That he recognizes the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution.

and in the general if HRC gets the nomination.

on this. I am dead dog tired of the shrillness of the extremes.

Glad our party debates issues instead picking on immigrants.

need any demagoguery whatsoever.

they are tantrum throwing children. honestly the demo debates will be about 30 IQ points higher the other side. I am for HRC. I will work hard for Sanders or whomever wins the primary. Don't know much about O'Malley but haven't heard anything disqualifying.

want a clown car President. I will whole heartedly support Hillary Clinton once she gets the nod. Will you whole heartedly support Bernie Sanders if he gets the nod instead?

...it's a false premise which is used to make his equivocation and hedging on gun control appear reasonable instead of half-hearted, erratic, and politically influenced by the interest of gun control opponents in his state and elsewhere.

He made an initial vote against the Brady Bill and finally voted for expanded background checks contained in the Brady Bill about a year after the Sandy Hook shootings.

After Sanders left the house to join the Senate, he voted in favor of bills “to allow firearms in checked bags and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans,” according to a profile on Sanders in Slate. In 2005, Sanders voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which made it incredibly difficult for victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers and dealers for the harm their products inflict.
http://genprogress.org/voices/2015/05/27/36789/bernie-sanders-is-progressive-in-every-way-except-when-it-comes-to-guns/

Sanders has also voted against forcing states to respect concealed-carry permits issued by other states - to allow people to carry hidden guns around without a permit.

Moreover, he's been critical of gun control as a response to the wave of mass shootings and other gun violence which has plagued America...although Sanders recently sided with the Obama administration, voting for federal bans on assault weapons and high-capacity clips, his rhetoric on the issue contradicts the sentiment behind such legislation.

“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,” Sanders told a liberal Vermont outlet after the Sandy Hook shootings.
http://newsl.org/2015/05/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/

He echoed that ambivalence to gun control in the NPR interview, stating, "I think that urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law abiding people."

"If anyone thinks that gun control itself is going to solve the problem of violence in this country, you're terribly mistaken. So, obviously, we need strong, sensible gun control and I will support it. But some people think it's going to solve all of our problems. It is not," he said.

"I can understand that if some Democrats or Republicans represent an urban area where people don't hunt, don't do target practice; they're not into guns. But, in my state, people go hunting and people do target practice. Talking about cultural divides in this country, you know, it is important for people in urban America to understand that families go out together and kids go out with their parents and they hunt and they enjoy the outdoors and that is a lifestyle that should not be condemned."

Who is he talking about 'demagoguing against folks just because they go out and hunt and they own guns?' That's a strawman. Certainly none of our Democratic candidates have done this.


Martin O'Malley's own unapologetic support of gun legislation he helped pass in Maryland, making his state the strictest in the nation on gun control. The laws he shepherded through the Md. legislature and signed include:

- Ban on magazines (an ammunition storage and feeding device) that hold more than 10 bullets;
- Ban on 45 types of semiautomatic (weapons that reload automatically but fire only once when the trigger is pulled) rifles, classifying them as assault weapons;
- Requirement that people seeking to buy any gun other than a hunting rifle or shotgun to obtain a license, submit fingerprints to police, undergo a background check and pass classroom and firing-range training;
- Ban on any rifle that has two of three characteristics — 1) Folding stock, which makes the weapon more compact for storage or transport; 2) Grenade launcher; or 3) Flash suppressor, which protects the eyesight of the shooter in low-light shooting conditions.

Still permits the sale of all of the guns available at this website (which is a Maryland gun store). http://store.unitedgunshop.com/. You just have a few more governmental hoops to jump through in Maryland, and instead of a magazine that holds 17 rounds you can only purchase one that holds 10 rounds.

Grenade launchers. Question, how many grenade launchers are used in crimes?

"If anyone thinks that gun control itself is going to solve the problem of violence in this country, you're terribly mistaken. So, obviously, we need strong, sensible gun control and I will support it. But some people think it's going to solve all of our problems. It is not," he said.

I am however bemused at the spate of posts on this issue the past few days. I don't see it as one of the major issues this cycle. Climate change, poverty, and the economy for example are major issues esp with the upcoming trade deals.

Let Vermont have guns but not big, dangerous cities?

like the Founding Fathers intended.

Guns and violence have evolved a lot since 1776.

And the Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms. A good starting point is the Embarrassing Second Amendment. http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm.

As rural states with low gun crime rates, where the majority of firearms are used for hunting? If so, can you justify it?

Do you believe that Sanders approach is not realistic? If so, please explain...

but nice try.

The Third Way is a synthesis of right wing economic issues and left wing social issues. That is its definition. It is not about compromise, it is about triangulation.

To ignore the extremists on both sides of the gun issue and instead focus on the realities of the 2nd amendment AND the need for reasoned gun control is the right answer AND not triangulation.

Minus the conspiracy theories.

that it is Libertarianism without the Ayn Rand bullshit AND the conspiracy theories. Harry Browne would be an excellent example.

And neoliberals do not give one damn about guns or social issues, except how it gets people to support them while they steal.

And yes I have long suspected their always diverting attention to social issues was a ploy.

flip-flopping and not being certain where one stands on an issue.

Again, my third reply to another candidate's supporter that is throwing around incorrect terms just because they want them to stick.

Sanders has been consistent on his gun advocacy and control stances for decades.

Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2015, 11:32 AM - Edit history (1)

...I don't think he's strong on gun control, and I read his own statements as saying he really doesn't believe in gun control. Either that, or he wants gun owners who are opposed to gun control to believe that.

I really don't need you to explain what vacillating means. I think his record on gun control is all over the place and his comments raise questions about the votes he made which were supportive of gun control. He's certainly not someone who speaks for me on the issue. He's throwing out nonsense about someone 'condemning' hunters. I think that's full of it. None of the Democratic candidates are condemning hunters. I think he's just trying to distance himself from other gun control advocates by raising this strawman of his. I certainly don't appreciate it.

aspect of the gun question.

I can respect that.

Sanders is like most of the actual Democratic party when it comes to the gun question. Obama has had several massacres during his presidency. He has put zero effort into fighting for stricter gun control. He certainly could have. And when he wants to fight for something (the TPA/TPP), he can certainly muster the effort. He chose not to. Why?

Guns are used very differently between urban and rural environments. I don't know where you grew up. I did grow up in the rural mountains of western North Carolina. When I went to my first large urban environment for grad school - New Haven, CT - I had my first exposure to gun crime - drugs, gang wars, armed robbery, etc. Those who call for very strict gun control attach the same import to all guns and all environments. You may say it is a straw man for you, but for most gun owners it is not.

His stances are very consistent over the last 40 years. That is why I questioned your use of the word 'vacillating' to describe it. I just wish you and others would simply be more honest and just say he is not strong enough on the issue for you. If it is your top issue or you are single issue voter on gun control, so be it. But what is going to happen if he is the primary winner?

I would hope we'd have his full support in office, if he achieves that.

would not be for gun control once elected. He has been pushing the assault weapons ban, background check expansions, and magazine bans for several years now in the Senate.

His positions on guns, gun control, gun access, etc. have been consistent for as long as he has been in politics. Extremists on either side wish so desperately that it is not true but wishes aren't reality.

they are all here to stay, no matter what.

In CO we passed a law reducing the magazines
to 15 bullets instead of 30 or more. Result?
2 Dem legislators were recalled, and one resigned. And
remember we had Columbine as well as the theater
shootings.

Denver and Boulder were happy about the vote,
but that is not all of the state. There is hardly any
state without a somewhat rural population.

To many people this issue is so important that it
turns them into one issue voters.

I have resigned myself to that fact reluctantly, and
believe that the gun control issue is not only a
waste of time, but also a losing proposition. It is
far better to pick a fight you have a chance of
winning.

Whoever runs for office as a Dem has to think
about that. It will not only affect the primaries
but certainly the GE.

...but we're all going to have our own opinions and judge these candidates on where they stand.

Gun control advocates are not going to hide away just because there's a political tide against them. I think everyone should resign themselves to that fact.

because I am an extremist on gun regulation and I pretty much think anything more than old school rifles for hunting and a shotgun for home protection are all that should be legal. Like most of the other civilized countries in the world. Like all of those countries that don't have one tenth of the gun deaths we do. Because this isn't the fucking wild wild west and people don't have to walk around armed to the teeth to make up for their own insecurities.

But I do not think he is a gun nut like some on this thread would like to imply. He explained his vote on the Brady Bill that so many wish to cling to to beat him over the head with. I see that it reflects more on their candidates flailing around for any type of stance that they think can poll well. It's too bad because it is an important issue. And thankfully, Sanders has voted for pretty much every other type of restriction. So their cries of gun nuttery once again ring hollow.

*Gunners need not reply to my post BTW.*

I am pretty moderate on gun control. Hate the NRA, think we should ban hi capacity magazines, close the gun show loophole and expand background checks. I wouldn't be as restrictive as you. But I think the right to sue is important and I never would have voted the way he did on thst.

sue the manufacturers for their use. All the other things you mention he did vote for, so you are misrepresenting his record quite a lot. I think we should hold gun owners responsible for their guns like gun safes and liability insurance. But I think his point was valid that you can't sue a manufacturer for making something that is considered legal. That is a very slippery slope. I think we need to fight the problem head on instead.

You can't sue a manufacturer for misusing a product. Now with guns, it is a slippery slope because the correct use of their product is to kill someone or something. Maybe that can be argued and I am not against trying to put them out of business. But there is an argument to be made on the other side: you can't sue a chef's knife manufacturer if the knife is used in a crime. You can sue a manufacturer of a car if it blows up due to defect, but you can't sue them if it blows up because you hit something.

As I said, I disagree with Sanders on this issue, but to call him a gun nut as many posters on this thread have done and was the point of the OP, is just ignorant lying. But I am not surprised. We get a lot of that around here.

is inherently defective anywhere but a battlefield.

But it is. And that is what the law was about, suing a manufacturer for a legal product. I manufacture soft goods in the US. If someone said they had suffocated in a blanket or shoved a pillow down their throat and died, I do not think the family should be able to sue me. That is the slippery slope Bernie was trying to avoid.

But what you are totally ignoring, purposely, is that he has an F rating from the NRA and has voted MANY times for gun control. He's not a gun nut nor an NRA apologist. So this whole attack is just nonsense.

And a reasonable person may or may not think it was negligent to sell such a thing. But a jury won't ever hear any evidence.

Can you people get any more desperate? Go ahead, you aren't convincing anyone than the easily fooled. Proceed.

Her vote still sent people to war. People still died, and guns were involved.
Smarmy 'oh I regret it' doesn't bring Tammy Duckworth's legs back, does it....

If you don't to debate the issues, fine. But this is going to be a big primary issue. I sugest defending your candidates position instead yryng to change the subject.

Just because you didn't know, or didn't intend it, doesn't make you blameless for the billions of deaths, the massive suffering, the extinctions, the loss of ecosystems and the disintegration of the very chains of life that have evolved over millions of years.

But like guns, fossil fuels seem so much an ingrained part of our world to me that the thought of trying to round them all up and labor towards massive restrictions where nobody can have an gasoline powered device seems almost laughable in the face of the looming menaces that are swiftly gaining on us.

And the product is legal. If a criminal misuses that legal product then the manufacturer absolutely should be protected from lawsuit. Suing a weapons or ammunition manufacturer in such a case is simply an attempt to use lawsuits by those who want to ban guns to accomplish what they can't at the ballot box.

and sold them to the general public anyway.

... is against his brand.

Come clean on all of it or don't come all, there's nothing EXTREME about gun registration!!!!

This is some bullshit, the reason the "Bern" is felt now is because he hasn't taken this bullshit ass'd message to places like Chicago...

The fact that now he seeks a middle ground is an indicator he's a little far removed from places like Chi Town, Southside KC, East SL etc were guns in the wrong hands drench those places.

Bernies not dumb, he KNOWS that before this weekends stupidity ... and that stupidity has nothing to do with guns but has TONS to do with a overtly white supremacist LEO force in Chicago...

I know LEOs from that area, they speak to me as if I'm not black because I don't live in "those" neighborhoods...

Those LEOs are so racist they don't even know they fuckin racist!!!

"It's their culture"...

Bernie has to address that issue and not skate around it with guns, the LEOs on holidays don't petrol their neighborhoods ... they could care less... it's been that way in Chi for the last 5 years!!!

There's no net new facts about this

No one used "hunting" as an excuse to avoid gun and people control. That dog won't hunt (pun intended).

Bernie has supported guns and gun manufacturers for a long time, but he's pretty quiet about it. He is aware it's an issue. Now he's being evasive to say there is a "middle ground".

There is no middle ground on preventing dangerous people from easy access to weapons. Hunters are not preventing reasonable licenses, regulations, and restrictions.