I am proud to stand with Bernie Sanders in his reversal on the PLCAA

[DemocratSinceBirth]

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R!

[stone space]

2. Democrats united against the PLCAA! ALL 3 candidates as well as the President!

[Alfresco]

3. Better late than never.

[pipoman]

4. Acquiescence to placate the ignorant....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I stand with Bernie at this moment, sir, but you beg the question.

Why would any man or woman of good conscience "Acquiesce... to placate the ignorant..." ?






Thank you in advance.


Always respectfully,
DSB

[pipoman]

7. Because the acquiescence won't cost him any votes

because nobody bases their vote on tort regulatory law (except the stupid). And some liars who know better have convinced the ignorant, illiterate, lazy and/or stupid in the party that PLCAA is something it isn't....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I guess we arrived quickly at an impasse.

My principles, on matters large and small , aren't malleable.





Always respectfully
DSB

[pipoman]

10. Bully for you. .

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I take that as "Acquiescence"

Always respectfully,
DSB

[pipoman]

12. No, I'm not into casting pearls....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Your metaphor went above my plebeian head.

No, I'm not into casting pearls....

Your metaphor went above my plebeian head. Would you please elaborate.


Thank you in advance.



Always respectfully,
DSB

[roguevalley]

32. you know, give me a candidate that can change their mind after reflection. HRC STILL wants to

invade countries that do us no harm and placate the fucking banks and wall street even though that is political poison. Changing your mind with new information and perspective is what adults do. Staying the losing course you're on is fail and I for one applaud both of them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. That is why I started this thread. I applaud him on his change of mind.

When events change, I change my mind. What do you do?

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?

When someone persuades me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?

-John Maynard Keynes

[eomer]

36. This is not a change of mind. It is a tweak in the language to get it to do what it was meant to do

See #30

Gun manufacturers would still be shielded from lawsuits when there is no allegation of negligence or defect on their part. That's what the law was intended to do. The intent was never to shield anyone from a lawsuit alleging negligence or defect. The current change just makes that intent, which was clear enough in the first place, explicit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. You are free to characterize this any way you want as am I.

Thank you in advance.





Always respectfully,
DSB

[eomer]

38. I posted a link to the text of the current bill. Read it and see that it does what I said it does.

Here's the main provision again for your convenience:

(a) In General.—An action against a manufacturer, seller, or trade association for damages or relief resulting from an alleged defect or alleged negligence with respect to a product, or conduct that would be actionable under State common or statutory law in the absence of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, shall not be dismissed by a court on the basis that the action is for damages resulting from, or for relief from, the criminal, unlawful, or volitional use of a qualified product.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/332/text

It very clearly does just what that paragraph says and nothing more. It does not repeal PLCAA like the article you posted says. It does not bring back any lawsuits other than the ones that paragraph brings back - ones where negligence or a defect are claimed.

Your characterization is false.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Sir or madame,

Sir or madame, your disagreement seems to be with CNN and not DSB, ergo:

Charleston, South Carolina (CNN)Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders backed away from a 2005 vote that gave gun manufacturers immunity from prosecution on Saturday night, announcing in a press release that he supports a proposed bill to amend that vote.

..

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/16/politics/bernie-sanders-gun-vote-2005/

Instead of arguing over the characterization by a random internet poster, me, I humbly suggest you contact CNN and demand they withdraw their characterization as their characterization carries infinitely more weight with the public. When they withdraw their characterization I will withdraw my characterization. Until then , please enjoy your weekend.

Thank you in advance.

Always respectfully,

DSB

[eomer]

40. So you no longer say what you said in the title of the OP?

OP title:

I am proud to stand with Bernie Sanders in his reversal on the PLCAA

So you, DemocratSinceBirth, no longer say that it's a reversal? Now you're just passing along something from CNN that may be true or false and you take no position on it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. I watched the senator on CNN and perhaps bias has affected my recollection.

I watched the senator on CNN and perhaps bias has affected my recollection. I don't confer infallibility upon myself and am deeply suspicious of folks who confer infallibility upon themselves or others and is in that vein that I believe I heard the senator say he has had the same position for several months. That leaves a lot of time since he initially voted for the passage of the PLCAA in 2005.

Hopefully we will learn more at tonight's debate.





Always respectfully,

DSB

[petronius]

35. Jury results:

On Sun Jan 17, 2016, 09:24 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Because the acquiescence won't cost him any votes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1018581

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

calling democratic members stupid, illiterate and lazy is baseless attack. Calling members here that because all support Democratic candidates. Please hide this divisive post

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jan 17, 2016, 09:34 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is why gun threads should be kept in their own place
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: pippman is correct in this post.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nah, not hide worthy.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A response to a passive aggressive post. When you try to be cute you have to deal with the consequences. Leave it alone.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[pipoman]

42. Thank you....my frustration is with liberals attacking the

most liberal candidate on his vote for a bill which is based on a liberal concept.

[Punkingal]

6. Good for you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Thank you for your input and your concern for my well being. You are indeed an empathetic soul.

Always respectfully,
DSB

[MineralMan]

13. I'm glad he came around on this, too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. As I am I. However this thread suggests it has caused consternation in some quarters.

Strange, ay.

[MineralMan]

16. Everything good is bad, I guess.

It's a topsy-turvy world out there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I lauded Senator Sanders on his reversal on the PLCAA because he ended up on the right side.

Why would any person of good will take exception to my sentiments?

[MineralMan]

18. I have no idea, really.

Somehow, your praise for his realization of what is right is taken as an attack by some people. I don't get it, either. I was pleased to learn that he had evolved to understand why his previous position was wrong. Good for Bernie!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I watched him on CNN. I hope I captured the essence of his thoughts on this matter.

He has said this has been his position for several months.

But to criticize him in this instance seems petty. We should all celebrate where he stands now.

[MineralMan]

20. Yes. It sounds like he figured out what was wrong with

his previous position a while back. So, he made a statement about his change of position. I can only see a positive response to this, really.

This issue has always been a hot-button one, and many politicians have voted at one time or another in a way that would remove some sort of opposition from some people. I have never expected any politician to get things right all of the time. They've all made mistakes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Liability should be a jury question.

I can't imagine many scenarios where any industry should get blanket immunity or anything approaching it.

To your larger point about politicians voting "at one time or another in a way that would remove some sort of opposition from some people" I largely agree... At the end of the day most officeholders are politicians and consequently three dimensional beings and not cardboard saints.

[pipoman]

43. Maybe because "your sentiments" are based on a lie...to wit:

"Senator Sanders on his reversal on the PLCAA"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Please pardon me...

"...Maybe because "your sentiments" are based on a lie...to wit:..."

Cui bono, sir? Please pardon me if I rely on the account provided by an independent media outlet and not a gentleman who has a vested interest in the disposition of this matter, ergo:

Charleston, South Carolina (CNN)Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders backed away from a 2005 vote that gave gun manufacturers immunity from prosecution on Saturday night, announcing in a press release that he supports a proposed bill to amend that vote.

..

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/16/politics/bernie-sanders-gun-vote-2005/

Thank you in advance.


Always respectfully,
DSB

[pipoman]

46. Help yourself....

supports a proposed bill to amend that vote.

It is a bill to amend a vote?

No, that is poor writing at best and more likely just more lying....

"reversal" is not synonymous with "amend"...just more lies...

[Live and Learn]

22. Are you really standing with him or are you sitting and quietly observing? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I literally stood up, lifted my lap top, and typed in yes.

So it a metaphysical certainty I was standing with him in this instance.

[Live and Learn]

24. That is an improvement, I guess. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. OK, coming from you with your prior OP track record...

That's genuinely funny. AND that is a great song!

P.S And I do not doubt the sincerity of your post.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. A lil levity never hurt anybody./nt

[cantbeserious]

27. Bernie Said That He Would Review A New Bill Entering Congress

That is not reversal - that is a reconsideration based on new information not previously available or in existence.

Let's keep the facts straight.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

28. I call bull****.

Bernie's position on gun immunity is completely consistent. In 2005, he voted against legislation which would have enabled full liability for innocent mom and pop gun shops. Bernie just announced support for legeislation which enables liability for gun manufacturers but NOT gun dealers. That is a consistent position. But nice try.

[restorefreedom]

47. he said that this version was better

but yes, he has never wavered on gun safety which is why he has a D- from the nra.

he opposes legislation sometimes because of certain other provisions he disagrees with. he will oppose bills that have odious add ons from the rw wackos. for some reason, some here think that is a bad idea.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

48. +1 n/t

[eomer]

30. Not a reversal but rather a tweak to get the bill to do only what it was intended to do.

It is a tweak to make PLCAA do what it was intended to do in the first place and to stop courts from misinterpreting the original intent.

Here is the proposed change:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/332/text

Here is its main provision:

(a) In General.—An action against a manufacturer, seller, or trade association for damages or relief resulting from an alleged defect or alleged negligence with respect to a product, or conduct that would be actionable under State common or statutory law in the absence of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, shall not be dismissed by a court on the basis that the action is for damages resulting from, or for relief from, the criminal, unlawful, or volitional use of a qualified product.

As you can see, this change only has an effect on lawsuits alleging a defect or negligence. It was never the intent of the original PLCAA law to bar lawsuits like that. So this is just tweaking the law to make sure those kinds of lawsuits can still be brought, as intended all along. The lawsuits that were meant to be barred will still be barred.

Specifically this will allow lawsuits against straw purchasers who intentionally get around background checks to sell guns, when one of those guns is used in a crime.

You can also read the full text of the bill at the link above to see the explanation that what this "change" does is to keep courts from misinterpreting the original bill and thereby make it do what it was supposed to in the first place.

So, no, not a reversal. The end result is the same measure that Bernie supported in the first place, for the same reasons.

[spyker29]

31. Jury Results

On Sun Jan 17, 2016, 12:03 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I am proud to stand with Bernie Sanders in his reversal on the PLCAA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511018353

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Disruptive, hurtful to other DUers, and over the top.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jan 17, 2016, 12:14 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Looks like jury stalking.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Snark and divisive but what else can we expect in the Primary season?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I am literally at a loss for words...

[aikoaiko]

41. It's not so clear he reversed.

He did say he supported improving it because there were things he liked about it and things he didn't.

The ignorant media has been saying he has reversed himself, but they also claimed Obama was taking executive action to close the "gun show loophole" too and we know that wasn't true.