Thirty thousand plus people killed by guns each year, 60% of domestic homicides done with guns and kids shooting themselves yet Glock and Keltek both manufacture guns with no mechanical safety with impunity. That's like a car manufacturer selling a car without a brake pedal. Shit! The US military's job description is to tear things up and kill people but it requires all their firearms to have mechanical safety devices! How in hell can a manufacturer get away with this shit? The PLCAA is how.

Love a lot of what Bernie has to say, but this is definitely a deal breaker for me.

That vote on immunity from tort liability is the worst. He is voting to arm a domestic war and to immunize the companies that profit from that war.

Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 09:01 AM - Edit history (1)

somewhere in the south or southwest shooting skeet, will you feel the same way about her?

I am for reasonable gun limitations but not full overturning of the 2nd Amendment nor excessive gun control.

The PLCAA is not a reasonable solution. We do not have the ability to sue Toyota if someone drives drunk and kills someone. We do not have the ability to sue Sears if a child harms themselves playing with a power tool. Nor would we sue Black & Decker if said kid hurt themselves with one of their buzz saws.

Government could force a recall. Because guns are soooooo special that can't be done.

Gun manufacturers can and do make products that are dangerous if used as designed.

I'll say again, the military's job description is tearing shit up and killing people but specs for military firearms mandate a mechanical safety device yet Glock and Keltek market guns without a safety to the general public. How is that a good idea?

If a company knowingly produced a defective product, then yes, they could be sued. If they did not know, yes, they still could be sued. But a company that did neither can not be sued if their product is used to harm someone.

A gun is an item whose sole purpose is to harm something or someone. If a gun is made that fails to fire due to a faulty mechanism, then yes, they can be sued.

You and I can agree on limitations, requiring stricter safety measures like safety locks on all guns, etc. But just because you don't like guns and don't like that guns have been used to kill innocents does not mean you get to sue them.

It really is that simple.

Products that are inherently dangerous when used as designed and for the purpose designed should be recalled by the product safety commission. Guns that do not have a safety are inherently dangerous when used as designed and for the purpose designed but they are exempt from product safety laws.

As far as my personal experience with guns, I own a dozen of them and have a FFL. I probably know more about guns than 95% of the ammosexuals among us. Don't let your alligator mouth overload your paper bag ass. This whole thread is about the gun industry's exemption from product safety regulation, not law suits so this has been nothing but a red herring.

I have no desire to further converse with a rude person such as yourself. Enjoy your evening.

The sub-sub thread began with Hillary Clinton shooting someone. Or was that an attack on Bane, suggesting the OP was fabricated and a lie? Not the least bit over the top? Then you inferred that I want to overturn the 2nd (I assume you mean repeal) when no one anywhere has suggested that. (your first red herring)

Next you tell me that I'm not being reasonable and don't know what I'm talking about--not logical or legal? Wandering off topic you talk about suing Toyota, your second red herring.

Then you presume to know me, saying that I don't like guns and by inference don't know anything about them.

If this is what qualifies as polite conversation from your point of view I'd be curious to see rude.

I've gotten every one of these "arguments" aka insults and red herrings from gunholics for the last 40 years, so yeah, I get a little thin skinned when being told that I can't make a coherent statement, don't know what I'm talking about and am too emotionally blind by dislike of guns and my ignorance of them to be part of the conversation.

Good day,
Kettle

and you already anticipate a fight before taking the time to comprehend a reply to you.

A sub thread about Hillary Clinton shooting someone? Seriously? How about a campaign photo like other Democrats have done or maybe the recent one of Obama at Camp David shooting? Whoosh, you misread that didn't you?

I did not infer anything of the sort. I put the two extremes as how politics often work in this country. You are either pro-gun or anti-gun. You are either pro-choice or anti-abortion. Whoosh, again you misread that one too.

You are on a roll!

Lawyers and plenty of other posters here are quite right when we say that the legalities are such that your ideas are just flat out wrong. So be it, we disagree.

I have never had an exchange with you ever on these boards. Your first post sounding pretty damned 'anti-gun' to me. You could have corrected me without being a jerk.

Obviously you are spoiling for a fight before one is even had.

Sorry, not a gunholic. I own one pistol. That's all. I grew up in a military family and was also active duty and reserve Army. I don't really like being around guns much after my combat experience. Sanders positions fit my own as they are realistic, pragmatic, and not extreme on either side of the debate.

Next time, don't jump to conclusions so damned fast. Now I have no desire to continue this conversation further with you. Go pick a fight with someone else.

Reading back over my initial post, I missed a horrid auto-correct. I meant skeet not 'some guy'!

I will edit that. You still could have simply asked me about that instead going off on me. The rest of my post still stands.

I will own the mistake I made. Can you?

Here in Cali, the Attorney General lists all weapons legal for sale in Cali. They must have certain features such as safeties and chamber indicators to name a few. Each state could do the same if it wished.

If a weapon blows up in someone's hands, the manufacturer can be sued, due to defective product laws. However, if the weapon functions as designed, they cannot be sued.

Eliot Roger, the former Santa Barbara City College student stabbed three men, shot two women and one man, and ran over 13 people. I don't know the brand of knife used, but should the knife maker be sued? How about BMW for making the car he used to injure 13 people? Why should firearms be held to a different standard? I would be interested in hearing logical reasoning on this, not simply a bunch of logical fallacies as so often happens with this subject.

What needs to be done is to treat firearm crimes very, very harshly. Not just use a gun, go to jail. Make a gun crime two strikes rather than one. Let multiple counts multiply the result. Use a gun on more than one person, go to jail for life with no parole.

That strikes me as fair. The life the shooter's victim knew has been shattered, maybe ended. Let the shooter's be shattered so as well.

Please keep in mind that our Senators represent their states - - and Vermont has the most relaxed gun position in the nation. How could you expect Bernie to go against the wishes of those he represents? I very MUCH prefer his reasoned stand on almost all subjects to the set in beach sand rigidity of Senator/Secretary Clinton. If she wins the nomination, I most likely will not vote for her, as Cali will not soon be carried by a (R) person. If, by some miracle the election here is close, I will vote for her; but that is about as likely as Bill being re-elected for a third term.

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

Bernie Sanders on Gun Control

Socialist Jr Senator; previously Representative (VT-At-Large)

Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.

Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.

Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.

Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.

Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.

Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.

Sanders scores F by NRA on pro-gun rights policies

While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs.

The following ratings are based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionaire sent to all Congressional candidates; the NRA assigned a letter grade (with A+ being the highest and F being the lowest).
Source: NRA website 02n-NRA on Dec 31, 2003

***

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
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.

***

https://libertyinthehills.wordpress.com/letters/gun-control/sanders-gun-control/

United States Senator Bernie Sanders on Gun Control
Return to Gun Control Letters Page

Response from U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders to my email addressing my concerns about gun control and infringements upon 2nd Amendment rights:

February 15, 2013

Dear Mr. Phillips:

Thank you for contacting me about the federal response to gun violence in this country. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

There is a proud tradition of gun ownership in Vermont, which I celebrate and strongly support. Thousands of Vermont families enjoy hunting, target shooting and other gun-related activities. Well over 99 percent of them are law-abiding citizens who are extremely careful with their weapons. Their rights must be protected as we proceed with this national debate.

On the other hand, very few deny that we must do everything we can to end the horror of mass killings that we have seen at Newtown, Connecticut, Aurora, Colorado, Blacksburg, Virginia, Tucson, Arizona and in other American communities.

It has long been my position from before I was elected to Congress in 1990 that gun regulation is largely a local issue best decided by the states, but that there are times when it does become a federal issue and Congress must act. One of the issues that concerns me is that, because of inadequate background checks, there are now too many people who own guns who should not have them – including felons, and people with severe mental illness. I also worry about the lack of effective investigative tools and sanctions for “straw purchases,” where people legally able to buy guns act as a front purchaser for criminals.

In my view, the debate over mass killings should not be only about guns. In my view, Congress must consider a comprehensive approach which also includes a serious discussion about the need for greatly expanded mental health services and ending gratuitous violence in the media. It is imperative that Americans who need mental health services be able to access them in a timely manner. That is not the case today. Several hearings that I recently attended made it very clear that throughout our country there are thousands of Americans who harbor suicidal/homicidal thoughts – and are unable to find treatment at a cost they can afford. That must change.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Feel free to contact me again in the future about this or any other subject of interest to you, or for up-to-date information on what my office is working on please visit http://www.sanders.senate.gov. While there, I invite you to sign up for my e-newsletter, the Bernie Buzz, at http://sanders.senate.gov/buzz/. Please be aware that due to security screening procedures, postal mail to my office experiences delays that will lengthen the time it takes me to get back to you. The fastest way to contact my office is by calling 1-800-339-9834.

Sincerely,

BERNARD SANDERS
United States Senator

say differently. The F rating means nothing. He voted to exempt gun manufacturers from tort liability, and you just claimed otherwise. That letter you cite is the same excuses for supporting the NRA that the right uses:

The problem is not the mentally ill. It's guns. Scapegoating the mentally ill makes it even worse.

the choice is simple

And I believe once he was President he would absolutely follow the lead of the people if they were against his position

Dont ask me to worry about guns if i have no job, nowhere to live and nothing to eat


and I HATE guns

I'm very interested in gun control, and exempting the manufacturers from liability is a major issue.

but its damned close.

He had the opourtunity to DESTROY gun manufacturers, and sided with the NRA. Every mass shooting could have been a chance to bury the manufactuerer under an avalanche of civil torts- before long you wouldnt have anyone making civilian firearms. Sad

BB: He {sanders} has a very troubling record. This surprises me and may have just made my decision about the primary.

Kind of a moot point in the end, Bernie has a snowball's chance in Vermont, but nowhere else.
Seems he is kind of a gun control advocate, with some deviations therefrom? or expediently playing both ends?
Hillary is the heiress presumptive of course, here is a copy of my poll invite on this forum/group:

Invitation to a poll on Hillary, gun control advocate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026527444

I prefaced: Many democrat gun enthusiasts have admonished democrat politicians who support gun control, often saying or suggesting or implying that they would not vote for such a person if they were running in their own district. Or that democrat politicians and the democrat party are somewhat doomed for taking on gun control positions.
How does this rationale sit with election 2016 & Hillary Clinton? presuming Hillary is heiress presumptive to the democrat nomination, will her gun control stance affect your 2016 vote against a surely far more 'pro gun' republican nominee? (third party candidates, regrettably, deemed negligible for this poll, but use your discretion).

Some background: Hillary Clinton lashed out at opponents of gun control regulations, saying they hold a viewpoint that “terrorizes” the majority of Americans. “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” http://time.com/2891821/hillary-clinton-2016-gun-control/

lapierre-head: I vow on this day the NRA will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and good, honest decent Americans and we will stand and fight with everything we've got and in 2016, by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton,”

Poll choices:
1) I WILL vote for presumptive nominee Hillary, no matter what
2) I WILL vote for Hillary, despite her gun control advocacy
3) I will ABSTAIN from voting, due her gun control position
4) I DON'T KNOW if I will vote for her or not, due gun control issue
5) I will NOT vote for Hillary, due her gun control position
6) I will NOT vote for Hillary, for other reasoning

Came across a more in depth report of Bernie sander's votes on gun control issues, from politifact.
Of the more recent votes I've included it's a push, 6 - 6, on how I agree/disagree.

Sanders’ moderate stance is noted by firearm enthusiasts and gun control advocates alike. Former NRA research coordinator Paul Blackman says the group doesn’t consider Sanders "an anti-gunner," and he’s received mixed marks from NRA ranging from a C- to F. Brady Campaign president Dan Gross says Sanders has shown suppleness and evolution since those first Brady votes and added he isn’t a "gun lobby lapdog."
Experts agreed that on guns, Sanders’ views are to the right of his Democratic rivals

2006 Increases the burden of proof for the AFT to penalize law-breaking gun dealers, as part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms reform bill
(Bernie) Yea (Result) Passed ..... Boo Bernie's vote, boo it passed
2008 Prevents the use of funds for anti-gun programs as an amendment to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
Yea Passed ... boo Bernie vote, boo it passed
2009 Gives DC seats in the House of Representatives and repeals district’s ban on semi-auto weapons
Yea Passed ... boo but sneaky vote tactic, boo it passed (aka heller decision?)
2009 Allows the use of firearms in National Parks
Yea Passed .. .boo Bernie vote, boo it passed (haven't been to one since)
2009 Allows concealed and carry across state lines
Nay Failed ... YAY Bernie vote, YAY it failed
2009 Allows firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains, as an amendment to the congressional budget
Yea Passed .... boo on both, go greyhound (unless et tu?)
2009 Prohibits higher insurance premiums for gun owners, part of amendment to the Affordable Care Act
Yea Passed ... boo on Bernie vote, boo it passed
2013 Prevents US entering UN Arms Trade Treaty, amendment to congressional budget
Nay Passed ... YAY on Bernie vote, boo this stupid rightwing ir-resolution passed
2013 Allows concealed and carry across state lines in states where practice not prohibited
Nay Failed .... YAY on Bernie vote, YAY it failed
2013 Lists all people prohibited buying a firearm in Nat Instant Criminal Background Check System
Yea Failed ... YAY Bernie, boo it failed
2013 Bans high-capacity ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds
Yea Failed .... YAY Bernie, boo it failed
2013 Bans assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines
Yea Failed .... YAY Bernie, boo it failed
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

I don't see how he can reconcile that with his rhetoric about corporations. I do not understand how gun corporations can be seen as better than banks.