with Bernie Sanders. The PLCAA helps protect a civil liberty.

If "bad apple" dealers were breaking the law they could and can be held responsible through civil and criminal courts. Same for manufacturers if they acted criminally, including negligent entrustment.

PLCAA protects against frivolous or emotion-based lawsuits and for that I'm glad.

[Demsrule86]

104. I do not support anything which helps murderous gun manufacturers who received special rights with

this nonsense.

[aikoaiko]

115. If any agent of a gun manufacturer pulls the trigger of murder gun, I support their prosecution.

But not if a gun was lawfully made and lawfully sold to a distributor who lawfully sold it to an FFL dealer who lawfully sold it to someone who passed the NICS check who happened to then use it in a crime that neither the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer had any knowledge about.

[Demsrule86]

165. NO other manufacturer has blanket exemption and gun owners shouldn't either...the reason

we have safer cars as the industry was accountable...the same should be true of the blood soaked gun manufacturers.

[aikoaiko]

167. This may surprise you, but what you wrote is not exactly true.

Vaccination manufacturers get protection too even when the harm is directly from lawful vaccination use and not due to third-party criminal behavior.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22

(a) General rule
Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (e) of this section State law shall apply to a civil action brought for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death.
(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings
(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a vaccine shall be presumed to be accompanied by proper directions and warnings if the vaccine manufacturer shows that it complied in all material respects with all requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] and section 262 of this title (including regulations issued under such provisions) applicable to the vaccine and related to vaccine-related injury or death for which the civil action was brought unless the plaintiff shows—
(A) that the manufacturer engaged in the conduct set forth in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 300aa–23 (d)(2) of this title, or
(B) by clear and convincing evidence that the manufacturer failed to exercise due care notwithstanding its compliance with such Act and section (and regulations issued under such provisions).
(c) Direct warnings
No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, solely due to the manufacturer’s failure to provide direct warnings to the injured party (or the injured party’s legal representative) of the potential dangers resulting from the administration of the vaccine manufactured by the manufacturer.

[cab67]

231. perhaps

but those who are harmed by vaccines (and the number of such people is very, very small) are compensated from a fund by the federal government.

Does such a fund exist for those harmed by firearms?

[aikoaiko]

289. I do not think such a fund exists.

Victim enumeration is but one aspect of the desire to sue gun dealers and manufacturers and often the secondary aspect.

Most people say they seek to sue to reduce gun violence -- not help victims financially.

[cab67]

291. To which fund are you referring?

Are you questioning the existence of a vaccine damage compensation fund? If so, the information is here: https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

Or are you pointing out the absence of such a fund for gun violence victims?

(Honest question - it wasn't clear from how you phrased your answer.)

[aikoaiko]

293. The latter - I'm pointing out the absence of such a fund for gun violence victims

You asked, "Does such a fund exist for those harmed by firearms?" and my reply was, "I do not think such a fund exists."

[mcar]

118. Holding our politicians "feet to the fire"

Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing? I seem to recall that phrase used here quite a bit from some.

[betsuni]

138. This cannot be repeated enough.

[NurseJackie]

164. Apparently this varies depending on whose feet we're discussing.

I seem to recall that phrase used here quite a bit from some.

Apparently this varies depending on whose feet we're discussing.

[thucythucy]

153. Hi SheShe.

Great post.

I voted for Bernie in the primary but now rather regret my vote. Of course I voted for Hillary in the general.

Please see my post 150 for an analogy I think works better than the car manufacturer one, which seems to be the go-to for people supporting this awful legislation.

And thanks for your posts. I always look forward to seeing them, though I don't often post in reply.

Best wishes.

[sheshe2]

162. I will check out your other post, thucythucy.

Thank you for your comments.

Best to you and yours as well.

[thucythucy]

181. It's now a thread.

For the moment I don't seem able to get a yes or no answer to my hypothetical.

I have to step away for a while, but I'll be back to see what develops.

[thucythucy]

266. The conversation continues.

Check out my post 265.

It amazes me to see such pro-big corporation (vs. victimized individuals) here on a progressive, Democratic website.

Just goes to show how effective the gun lobby has been.

Thank God the tobacco industry didn't think of this tactic while it was in litigation.

[NastyRiffraff]

154. The fact is, Bernie's record on gun control is terrible

He's voted with the NRA every time the issue has been on the Senate floor. Pointing that out isn't "divisive," it's the truth. And important.

[HenryWallace]

207. It's these kind of "facts" ...

that gave us President Trump!

Here are some more "facts:" Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin are in the bag!

[NastyRiffraff]

226. So Trump was elected because of the fact that

Bernie voted with the NRA? I'm confused.

[Gothmog]

227. So am I

[Gothmog]

161. Sanders support of the gun manufacturer immunity law is wrong

[LexVegas]

173. Pssst...this is the reason for much of his support. Especially among white males. nt

[Wwcd]

189. Correct you are. He's the other half of the other half.

As the horseshoe theory clearly states.

They'r running the same campaign against the center. Just different means of approach.

You really have to despise democracy to play this game.
A party of the priviledged

[JCanete]

193. er..yeah...totally...which is why his voters then turned around and overwhelmingly supported Clinton

in the GE. It was this all along...

[NurseJackie]

209. Healing? What are does this even mean?

194. Threads like these help with healing.

Healing? What are does this even mean? Sounds like there's still some "hurt feelings" and resentment over something... is there? If so, what... and why? Personally, I thought the primaries were over. I assumed that everyone was willing to be mature, to move on, and take an honest look at the big picture. Are we still not permitted to review and discuss the facts of events that are still relevant even today? This type of feet-to-the-fire analysis is even more important since he's all but declared his intentions for 2020.

All I'm trying to say is that people can't keep using "the primaries" as an excuse to deflect and to avoid talking about important issues that WILL be brought up during the run-up to 2020. This "we're still healing" avoidance really serves no good purpose. There's no reason to delay an honest evaluation of all that has come before.

[NurseJackie]

270. Nobody is doing that.

but let's devour our own

Nobody is doing that.

All I'm saying is that it seems like some members can't pass up an opportunity to post something negative about Bernie.

So he's now "off-limits"? As an undeclared contender for the 2020 nomination, nobody is allowed to examine or discuss anything about his past? How convenient!

Honestly, I have to let you know that one of the main things that perpetuates distrust are the blatant bullying efforts to suppress honest discussion about the candidate.

instead of going after the Republicans, right?

All I'm saying is that if we want the strongest and most qualified candidate to actually take on the Republicans (or Trump) he or she should be able to withstand some honest scrutiny and criticism.

[NurseJackie]

296. The very careful way that you split hairs and parse words...

The very careful way that you split hairs and parse words let me know how aware you are that you're arguing from a position of weakness.

Off-limits? Show me where I said that.

No need... your meaning was clear. I'm not dumb. Or, at the very least, I'm smarter than you're giving me credit for.

Bullying efforts to suppress? Sensationalize much?

It's not "sensationalizing" when it's true.

All I'm saying is we should wait until someone declares they are even running before 'scrutinizing' them.

As a stand-alone declaration, that sounds perfectly reasonable. However, in light of Bernie's fundraising efforts AND considering that he's spending more time in early primary/caucus states than he spends in his OWN HOME STATE... it's very clear that he intends to run.

All I'm saying is that there's really no need to play this "is he/isn't he" or the "will he/won't he" and "let's wait and see" game in some lame and transparent attempt to deflect and delay the scrutiny that he so deserves.

He's running. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

[NurseJackie]

348. Yes it is. The real world is a nice place to be.

298. Sounds like fun living in your world.

Yes it is. The real world is a nice place to be. I highly recommend it to everyone.

[NurseJackie]

359. Okay, bye! I'm not going anywhere. And...

... Bernie is actually running again.

[NurseJackie]

361. Thanks! That makes it easier for me.

[left-of-center2012]

202. Your linked article is from over 3 years ago

And your second sentence begins:
"In the fall of 2005 ..." ... 13 years ago Bernie said or did something you don't like?

I know hating Bernie is an obsession for some
but it's time to fight the GOP this year and 2020.

And Bernie Sanders is a member of the Senate Democratic leadership.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/306336-sanders-named-to-senate-leadership-post.

The enemy is Trump and the GOP.

[karin_sj]

205. Agree 100 percent!

Good lord, make it stop!!

[sheshe2]

213. Yes.

In my OP I posted why. It was because of David Hoggs comments.

David Hogg is correct.

Thanks
Tavarious Jackson
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210610602#top

Perhaps you missed that.

[mac56]

204. Obsessive Bernie bashers drove me away from DU during the run up to the election.

They just might again.

[left-of-center2012]

206. I agree

Thanks to the 'ignore' and 'trash' functions I've been able to block most threads attacking:

Bernie Sanders
progressives
men as misogynists
wipipo
racial hate

My 'ignore' and 'trash' lists seem to grow weekly.

[HenryWallace]

208. Hang in there bud....

Over the next 18 months, this should be a fun place to be:

The DU deadenders have yet more levels of Hell to descend into....

[R B Garr]

229. Yes, the "deadenders" are already descending into "Hell"....

...attacking young people because they call out a politician's gun votes. It will be interesting to see the deadenders attack young people who dare to question Bernie's votes.

[romanic]

211. I've taken it in stride.

It's fun to laugh at the delusional bashers. It's kind of like watching a dog chase it's own tail, it's innocent comedy. :lol

[sheshe2]

221. Did you just call me delusional romantic?

It's fun to laugh at the delusional bashers. It's kind of like watching a dog chase it's own tail, it's innocent comedy. :lol

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

259. Sorry, can't laugh... we need to unite, not divide, before it's too late.

I don't think I can survive another 4 years of BLOTUS. That POS is literally driving me insane!! He needs to be impeached, and the only way that happens is if we ride the "blue wave" in the November midterm elections and wash that shitstain out of office.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

258. I hear you mac, but, please hang in there with us... don't let the dividers win.

[pault420]

210. Out with the old in with the new?

David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez have a bright future in politics, I feel like the party is safer in the hands of our young adults then those currently in office.

Takes courage for such a young man to take on he establishment.

[sheshe2]

214. true.

Welcome to DU, pault420.

[iamthebandfanman]

217. Wonder how many issues

Hillary Clinton had before the election that would be considered moderate or leaning right wing?
oh, thats right.. we arent allowed to talk about that on DU.. attacking a democrat and all..
Sure makes it easier to attack Bernie tho eh ?
God forbid someone point out her countless flaws as a politician, candidate, and person..

[sheshe2]

220. Hillary Clinton is no longer in office and is not running in 2020.

God forbid someone point out her countless flaws as a politician, candidate, and person..

Sanders is a sitting Senator and looks to be gearing up for another run in 2020. He needs to be vetted like any other candidate.He was not the first time around. Posting his voting record is an attack now?

Sure makes it easier to attack Bernie tho eh ?

Answer, no it is not.

[SunSeeker]

244. Thank you, she!

Gee, with her "countless flaws," it's amazing she was able to find her way out of bed every morning, let alone win the popular vote by 4 million votes.

[sheshe2]

246. Funny how they can't post a positive about him...

and are only able to trash a woman that is no longer in office and has no intention of running for one.


Why is that?


Yep. All her countless flaws gave her a 4 million popular vote. That really is a dismal tell.

Huge hug to you my friend. Hmmm. Want me to post the Beyoncé salute again? Never mind, got me in trouble the last time. Lol

[SunSeeker]

247. LOL

[sheshe2]

250. Safe one

[BannonsLiver]

352. Yep. A lot of people still can't throw away their Hillary cards

And it’s not just RWers either. As a reminder to all who seem to have forgotten Hillary is out of electoral politics...

[DRoseDARs]

224. This was alerted on in bad faith, ironically proving your point.

Took years to move on from the Clinton-Obama Primary Wars, it will take years to move on from the Clinton-Sanders Primary Wars as well.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

257. Why does that NOT surprise me?!

[R B Garr]

228. LOL

[Gothmog]

225. I agree with David Hogg

Link to tweet

[sheshe2]

230. So do I.

Thanks Gothmog.

[sheshe2]

251. Ah.

I have no proof positive.

I watch people. I see what they are doing. I watch all the media attention and the rallies. I watch Don and Bernie as well. Pretty sure they are both on the campaign trail. Neither are in their offices much. Lots of rallies and lots of photo ops, pretty much a tell.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

256. Sadly, he hasn't... have a feeling Bernie has had enough and is ready to pass the baton

to someone else who represents his progressive values.

[mac56]

267. Bernie Bashers remind me of the old guy

sitting on a stool at the end of the bar, bloviating about how he could have won the high school homecoming game if the coach had only put him in off the bench.

[NurseJackie]

297. Nobody is doing that.

[Quixote1818]

300. LOL!

It's just strange how they focus just on Bernie when so many other Dems did the same thing. How many years will this go on?

[Cha]

337. Those are his votes.. he owns that.

[cynatnite]

283. Bernie did finally change his position during his 2016 campaign run...

He took a hard hit for this position during the primary. Back in January 2016 when he and Hillary were going at it, he changed his position and said he was open to rescinding parts of that law.

Now, Sanders does have a sketchy history when it comes to gun laws.

I do think if he is planning on a 2020 run, he needs to come out much stronger for gun control and it has to be much more so than he did it when he ran against Hillary.

The Dem candidate who gets my support this next time better be a strong supporter for sensible gun control. How that message gets out is just as important as the message itself.

[luc mont]

284. Buck Fernie

I have ZERO desire to see or hear that non-Democrat's name again!

[pansypoo53219]

327. might wanna watch last weeks bill maher + killer mike on gun control.

thought provoking.