Bernie needs to see the light when it comes to gun control. It's our job to educate him on the facts

[Cali_Democrat]

Bernie represents the tiny state of Vermont. It's possible that he's just not aware of how many Americans have died from guns and perhaps that's why he doesn't take the issue as seriously as he should.

It's the job of primary voters to move him in the correct direction on this issue.

So what are the facts?

More Americans have died from guns since 1968 than all wars COMBINED.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

Here’s a summary of deaths by major conflict:

Revolutionary War 4,435
War of 1812 2,260
Mexican War 13,283
Civil War (Union and Confederate, estimated) 525,000
Spanish-American War 2,446
World War I 116,516
World War II 405,399
Korean War 36,574
Vietnam War 58,220
Persian Gulf War 383
Afghanistan War 2,175
Iraq War 4,486
Total 1,171,177

Here is a summary. The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms:

1968 to 1980 377,000
1981 to 1998 620,525
1999 to 2010 364,483
2011 32,163
Total 1,384,171

This is not an insignificant issue. I can assure you it's not an insignificant issue to Americans who have had a loved one die from a gun. It's not an insignificant issue to the parents of the Sandy Hook children who were gunned down in cold blood.

Bernie needs to be educated.

[derby378]

1. This thread isn't going to end well

The questionable tone and methodology in the OP do not help.

Bernie Sanders supports gun control, but not quite to the extent that the Brady Campaign apparently demands.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. What's wrong with getting Bernie to become a more forceful advocate for gun control?

I think it would be a good thing.

[hack89]

14. Would you be satisfied if he agreed to support the party platform on guns? nt

[appal_jack]

17. In so doing, he would alienate true progressives, who value the whole Bill of Rights.

Gun control is a losing issue.

Your statistics include suicides. While any suicide is a tragedy, is the gun really to blame? A tall building, an oncoming train, piped car exhaust, or a tank of nitrogen could just as easily be employed toward the same end.

We already have more than 20,000 gun laws on the books at various local, state, and federal levels. Is that not control? What level of control would you deem sufficient? How many more laws would make you happy?

The Bill of Rights is pretty clear about the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Yet you want a Democratic candidate to call for further infringements. This will alienate voters who value and respect the Bill of Rights as a cornerstone of our government. Many of us are Bernie fans because he generally shares this respect, although (on-edit) I see down-thread that he voted in favor of an Assault Weapons Ban, which is a pointless gun control measure that I disagree with entirely.

We have a gun control proponent candidate in Hillary. Aren't you in her Third Way camp anyway? Why are you proposing to give (bad) advice to Bernie?

-app

[iandhr]

35. Alienate true progressives?

Where he comes from progressives love their guns.

[appal_jack]

36. Yes, that was my point. nt

[L0oniX]

59. "alienate true progressives" kinda like what the OP is trying to do?

[Cali_Democrat]

64. Getting Sanders to become a more forceful advocate for gun control alienates true progressives?

You live in a fantasy world.

[Eleanors38]

76. I don't think gun control is progressive, it's in the tradition of prohibitionism...

which has admittedly infected progressive thought since alcohol prohibition, through the W.O.D., and now guns. Prohibition is a wholly failed approach to social policy. Concerning guns, there is no viability in the pragmatic effort to control/ban guns, leaving aside the question of Constitutional rights; the control "side" at this time couldn't hope to pass anything, which is why they will settle for anything. This dynamic alone discredits the control outlook, leaving it a political albatross.

Efforts to stem domestic violence should focus on efforts to ameliorate the causes of violence. That is progressive and a proper role for government.

[Trajan]

101. What about the 'prohibition' against owning machine guns?

Is that prohibition ANTI-progressive?

Maybe some toy grenades would be fun for kids to blow stuff up, because, you know ... We wouldn't want to prohibit anything and get all ANTI-progressive and stuff ...

[DonP]

112. The only prohibition against owning machine guns is at the state level

There is no Federal ban.

Since 1934 it's been pretty straightforward.

In most states, pay for a $200 Federal tax stamp, pay the $20,000+ or so for the gun, wait 6 months and pick it up and take it home.

[Trajan]

138. Well ... then those laws are certainly anti-progressive, right?

It's been a while since I've seen an authentic Gungeonite ...

[DonP]

140. Spending 3 minutes finding actual facts make you look slightly less dumb

[Eleanors38]

143. Machine guns/full-auto guns are not prohibited.

Prohibitionism is an attempt to ban a thing (guns, liquor, drugs), or behavior (certain sexual practices between consenting adults), or status ( GLBTQ) in an attempt to punish, or restrict other persons, and to purportedly change the behavior and character of groups of people. Done under the guise of public safety or health, prohibitions are really about punishment and coerscion of feared or despised peoples who are otherwise law-abiding. It is social policy via policing and criminal sanction.

Laws which seek to "prohibit" or outlaw behaviors and actions which demonstrably harm others and their property are justifiable and necessary to restrain and incarcerate criminals to the benefit of public order.

I hope this explains the differences between justifiable laws and the practice of Prohibitionism, a social policy via law enforcement.

[Mojorabbit]

117. +1000 nt

[Exilednight]

80. I'm pretty sure the word regulate is in the 2nd amendment. n/t

[appal_jack]

122. And it pertains to what? Militias!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

So what does the state have the prerogative to regulate? Militias, as in groups of people assembling together for drills and other forms of military training and engagement.

The Second Amendment says nothing about the State regulating individual ownership of arms. In fact, it concludes with precisely the opposite: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

-app

[Exilednight]

129. using that logic, I can own

A nuclear warhead and there is nothing the government can do about it.

[appal_jack]

133. You know, before I posted, I had the beginning of a sentence typed against this canard...

... but then I though to myself, "Surely no one will use this tired argument here." I was wrong... congratulations Exilednight, you may already be a wiener!!!





In my research of the issue and history, "Arms" generally means a weapon that can be fielded and operated by one person, while crew served weapons (nukes, tanks, helicopters, battleships, even belt-fed machine guns, etc. - all require more than one operator) are in another category. But honestly, I have not researched this too much, because I can neither afford, nor do I desire a nuke of my own.

If you disagree, you can sue for nuke ownership, but that would be your fight, not mine. I joined this thread because I disagree with the idea that supporting further restrictions on citizens owning and lawfully employing semi-automatic pistols and rifles should be a litmus test for a Democratic candidate.

-app

[Exilednight]

134. One man can operate a

Nuclear warhead. But let's go with something a bit softer. How about a MK 19 40 mm automatic rocket launcher?

[appal_jack]

137. I'll go-in on a group buy if you sue to make it legal and then organize it! nt

[bvar22]

20. LOSER issue.

The best thing Bernie could do right now would be to NOT mention guns.

[pnwmom]

102. What exactly is his position and how does it compare to Hillary Clinton's?

[MineralMan]

2. It's a significant issue but far from the only issue.

I won't let a single issue keep me from caucusing for Sanders in Minnesota. I hope, though, that he'll face some questions on this issue, as I"m sure he will.

Nor will any single issue keep me from voting for the eventual nominee of the Democratic Party, whoever that might be.

No candidate agrees with my positions on 100% of issues. Never has. Never will. I vote for the Democrat in general elections. I am a Democrat.

[HERVEPA]

4. Seriously

"It's possible that he's just not aware of how many Americans have died from guns and perhaps that's why he doesn't take the issue as seriously as he should"

Yeh, I'm sure he is unaware, being the unintelligent gut that he is.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. I had a conversation with some co-workers about this...

smart guys, but they were oblivious to the facts pointed out above.

A lot of Americans just don't know.

[HERVEPA]

10. Bernie has been a politician for a long time, including a mayor.

I guarantee he is not ignorant on the issue.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. I'm somewhat amused by the notion

that because someone disagrees with you (general "you", not you personally), that means they need to be educated or they don't understand.

It could be that he completely understands and still just doesn't agree with you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

142. "It could be that he completely understands and still just doesn't agree with you."

That's unpossible!

[Hiraeth]

145. I thought Bernie was all for letting each state handle their own specific gun laws.

Is there something wrong with this approach?

[HappyMe]

7. I am not a one issue voter.

I find it laughable that you think he needs to be educated.

[boston bean]

8. I think he understands.

It would have been votes that cost him politically if he voted otherwise. He is not above playing politics to get elected. He is not some perfect human being or perfect candidate. It would serve some well to recognize that.

[Dawgs]

15. Much closer to a Democrat than Hillary has ever been.

And, no one has said he was the perfect human or candidate.

[boston bean]

21. I don't agree that Hillary is less of a democrat.

[rhett o rick]

37. You make a good point. The definition of Democrat seems to have changed since the DLC became

involved. They have tried to change the definition to include helping Republicons wage illegal wars, helping Wall Street over Main Street, supporting the deregulation of the all powerful NSA/CIA Security State, foreign policies that excite the neocons, fracking, Free Trade, etc.

IMO a democrat should not support the environmental damage of fracking.

[Dawgs]

40. Then you either don't know Bernie or you don't know the history of the Democratic party.

Sorry, but it has to be one or the other.

[boston bean]

45. Really. My choice in democratic politics

Means I know nothing?

Ok

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. I went looking to see if he had any statements on gun violence other than a pro gun voting record

He has repeatedly voted for laws that keep people form winning lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut

But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should remember that the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton’s right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun control. During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.

Sanders, an economic populist and middle-class pugilist, doesn’t talk much about guns on the campaign trail. But his voting record paints the picture of a legislator who is both skeptical of gun control and invested in the interests of gun owners—and manufacturers. In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted against the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders supported bills to allow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns. Sanders is dubious that gun control could help prevent gun violence, telling one interviewer after Sandy Hook that “if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.” (He has since endorsed some modest gun control measures.)

I am not a single issue voter. This, however, changed me from intending to vote for Sanders in the primary back to seeing how all of our candidate compare on this and other issues.

[misterhighwasted]

12. [phone]. ^THIS^

Makes a very big difference to a lot of people in this country.
Some voters, meh, not so much, some applaud his siding with gun owners & manufacturers, & a good number of voters absolutely recoil at his decisions on guns in America.
For those it is indeed a deal breaker.
It is.

[Brainstormy]

19. It's a deal breaker for me

Glad to have learned this on DU. I like Bernie. But I won't contribute to his campaign now.

[misterhighwasted]

27. Same here. Thanks DU for enlightening us.

It is a very touchy subject.
Makes me also look to another candidate more suitable to my desires for my Country.
It is not something I want a compromise on.

Next?

[boston bean]

43. One shouldn't be pro gun lobby either, imho.

But I guess we each found the candidate that we support anyhow.

[misterhighwasted]

49. Yes we did.

Hi bbean

[jeff47]

54. Should Ford be sued if a drunk driver kills someone while driving an F150?

Manufacturers are not liable for people misusing their products. Just like Ford can't be sued if a drunk driver kills someone using an F150, gun manufacturers can't be sued for someone misusing their product. Murder and suicide have already been ruled as misuse of a firearm.

So you know what would have happened if those Sandy Hook parents had actually sued? They would have lost the case. Though you could have screamed about the horror of those parents having to pay legal fees to the manufacturers

I am not a single issue voter.

Yeah, you're so moderate you didn't bother to find out Sanders's actual record on the subject. He voted for the assault weapons ban. He voted for limiting clip sizes. He voted against cutting a 3-day waiting period to 1-day.

Nor did you bother to go find his "F" rating from the NRA. Such a gun nut that the gun lobby hates him.

[DanTex]

71. Do you think gun manufacturers need special immunity from prosecution?

Because that's what this is about. A special law that pertains only to the gun industry, absolving them specifically of liability, which the NRA pushed because they were afraid that gun manufacturers were going to lose some lawsuits, and which Bernie obliged and voted for. If it were a general principle, like you say, then it should be covered by a general law further shielding corporations from liability, because, you know, those poor corporations need all the help they can get. But otherwise, it's hard to rail against the evils of corporate power while at the same time defending the "rights" of gun manufacturers specifcally.

It's really sad to see DUers parroting NRA talking points all because of Bernie. He's a great candidate, but he's wrong on guns.

[jeff47]

78. It's not prosecution. It's a civil suit.

Prosecution is what the government does. But calling it "immunity from prosecution" sure makes it sound worse, doesn't it?

The gun manufacturers were already not liable. What some gun control activists wanted to do was file enough nuisance lawsuits to try and drive gun manufacturers out of business. By vastly underestimating the wealth of gun manufacturers, and ignoring that the victims they would be exploiting would be bankrupted.

But so what if that family in Colorado lost their 11-year old daughter and now also has to pay $200k in legal fees. Those lawsuits were gonna totally shut down a multi-billion dollar industry!!!

If it were a general principle, like you say, then it should be covered by a general law further shielding corporations from liability

Might wanna wipe up the spittle first. It makes for a more coherent argument.

I believe your question here is why is the law needed if manufacturers are already immune? Because of the stage when the lawsuit ends. Without this law, the lawsuit would proceed pretty far before it was thrown out of court. Which means crime victims get to pay a lot more money to the manufacturers they just sued. The law cuts it off faster, so that the manufacturer probably won't bother counter-suing.

It's really sad to see DUers parroting NRA talking points all because of Bernie

You mean the guy the NRA gives an "F"? Golly, they totally must be NRA supporters if they're helping a guy the NRA hates!!!

Oh, you also left out that Sanders voted for the assault weapons ban, for limiting clip sizes, and against reducing handgun waiting period from 3 days to 1. How's that fit into your "NRA talking points"?

So, actual gun control: Sanders voted for it. Fantasies about bankrupting a multi-billion dollar industry that would cost victim's families millions? Sanders voted against it. Yeah, that's awful.

[DanTex]

83. Good point. Do you think they need special civil immunity? It looks like you do!

Which is great. Nice to see some DUers stand up for corporations. Especially gun companies, who create so much goodness and are so underappreciated.

The gun manufacturers were already not liable. What some gun control activists wanted to do was file enough nuisance lawsuits to try and drive gun manufacturers out of business. By vastly underestimating the wealth of gun manufacturers, and ignoring that the victims they would be exploiting would be bankrupted.

Well, if this were true, then there wouldn't be any need for a special law, would there? The "nuisance lawsuits" nonsense is straight from the NRA. If you actually file nuisance lawsuits, then you end up liable for the legal fees of the person you are harassing. The reason the NRA wanted this law, is because (as everyone knows), they were afraid that the gun companies were going to lose.

I have to ask, were you an NRA apologist before Bernie Sanders, or is this a new thing for you?

But so what if that family in Colorado lost their 11-year old daughter and now also has to pay $200k in legal fees. Those lawsuits were gonna totally shut down a multi-billion dollar industry!!!

LOL! So now you're pretending to be protecting the victims of gun violence! I'm sure they appreciate it. Nothing better than having the NRA decide for you whether or not you are allowed to file a lawsuit. It's for their own good! It's not protecting gun companies at all? I don't even think the NRA was loony enough to try this argument.

In fact, they weren't. What they were most afraid of is lawsuits from DAs, which looked like they were gaining traction, because the gun industry, of course, does knowingly profit from putting guns in the hands of criminals. And now they can keep doing so without worrying about being sued. Yay Bernie!

You mean the guy the NRA gives an "F"? Golly, they totally must be NRA supporters if they're helping a guy the NRA hates!!!

Another phenomenal argument. Like the fact that the entire GOP hates Clinton with a burning passion. Must mean that she is some kind of socialist peacenik, huh? Obviously!

So, actual gun control: Sanders voted for it.

No, he didn't. He voted agains the Brady Bill. You know, the first federal law to require any kind of background checks at all? Yeah, Bernie was against that. It's nuts that people are defending this.

[jeff47]

90. Apparently, you think bankrupting victims of gun violence is a good idea.

Seriously, you need to sit down and think about what you are arguing. Someone's daughter died in the movie theater shooting in Colorado. They filed a lawsuit like this. They lost. They now owe the manufacturers $200,000 in legal fees. On top of losing their 11-year-old daughter.

THAT is what you are supporting. Bankrupting families that are already going through horrific pain.

The reason the NRA wanted this law, is because (as everyone knows), they were afraid that the gun companies were going to lose.

Based on what? Again, can you sue Ford, and win, if a drunk driver hits you in an F150?

Just because it's a gun doesn't magically mean you can win such a lawsuit.

What they were most afraid of is lawsuits from DAs, which looked like they were gaining traction, because the gun industry, of course, does knowingly profit from putting guns in the hands of criminals.

Sorry, no. Gun manufacturers do not sell to individuals. Federal law already required them to sell to federally-licensed dealers. As a result, it is impossible for a gun manufacturer to "put guns in the hands of criminals" - only a dealer can. If you managed to find a manufacturer selling directly to the public, you've now got a very large criminal case. Not a lawsuit to be filed by a victim.

Btw, as long as those dealers followed federal and state laws, they were already shielded from liability.

But you could still file a suit against them. And lose. And then go find the next victim to exploit and bankrupt.

Another phenomenal argument. Like the fact that the entire GOP hates Clinton with a burning passion. Must mean that she is some kind of socialist peacenik, huh? Obviously!

When you claim Sanders is fighting for the NRA, their hatred of Sanders is quite relevant. It kinda demonstrates you're wrong.

No, he didn't. He voted agains the Brady Bill. You know, the first federal law to require any kind of background checks at all? Yeah, Bernie was against that. It's nuts that people are defending this.

Guess what? He voted for other universal background check bills. Golly, it's almost like he's for universal background checks, but didn't like some details of the Brady bill.

Oh sorry. Tried to actually use nuance.

[DanTex]

95. That is an insane argument. Literally you want to "protect" people by denying them access

to the courts. For their own good! It's almost Cliven-Bundy level in it's absurdity.

Yes, I am thinking that people should be able to decide for themselves whether they think they have a case. Not you, nor I, and certainly not the NRA. And I am also thinking that the gun companies should play by the same rules as everyone else. You still haven't answered that question, by the way.

Why shouldn't gun manufacturers play by the same rules as everyone else?

I can understand why don't want to: because there is no answer. Obviously, you think that gun manufacturers are beyond reproach, which is fine, different strokes for different folks. But just as obviously, other people disagree and would like a jury to decide. And you want to deny them the opportunity. Because you know better?

It's actually amusing that even the NRA, which you are defending, disagrees with you. They were afraid of the lawsuits, and for good reason. Because it was looking like the gun companies were going to lose. If you think the NRA sponsored this bill to protect victims of gun violence by being tricked into filing hopeless lawsuits, you seriously live on a different planet.

[Eleanors38]

86. Do you want a Special Exception made for plaintiff lawyers? That's what the law prevents.

[DanTex]

89. Umm, what? The law doesn't "prevent" a "special exemption". It creates one.

The law makes the gun industry special. If it didn't, it wouldn't be about gun manufacturers specifically, and instead the gun companies would have to play by the same rules as anyone else. God forbid! Poor gun makers!

[Eleanors38]

100. Sorry, dead wrong. Read the court cases & rulings Before the law. nt

[DanTex]

104. LOL. You've been to the NRA's legal library have you?

It's funny that you're even trying to argue that a law that specifically protects the gun industry is anything but, you know, a law that specifically protects the gun industry.

[Eleanors38]

147. Ah, back to the labels & tags. Read the history and the rulings...

You and other controllers want what is in reality a special dispensation to sue one industry beyond product liability, from which no industry is exempt. You couldn't legislate control, so you went to the courts. The courts have not ruled favorably for your views, even Before the law.

[sarisataka]

110. Not great special immunity

If it still allows suits to proceed
According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence-

There are six exceptions to the blanket civil immunity provided by the PLCAA:
(1) an action brought against someone convicted of “knowingly transfer[ing] a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence” by someone directly harmed by such unlawful conduct;
(2) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(3) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;3
(4) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
(6) an action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.4

Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary, 875 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. App. 2007): The City of Gary, Indiana brought a public nuisance claim against various gun manufacturers and distributors. Specifically, the City alleged that the defendants knowingly sold guns to straw purchasers who, in turn, sold guns to known criminals. The evidence supporting the claim was derived from a sting operation conducted by the City’s police department.
The Indiana Court of Appeals allowed the suit to proceed over the PLCAA defense raised by the firearms industry. In particular, it rejected the firearms industry’s argument that the term “applicable” is limited to statutes that are targeted to the gun industry, finding instead that “on the face of the [predicate exception], Indiana’s public nuisance statute appears applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms.”

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-industry-immunity-policy-summary/

[DanTex]

111. OK, so you think they need "ungreat" special immunity?

Nobody has even tried to explain to me why they think gun manufacturers shouldn't play by the same rules as anyone else. And it's remarkable that people are defending a law that makes corporations more difficult to hold accountable for their actions. Especially Bernie Sanders supporters.

[sarisataka]

113. I would support limited immunity

For industries targeted by coordinated, municipal sponsored bad faith suits.

Mayor Richard Daley spread the gospel of gun control Thursday, encouraging colleagues from the U.S. Conference of Mayors to take the weapons industry to court as he has done.
***
Using a football analogy, New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial said Thursday that "Rich Daley and I had to throw deep" against the gun industry to encourage officials from other cities to join in the offensive.
***
"I think the interest that ties us all together is our concern about the pattern of singling out a politically unpopular industry, demonizing it," seeking to restructure it, "and then moving on," said Daniel Polsby, a Northwestern University law professor and member of the panel.

"I don't think these lawsuits are being brought in good faith," he said. "I don't think people think they will prevail on the merits, but to pile costs on the firearms industry."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-12-11/news/9812110234_1_gun-lawsuit-second-amendment-foundation-anti-gun-movement

This "going deep" has contributed bags of money to the NRA and other pro gun organization at the taxpayers expense.

[DanTex]

116. At least making a general law that isn't specific to the gun industry would be less obviously wrong.

In general, I don't think that making it more difficult to hold corporations accountable is a good thing. YMMV. I'm not sure where you stand on Bernie Sanders, but for someone like him or his supporters to support something like this is utterly hypocritical.

[sarisataka]

118. I'm not sure on Bernie yet

I like his Socialist views but there are electability issues. Also due to his age his VP choice is not insignificant.

In general I despise Corporation however openly allowing coordinated questionable lawsuits can result in unintended consequences. I could see certain groups using that against manufacturers of birth control and other such products.

Properly the PLCCA should not be specific to the firearm industry but extend to all lawful products.

[Exilednight]

135. Does Ford have a car called cop killer? n/t

[jeff47]

136. The Police Interceptor was discontinued. (nt)

[NYC_SKP]

65. He joined 69 Democrats in the House in voting against the Brady Bill.

The 69 smart ones.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll564.xml

[Cheese Sandwich]

11. He does support gun control. Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

But of course that would stop Hillary supporters from trying to smear him ever gun control.

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.”

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

[misterhighwasted]

18. Why is this a smear! I align with many many American voters who want

.more control of guns & gun manufacturers.

This is fact. Hardly a smear.
Get used to it, it certainly is a very big issue & a big enough one that brings it rightfully to the voter's attention.

This will not dissapear because you want to minimize it.
He will need to address it.

[Cheese Sandwich]

25. OK but Bernie voted for expanded background checks, and the assault weapons ban

Some people want to act like Bernie Sanders is a gun nut who is against any gun control and always votes with the NRA.

It simply isn't true.

For one thing I think his position has evolved over time. So if people want to be honest, they will look at his more current ideas. Those are much more important than something from 20 years ago.

For another thing he has not always agreed with the most strident anti-gun people. I'm OK with that. I don't want to ban all guns, and neither do most Americans. Most Americans support background checks, and banning assault weapons. Bernie is right on the same page with America on this issue, as with so many others.

[misterhighwasted]

31. LOL..A Bernie supporter on DU pointed out that Bernie didn't need to evolve.

Yup. Just the other day.
I made a statement that I preferred a candidate who could evolve from old worn policies and show me willingness to address demands of the present world.

Bernie doesn't need to evolve. I guess the poster thinks he is completely self actualized.

Just mentioning this, and appreciate that you do believe people can evolve with the demands of time.
It is what a leader does for their people.

[beevul]

13. What should he say when you tell him that aproximately 922780 of those deaths are self inflicted?

What should he say when you tell him that aproximately 922780 of those deaths are self inflicted?


You will educate him on that, right?

[aikoaiko]

16. Bernie voted for universal background checks after Sandy Hook.

Don't worry, he'll regress to the mean as he takes a national role.

But let's be clear that people may have preferences for some specific new gun control, but they are not burning issues for most Americans.

The failure of post-Sandy Hook gun control efforts has pretty much taken the wind out of the gun control sails. They left to pick on Kroger.

[cali]

22. 6 out of ten gun deaths are suicides

And the U.S. is the proximate cause of a million+ deaths in Iraq alone. It's not only American lives that have value. And our perpetual wars and the enormous war machine that perpetrates it have steep costs here at home- and not only in terms of dollars.

It's essentially a stupid comparison,but given the choice between no Iraq war and more comprehensive background checks and mental health screening for gun purchases, I'll go for no war.

Having said that Bernie's vote for not allowing law suits against gun manufacturers except for product defect, stinks. He has voted for increasing background checks, assault weapon ban. And i have no problem with allowing guns in checked bags on trains.

I do not support extensive one size fits all states federal gun control like,for example, a federal ban on concealed or open carry without a license.

[DanTex]

77. Great to see you realize that not only American lives have value.

Because in terms of the damage to America, there isn't any question that gun violence is a much bigger problem than the wars. It's a different order of magnitude. Yeah, people like to ignore it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

But, yes, non-American lives matter as well. Too bad you don't feel the same way when it comes to, say, free trade...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026607144

And by the way, many studies have found that gun availability significantly increases suicide rates. Ordinarily, progressives would tend to believe that reducing suicide rates would constitute "saving lives", but obviously not when defending Bernie Sanders is concerned.

Also the economic costs of gun violence are estimated at over $100Billion per year.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-21/shootings-costing-u-s-174-billion-show-burden-of-gun-violence

[Eleanors38]

85. Of "education" on gun issues, the special exception sought by banners is a worthy start...

No gun manufacturer is exempt from consequential damages due to firearm malfunction, any more than GM is exempt from ignition switch failure. But no one is going to sue Honda for the crime/damages of driving a car into a crowd of people. There is a history well before the Lawful Commerce act of plaintiffs during any deep pockets when someone misuses a gun. These many efforts went for NOUGHT well before the law was enacted. We can reasonably conclude these failed efforts were motivated by those wanting to restrict/ban guns even more than to win monetary largesse. The judges saw through that. Read the recorded history of these "suits." I don't think Sanders needs to.

[Eleanors38]

88. But the Japanese do find a way, sans guns.

[NCTraveler]

23. He is a politician who knows his base.

He doesn't need to be educated to take a different stand. He is a very smart man. This is a political position for him. I do think he can/should be pushed on a national level. I kind of think that is what you mean by your op. He is asking to lead the country, not his state. I hope this is an are where he will evolve. Might depend on the states his advisor's tell him he needs to be strongest in during the primary.

[Oktober]

24. It's a tertiary issue at best..

... And a sure loser.

[jwirr]

26. I heard his answer last night - he is aware of the fact that up until now he represented the state

of Vermont and he is aware that there is a difference between representing Vermont and representing the entire country.

That answer makes a lot of sense to me.

[Snotcicles]

28. I watched that too and I'm comfortable with what he said. nt

[deutsey]

30. +1

I had not heard that.

Thanks for posting it!

[BrotherIvan]

34. That is an excellent answer

If you have video, that would make a great thread in both the Bernie group and GD.

I do think gun control is a VERY serious issue and way up there on my list. I expect Bernie to "evolve" on guns as he continues his campaign. I am not shocked though that this is the issue the opponent's camp is hanging onto like a pitbull because there is very little in his record to attack.

[jwirr]

50. It was on MSNBC last night but I don't remember which of the programs.

[ms liberty]

125. Chris Hayes had him on; I saw it and he did say that. Nn/t

[whatchamacallit]

29. What sick narcissism allows Americans to only ever count American deaths?

Millions of men, women, and children (many innocent) died in those conflicts. Your thread is a disturbing fail.

[NuclearDem]

41. Counting numbers of Americans killed in American wars

and comparing that number to the numbers of Americans killed by American gun violence is not outrageous.

Sorry, but that's the weakest sauce outrage I've seen recently.

[whatchamacallit]

55. If the point of the stats is to prove American gun violence

is more deadly (as in how many people died) than all our wars combined, the total number of deaths in those conflicts must be factored. Arbitrarily limiting it to American casualties is accounting slight of hand. Bizarre, inaccurate, and in a larger human context, disturbing.

[NuclearDem]

72. No, it's to illustrate how gun violence in this country over only 50 years

is responsible for more American deaths than all the major wars the US has been involved in since its beginning.

Its a comparison between what has killed more Americans. You're reading too much into it.

[whatchamacallit]

81. Context

This OP is obviously an attempt to shift the heat Hillary's been taking for her hawkish baggage, including her IWR vote, to Bernie for his gun votes. The question being whose positions and votes contributed, directly or indirectly, to more deaths? In that context, restricting it to the subset of American deaths gives Hillary an unfair advantage.

[NuclearDem]

98. No, it's not.

Not everything is about Clinton.

If Sanders is elected, and there inevitably comes another mass shooting, some people want to have a fierce massacre prevention advocate in the White House.

You're the one making the comparison to Clinton and putting words in the OP's mouth.

[yeoman6987]

61. We're talking American politics so yes the poster is correct

to only count American deaths in this instant. If you run for office of the world then you came use world statistics. As of now American statistics for this is accurate.

[whatchamacallit]

66. Pointless distinction

American wars kill lots of people. All kinds of people. Discounting those statistics on the basis of "we're talking American stuff" is absurd if the idea is prove which is deadlier.

[arcane1]

32. What do we need to teach him?

I understand that he thinks background checks should be a matter for the states, not the feds, but I don't really know which option is better

[magical thyme]

33. his record is mixed because his votes are nuanced.

In a nutshell, he believes that some gun control should be left up to the states. There is a good reason for that. Guns in the middle of a major city are not the same thing as guns in rural states where many people really do depend on hunting and fishing to feed their families and where shooting deaths are rare.

I know for a fact that I have neighbors who depend on it. In fact, when somebody hit a doe right in front of my house (she dragged herself across my front yard and died in my raspberry bushes), the cop asked me if I'd let a family come get her body because they could use the meat.

Re: his vote on lawsuits against gun manufacturers, he didn't believe those suit were winnable, and they would open the door to the manufacturers suing the victims for legal expenses.

"In the House of Representatives, Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns.

Soon after, he voted yes for the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that included an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=6636521

[Throd]

38. That's rather presumptuous. What if he honestly disagrees with you on the issue?

[AgingAmerican]

39. Which candidate has to evolve toward the others positions?

Bernie, or Hillary?

[AgingAmerican]

42. "More Americans have died from guns since 1968 than all wars COMBINED"

16 million died in World War 1 alone.

ALL WARS combined?

[Cali_Democrat]

48. "Americans"

nt

[AgingAmerican]

51. Huh, what?

Thanks for the non clarification.

[Cali_Democrat]

52. You're welcome, buddy. nt

[boston bean]

53. a good bet would be that a good portion of the 16M figure

We're killed by something like a gun or bullet.

[jeff47]

56. Actually, no. Disease killed more than guns or bombs. (nt)

[boston bean]

57. Thanks for the info.

[Eleanors38]

91. That was the case in the Spanish-American War, and perhaps WWI.

[jeff47]

92. Basically, all of the wars involving the US until WWII.

Now, I don't know how many of those diseases were caused by the effects of bullets and similar - infected wounds killed a hell of a lot of people in the civil war, for example.

[AgingAmerican]

60. What huh?

Obfuscate much?

[boston bean]

62. No.

[Thinkingabout]

84. I thought this is an interesting fact. The statistics on gun deaths was from 1968.

This is a troubling statistics, many of these deaths could be avoided but the NRA is much more interested in selling guns than teaching safety. They have used scare tactics but not a lot of safety.

[Eleanors38]

93. Since that time, gun deaths have gone down; while population has gone up.

[Thinkingabout]

94. It is too many deaths by guns. Are you thinking gun deaths isxa population control?

[Eleanors38]

99. Gosh, I think fewer gun deaths would be a good thing. Sheesh...

Gun deaths have gone down steeply, the population is up some 100,000,000 more. That's a REAL and a RELATIVE relationship.

And the number of guns has gone up 100,000,000+ in the last 20 yrs. alone.

Prohibition is a losing cause.

[Whiskeytide]

44. Sanders is NOT against gun control or...

... reasonable restrictions on gun rights. He has pretty consistently voted FOR them. Here's his record according to what appears to be an NRA sponsored site (So I'm not linking it):


Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.
(I'm good with that)

Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.
(OK. They're legal. In the checked baggage is where I'd prefer them to be)

Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.
(Not really sure what this one was about, but I don't see it as rabidly "pro-gun&quot

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
(I'm good with this one).


The votes that are apparently the genesis for the "Bernie supports gun manufacturers" are his votes to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits for deaths or injuries caused by people misusing the guns . This is how those two are described:

Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.

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

Both of these votes are actually based on decades of tort law that basically says a manufacturer is not liable for damage caused by the misuse of their product. Killing someone without cause, or committing suicide has been defined as "misuse". We can argue that all day - BUT it's currently the accepted law, and the votes for these two bills merely reflect the recognition of that fact. Importantly, the bills don't give immunity for a defective gun - so they don't really extend or augment the protections already possessed by the gun industry under the common law.

This voting record has apparently earned Sanders an "F" rating from the NRA. I don't think their "F" rating stands for "Freakin' Gun Nut" or "Friend of the NRA".

Criticizing Sanders for these votes, and labeling him a gun nut, is at best just silly, and at worst disingenuous. IMO, anyway.

[NYC_SKP]

63. Re: confusing foreign aid amendment that Sanders, Kerry, Klobuchar, Feingold, et al, voted Yes on:

Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.
Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State's International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. VITTER: This is a straight funding limitation amendment. Many folks who haven't followed the proceedings on this in the U.N. may ask: What is this all about? Unfortunately, it is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat, back to 1995. In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. The Vitter amendment simply says we are not going to support any international organization that requires a registration of US citizens' guns or taxes US citizens' guns. If other folks in this Chamber think that is not happening, that it is never going to happen, my reply is simple and straightforward: Great, then this language has no effect. It is no harm to pass it as a failsafe. It has no impact. But, in fact, related efforts have been going on in the U.N. since at least 1995. I hope this can get very wide, bipartisan support, and I urge all my colleagues to support this very fundamental, straightforward amendment.

No opponents spoke against the bill.
Reference: Vitter Amendment to State Dept. Appropriations Bill; Bill S.Amdt. 2774 to H.R. 2764 ; vote number 2007-321 on Sep 6, 2007

Voting YES with Sanders were several good Democrats like John Kerry, Amy Klobuchar, Russ Feingold, others:

http://www.ontheissues.org/SenateVote/Party_2007-321.htm

[jeff47]

46. You realize the bulk of those deaths before WWII were due to infectious diseases, right? (nt)

[NYC_SKP]

47. No. People need to be calm and read up on what he actually voted for and against.

The number of deaths has nothing to do with the fact that if a citizen sues a manufacturer of a legal and safe product due to the illegal use of it, and loses, they may go bankrupt paying the defendant's legal costs.

And, if they win, there might be a flood of lawsuits against car makers, tool makers, and any number of other manufacturers of legal products.

Parents lost daughter to mass shooter, now owe $220,000 to his suppliers

From Westlaw Journal Computer & Internet: The mother and stepfather of a 24-year-old woman killed in a Colorado movie theater mass shooting not only can’t sue the websites where gunman James Holmes bought his ammunition and equipment, but now they may owe two of the businesses more than $220,000 in legal costs.

Senior U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch of the District of Colorado dismissed Sandy and Lonnie Phillips’ suit against four websites because Colorado and federal laws shield firearms and ammunition sellers from liability based on a customer’s wrongful acts. Phillips et al. v. Lucky Gunner LLC et al., No. 14–cv–02822, 2015 WL 1499382 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2015).

The judge also ordered the couple, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi died along with 11 other people during Holmes’ July 2012 shooting rampage, to pick up the legal bills for defendants Lucky Gunner LLC and Sportsman’s Guide.

In doing so, the judge followed a subsection of a Colorado law requiring plaintiffs to pay fees and costs to defendants in cases against gun and ammunition sellers.

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/parents-lost-daughter-mass-shooter-now-owe-220000-suppliers/

[L0oniX]

58. The NRA gives him an "F". It doesn't get lower than that ...but enjoy the ranting.

[yellowcanine]

67. Not sure we should be using the NRA rating as a guide.

They pretty much give everybody an F who ever votes for any gun restrictions at all.

So yes it can get "lower than that." Sanders voted against the Brady Bill. That is pretty low.

[L0oniX]

70. Is it lower than being a war hawk?

[yellowcanine]

73. Not the question, is it now? Nice diversion from the topic at hand though.

In case you have forgotten, the topic is gun control.

[LittleBlue]

68. Total deaths... including suicides?

Find some valid statistics. Until then, your argument isn't worthy of consideration

[Eleanors38]

69. I think Bernie Sanders has probably seen what passes for "edumacation" on this...

He would be well advised to steer clear of trying to lead with this controller/prohibitionist issue. He has a good common sense approach to guns which protects American citizens' RKBA. His is a liberal stance on 2A.

[WDIM]

74. To the OP can you show where gun laws

Have reduced gun violence?

Your numbers show that death from firearms has stayed consistent since 1968 and that is even with the Brady Bill being passed in the 90s.

Instead of focusing on gun control and more police state powers we need to focus on education. Focus on community and mental health and economic prosperity for all citizens. We need to get at the root of why there is violence not just take away the tools of violence but promote peace and the oneness of all mankind.

Pulling the trigger is a choice and we need to stop people from wanting to make that choice and that starts with our culture as a whole.

Simply passing more gun laws accomplishes nothing.

[NuclearDem]

109. The UK and Australia.

In those civilized countries, when a psycho went on a shooting spree, they put a fucking stop to it.

[Autumn]

75. If I accidentally eat a product containing peanut I guess I should sue every peanut farmer that

grows peanuts. Bernie has voted for the assault weapons ban, back ground checks and if I remember correctly he voted to limit clip sizes. Nice try though.

[Cali_Democrat]

82. The cult of personality thing is going on here

It's quite interesting to see the hardcore Bernie supporters aligning themselves with the hardcore gunners on this issue.

This is an important issue for many Dems. Blowing it off is not a smart thing to do. Getting Bernie to move on this issue is smart, at least when it comes to the primaries.

Bernie will have to answer questions about his previous votes. Remember when Bernie and Warren were catching hell in town halls last year because of their support for Israel's invasion of Gaza?

This would be much worse.

[Autumn]

96. I don't see that but I don't know who or what gunners are, I have those groups trashed.

I own guns, and like Bernie Sanders I support an assault weapons ban, small clips and background checks. I think Bernie's vote on the law suit was the right thing to do. A bill allowing law suits against a gun manufacturer was just fucking stupid. What are they gonna go after next? Silverware manufactures because knives can kill also? Talking about previous votes. Yeah I remember Israel's invasion of Gaza. Bernie and Warren didn't vote to allow that. You remember Americas invasion of Iraq? Yeah I remember that. Real well. It was voted on. Bernie no, Hillary yes.

[Eleanors38]

97. "Cult of personality?" Never met the guy. I like Warren, too. But her gun record is not good...

You have noticed a trend of more liberal progressive Democrats here being perhaps less concerned with the importance and advisability of running on gun control. I consider this a positive trend, though you seem to think the "alignment" should be a negative on its own. The brush maybe broad, but the paint is thin.

[NuclearDem]

108. Uh, no. That's not what the lawsuits against manufacturers were about.

They were about manufacturers continuing to stock irresponsible or borderline criminal dealers flaunting background checks or otherwise funneling weapons to criminals.

Any responsible manufacturer would have stopped doing business with people who were arming criminals, but the manufacturers kept going, and people sued them for it.

So, no, it's not at all like the strawman you put forward.

[HassleCat]

79. Maybe He Knows

Maybe he knows what I know, that pushing gun control legislation is fruitless. The 2nd Amendment offers nearly blanket protection to firearms owners, so it just results in lots of useless squabbling without making firearms less available to bad people.

[CanadaexPat]

87. After Heller, is there must legislating that can be done on gun control?

I had thought that pretty much ended the possibility of meaningful gun control legislation.

[sarisataka]

103. Not at all

Heller merely said than outright bans on private ownership or restrictions so onerous that they are de facto bans are prohibited.

Most gun control is completely Constitutional.

[CanadaexPat]

115. Thanks.

[PeteSelman]

114. He's got a tough enough row to hoe as it is.

Why make it more difficult by tying an albatross around his neck?

Gun control is a loser, period.

[Koinos]

119. National Interest

Apparently, Bernie has already spoken about shifting his focus from what is good for Vermont to what is good for the country. He is willing to evolve and change his views for the sake of progressives nationally. I think that a number of pro-gun loyalists should prepare to support the changes he is willing to make. They are not making it easier for him if they insist that he stick with former positions against gun control, such as opposition to the Brady bill. Bernie has already said this is not a big issue for him, and I don't think even hunters from Vermont will cease to support him if he toughens his stand in the direction of strict federal gun control.

All of this talk about choosing between deaths from war in the Middle East and gun deaths at home seems rather silly. Progressives can oppose both at the same time. We can oppose both the war culture abroad and the gun culture at home. If stubbornness of Bernie's supporters makes it appear that he is more pro-gun than he really is, Hillary will move to Bernie's left and declare that she is in favor of tougher gun laws. That will give the appearance that Hillary is more liberal than Bernie on at least this one issue that will be important to at least some progressives nationwide.

I am a non-violent pacifist, and all this pro second-amendment talk by "progressives" is beginning to make me ill. It almost makes it look as if there is a pro-gun progressive movement. Frankly, I will be glad when Bernie speaks up and says, for the good of the nation, we have to do something about the proliferation of guns and the influence of the NRA, who would sell handguns to toddlers if they could. Someone needs to go against the NRA, as much as other corporate interests.

[Koinos]

120. The Green Party

I would like to make a further point: Bernie already has the attention of the Green Party. I think they would like to find a reason to support a democratic candidate of like-minded values. They are opposed to violence and are in favor of strict gun control laws. Here are the principles of the Iowa Green Party:

http://www.greens.org/iowa/peaceshorter.html

I think that any candidate that comes close to these principles will have a better chance of garnering these votes.

[Cali_Democrat]

121. Thank you, Koinos!

[Koinos]

124. You're Welcome!

[mmonk]

123. And it's my time to tell you rule by Goldman Sachs has to end now.

It leads to the economic disparities that increase violence and racism and all scapegoating. Have I EDUCATED YOU?

[Koinos]

127. I like your sig line. Robert Kennedy was quite special.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023744646

[etherealtruth]

126. People can evolve

I will vote for the Democratic candidate ... but have faith in their potential for learning and growth

[Koinos]

128. John Dewey

I think of John Dewey's faith in human nature as the basis of striving for the common goal of the democratic ideal.

[etherealtruth]

130. Another U of M Alum ...

A belated welcome to DU, to you

[Koinos]

131. Thank you for the kind welcome.

[seveneyes]

132. Education requires knowledge above emotion

Those wishing to disarm law abiding and sane citizens have shown the lesser.

[GGJohn]

139. Bernie needs to see the light, Bernie needs to be educated.

By who? You?
What the hell makes you think he doesn't see the light? Isn't educated on the gun issue?
Just because he doesn't agree with your version of gun control doesn't mean he's dim or uneducated on the issue.

[Puzzledtraveller]

146. Got to love that talk.

I wonder if there is a camp for that. Perhaps he can be kidnapped, have his eyes forced open and made to watch scenes of gun violence.

[Bonobo]

141. Agreed, but I also think suing gun manufacturers is weird and inappropriate.

Guns are DESIGNED to kill people.

Better to get rid of the fucking things or make people get insurance policies on them.

[Puzzledtraveller]

144. I think Bernie knows more than I do.

about a lot of things. I accept his position on guns as they are.

[True Blue Door]

148. The issue isn't insignificant. But it's mostly an issue for Congress.

I see no reason to base presidential election decisions on it.