General Discussion

AZ Progressive

(3,411 posts)

47. Gun control is something I don't agree with

Wed May 6, 2015, 12:34 PM

May 2015

And I'm sure that many Progressives and Democrats don't agree on all progressive/Democratic issues 100%

I've cringed when seeing how blue states and european countries quite practically discourage being able to defend oneself physically with banning as many weapons as possible (with many countries in europe even banning pepper spray). I don't believe in trusting that the police will protect you.

And this is an issue for women as well. You should have a right to feel safe. There's still no self defense weapon out there as practical as a gun. I certainly wish there was something better that was not lethal and as practical. Even pepper spray may not kick in immediately and doesn't work if people are on certain drugs.

When your living in a rural area, your vulnerable to people coming on your property, plus you may have a family to protect. What other weapon than a gun means serious business to an intruder?

Gun control should be left up to cities at the very least. Guns are a very different issue in the city vs in rural areas.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

178 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bernie Sanders voted for the most reprehensible pro-gun legislation in recent memory. [View all] JaneyVee May 2015 OP

I heard he was moderately pro-gun, but didn't realize he was this far right on the issue. DanTex May 2015 #1

The original Brady Act also mandated a national five-day waiting period for handguns derby378 May 2015 #57

Almost as bad as voting for an illegal war! Cosmic Kitten May 2015 #101

Except that it doesn't shield the man. for lawsuits for a defective product, GGJohn May 2015 #121

Obviously, you stand behind the NRA and the gun manufacturers no matter what. DanTex May 2015 #122

And obviously you've been corrected numerous times on the PLCAA, GGJohn May 2015 #124

I know exactly what it means. You've been watching too much FOX, DanTex May 2015 #127

Yeah, go with the insults, it elevates your debate so effectively. GGJohn May 2015 #130

I wasn't looking for a gun nut debate. If I was, I'd be in the gungeon or on FreeRepublic... DanTex May 2015 #133

Can't or won't answer the question? GGJohn May 2015 #136

Shielding gun manufacturers from liability suits ... MicaelS May 2015 #129

Hey, the whole NRA contingent is here! DanTex May 2015 #132

Instead of baseless accusations, GGJohn May 2015 #139

So calling NRA members NRA members is now "baseless"? LOL. DanTex May 2015 #144

I don't belong to the NRA, never have, never will, GGJohn May 2015 #147

Really? You had me fooled. DanTex May 2015 #148

Well, that doesn't surprise me. GGJohn May 2015 #150

They know you're correct about what the law does and is intended to do. beevul May 2015 #159

Yup, GGJohn May 2015 #161

Somebody has a well thought out, reasonable post Travis_0004 May 2015 #165

Don't expect to agree with Bernie on everything.... daleanime May 2015 #2

x 2 Omaha Steve May 2015 #46

He's acting in the interest of his constituents OKNancy May 2015 #3

I agree. Representing constituents should be #1 priority. JaneyVee May 2015 #11

Sure, but when dealing with reasonable legislation such as the Brady still_one May 2015 #32

Neither "reasonable" nor effective: Millions sold while in "effect" Eleanors38 May 2015 #79

It instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States. What is NOT still_one May 2015 #80

I believe he was referring to the AWB portion of that legislative session. N/T beevul May 2015 #84

I thought that was separate, and not part of the Brady Bill proper still_one May 2015 #89

I was speaking of the AWB. UBCs I support as long as government doesn't register. Eleanors38 May 2015 #96

Someone just made that clarification to me in the subthread. Thanks for the clarification still_one May 2015 #98

My mistake in not so noting. Eleanors38 May 2015 #106

A mark against him on one important issue. Agnosticsherbet May 2015 #4

Not enough to make any other candidate look better. djean111 May 2015 #5

LOL. He's evolved, Janey. cali May 2015 #6

Yeah, his gun policies might work in Vermont, but they are a disaster nationwide. DanTex May 2015 #8

You mean like working toward narrowing income inequality? Supporting a $15 min wage? cali May 2015 #15

I have decided about Bernie. I support most of his policies, but he can't win. DanTex May 2015 #21

+1. Vermont's roughly 95% white demographics explains his votes on gunz. Hoyt May 2015 #59

What are white Vermont gun owners scared of? nt hack89 May 2015 #70

Minorities escaping from New York for one. I remember you Gungeon folks having a big Hoyt May 2015 #73

Because all gun owners are racists. I forgot. nt hack89 May 2015 #74

Its a statement by your interlocutor about the voters of vermont, Hack. beevul May 2015 #83

Why do people think that there are droves of boogey men out there just waiting to steal stuff? notadmblnd May 2015 #108

Feel the same way. Gunz are high up on the list for gun fanciers. Hoyt May 2015 #110

mockery. unlike most Hillary supporters cali May 2015 #62

I don't want to attack him, I love Bernie. Besides... JaneyVee May 2015 #17

You don't want to attack him.... bwahahaha Cosmic Kitten May 2015 #103

The post is only unflattering if the reader is anti-gun. Renew Deal May 2015 #154

Evolved?? In 2005 he voted with the NRA and Rethugs to help pass the PLCAA. DCBob May 2015 #58

Hasn't "denounced" that vote, nor should he. That proposed law has a pitiful precedent Eleanors38 May 2015 #81

He should if he wants to be the Dem nominee for POTUS. DCBob May 2015 #114

The Dem nominee should be on record as supporting lawsuits... beevul May 2015 #115

I think you are confused... DCBob May 2015 #116

If the poster isn't right then correct them. That is also my understanding of the proposal. TheKentuckian May 2015 #118

If the OP isnt right then you correct it. DCBob May 2015 #120

The poster is right and you were corrected. GGJohn May 2015 #123

Gun manufacturers should be held accountable. DCBob May 2015 #131

They should be held liable for the criminal misuse of their products? GGJohn May 2015 #138

As I said gun manufacturers should be held to a higher standard. DCBob May 2015 #143

They are held to a higher standard, govt regs are pretty strict concerning firearms. eom. GGJohn May 2015 #149

Clearly not high enough. DCBob May 2015 #151

Bullshit!!! GGJohn May 2015 #155

Get lost. Not interested in your warped opinions. DCBob May 2015 #156

The last gasp of defeat. GGJohn May 2015 #158

Are you supposed to be Francis or Pee Wee? Probably few worries that I'll speak my piece. TheKentuckian May 2015 #160

Post removed Post removed May 2015 #162

Jury results. GGJohn May 2015 #167

Agree 100% SickOfTheOnePct May 2015 #119

... 99Forever May 2015 #7

Yawn. What you said. GoneFishin May 2015 #55

Link to his votes on gun issues from votesmart. Agnosticsherbet May 2015 #9

This would not be the only issue i have with Bernie, but this one does not give me a reason Thinkingabout May 2015 #10

Of course, you said you oppose all of his positions, which would include this one. morningfog May 2015 #16

Sure did, glad you remembered. Thinkingabout May 2015 #18

I heard he eats babies. zappaman May 2015 #12

LOL! Segami May 2015 #19

That's why his hair is so wild. Baby souls. (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #134

So, does he fail sarisataka May 2015 #13

Wait why should gun manufacturers be sued for gun deaths? Cheese Sandwich May 2015 #14

I welcome you and your NRA talking points to Democratic Underground. onehandle May 2015 #20

The purpose of a gun is to kill. So why sue a gun maker for making a product that works correctly? Cheese Sandwich May 2015 #30

I think you are right. I do have a problem with those who oppose the Brady Bill and still_one May 2015 #35

Bernie gets an 'F' rating from the NRA AgingAmerican May 2015 #36

The question is why should gun manufacturers get special protection against liability lawsuits. DanTex May 2015 #23

It was because the gun control movement overplayed their hand hack89 May 2015 #29

I was wonder how long it would take for the NRA to show up. DanTex May 2015 #33

The gun control movement shot themselves in the foot once again hack89 May 2015 #37

Yes, I understand that you always side with the powers that be on every issue. DanTex May 2015 #43

Bernie did what his constituents wanted him to do. hack89 May 2015 #49

Like every other politician. Which is my point. He's not above politics or special interests. DanTex May 2015 #54

Of course he is no different from any other politician. nt hack89 May 2015 #56

Question Unvanguard May 2015 #48

It is hard to imagine what such conduct would look like hack89 May 2015 #53

You can't argue coherently, you can only label. nt Eleanors38 May 2015 #82

What special protection? You can't sue Ford if a drunk driver hits you in an F150. (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #135

I support business getting "special treatment" if the Courts.. MicaelS May 2015 #137

Of course you do! DanTex May 2015 #145

What I want to know and the author doesn't say is had there ever been cali May 2015 #24

I think it was mostly a pre-emptive action. DanTex May 2015 #40

that makes sense cali May 2015 #63

PDF 0472115103-intro.PDF. "INTRODUCTION: An Overview of Lawsuits against the Gun Industry" Eleanors38 May 2015 #94

Mostly for negligently letting them fall in the hands of criminals. Unvanguard May 2015 #28

OK I would agree that part. Cheese Sandwich May 2015 #38

The statute protects both manufacturers and retail gun dealers. Unvanguard May 2015 #41

It protects them ONLY if they follow federal law. beevul May 2015 #104

The point is that the law guarantees special treatment to gun manufacturers and dealers. Unvanguard May 2015 #111

It didn't happen in a vaccum. beevul May 2015 #112

Any lawsuit alleging negligence fits that mold. Unvanguard May 2015 #117

No. Just no. beevul May 2015 #153

Both of the lawsuits you mention follow the lines I described. Unvanguard May 2015 #172

You can characterize it any way you like, but I see through it. And I'm not alone. beevul May 2015 #174

The way you keep that avenue closed is through the courts. Unvanguard May 2015 #175

Its not like its unprecedented. beevul May 2015 #176

That would fall under the dealer, GGJohn May 2015 #128

Because guns are mean and scary... ileus May 2015 #68

He gets an "F" rating from the NRA AgingAmerican May 2015 #22

That shows just how radical the NRA has become. In fairness looking still_one May 2015 #44

They gave him an 'F' AgingAmerican May 2015 #51

I know they gave him an F, and looking at his voting record, I would have given him a C. I was still_one May 2015 #78

Manufacturers should be sued, because a third party end user misuses their product? beevul May 2015 #86

He represents a rural state. They are hunters. And his state also has been in the gun manufacturing jwirr May 2015 #25

What else was in the bill? fredamae May 2015 #26

Bernie's positions on gun control concern me. Koinos May 2015 #27

Should you be able to sue Krylon hootinholler May 2015 #31

On the right facts, sure. Unvanguard May 2015 #39

Gun Manufacturers don't sell to the general public. beevul May 2015 #88

Absolutely you should. NCTraveler May 2015 #52

"What other corporations would you like to have such special privileges?" beevul May 2015 #92

Reminder: Pro-gun democrats do exist. Jester Messiah May 2015 #34

Yes, we do derby378 May 2015 #69

"I'm only posting this because..." cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #42

Wow. That's bizarre. I can't imagine a pro-gun manufacturer candidate winning the Dem nomination. DCBob May 2015 #45

Bernie is toast when this becomes well known? GGJohn Sep 2015 #177

Gun control is something I don't agree with AZ Progressive May 2015 #47

The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" isn't about gun control. Unvanguard May 2015 #50

It's about shielding gun manufacturers and retailers from civil liability. GGJohn May 2015 #146

Don't try to engage in de facto bans of legal products through the courts. MicaelS May 2015 #152

Liability isn't a ban. Unvanguard May 2015 #173

I may not agree with him on some of that but I agree with him on a whole lot more. Autumn May 2015 #60

I don't like it but it's not a deal breaker like someone elses IWR vote. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #61

Neither Sanders not Clinton are perfect candidates The Second Stone May 2015 #64

This would be a good debate question. DCBob May 2015 #65

Finally one area Bernie trumps Hillary on, I may have to reconsider my Hillary support. ileus May 2015 #66

Maybe he will change his mind? kentuck May 2015 #67

I get it okay ? olddots May 2015 #71

I love Bernie, and I have no problem with his record on gun legislation. closeupready May 2015 #72

The Democratic Party has a lot of gun-rights voters... kentuck May 2015 #75

In 1990 the NRA supported Sanders over an incumbent Republican. former9thward May 2015 #76

This is what a liberal looks like on gun control. I know it hurts some folks' feelings to say so. aikoaiko May 2015 #77

The NRA would give me an "F", too!. Eleanors38 May 2015 #85

Last I saw they marked him a D- for the 2012 election. aikoaiko May 2015 #90

Deal breaker for Bernie Sanders! workinclasszero May 2015 #87

What about the children who died when the bombs fell on Iraq? Autumn May 2015 #95

Speaking of kids workinclasszero May 2015 #99

I think the ass who left the gun unattended is the one who should be sued, and charged Autumn May 2015 #100

Only 999,999 to go to match the IWR vote. (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #142

So the manufacturers should be sued because these idiot parents left their firearm GGJohn May 2015 #157

IMO, he got it right on the PLCAA. Absent specific misconduct on their own part, petronius May 2015 #91

Spot on. N/T beevul May 2015 #93

Burn him! AtomicKitten May 2015 #97

You all realize if he becomes President and the majority of Americans come to their senses NoJusticeNoPeace May 2015 #102

In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted againstthe Brady Act... 1993...1993 Cosmic Kitten May 2015 #105

What's even WORSE IS HE voted for Bush's WAR's imnew May 2015 #107

Said legislation is only reprehensible to a small group of people. beevul May 2015 #109

His record on this is a disappointment. grntuscarora May 2015 #113

Not a Sanders fan, but that bill seems reasonable. tritsofme May 2015 #125

Here is how at least 66.6 percent hear it seveneyes May 2015 #126

LOL! I see people are finally freaking out about an Independent...unlike their uncle that pretends. Rex May 2015 #140

Congratulations, it took almost a week to find something to criticize about bernie Scootaloo May 2015 #141

Disclaimer translation: "I'm only posting this because I'm pushing this bullshit as furiously and as TheKentuckian May 2015 #163

I think that law makes sense Travis_0004 May 2015 #164

Doesn't pro 2A cross party lines? Puzzledtraveller May 2015 #166

This is where that don't be a purist thing bites some people in the butt. djean111 May 2015 #168

Good to know his record.. I don't have a candidate yet and I'm not a one issue voter.. I look at the Cha May 2015 #169

"I'm only posting because" LeftOfWest May 2015 #170

Weak sauce. Puglover May 2015 #171

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2016 #178