Bernie Sanders Doubles Down On Support for Law That Protects Gun Sellers From Lawsuits

[TomCADem]

I guess with Bernie winning Nevada, perhaps we should reconsider what it means to be progressive. For example, maybe we should consider joining the NRA and voting with gun makers.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/07/bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-support-for-gun-sellers.html

On Sunday, CNN’s Jake Tapper pressed Vermont senator and Democratic president candidate Bernie Sanders on his support for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA. As a senator, Sanders voted for the law, which shields gun and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from liability when their products are used criminally. (Many Democrats, including then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, opposed the bill.) Explaining his vote, Sanders said:

If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about.

[Cha]

1. I bet Fred Guttenberg is sad to see this.

[aikoaiko]

41. Very sad. I'm sure.

[Cha]

75. Yes.

[DanieRains]

2. I Agree

As long as all laws are followed.

[jg10003]

3. as long as a company follows the law then it should be protected by the law.

The problem is not that a company sells assault rifles, the problem is that the law allows them to do so.

[tecelote]

7. +1!

[SunSeeker]

8. Why shouldn't victims be able to sue if the company markets an unreasonably dangerous weapon?

The law also allows companies to sell dangerous toys. But companies tend not to. Why? Because they'd get their asses sued off. One kid got killed with lawn darts and the manufacturer mmediately pulled them off the market.

Marketing an assault rifle to the civilian population is unreasonably dangerous. There is no legitimate reason for a civilian to own one of those things, unlike a hammer.

I can't believe Bernie resorts to an NRA talking point like comparing guns to hammers. Hammers are not the weapon of choice of mass murderers. Our kids are not scared shitless doing "active hammerer drills." No, they live in fear of some nut mowing them down with an AR. ARs are specifically designed to kill large amounts of people quickly.

[jg10003]

14. Valid questions.

1] Adults are responsible for keeping children safe. Toys are for children, who are not expected to act in a responsible manner. Children not aware of dangers or the consequences of certain behaviors. Thus it is reasonable to expect toy manufactures to design their products for the safe use by children.

2] I agree that assault rifles should be banned, or at least modified to make them less lethal. However, current law allows these weapons to be sold to adults, who are expected to act legally and responsibly. If the product is sold to an adult in accordance with the law, it is the responsibility of the buyer to use the rifle in the legal manner for which it is intended (e.g. target shooting and self-defense.) If the legal owner of the assault rifle uses it in an illegal manner it is his responsibility, not the company who sold it. A Ferrari has only 2 seats, 800 horsepower, and has no legitimate reason for existing. But people buy them because they enjoy them. As long as the Ferrari owner obeys the law there is no problem. But if the Ferrari goes 150-mph through a school zone, is it the the fault of the Ferrari company or the driver?

3] Suing a gun manufacturer is pointless. As long as selling assault rifles is legal and profitable then someone is going to sell them.

P.S.; I live 3 miles from Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School. My neighbor's kids go there. My parents are buried in the same cemetery as one of the victims. I wish there were no guns sold anywhere. But I believe the law should protect all who obey it.

[SunSeeker]

18. Invalid answers.

1) Dumbass ADULTS bought those stupid toys for their children. Yet those adults were still able to sue the lawn dart manufacturer when their kid gets hurt with the stupid lawn darts the adult bought.

2) Oy. Not again with the old NRA gun/car analogy talking point. Seriously? Ferraris aren't designed to kill mass amounts of people quickly. They aren't designed to hurt or kill people at all. They aren't irresponsibly marketed to homicidal people. Ferraris are a form of transportation. ARs serve no other purpose than to slaughter lots of people quickly. You can bet if a Ferrari was manufactured with a sling shot controlled by the driver that lobbed metal bricks at the car in front of it, Ferrari would get successfully sued by a person injured by the driver using that legal but wildly inappropriate feature. And a car driver doing something illegal does not automatically get a car manufacturer off the hook, if a driver going that was reasonably foreseeable. You can bet if Ferrari drivers started going to schools to mow down kids going 150 mph, Ferrari would get sued. But Ferrari drivers don't do that. AR owners do. There's been a long deadly pattern of it since Columbine.

3) Suing would NOT be pointless. Suing gun manufacturers has the same point as suing manufacturers of dangerous consumer products. It gets the product off the street. Selling ARs will not be profitable if people can sue for damages from their irresponsible marketing, regardless if ARs are legal. Why the fuck do you think the NRA pushed to pass the PLCAA right in 2005, after the AR ban expired in 2004? Because they didn't want to be sued into bankruptcy for insanely selling those mass killing weapons to civilians. They knew what they were doing was irresponsible and exposed them to civil liability, so they moved to cover their asses. And Bernie helped them do it.

Yes, the law should protect all who obey it. Gun manufacturers should get no more protections than any other consumer product manufacturers. Gun manufacturers should be bound by the same consumer product standards and civil and criminal laws as any other consumer product manufacturer.

You should not let your devotion to your candidate cause you to subvert your principles. The PLCAA is indefensible.

[5X]

79. idiocy

[Tweedy]

105. Yes. If you are profiting from selling guns

A gun is an inherently dangerous product.

It is not governed by the tort laws that exist for inherently dangerous products because the congress gave it immunity very recently.

So, right now gunmakers could make guns safer (fingerprint activation is real & available) but they don't.

Gun manufacturers know their guns are being altered (turned into automatic weapons) & this, too, could they stop for minimal money. They don't. Follow the money.

What is worse grieving folks suing under theories that work under every iteration of our legal tradition you can dream up end up owing the gun manufacturer millions for legal fees. That is also what this legislation does.

I watched that interview though. Bernie said he no longer agreed with immunity. What gives?

[Amishman]

17. The problem is an assault rifle is only extra dangerous due to magazine capacity

Other than holding a lot of bullets, it's just a nastier looking semiauto. There isn't some extra function that makes it more dangerous other than big clips. Gunners criticize our assault weapons bans for being based on cosmetics, and if you leave out the magazine capacity part, they're right.

The other issue with the extremely dangerous product argument is that there are rare cases where there is a legitimate use for that type of firepower. I've had this argument so many times with my gun but brother-in-law and he just spams we with home invasion examples. After reading them, both the ones where the home owner had a semi auto and those where they weren't, he's largely convinced me. That doesn't mean we do nothing, even in those home invasion examples there isn't much to argue for capacity above 15 rounds or so. Buybacks that pay well, make their greedy asses want to turn them in. Ban those and modify the law for companies that break or intentionally help others break gun laws. No selling kits that the buyer builds into an illegal item.

[SunSeeker]

19. Oh God. Not this shit again. It's not just the capacity.

ARs fire bullets at higher speed and force, causing the bullet to tumble and turn their target into hamburger. https://globalnews.ca/news/4043345/ar-15-handgun-bullet-wounds-difference/ It was designed to take lots of enemy combatants off the field of battle permanently. It's impact was designed to not be survivable.

Gunners are dead wrong when they say it's just cosmetics with ARs.

I am so sick of seeing NRA proganda perpetrated on this site, whether knowingly or unknowingly. It's sickening.

[madville]

35. That's true about any rifle in similar calibers

The AR itself does not fire an individual bullet any faster or with more force than any other rifle chambered in the same caliber. The rate of fire can be higher with detachable high capacity magazines of course but the AR platform itself doesn't change the ballistics of the individual round, it would do the same thing on impact out of a bolt action hunting rifle of the same barrel length.

[aikoaiko]

43. I agree with you that the AR is an effective weapon by design.

That’s why people want them for self defense .

The issue of cosmetics is the so called Assault weapons Ban. And ergonomics.

The all new AWB proposed after Sandy Hook was a good example. It was easily defeated by changing the grip. A cosmetic and ergonomic change.

[SunSeeker]

74. The AR is not a self defense weapon. It is an assault weapon.

Get a better hobby, aikoaiko.

[LArider]

94. It's

a hunting weapon. It works great on feral hogs.

[SunSeeker]

96. Bullshit. It works great on mowing down large numbers of humans in minutes.

If you need an AR to kill hogs, you suck as a hunter, and you're endangering people within miles of you with stray bullets.

Get a better hobby.


(BTW, I'm playing gungeon talking point bingo. So far, in this thread I have the people can be killed with a hammer square, the people can be killed by cars square, the ARs are just cosmetically different from rifles square, the they're for self defense square, and now you gave me the they're great for hunting feral hogs square....BINGO!)

[xmas74]

113. The gungeon is the only place I won't enter.

It's crazy.

You're a brave individual!

[LArider]

114. It's not a hobby

It's pest extermination. Have you ever tried to kill a large number of feral hogs?

[Amishman]

66. It keeps coming up because it is the truth

Calling it NRA propaganda is counterproductive and false. On the gun safety side, there are a lot of things we don't understand, and yes the gunners absolutely use this to shut down discourse. The response shouldn't be to cry 'NRA Talk Points!' or 'Gunsplaining!' it would be to learn about the subject so we can make arguments they can't duck so easily.

I made the same bullets arguments with my damn brother in law and he took me down in his arsenal and showed me. He lined up about a dozen different bullets; long, skinny, short, fat. He lined up different assault rifles to match up with each of the different bullets. He pulled out regular rifles and pistols and showed me they used the same bullets. It's not the bullets, any kind of gun can be made for any kind of bullet. It really is the big magazines that make them more dangerous - and those big clips are available for pistols too.

[Shermann]

69. Assault weapon features

The AWB made it illegal to have two or more restricted features. Muzzle velocity was not one of those. The 3000 fps of the .223 is a high velocity round, but certainly not the highest. That's the trouble with quantifying an assault rifle, they really are just well-balanced firearms.

At some point the high-capacity magazines will probably get banned again. That is simple and straightforward and has teeth to it (not that I necessarily agree with it). It would reduce the lethality of firearms, although any firearm is devastating and overwhelming against soft targets. The rest or the restrictions really just gave the NRA margins to argue at.

[SunSeeker]

71. No it's not the truth, and I explained why in this thread.

Guns are not the same as hammers or cars. That's an NRA/gunner talking point. Yes, of course the capacity is one of the reasons ARs are dangerous, but it's not the only reason, as I have stated in this thread. I have educated myself. Perhaps you should educate yourself. Your brother isn't going to do it.

[hack89]

76. Absolutely false

A typical deer hunting rifle delivers a bullet with 2.5 times greater than a AR-15. And that “bluest are designed to tumble” is pure myth. In many states you can’t hunt deer with an AR15 because it is not lethal enough.

Any rifle is deadlier than a handgun. It is basic physics. AR15s are not super lethal compared to most rifles.

[aikoaiko]

32. Because the BATFE aaproved them as a reasonable firearms.

The BATFE has the authority to declare firearms as dangerous devices and require stricter regulation.

[JudyM]

111. He wants to *ban* assault weapons. Plus the March for Our Lives confounders just endorsed him

And he gets a D- from the NRA.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/gun-safety/

The activists touted Sanders as the best candidate to push for progressive change on gun reform.

“The truth is we need a President who can do it — who can build a populist movement, who can create structural change, and who can speak to the intersection of every American issue,” Delaney Tarr, co-founder of March For Our Lives, said in a statement. “Bernie has created a movement that I not only believe in, but I fight for. I am so excited to join in creating a campaign to be proud of — and an America to be proud of.”

Along with Tarr, several March For Our Lives co-founders announced they would be backing Sanders. The young activists announced their support in a roughly two-and-a-half minute video released by the Sanders campaign.

“I support Bernie Sanders as the candidate best suited to take on corruption — throughout his career, Bernie has denounced the oversized interests of the wealthy and well connected,” Ryan Deitsch, co-founder of March For Our Lives, said in a statement. “I know he will also focus on implementing initiatives to reduce and eliminate the everyday gun violence that plagues our communities, nationwide."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/483915-march-for-our-lives-co-founders-endorse-sanders

Are they worth listening to? This starts with a few seconds of Sanders, then it’s all about the kids’ decision, in their own words.

[TheFarseer]

36. Totally agree!

[dsc]

37. Their version of following the law

was to ring large cities with gun stores and selling to all comers, sell to self evident straw buyers for example people buying 50 of the same exact gun at the same time, advertise the fact their guns didn't leave finger prints, and targeting children. This is the conduct Bernie said was perfectly fine.

[aikoaiko]

45. What do mean by targeting children?

[dsc]

48. through video games and other media they advertised their guns

just like cig manufacturers did their cigs. And again, Bernie said amen and pass the ammo.

[aikoaiko]

85. Really? You're a part of the video games causes gun violence crowd?

There is no evidence for that causality.

[dsc]

87. It sure does help sell guns

and gun manufacturers know that. Just like when tobacco companies used cartoon charcters to sell cigs.

[aikoaiko]

91. If the so-called marketing of gun in video games is not causing gun violence...

...then that's admitting that any suit would be frivolous.

[dsc]

92. yes the sales of guns is totally unrelated to violence

just like the sales of opioids is utterly unrelated to addiction.

[aikoaiko]

93. We did sell a lot of guns as gun homicides plummetted from the early 1990s

?format=1500w


Is that what you're talking about?

I wouldn't draw any causal inferences there.

[hack89]

77. Gun manufacturers don't sell directly to the public

Gun dealers do

[dsc]

81. right and drug traffickers don't sell to the public either

they know what those people are doing. They may as well shoot up schools themselves given their behavior.

[hack89]

83. So crack down on the shady gun dealers.

Not complicated and a lot easier to do.

[dsc]

84. The law Sanders voted for also banned that

but this is the same bullshit we hear from Trump when he is caught hiring immigrants who aren't eligible to work, it wasn't me it was the staffing agency etc. These manufactures know full well that a gun store in tiny town Indiana that happens to be by Chicago that sells thousands of guns a month isn't selling to just tiny town.

[hack89]

86. It absolutely did not

They still have to obey all federal and state laws.

[dsc]

88. that we can't enforce because of the NRA

and it did ban suits based on even law breaking on the store's part.

[hack89]

89. Time for you to post an excerpt from the law

Because that does not make sense. You really think it explicitly allows them to ignore state and federal law? Prove it.

[The Mouth]

110. The NRA wouldn't have *any* power

if it didn't represent the views of a hell of a lot of voters. Many of those voters in states we need to win.

Gun Control is, as Bernie knows, a major issue- in the big cities and other liberal areas. Not so much in many 'flyover' but electoral rich states.

Personally, I think the authors of this article get it right- background checks, waiting periods, and preventing the mentally ill yes, confiscation or outlawing AR style weapons- big loser.

https://medium.com/@liamk_11753/gun-control-and-the-2020-swing-states-e3308d9a7e38

[pecosbob]

115. Sanders has always supported shielding gun manufacturers from liability

[David__77]

4. Purism.

...

[HopeAgain]

101. Exactly

I disagree with Sanders on this issue but agree with him on more than with other candidates. If we are looking for the perfect candidate, there's nobody.

[SunSeeker]

5. That is so fucked up.

Bernie supposts a law that gives gun manufacturing corporations a special immunity from liability that no other consumer product manufacturer enjoys.

[aikoaiko]

46. Vaccine producers enjoy special immunity too

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22

[dsc]

50. well except that they pay into a fund which pays out the claims

but other than that, which is pretty much everything, it is exactly the same as giving gun manufacturers immunity.

[Blue_true]

97. Their product is encouraged for the public good.

And they sell only to professionals that are trained on how to use the product.

Your analogy is way bad.

Guns are more akin to opiods. Both are useful when used right, deadly when not. Opiod manufacturers have been sued, one has set aside billions to pay settlements.

[hack89]

78. They are not immune from liability

You can still sue a gun manufacturer if they break the law or sell a defective product. Perhaps you should actually read the law.

[Martin Eden]

6. Sanders' statement is logical

What did the gun manufacturer do that was illegal?

[SunSeeker]

11. Sanders' statement is an NRA talking point.

Why shouldn't victims be able to sue if the company markets an unreasonably dangerous weapon? This is not about criminal liability. This is about civil liability for damages.

It is not illegal for companies to sell dangerous toys. But companies tend not to. Why? Because they'd get their asses sued off in civil court. One kid got killed with lawn darts and the manufacturer immediately pulled them off the market. 

Marketing an assault rifle to the civilian population is unreasonably dangerous. There is no legitimate reason for a civilian to own one of those things, unlike a hammer. 

I can't believe Bernie resorts to an NRA talking point like comparing guns to hammers. Hammers are not the weapon of choice of mass murderers. Our kids are not scared shitless doing "active hammerer drills." No, they live in fear of some nut mowing them down with an AR. ARs are specifically designed to kill large amounts of people quickly.

If a company is irresponsible enough to market those things, they should face civil liability for their actions, like any other manufacturer of unreasonably dangerous products marketed to consumers. The PLCAA gives gun manufacturers immunity from suit for damages caused by the unreasonable marketing of a military weapon to consumers. That is reprehensible.

[Martin Eden]

42. Legal to manufacture and sell, but not to market?

I'm all for banning firearms based on rapidity of fire and clip size. I also support a host of regulations that go well beyond universal background checks. I loathe the NRA, which has contributed to countless needless deaths.

But if a product is legal to manufacture and sell, should it be illegal to market the product? If so, legislation should be passed to make it illegal. Advertising cigarettes on TV was banned many decades ago, though still marketed via other media.

When someone commits an illegal act with a legal product, it just doesn't seem logical to hold the manufacturer liable unless the maker was involved in illegal sales or some other infraction.

[betsuni]

9. K&R

[AlexSFCA]

10. perhaps one position that is helpful in GE?

[SunSeeker]

12. No. His stance in support of gun manufacturer immunity will not get him any votes.

The right wing gun nuts will not suddenly vote for Bernie because of it. He still supports banning ARs.

[zackymilly]

39. Yep, tRump is a gun-owners dream candidate. Why would they switch to Bernie? n/t

[k2qb3]

64. Trump is actually quite vulnerable with RKBA types.

Or would be if they had any other choice.

Anyway it isn't a good law or a good argument, it's just a convenient answer to an inconvenient amendment.

[jmowreader]

13. It will probably hurt him in the GE

"Sanders was against gun control before he was for it."

[jmg257]

15. If we do not want them to build them, then we have to make them illegal.

And figure out how to deal with the ones already in circulation.

If their defective, by all means, sue.

[SunSeeker]

21. No, we just need to repeal the PLCAA. Civil suits will do the rest.

Suing gun manufacturers has the same point as suing manufacturers of dangerous consumer products. It gets the product off the street. Selling ARs will not be profitable if people can sue for damages from their irresponsible marketing, regardless if ARs are legal. Why the fuck do you think the NRA pushed to pass the PLCAA right in 2005, after the AR ban expired in 2004? Because they didn't want to be sued into bankruptcy for insanely selling those mass killing weapons to civilians. They knew what they were doing was irresponsible and exposed them to civil liability, so they moved to cover their asses. And Bernie helped them do it. 

[jmg257]

25. Agreed, its like trying legislate via lawsuits, instead of laws. Nt

[Shermann]

16. His reasoning is valid

The difference between a gun manufacturer and a hammer manufacturer, however, is that activist groups aren't going to barrage the hammer manufacturer with lawsuits.

These types of shield laws establish a strong precedent and serve an important purpose.

[SunSeeker]

20. Oy, again with the NRA bullshit hammer talking point.

Your compatriot up the thread was quicker at the draw and already brought this up.

This is why you're wrong:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=565477

[Shermann]

23. You seem to be conflating assault rifles with lawn darts

...and slingshots designed to hurl bricks at cars?

Liberals tend to abhor the idea of killing. But to suggest it is absolutely unnecessary is a bit TOO liberal. "Mass amounts" is just a weasel word.

[SunSeeker]

24. I'm not conflating anything.

Try rereading what I posted.

[octoberlib]

22. JFC. This is sad. I wonder how much

the NRA has contributed to his campaign.

[LovingA2andMI]

26. Who Knows??

Good question.

[lark]

27. We are not repugs and will not act the way they do.

Mindlessly jumping through any open window because "the leader" told us to is not something Democrats do, only anti-knowledge and pro-dictator repugs do that. Bernies record on guns is bad and would hurt in the general.

[madville]

28. That law was mainly about protecting the companies that supply our war machine

All these gun and ammunition manufacturers have government contracts to provide millions of firearms and billions of rounds of ammunition to the military, federal law enforcement, local law enforcement, allies overseas, and whatever nation building boondoggle we are currently tied up in. Can't have them sued out of existence now can we?

[SunSeeker]

29. No, it was about ARs that were about to flood the civilian market.

The AR ban expired 2004. The PLCAA was passed 2005.

[madville]

33. ARs with high capacity magazines

Could still be purchased throughout the entire 1994-2004 "ban", it was a toothless law. They just couldn't have assault weapon-type accessories like a flash hider/muzzle brake, an adjustable stock, or bayonet lug. The ban did nothing to hinder the availability or functionality of AR-15 style rifles and high capacity magazines, magazine prices did double from about $10 a piece to around $20 during the ban.

The end of the "ban" was a huge sales marketing kick, you're right about that. Tons of ban compliant AR and AK-style rifles were sold during the ban though.

[dsc]

38. mass shooting plummeted during the reign of this toothless law

and shot back up immediately upon its expiration.

[madville]

44. Whatever the reason, it had nothing to do with the availability of such weapons under the ban

You could still buy the same rifles during the ban. That increase is more likely attributed to the huge sales and marketing push the gun manufacturers rolled out after its expiration, the same manufacturers our government wants to protect because they produce all it's weapons of war.

[dsc]

47. really it was all a giant coincidence

give me an ever loving break.

[madville]

53. The end of the ban lead to a huge sales and marketing push to sell these weapons

There is nothing coincidental about it, they all capitalized and cashed in on it.

But the same weapons with the same functionality were available for sale under the ban, so the ban didn't actually ban anything, it was the end of the ban that the gun makers used to convince everyone they needed to buy one before they were "banned" again when in all actuality they were never banned in the first place. The same way President Obama's election was used by the manufacturers to send their sales through the roof, they capitalized and mislead off the fear of another ban.

[jmg257]

58. / Yes - This exactly.

[jmg257]

52. Plummeted - yes indeed! - went from 68 to 53.

Clinton spoke too strongly about the drop. In simple numbers, mass shooting deaths fell during the ban years —

15 deaths over the course of the decade

. But statistically, that number is too small to allow strong conclusions. Even the author of the report Clinton relied on said the death rate might have declined —or levelled off.

The rise after the ban expired is supported by the evidence, although definitions of mass shootings will vary.

The role of the ban remains unclear, but Clinton’s statement did not specifically say that the ban was the key factor.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/07/bill-clinton/did-mass-shooting-deaths-fall-under-1994-assault-w/

ANd why not? This ban-legal AR is so much safer then pre-ban ones!!



Along with those millions of ban-legal 20rnd capacity mags readily available to anyone who wanted them? Must have really helped control the number of AW deaths....its no wonder number "plummeted" LOL!

[dsc]

55. that is nearly 20 percent

BTW from your own fact check

Epidemiologists speak in terms of risk; that is, the odds of something bad happening. DiMaggio’s study concluded that mass shooting deaths were 70% less likely during the ban.

and now they have increased nearly 8 fold again from your own fact check.

[jmg257]

57. Yes I know -1+ death per year!!! WOO HOO! The ban was basically useless, as it did nothing

substantial.

What is needed is a REAL ban, and a way to deal with the million and million of AWs and magazines that are in circulation.
NOT some stupidly worded ban that was EXTREMELY easy to get past.

The AR used in Newtown was ban legal!! As CT, like NY had a similar law still in place.

[redqueen]

59. THANK YOU

[aikoaiko]

49. ARs with cosmetic changes were still available during the AWB.

You’re causality timeline is weak.

[SunSeeker]

72. No. The connection is not weak. It's spot on.

Looks like an alert went out in the gungeon.

[hack89]

82. The rifle used at Sandy Hook was legal during the "ban"

Just like it was legal under CT’s AWB.

[hack89]

80. AR15 production peaked during the "ban"

The flooding started well before 2004.

[wyldwolf]

30. SOOOO "progressive" (swooooon) ❤️❤️❤️ ❤️❤️❤️

[aikoaiko]

31. Bernie is right about this.

But I think he does want to see some changes to the law.

[riverwalker]

34. I also need to hear

Why he won’t vote to sanction Russia.

[Autumn]

40. When I put a screw through my thumb, I didn't sue DeWalt over the drill.

[Farmer-Rick]

62. Maybe you should have

Do you know there is a sensor system they can put on the drill to prevent it from going through human flesh? But the makers of power tools don't want to use it because profits. The filthy rich don't care if you cut your finger off or drill into your thumb. They want their stolen loot at all costs...and you pay the costs.

This is an area, I disagree with Bernie on. But I think we can change his mind.

I think weapons should not be compared to power tools but to cars that can kill lots and lots of people at one time. Don't we put insurance on cars?

Don't we require people to pay for damages when they kill people and create damage with their cars? We should do the same thing for weapons. If you kill someone or someone kills with your purchased weapon, you should pay up. The more people they kill the more damages have to be paid out. You have to show your insurance before you buy a car, why not a weapon? Or maybe show your insurance when you buy the ammo. The killer might commit suicide but his insurance company is still around to pay.

[Autumn]

63. Why would I? I was the one controlling the drill. Had I put the tool though someone else's finger I

would be the one responsible not the drill.

[Farmer-Rick]

65. But they can make it so you can't put the drill through your finger and the manufacturers wont do it

To me it's like seat belts. The law forces manufacturers to put in seat belts. Until the laws were passed, most cars did not have seat belts. Thousands died.

So, why not force manufacturers to put a safety features on the drill?

[jberryhill]

102. Given your drill experience, would you mind doing us all a favor...

...and not buying a firearm, or getting rid of the one you have.


Thank you.

[randr]

51. This is the main reason I will not vote for him. period.

He has a lot of pet peeves that he will never get past the Houses and stays out of touch with issues that carry majority support

[nycbos]

54. Bernie won in 1990 with the support of the NRA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

Peter Smith the Republican representative voted for a gun regulation bill.


"Smith made a disastrous, rookie mistake. He went to a hearing. And he started to think.

The hearing was not supposed to be about guns at all. The witnesses were students who had graduated from low-performing D.C. high schools and gone on to college. Smith asked one woman what she wished she’d had more of in high school. “Courage,” the woman said. She meant courage to confront the armed bullies who taunted her on the way to school."

“It personalized something for me that had always been at arm’s length,” Smith recalled this week. “Which is that this woman lived in a culture of fear, and she faced danger and threat because of guns every day of her life.”

“I’ll never forget, [the next day] brushing my teeth, looking in the mirror in my bathroom and realizing, as clear as day, I’m going to have to look at this face for the rest of my life in the mirror, and I want to be proud of the person I see,” Smith said. “I went back and looked up the gun bills.”

Smith found a bill to ban the sale of some assault weapons. He signed on as co-sponsor."

Sanders won that election because an honorable Republican made a courageous vote.

[Lancero]

108. He won because he was a unknown, not because they owned him.

But hey, if you want to advocate that a Republican should have won that election well... You do you.

[nycbos]

112. He wasn't unknown.

He ran in 1988 and narrowly lost. Peter Smith had the endorsement of the NRA. Smith prepared to vote against gun regulation bills until he met DC teenagers who testified before congress about how they experienced gun violence. Smith then voted for the ban on the sale of some assault weapons.


It was an act of political courage that cost him his career.

[lapucelle]

56. From the 2016 Democratic Platform.

Preventing Gun Violence

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe.

To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets.

https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2016_DNC_Platform.pdf

[NCProgressive]

60. NRA contributions in 1...2....3...

[Bayard]

61. This is pretty simple

Ban assault weapons again. (something Biden was instrumental in doing previously).

These things are military weapons, for godsakes! The general public should have never gotten their hands on them.

I can't believe any "Democrat", would be voting for the manufacturers.

[Gothmog]

67. A very effective ad from Joe Biden that highlights Bernie's position on suing gun manufacturers.

Link to tweet

[dalton99a]

70. A must see. On the morning of the Sandy Hook shooting

[tritsofme]

68. I actually agree with Sanders here.

One of the few times I’ve been able to type that...

If we come to the consensus that these weapons should be banned, then we should do so, but manufacturers shouldn’t face lawsuits for selling legal products that are not defective.

[Calculating]

118. Exactly

Don't punish people for making legal products. Ban the products if that is what society wants.

[Peacetrain]

73. Jesus..you just cannot make this stuff up

[JFlash]

90. Should I be allowed to sue the Twinkee corporation for making me fat?

That was a stupid bill. Good for him.

(and I'm not fat, btw)

[LArider]

95. I agree with him.

If someone driving a suburban drunk kills someone, you shouldn't be able to sue the Chevrolet deadlership.

[Devil Child]

98. Hell yeah Sen. Sanders!!!

I appreciate his common sense approach to baseless anti-gun lawsuits.

[TomCADem]

99. Siding With Gun Makers Is Now Liberal?

I guess we should also side with pharmaceutical companies in opiod lawuits as well?

[Devil Child]

100. I'm not concerned if my stance is definable as "liberal" or not

Suing and shutting down firearms manufacturers for the intentional and illegal misuse of a legal product doesn’t strike me as appropriate or logical. I’m concerned these lawsuits are frivolous in nature and used to attack constitutionally protected rights to keep and bear arms.

I respect and appreciate Sen. Sanders’s logical approach to this issue.

[David__77]

103. I agree with you.

...

[TomCADem]

116. Well, Bernie Just Argued That This Was a Bad Vote on His Part

He is now conveniently admitting that he is wrong.

[Devil Child]

120. Didn't watch the debate, if this is true not an action I respect or agree with

[fallout87]

104. It's a slippery slope...

Would you have auto manufacturers held liable when a drunk driver kills someone ?

[Gothmog]

106. Thank you @JoeBiden for these comments and for your commitment to repeal PLCCA.

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

107. I just can't respect him for this. We're not living in the 1700's any more.

[The Mouth]

109. D.U. is Much more anti-gun than the people in a LOT of

battleground states.

For a lot of the places we need to win, neither AR style rifles nor CCW is much of an issue, or maybe one on which the more strident gun haters are on the other side of.

[Devil Child]

121. +1 n/t

[Calculating]

117. Good

The idea that you should be able to sue a company over misuse of their products is asinine. It would be like sueing Ferrari because some kid drove one through town at 120 mph and killed someone. "Nobody needs a car that can go that fast"

[TomCADem]

119. Well, Then Don't Vote For Bernie, Because...

...he just reversed himself in tonight's debate and admits that the vote was a bad vote.