over Bernie's very long career.

I could've sworn he voted on the topic of guns much more than 4 times. In all those absurd "Sanders is a gun but" threads that went down in flames weeks ago, his whole voting record was posted.

We have seen much defense of guns.
Very little has been even addressed as to protections from them.
Ask Sandy Hook parents who organized Nationally & took their concerns directly to our legislature.
Nothing for them. No justice for them nor anyone else who saw the horror & asked for some fairness in purchase & sale of weapons.
Real hunters do not hunt down kids, family, human beings.
Another GOP war, callously allowing the killing of innocents on our own soil.

Profit from weapons is too great to consider who is being hunted down for no other reason but the fact that someone is allowed to do so, for whatever personal reason they may have.


Big Fail for America

and the votes you cite?

than Hillary's vote for the IWR.

We will confront and defeat them in a way that will truly enhance our security instead of miring our troops in another misguided ground war.

it comes to choosing from a limited array of candidates. For some, Bernie's pluses outweigh any minuses, same thing for Hillary.

I don't see the value, by the way, in suing gun makers and sellers for gun misuse. Such a broad definition - would a gun maker be responsible for the misuse of guns by police? By soldiers who snap out? Would gun makers have to have their very own version of the NSA/CIA/FBI, in order to investigate everyone who might misuse a gun? Would gun makers be responsible for deranged people who stole a gun? And what could gun makers do, besides pay up? Would their decision to sell a gun to someone, or not, override the second amendment? Would they be allowed to have their own little police force, in order to protect themselves?

I do see limiting or controlling things like machine guns and whatnot, for non-military use.

Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. - Do we already let foreign and UN entities enforce laws in the US? (Of course, with the TPP et al., laws will be such evanescent things, subject to the dictates of corporate profit).

I guess I would be interested to know what Bernie's reasoning was, before I condemn his votes. Whatever the case, not enough to lose me as a supporter, because, for me, Hillary has so very many minuses. Not sure about O'Malley or Chaffee, but so far - it is Bernie, and I don't see that changing unless he drops out. Then, likely, I would support O'Malley.

You don't think that a gun dealer who negligently sells a gun to a customer without a background check should be held responsible for that decision? Then I guess you'll be happy that Bernie voted for a law that eliminated that liability.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

When Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders jumped into the 2016 presidential race, he was widely hailed as a far-left socialist who would appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. A liberal challenge to Hillary Clinton, said Politico. True progressives’ liberal alternative, trumpeted FiveThirtyEight. 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.

SNIP

But Sanders’ vote for a different kind of pro-gun bill is more puzzling—and profoundly disturbing. In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)

SNIP

Before the PLCAA, most states imposed some form of tort liability on gun makers and sellers. If a gun manufacturer made an assault rifle that could slaughter dozens of people in a few seconds, for instance, one of its victims might sue the company for negligently making a gun that could foreseeably be used for mass murder. If a gun seller sold a gun to a customer without performing any kind of background check—and then the buyer opened fire on the subway—his victims might sue that seller for negligently providing a gun to a mentally unstable person. The standards in each state differed, but the bottom line remained the same: Victims of gun violence and their families could recover financially from the people and companies who negligently enabled gun violence.

The PLCAA changed all that. Remarkably, the act wiped out gun liability laws in all 50 states, rendering them invalid except for a handful of narrow exceptions. (So much for states’ rights.) Thanks to the law, victims of mass shootings are barred from suing the companies that produced a wartime weapon that no civilian could ever need. With few exceptions, victims cannot sue a gun seller for negligently providing a semiautomatic weapon to a lunatic who shoots them in a movie theater. Even if a jury decides a gun maker or seller should be liable, the PLCAA invalidates its verdict. The law tramples upon states’ rights, juries’ rights, and fundamental precepts of America’s civil justice system. And it received Bernie Sanders’ support—in both 2003 (when it was first introduced) and 2005 (when it finally passed).

Simple question.

Check the other side of the argument on all of these and you'll see the sense that they make. Unless, of course, if you want to put the squeeze on guns regardless of cost. Kind of like being a supporter of a candidate, no matter what.

used their legal product in a criminal/negligent way?

So I guess I can sue Ford because a drunk driver injured me in one of their vehicles?

and that person goes on to kill people, yes, I do think the seller should be held responsible.

Don't you?

Firearms man. are forbidden by federal law to sell directly to the general public, their firearms have to be sold and shipped to an FFL dealer, no exceptions.
Now, if an FFL dealer sold a firearm without a bgc, and someone is injured or killed with that firearm, then not only will they get a possible 10 year sentence in Club Fed, but they can be sued into the poor house.

weapon to a lunatic who shoots them in a movie theater."


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

Before the PLCAA, most states imposed some form of tort liability on gun makers and sellers. If a gun manufacturer made an assault rifle that could slaughter dozens of people in a few seconds, for instance, one of its victims might sue the company for negligently making a gun that could foreseeably be used for mass murder. If a gun seller sold a gun to a customer without performing any kind of background check—and then the buyer opened fire on the subway—his victims might sue that seller for negligently providing a gun to a mentally unstable person. The standards in each state differed, but the bottom line remained the same: Victims of gun violence and their families could recover financially from the people and companies who negligently enabled gun violence.

The PLCAA changed all that. Remarkably, the act wiped out gun liability laws in all 50 states, rendering them invalid except for a handful of narrow exceptions. (So much for states’ rights.) Thanks to the law, victims of mass shootings are barred from suing the companies that produced a wartime weapon that no civilian could ever need. With few exceptions, victims cannot sue a gun seller for negligently providing a semiautomatic weapon to a lunatic who shoots them in a movie theater. Even if a jury decides a gun maker or seller should be liable, the PLCAA invalidates its verdict.

who are prohibited by federal from selling directly to the public.
And a semi auto firearm is not a wartime weapon, my AR-15 operates exactly as my semi auto .22 does, one pull of the trigger, one bullet expended, unlike full autos, which have been banned for sale since 1986.

There is no reason why a manufacturer should be held responsible for the 3rd party misuse of their legally produced product.

Firearms manufacturers are forbidden by Federal law from selling directly to the public, they can only sell to FFL dealers.
Other than that, great post.

Sanders voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets in 2013. (10 Democrats went with the Republicans to vote NO, which allowed to bill the fail 46-54).

He also voted NO on a 1999 bill that would have decreased the gun purchase waiting period from 3 days to 1 (only 10 house democrats voted YES).

The Amtrak 2009 bill applied to checked baggage only, as airlines allow, and as Amtrak allowed before 9/11. 18 democrats also voted YES (including Reid, Leahy, & Feingold), which allowed the bill to pass 63-35.

The 2007 bill prohibiting foreign restriction on US gun ownership didn't even have one person speak out against it in floor debate, with only 10 democrats voting NO.

The 2005 lawsuit bill had 55 democrats voting YES, while the 2003 bill was supported by 63 democrats. The 2003 bill also included the following exemptions: Civil suits would be allowed against a maker or dealer who "knowingly and willfully violated" state or federal laws in the selling or marketing of a weapon. Design and manufacturing defect lawsuits are also permitted when weapons are "used as intended."


If the NRA is failing him, then it's not as clear-cut as some people might want one to think.

Anyone who is trying to smear Sanders as a gun nut is flailing in desperation at the threat Bernie is giving to the establishment, which includes Hillary Clinton. If one has to distort what that vote was really about, the barrel bottom is pretty clean.

He's never apologized for hating immigrants either.

including laws that held gun sellers responsible for negligently selling guns to people who weren't supposed to be sold them.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

When Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders jumped into the 2016 presidential race, he was widely hailed as a far-left socialist who would appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. A liberal challenge to Hillary Clinton, said Politico. True progressives’ liberal alternative, trumpeted FiveThirtyEight. 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.

SNIP

But Sanders’ vote for a different kind of pro-gun bill is more puzzling—and profoundly disturbing. In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)

SNIP

Before the PLCAA, most states imposed some form of tort liability on gun makers and sellers. If a gun manufacturer made an assault rifle that could slaughter dozens of people in a few seconds, for instance, one of its victims might sue the company for negligently making a gun that could foreseeably be used for mass murder. If a gun seller sold a gun to a customer without performing any kind of background check—and then the buyer opened fire on the subway—his victims might sue that seller for negligently providing a gun to a mentally unstable person. The standards in each state differed, but the bottom line remained the same: Victims of gun violence and their families could recover financially from the people and companies who negligently enabled gun violence.

The PLCAA changed all that. Remarkably, the act wiped out gun liability laws in all 50 states, rendering them invalid except for a handful of narrow exceptions. (So much for states’ rights.) Thanks to the law, victims of mass shootings are barred from suing the companies that produced a wartime weapon that no civilian could ever need. With few exceptions, victims cannot sue a gun seller for negligently providing a semiautomatic weapon to a lunatic who shoots them in a movie theater. Even if a jury decides a gun maker or seller should be liable, the PLCAA invalidates its verdict. The law tramples upon states’ rights, juries’ rights, and fundamental precepts of America’s civil justice system. And it received Bernie Sanders’ support—in both 2003 (when it was first introduced) and 2005 (when it finally passed).

he voted for a law that would prevent the firearms manufacturers from being sued for the criminal/negligent misuse of their legal product.
Firearms man. can still be sued if their product injures/kills someone because of a design flaw.
There are actually 6 narrow exemptions to the PLCAA.

Do you know why the PLCAA came into being?

with anything Hillary has done is now considered as "bashing" or "hate".

Everyone has their red line that gets crossed, as far as supporting a candidate goes. No candidate is "perfect". I have read time and time again that us "fringe Lefties" are purists. Well, we are not, and if some of us just really really do not want the possibility of more and more war, or at least do not want to fucking make more war easier - than that's that. We have an extremely limited choice of candidates. But we do get to carefully consider all of them, and make a choice. I do find it heartening that there are so few things about Bernie to rail against, that the same issue needs to be repeated, evidently ad infinitum. Also, sweeping statements should be avoided. We can all use Teh Google to look up the details.

He did not create the culture we live in where people think guns are the answer to their problems. And it is stupid to sue the manufacturer of a legal product. I don't even think tobacco companies should be sued after putting warning labels on their product. I don't like guns and I don't like tobacco. But, making laws that make it possible for someone to be liable for what happens with a product after it leaves the factory is not the way to go about changing things. If you want less gun death then advocate for free college for people over the age of 18. College educated people are on average less violent and more liberal. Teach men that they don't have to buy the message that they are supposed to be strong silent and always in charge, that they have an identity beyond social expectations.

Gun violence is a horrific symptom of horrific cultural expectations. We need to change the dialogue on violence in our culture, not come down on people who are advocating for the empowerment of the people in this country.

and better mental health system.
I really like your idea of free college tuition for those over 18, no one should go into crushing debt to get an education.

I think most the fighting is over drug territory. I could be wrong about that. But, ending that war even just a few gangs to stop feuding that would be great. Yes a better mental health system would do a lot. But, changing our culture will help keep that system from being flooded if and when universal health care becomes a thing.

Changing the culture? Absolutely, unfortunately, it won't happen in my lifetime, but maybe our children or grand children.

that makes it all ok.

The Iraq War was one of the worst foreign policy disasters in American history....and it`s still continuing. I hope all the enablers in this country think about this every single day.

As much as I hate gun violence, our frequent trips to our VA hospital....where hundreds and hundreds are treated each day....have given me a clear understanding of the results of that Iraq War vote. Just like on a daily basis I get a clear understanding of the Vietnam War, as my partner struggles with Agent Orange lung and brain cancer.

A suggestion for you....when you`re counting the war dead from the "entire Iraq War", count the Iraqis as well. You`ll come up with a much more truthful, realistic number for the comparison you`re attempting to make.

So if you add up all the deaths during Bernie's long career, the numbers are similar to those lost in the Iraq war, even including Iraq deaths.

And the point is the same: Bernie made a political decision to support guns, for whatever reason. Hillary made a decision to support the IWR, which conditioned the war on finding weapons of mass destruction -- which were never found. The UN never authorized Bush to go to war when he did. So I don't know why it's fair to criticize her for her political vote, and not Bernie for his.

Was she
1. Conned by Bush?
2. Conniving and sold out the American people and murdered Iraqis to further her personal ambition?
3. Incompetent to think committing a war crime against Iraq was somehow strategically a good idea?
4. Corrupt and somehow made out financially

She still needs to explain the nature of this mistake.
Otherwise it is just empty words