Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

stone space

(6,498 posts)
Tue Oct 13, 2015, 06:16 AM Oct 2015

Sanders now says he's willing to reconsider holding gun manufacturers liable for gun deaths.

Monday, Oct 12, 2015 10:37 AM CDT

Bernie Sanders flips on crucial gun control position days ahead of the first Democratic debate

Sanders now says he's willing to reconsider holding gun manufacturers liable for gun deaths


This week, it is Bernie Sanders’s reconsideration of his longstanding opposition to holding gun manufacturers liable for gun deaths in the wake of a rash of school shootings.

Sanders cited two shootings Friday at universities in Arizona and Texas as well as last week’s slayings at an Oregon community college when he told NBC’s Chuck Todd during a “Meet the Press” interview on Sunday that he’d take another look at his past position. In 2005, Sanders supported legislation protecting gun manufacturers from civil liability lawsuits.

“That was a complicated vote and I’m willing to see changes in that provision,” Sanders said. “Here’s the reason I voted the way I voted: If you are a gun shop owner in Vermont and you sell somebody a gun and that person flips out and then kills somebody, I don’t think it’s really fair to hold that person responsible, the gun shop owner.”

“On the other hand, where there is a problem, is there is evidence that manufacturers, gun manufacturers, do know that they’re selling a whole lot of guns in an area that really should not be buying that many guns, that many of those guns are going to other areas, probably for criminal purposes?” he asked. “So, can we take another look at that liability issue? Yes.”


Sanders now says he's willing to reconsider holding gun manufacturers liable for gun deaths. (Original Post) stone space Oct 2015 OP
I would disagree with that. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #1
Arms manufacturers need to be held liable for the carnage they impose on society. (nt) stone space Oct 2015 #2
I disagree, it's a bad precedent. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #4
Tell that to the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin. L0oniX Oct 2015 #8
Good idea. Them, too. stone space Oct 2015 #13
I agree Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #3
Ditto. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Oct 2015 #6
One thing to note Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #5
I really feel like this OP TM99 Oct 2015 #7
Seriously? Why would you lock this thread? stone space Oct 2015 #10
It is not an entirely factual TM99 Oct 2015 #11
I agree. stone space Oct 2015 #12
I don't know about this. I like the car analogy in_cog_ni_to Oct 2015 #9


(17,064 posts)
1. I would disagree with that.
Tue Oct 13, 2015, 06:48 AM
Oct 2015

I think his earlier position was legally correct, but either way isn't a deal-breaker for me.



(17,064 posts)
4. I disagree, it's a bad precedent.
Tue Oct 13, 2015, 07:08 AM
Oct 2015

The manufacturing of firearms is legal, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Liability should extend towards defective product. Otherwise, liability law will be turned upside down. Automakers will be held responsible for drunk drivers, Folgers will be held responsible for coffee spill burns, who knows where it will end. Bad legal precedent.


stone space

(6,498 posts)
13. Good idea. Them, too.
Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:11 PM
Oct 2015
Tell that to the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin.

It's just a question of responsibility.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
6. Ditto.
Tue Oct 13, 2015, 07:53 AM
Oct 2015

As much as I dislike all the yahoos running around with firearms, it makes no more sense to go after manufacturers for liability issues than car manufacturers when somebody does a hit and run or slams into and over a crowd of people. The proper solution is far stricter limits on who gets guns and how they're used, just like you have all sorts of red tape on who gets to have and play with other potential WMD biologically hazardous materials like smallpox or plutonium.



(5,417 posts)
5. One thing to note
Tue Oct 13, 2015, 07:18 AM
Oct 2015

Gun manufacturers dont sell guns to gun stores. Distributors do. Maybe the distributor knows that a certain area is buying a lot of guns, but that doesn't mean they are bought for illegal purposes.

Plus unless they get data from every distributor out there, they really dont even know if their sales in that area are higher. And even if it is higher is that illegal? What if that are just buys more guns? Should we then refuse to sell all guns?

If budweiser is drank in the most DUIs do we sue budweiser as well?



(8,352 posts)
7. I really feel like this OP
Tue Oct 13, 2015, 08:03 AM
Oct 2015

is more suited for GD: P or one of the gun forums.

Sanders has not flip flopped. He is not saying that he wants to turn over that vote. He asks some rhetorical questions, and then says we could look at certain liability aspects.

I will see how this goes for now, but if it gets into a 'gun nut', 'flip flopper' shit fling, I will lock the thread.


stone space

(6,498 posts)
10. Seriously? Why would you lock this thread?
Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:17 AM
Oct 2015

Seems to meet the SOP of this group.

Bernie's positions on gun safety are important issues for discussion.

Especially if he is evolving on the issue.

The mission of the Bernie Sanders Group is to discuss information and news about the life, career, accomplishments, and current campaign for the Democratic Party's Nomination in 2016 of Bernie Sanders. The Bernie Sanders Group will provide a haven for those members of Democratic Underground who support the Senator Sanders and his policies; to discuss his policy positions, speeches, interviews, and other public appearances; to discuss Senator Sanders 2016 Democratic nomination campaign; and to discuss the causes which Senator Sanders has championed.


(8,352 posts)
11. It is not an entirely factual
Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:27 AM
Oct 2015


He didn't 'evolve' or 'flip flop'.

He made one comment about revisiting aspects of that 2005 bill. He did not walk back a history of consistent moderate gun control.

And my concern is less about those aspects. Rather, I want to make sure that it is discussed without the normal bullshit that goes on out there in GD . I see it has been posted in other Groups so that is good.

This is a safe haven so I don't want it invaded with shit stirring. Discussion is absolutely fine. You can appreciate that right?


(41,600 posts)
9. I don't know about this. I like the car analogy
Tue Oct 13, 2015, 09:11 AM
Oct 2015

Do we hold car manufacturers responsible if a drunk driver gets behind the wheel of one of their cars and kills a bunch of people? No, we don't and most if us would see that as ridiculous. I think his initial Stance on it is correct. I really doubt any court is going to hold a gun manufacturer liable when a mentally ill person goes on a rampage with one of their guns. That's just not going to happen.

Thorough background checks and stringent mental health testing is the way to go. I also think the government should sponsor State gun buyback programs. Maybe cash up front for weapons and ammo and some kind of tax incentive if you never buy certain types of weapons like Assault Weapons. Destroy every gun that we buy back. Get them off our streets.

Also, every state could have Something like a ammo warehouse where people have to travel to get their ammo. Maybe 2 or 3 locations per state Either Federally or State run. Have limits to how much ammo people buy per hunting season and that's what they can buy. If people have to travel 5-6 hours to buy ammo, maybe going on that shooting spree will be a second thought. And, get rid of gun shows. Maybe have State or some kind of government run and REGULATED gun shows once or twice a year.

There needs to be SOME KIND OF CONTROL OVER GUNS AND AMMO. The U.S. has become the wild, wild West again...only worse because now we're dealing with military automatic assault weapons and not just pistols and rifles. Our forefathers NEVER, EVER envisioned this when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. They had muskets in mind.

There has to be a better way. Personally, I like how Europe deals with guns, but that's just me.

Just stuff that's been floating around in my head trying to think of ways to appease gun owners and save lives.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Sanders now says he's wil...