2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders Chasing White Votes with Gun Control Stubbornness
Bernie Sanders confounding refusal to admit his vote to give gun manufacturers immunity from liability claims makes a lot more sense when you look at the latest poll results from the two earliest and whitest states on the primary calendar.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has taken the occasion of President Obamas most recent push for gun reform to continue pounding Bernie Sanders over lapses in his voting record on gun control, particularly his vote to grant immunity to gun manufacturers. Clinton made a special phone-in to Chris Matthews on Friday, and spent a good chunk of Sunday morning having a go at Bernie:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/bernie-sanders-chasing-white-votes-with-gun-control-stubbornness/
Sanders is as much of a politician as any of the other DC denizens. He knows that given the demographics in IA, and even in NH, his stance on guns will benefit him.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Bernie has a singular focus on income inequality. He doesn't much care for other issues.
That's been clear for quite some time.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Why would any Democrat want them?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Even Bernie's supporters right here on DU talk about how Bernie has "crossover appeal."
They aren't sugar coating anything.
It's all about income inequality to these folks.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)They would probably vote for the Republican nominee or stay home. Then again, that's what some of Sanders' supporters have stated they would do if Hillary is the nominee.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)Goes nowhere until 2022/2024.
I just hope people understand that regardless if it is Trump or Sanders they are going to be severely hobbled by a status quo Republican House of Representatives for at least 4 years. At the end of the day - abortion, guns, and god are more important to a lot of voters in the districts of people like Trey Gowdy (SC 4th) than prosperity for all.
Hope for change but expect it to be a long term many years journey.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 11, 2016, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)
The House is safe for Republicans for the foreseeable future, worse yet, there are too many Tea Party Representatives who will block anything that he proposes. The Senate would be a more fertile ground, but will probably remain Republican in this election. How exactly is he going to enact his trillion dollar economic plan? Is he going to wave a wand and poof, Wall St. and the Republicans will heed to his wishes?
riversedge
(70,093 posts)to be big downfall and disappointment in the US if by some miracle Bernie should get the nomination. IMHO
randys1
(16,286 posts)Even that will be badly hobbled.
This is why all the focus on one candidate vs another is so counterproductive.
The other party wants to destroy the lives Black Michiganders with lead water, and is doing so...The other party wants to make it near impossible for Black people to vote, and is doing so all over the country...The other party wants to force Gay people either back into the closet or out into the street to be beaten...The other party wants to officially turn ALL government land over to the Koch Bros and Walton Family.
I could go on.
African Americans have reasons white people dont for why they would support or not support someone, and that voting block is gonna do what it is gonna do, the white people who allege to be liberals should be focused on anybody, in any race, with a D after their name, NOT for reasons of loyalty, but for survival.
Loudestlib
(980 posts)She had the same position as Sanders when it helped her attack Obama. She doesn't evolve so much as she revolves.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Bernie has never ran an ad campaign attacking anyone for being too anti-gun, Hillary on the other hand did attack Obama in order to win the votes of the gun crowd.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)WAUSAU, WIS. -- At a campaign stop this afternoon, Hillary Clinton's focus was on the economy and health care but some in the crowd had other things on their minds. Clinton was asked to discuss gun control which prompted Clinton to talk about her days holding a rifle in the cold, shallow waters in backwoods Arkansas.
"I've hunted. My father taught me how to hunt. I went duck hunting in Arkansas. I remember standing in that cold water, so cold, at first light. I was with a bunch of my friends, all men. The sun's up, the ducks are flying and they are playing a trick on me. They said, 'we're not going to shoot, you shoot.' They wanted to embarrass me. The pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck and they were surprised as I was," Clinton said drawing laughter from the crowd.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clintons-hunting-history/
You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl, she said.
You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. Its part of culture. Its part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because its an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/clinton-touts-her-experience-with-guns/
Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?
A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case youre referring to is before the Supreme Court.
Q: But what do you support?
A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.
Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?
A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else [should be able to] come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.
Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?
A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that theyre going to try to impose, I think doesnt make sense.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
pangaia
(24,324 posts)K&R
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I'm talking about the here and now and the attitude by many of his supporters that Sanders is above politics and not "tainted" like the rest of DC's politicians. It's utter B.S. He plays the same games as everyone else when it suits him.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)If the votes that Bernie made in the 1990's are relevant to the discussion today then I would sure think that Hillary's position as recently as 2008 would be relevant as well.
By the way Bernie supports gun control including increased background checks and an assault weapons ban.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Good one.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)... the people he's been chiding for the last 10 years
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Sanders is different than Hillary, he has never sent out attack ads that went after Obama for being too anti-gun, Hillary did do that.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)... is not that much different on a lot of issues and can not throw a stone no matter what pedistal he's placed on.
On many issues Sanders stances have been disappointing at best
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)The reality is there is very little difference between Hillary and Bernie on the gun issue. Hillary's supporters like to pretend that she is stronger on the gun issue, but her record shows that she was pro-gun the last time she ran for office.
If Hillary supporters want to debate the gun issue they need to be honest and admit that Hillary took pro-gun stances as well.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)... want to now discount history when it comes to Sanders but what's good for the goose no?
tia
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)uponit7771
(90,304 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)If you need to see it a second time here it is...
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)... and Obama wasn't anti gun control so highlighting them doesn't make any sense.
whatever, at this point I'm expecting sophistry from SBS supporters when it comes to Hillary... I'll never trust claims like this
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I said Hillary has a history of sending out anti-gun control attack ads, in other words she sent out an attack ad that looks very similar to something the NRA would send out. In fact if that ad did not have "Paid for by Hillary Clinton" printed on it I would probably assume it was funded by the NRA because it perfectly reflects their position on Obama.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)... gun control and she called him out on it in her had.
It wasn't an attack on anti gun control stances or legislation.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)thesquanderer
(11,972 posts)...because people expect Hillary to do whatever is politically expedient at the time.
Bernie does not enjoy the luxury of being able to switch positions at the drop of a hat, because unlike Hillary, he is supposed to be acting out of principle.
That said, I think every politician, even Bernie, is allowed to have the occasional vote s/he might be willing to revisit, as Sanders has said about the immunity provision. Nobody gets everything perfect every time. And the anti-Sanders people have the same 2 or 3 things they keep harping on, because after decades in public service, that's all there is. He doesn't provide the plethora of regrettable positions and statements that Hillary does.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)and tyrannical dictators. Even worse then just guns lets send those babarian tyrannical dictators bomb and jets and weapons of mass destruction.
The weapons of mass death manufactures have Hillary's full support.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Usually, the issues are complex and not black or white, more like shifting shades of grey.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Makes you a murderer as well.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Foreign policy IS complex.
If a country does not have democracy and freedom then we should have nothing to do with them. If they are brutal backwards barbarians tyrant dictator murderers then we definately should not send them weapons of mass murder.
It is Hypocrisy to claim you want gun control to make the US safer but then send weapons and guns to murderers.
Hillary doesnt care about gun control or our safety or the safety of anybody on this planet. If she did she could never justify her arms deals with tyrants.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)You must have forgotten that the SOS enacts the president's policies. Again, there are many factors at play when deciding who to support overseas. Sometimes it boils down to the lesser of one or more evils. For example, why has the US supported the Saudis for so many years? Because, despite being one of the more repressive regimes in the M.E., they are our allies. Is it ideal? Hell no, but Sanders would face the same conundrum as every other president prior to him.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)She sold more guns in her time as SoS to brutal tyrants than the Bush Regime.
$165 Billion dollars worth of weapons of mass death to 20 countries who donated to the Clinton Foundation.
She is directly responsible for these arms sales and the murders that have happened as a result.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Sending weapons to terrorists is just like the Strawman Loophole, where legitimate gun buyers turn around and sell to criminals.
But please continue, I could use a good laugh
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)The fact that President Obama disagrees strongly with Sanders on this issue will not help Sanders in South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states. While Sanders may do well in states with 90+% white populations, these states are not sufficient to get Sanders the nomination. For example the four states with 90+% white voting populations where Sanders is polling well in (Utah, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa) have only one-half of the delegates as Texas
Sanders' move here may help in Iowa and New Hampshire but will not help Sanders in South Carolina and the SEC states
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)So they can give the SEC states the Big Ig up close and personal?
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)I know the young lady who is running the Sanders operations in Texas. It will be interesting to see what happens on Super Tuesday
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
....However, the Nation and the other reports like it dont shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They dont explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if theres a consistency to Sanders positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernies position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.
Yet there is an explanation. Its consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And its in Bernies own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. Housein 1990where he was endorsed by the NRA, even after Sanders told them that he would ban assault rifles. That year, Bernie faced Republican incumbent Peter Smith, who beat him by less than 4 percentage points in a three-way race two years before.
In that 1988 race, Bernie told Vermont sportsmen that he backed an assault weapons ban. Smith told the same sportsmens groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle baneven bringing an AK-47 to his press conference. That about-face was seen as a betrayal and is the background to a June 1990 debate sponsored by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmens Clubs.
I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidatesas the Sanders campaign press secretaryand recorded it. Bernie spoke at length three times and much of what he said is relevant today, and anticipates his congressional record on gun control ever since. Look at how Bernie describes what being a sportsperson is in a rural state, where he is quick to draw the line with weapons that threaten police and have no legitimate use in huntinghe previously was mayor of Vermonts biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nations characterization, isnt open-minded.
As you can see, Berniewho moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960shas an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. Hes not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jockbeing captivated by ideas and a high school miler who hoped for a track scholarship for college. But like many people who settled in Vermont for generations, he was drawn to its freer and greener pastures and respected its local culture.
I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.
That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. Its also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980sbefore he was in Congresswhich he reiterated to the moderator.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/
Next, the 1990 debate turned to gun control. The moderator, who clearly was a Second Amendment absolutist, went after Bernieto test his mettle after Smiths about-face.
Do you support additional restrictions on firearms? Do you support additional restrictive firearms legislation? he asked. Bernie Sanders, explain yourself, yes or no?
Yes, he replied. Two years ago, I went before the Vermont Sportsmans Federation and was asked exactly the same question. It was a controversial question. I know how they felt on the issue. And that was before the DiConcini Bill. That was before a lot of discussion about the Brady Bill. That was before New Jersey and California passed bills limiting assault weapons.
I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.
That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. Its also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980sbefore he was in Congresswhich he reiterated to the moderator.
I said that before the election, he continued. The Vermont sportspeople, as is their right, made their endorsement. The endorsed Peter Smith. They endorsed Paul Poirier. I lost that election by about three-and-one-half percentage points, a very close election. Was my failure to get that endorsement pivotal? It might have been. We dont know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasnt. All I can say is I told the sportspeople of Vermont what I believe before the election and I am going to say it again.
I do believe we need to ban certain types of assault weapons. I have taked to police chiefs. I have talked to the police officers out on the street. I have read some of the literature all over this country. Police chiefs, police officers are concerned about the types of weapons which are ending up in the hands of drug dealers and other criminals and our police oficers are getting outgunned.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-gun-control-critics-are-wrong-his-stance-has-been-consistent-decades
WASHINGTON, April 17 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.
Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities, Sanders said. There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others, Sanders added.
The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories, Sanders said.
Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales up to 40 percent of all gun transfers at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between family, friends, and neighbors.
In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:
A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."
Sanders reiterated his opposition to capital punishment in 2015. "I just dont think the state itself, whether its the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people," he said on a radio show.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/
If he's a pro-NRA/pro-gun politician why did the NRA give him a lifetime D- rating?
The gun nuts won't be voting for Democrats.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)But Democratic white gun owners will vote in IA and NH.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Hillary pandered to the gun nuts like crazy in 2008, I don't see Bernie bragging about shooting things with a fake southern accent.
They both support common sense gun control, why pretend Bernie is a "white" gun nut's dream?
Beacool
(30,247 posts)You do recall Hillary living in AR for close to 20 years, right? As someone who has lived in various states and countries, one does tend to pick up the accent of the place where one lives for an extended amount of time.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And since my dad is a native New Yorker I don't find my family members' accents "grating" at all.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Ditto for the stereotype of the "Joisey" accent. Too nasal....
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)... we all need to get better as people.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Do you think we forgot Hillary's racist 2008 campaign?
I'll take the genuine progressive who doesn't pander or "fake it" to get votes.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Vermonters don't like that kind of politician, just ask his past Republican opponents.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,304 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)"I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations and I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake."
His comments come in the wake of the shootings last month in Newtown, Conn. The killing of 20 children in the town has spurred gun-control advocates to seek restriction on the ownership of certain firearms such as military-style assault rifles.
"Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that.
"So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/27/170393072/gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more-obama-says
Who doesn't recognize the difference?
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)To me her campaign was not racist. Although, that card was brandied ad nauseam.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Those racist dog whistles were blatant and disgusting.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Not so much for the rest of us.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)should come out. I don't give a flying fig about him and the rest of the MSNBC crowd. I stopped watching that network in 2008.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)oasis
(49,338 posts)he's just full of himself.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)His daily rantings became grating, even before he attacked Hillary.
oasis
(49,338 posts)I'll give him credit for that.
demwing
(16,916 posts)the overwhelming majority of the country
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Obama was ahead by only 124 pledged delegates. Neither he nor Hillary had the nomination. The super delegates were the deciding factor.
demwing
(16,916 posts)That's about 31% of everyone who bothered to vote in either major party primary.
That's nowhere near a majority of the country.
In the 2008 GE, Obama took 53% of the vote, but only 56.8% turned out (56.9*.53=30.1%). Obama took only 30.1% of the potential vote.
That's nowhere near a majority of the country.
Do you think Clinton would have garnered more support than Obama?
Response to demwing (Reply #89)
demwing This message was self-deleted by its author.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)This Week show just Sunday saying he would revise his votes on the "complicated" gun legislation he voted for. Evolving all the way....
840high
(17,196 posts)it was pure pandering.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)My main question is how does anyone believe anything says?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If she wins the nomination she'll pander to the gun nuts again.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)"Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude."
If I were Clinton I would STFU about anybody else's "lapses in (their) record on gun control".
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Sanders' positions on gun control are to the Right of Obama and Hillary. Why pretend otherwise?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Or do you want to keep pretending that 2008 was SOOOO long ago (post 11), while attacking Sanders for votes in the 1990s? (And ignoring all votes since then)
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The tiresome elevation of this man as the new savior of the nation is just that, tiresome. He's as much of a DC politician as the rest of them and will do whatever it takes to get people to vote for him. In every election someone pretends to be above the fray, when it's evident that it's just a game plan.
Over and over again, Clinton supporters keep thinking Sanders support is about the man.
To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the policies, stupid".
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Even when his policies are off-kilter, many Sanders supporters insist that it's all well and good because "Bernie" is beyond reproach.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Sanders has been portrayed as almost a saint on this and other LW sites, while Hillary has been attacked with every bit of as much vile as seen in any RW site worth its salt. To me Sanders is no less of a politician than Hillary. He's not above the fray and not above playing to his audience.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Except I don't agree with your statement that his positions are "to the right" of Obama and Hillary.
IMO, it is very far "to the right" to place unreasonable restrictions on a constitutionally assured right. Sanders' positions, to me, are very definitely, to the "left" of Obama and Hillary, although Hillary's 2008 position that gun control issues should be left to the states, was far left of her current position.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)I want him to switch to Christianity too - he won't!
I hate having a candidate with principles. Damn frustrating.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)And he knows it.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)ram2008
(1,238 posts)Most people are in the middle, Hillary attacking Bernie on guns seems to be a poor political calculation. Most Americans fall right where he is on the gun issue, which will help him in a general election.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)magazine size limits, serial numbers on ammo, or smart guns long before you'll get people to agree on manufacturer liability. And that's just within the Democratic Party.
ram2008
(1,238 posts)The manufacturer liability doesn't really make sense. Would you fine Toyota if someone was drunk driving and ran over a kid? I don't think so. Probably another reason why her numbers are dropping with moderates and independents.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)A politician expressed an honest opinion on a complex issue, instead of a safe soundbite.
Call out the dogs.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)for gun manufacturers.
There were other bills at the time that did the same service for other industries and corporations, and he voted no.
Therefore, Corporate Welfare for Gun Manufacturers was not a mistake, it was his intent.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Which is what the bill to immunize gun manufacturers was about.
Though I will admit, he voted against all other bills to immunize other corporate industries.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And it had nothing to do with "corporate welfare".
"Bernie the corporatist", that's the second time I've seen that talking point today.
And it's just as hilarious this time.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Since he refuses to admit he made a mistake, then he is fully responsible for the consequences of his actions.
Since he did not apply that same belief to other bills being moved by Republicans at the same time, I don't buy his excuse. His absolute lack of consistency in the issue of immunity to law suits shows that something else was happening.
He voted for a bill whose purpose was to protect the profits of Corporations who manufacture guns from citizens seek redress through the courts.
Whether you like that or not, he voted for Corporate Welfare.
Let my know when Sanders can admit he made a mistake.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I agree that manufactures shouldn't be held liable when legally manufactured products are used to commit criminal acts.
You can call Bernie a supporter of "corporate welfare" as many times as you like but that meme won't hunt.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)My turn to laugh.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He was representing his constituents, that's why we voted for him.
Again and again and again.
You know those Vermonters - we're big on corporate welfare and the corporatists who vote for it.
Response to Beacool (Original post)
Jake Stern This message was self-deleted by its author.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)LexVegas
(6,031 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)products liability lawyers? Do you have any experience with products liability law?
What in the world are you talking about?
Generally, in our system, a party is liable for damages only if they are at fault, that is only if the plaintiff can prove they did something wrong or negligent.
Gun manufacturers produce a product that can under certain circumstances have good uses.
Think about products that harm people and have no good use. Tobacco is one. Now it does not harm every user, but it harms a certain percentage of users.
Motorcycles? Maybe. I'm not so sure on that one.
Epoxy glue? Can be dangerous but has a lot of good uses and isn't dangerous if used correctly.
Same with guns. Can be dangerous but have good uses and aren't dangerous if used correctly.
I oppose strict liability for gun manufacturers. I don't think it is appropriate at all. I am not a gun lover, but it is the gun user and not the gun manufacturer that is at fault most of the time. Of course, if a gun is improperly manufactured and that fault in the manufacture causes damages, that is a different matter.
My proposal is that we require gun buyers to purchase insurance for their guns, and that we require gun owners to buy new insurance coverage each year. That would discourage people from buying a lot of guns. The insurance coverage could compensate victims of gun injuries and their families. It would keep guns out of the hands (to the extent that is at all possible) of many people who should not have guns. Insurance companies could do the background checks and since they would have money on the line would probably apply a stricter test than the government would.
But no to strict liability for gun manufacturers.
If you want to impose strict liability on product manufacturers, impose it on the manufacturers of products that have not good purpose -- like tobacco.
OffWithTheirHeads
(10,337 posts)<a href=".html" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt=" photo image.gif"/></a>
ybbor
(1,554 posts)I think they're at stage three now, can't wait for stage four.
Go Bernie Go!
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)Bernie is just doing the right thing.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Missed one!
<flush>
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)how many 2nd amendment protectors are going to show up to an Iowa caucus ?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)but I have seen no sign that his recent suggestion that the PLCAA was neither all good nor all bad is based on political calculations. You are just making that up.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Cha
(296,875 posts)TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)Seems a little disingenuous .