Corporations. Guess Hillary has company.

If a kitchen knife, a hammer, a chain-saw, rat poison, or a pillow over the face, is used to kill someone, should the manufacturers be liable. If not, why are guns different?

So, no. Hillary stands apart.

Corporations. I did not put Bernie on a pedestal and say he does not listen to corporations.

BTW, how many loved ones did you have who died at Sandy Hook, etc?

A vehicle is not appealing to me. Oh, BTW, you have to have a license to operate a Ford vehicle.

My farm vehicles are not licensed and no license is required if the vehicle isn't driven on public roads.

are specifically designed to kill. Handguns are specifically designed to kill human beings. The manufacturer is well aware of that. There is no excuse even for making such a device, much less allowing it to be sold except in very small numbers and under rigorous control.

Firearms are designed to propel a projectile down a tube, how it's used is up to the person shooting it.

Are you less dead if your killed in an auto accident as compared to being killed by a firearm?
Of course not, dead is dead regardless of the way you die.

So explain why firearms manufacturer's are responsible for the criminal or negligent misuse of their legal product?

So you would ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?

How does your candidate feel about that?

I would like to see the manufacture and sale of handguns severely restricted to those who have a actual need for them. I would like to see a reduction in the number of police carrying handguns, particularly in light of the recent epidemic of police murders of young people of color.

I have a need for my firearms, including my handguns, so I guess I get to keep mine just because I have a need.

ID, a statement of intent and a signature for anyone seeking to buy poisonous/ lethal substances such as iodine or elemental mercury. A few years ago, I decided I wanted to try iodine toning of black and white photographs. I gave it up when I discovered how many hoops I had to jump through and stuck to more conventional methods.

His refusal to support the Brady legislation in its original form is not a favorable consideration in my political calculus. Neither is his protecting the manufacturers.

It's ridiculous to hold them responsible for deliberate misuse of a legally sold product.

liable when their (otherwise non-defective) products are used criminally or negligently by a third party. Liability should only apply to the misconduct, egregious error, or demonstrable negligence of the responsible party; Sanders got it right in supporting the PLCAA...

Blaming him for what happened in Aurora is even worse.

if you only want to be legal do you have to have a license

I'll call this as I see it and its the tactics of a candidate who doesn't really have much concrete to stand on trying to cut down the opposition. I'm a no gun owner and I agree with Bernie and you one this

the tragedy of Sandy Hook. And he has NEVER TAKEN A PENNY FROM GUN INTERESTS. EVER.

NRA did contribute $18,000 against his opponent.

So enjoy your bouncy frog.

And as far as loved ones who died at Sandy Hook, none. I know. Me and Bernie have blood all over our hands.

by definition a vote against an oil & gas corporation would benefit a green energy corporation or vice versa, correct? Bernie Sanders does own IBM stock and is very involved when it comes to IBM so they certainly have a relationship.

---

The other is that he actively works to make the lives of Vermonters better. My father works for IBM and there was a big change in how IBM handled retirement and pensions many years ago. Bernie got personally involved in the fight for the workers and stayed with it the whole way. So many politicians claim they want to work for their constituents. He actually does so and out of genuine desire to help the people he represents.

http://www.quora.com/What-do-Vermont-residents-think-of-Bernie-Sanders

Former IBM Workers Get Federal Help

WASHINGTON, March 11 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced today that laid-off employees at IBM’s plant in Essex Junction, Vt., will be eligible for help through a federal training and reemployment program for workers who lost jobs due to foreign competition.

Sanders, a senior member of the Senate labor committee, had urged the U.S. Department of Labor to make the Trade Adjustment Assistance available as soon as possible.

The department already had approved benefits for more than 115 IBM workers laid off in last June in Williston, Vt. Today’s announcement extends benefits to more than 300 IBM workers who lost their jobs in the same round of June layoffs at IBM’s Essex Junction facility. In addition, many workers IBM laid off last month also will be eligible for benefits.

“My heart goes out to all of the IBM workers who have lost their jobs. I am pleased, however, that these employees will finally be able to take advantage of job training, education and extended unemployment benefits that the Trade Adjustment Assistance program offers,” Sanders said. “Clearly, these federal benefits are not a substitute for a job, but they will provide some economic security as these workers look for new jobs and move on with their lives.”

Benefits under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program include:

Up to 130 weeks of full-time or part-time job training.
Up to 130 weeks of extended unemployment benefits for workers enrolled in full-time job training programs.
A wage subsidy for as long as two years for workers who are 50-years-old or older and re-employed in jobs that pay less than $50,000.
Reimbursement for the cost of relocating to a job in a different location.
Reimbursement for job search costs.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/former-ibm-workers-get-federal-help

Hundreds of IBM workers are expected to show up for a "town meeting" tomorrow in Winooski, Vt., organized by Rep. Bernie Sanders, an independent. Some 7,500 of his constituents work for IBM.

An employment-law attorney is scheduled to talk about whether IBM's plan amounts to illegal age discrimination.

Mr. Sanders and 19 other members of Congress last week asked the Internal Revenue Service to see if cash-balance plans violate age-discrimination laws.

Tort lawyers are bringing class-action suits against firms with cash-balance plans that, they charge, discriminate. Not all do. They say companies are trying to save money at the expense of older workers.

The Republican tax-cutting bill just passed by Congress includes a provision requiring companies to disclose to employees significant losses in benefits. It has bipartisan support. It could even be toughened if the White House and Congress reach agreement on a tax-cutting bill this fall.

Sanders also plans to introduce a bill requiring companies to let workers select the old plan if their employer switches to a cash-balance plan.

Norman Stein, a law professor at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, describes the pension trend as "pretty frightening." It hits workers when it may be "too late" to seek a new employer or save much more for retirement, he says.

http://www.csmonitor.com/1999/0816/p17s1.html

More coziness with IBM

With Vermont No. 1 per capita in private-sector green jobs and ninth in the nation in solar energy installations, the Department of Energy picked our state to host a regional solar test center,” Gov. Peter Shumlin said. “I am so proud that, through the efforts of Sen. Sanders and with partners like Sandia National Laboratories and IBM Essex, Vermont will be playing a leading role in critical research and development to advance clean solar power.”

The seven-acre testing site is on IBM-owned land in Williston, Vt., and will accommodate up to 300 kilowatts of solar power. Construction of the facility will continue throughout the fall.

Solar manufacturers, selected by a competitive process, will install photovoltaic systems at the Regional Test Center where they will be rigorously monitored by Sandia for performance and reliability. The testing site also will support collaborative research on integration of solar technologies into Vermont's statewide smart electric grid, built with $69 million in federal funds and matching contributions from the state’s utilities.

“Thanks to the vision of Sen. Sanders, the leadership of the Department of Energy and technical commitment from IBM, this Regional Test Center will help realize a national vision for research, demonstration and testing of cutting edge solar technology," said Steve Rottler, Sandia National Laboratories Vice President.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/solar-power-in-vermont

In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the No. 2 largest U.S. firm in terms of number of employees,[7] the No. 4 largest in terms of market capitalization,[8] the No. 9 most profitable,[9] and the No. 19 largest firm in terms of revenue.[10] Globally, the company was ranked the No. 31 largest firm in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011.[11] Other rankings for 2011/2012 include the following:[13]

No. 1 company for leaders (Fortune)
No. 1 green company in the U.S. (Newsweek)[48]
No. 2 best global brand (Interbrand)
No. 2 most respected company (Barron's)[49]
No. 5 most admired company (Fortune)
No. 18 most innovative company (Fast Company)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM#Environmental_record

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding as the corporate money doesn't sway him -- saying he doesn't listen isn't the same thing as saying corporate money buys his opinion or his vote -- even factoring in the conflict of interest issues with IBM he still improved the pension plan when they were ripping it off & working to get help for the workers being laid off. IBM partners on a lot of green energy products in events featuring Bernie Sanders.

With the last question you went down the ugly road...

But I suspect, you won't.

Bye.

For better or for worse the Supreme Court has been very open about not liking restrictions around guns.

I think it's crappy, and gun manufacturers/sellers don't do nearly enough to keep guns out of the hands of scumbags.

So, how are the manufacturer's responsible for keeping firearms out of the hands of scumbags?

And all FFL dealers have to do a background check when selling a firearm to someone, so if they're following federal law, how are they responsible for scumbags getting ahold of a firearm?

in their vehicles?
You're not making any sense at all, there is no, nada, nyet, zero reason for the manufacturer of a legal product to be held responsible for the criminal/negligent misuse by a 3rd party.

That's exactly what the PLCAA is designed to do, and it's a good law, and my man Bernie rightly voted for it.

money to pay for injuries.

Again, the auto analogy, do you agree with that also?

It doesn't matter what they support or don't support, the plain simple fact is that firearms manufacturers are not, and should not be responsible for the 3rd party misuse of their legally produced product.

How come you won't answer my question about auto manufacturers?

statements. We should be sensible sometimes.

Like the ThinkingAbout's reply.

Would you also say that car manufacturers don't do nearly enough to keep cars out of the hands of drunk drivers?

seriously...........?

other than the rat poison what were what were other things designed for that makes your argument an
exercise in.................'well you know what

And any number of substances?

I'm pointing out that ALL of these items are legal to posses, and manufacture and sell.

So why should the manufacturer be held liable? Here's a reason: Putting up bills like that sells votes.

Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2015, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)

it raises the culpability of the manufacturer

And there's nothing in the PLCAA stating that.

it's by weight of judgement that determines which laws are created and upheld and most importantly..... their interpretation

Right now the interpretation says that no one can abridge your right to own a weapon but for very few reasons: felons, some diagnosed mental illnesses, a restraining order issued to you and a few others but HEY, you could be of seriously low cognitive ability, be a well hidden psychopath or be vengefully suicidal...but still have access to some major weaponry because the law says you have that right.

Was that what the signers of the second amendment had in mind? would they have signed it if they knew was the future held in household weaponry?

That is the question

And if so, why have they not already been sued? Why would you need a new law?

the PLCAA was signed into law in 2005, such a lawsuit wouldn't even reach a jury now, it would be dismissed long before it got that far.

There is no matter of time, the PLCAA is the law of the land, it's been upheld by the SC on at least 3 occasions as constitutional.

but laws can be changed or repealed

"After the 2012 Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook, Connecticut shooting incidents, a renewed effort has been mounted to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to make it possible for victims of gun violence to sue firearms manufacturers and dealers on a broader array of grounds, although these efforts have proven mostly unsuccessful.[2][3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act


Like I said, it's a matter of time

very rarely are SC decisions overturned, so don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen.

they reach a jury, the PLCAA is very clear, a firearm manufacturer cannot be held liable for the 3rd party criminal/negligent misuse of their legal product.

It would be the same as trying to sue Ford because a drunk driver injured or killed someone in one of their vehicles.

can a argument be made that by making and marketing massive inventories of items that are specifically designed to kill
and also fight laws that would inhibit their ability to do so would make gun manufacturers somewhat liable?

if they had continued to support sensible gun laws and done socially responsible work instead of only looking at the expansion of ownership for their benefit only then culpability would be reduced or eliminated.


what I'm trying to say there is a very good chance that PLCAA may get repealed for one reason or many

with this issue, which I thank you for.
That argument has already been made and dismissed at the state level, it's now at the federal level and expected to be dismissed very soon also due to the PLCAA.

There are only 6 narrow exceptions to the PLCAA, and none of them pertain to what your argument is.

As I said, the chances of the PLCAA being repealed are very poor, it could happen, but it won't happen in my lifetime.

Thanks!

but I did stay in a Holiday Express one time. LOL, just kidding about the Holiday Express thing.

I read and stay up to date on what's happening concerning the 2A, my wife and I are avid hunters and target shooters and are strong advocates for the RKBA.

as a hunter and supporter of gun ownership, what would you like to see in regards to responsible gun ownership?

I know you must have an opinion that may run counter to the mainstream RBKA groups.

I would really like to know., thanks.

all firearms transactions should have to be subject to a background check, beef up the ATF to go after crooked FFL dealers and straw purchasers, enhanced penalties for those that use a gun in a crime.

I might be persuaded to institute a national FOID card with strict penalties for misuse of the database by LEO or govt. officials.

Reward states that meticulously maintain their records of prohibited persons.
I'm willing to look at all reasonable laws with an open mind if it can be proven to reduce firearm violence without infringing on the rights of the law abiding citizen.

What I won't tolerate are feel good, do nothing laws, like mag limits, so called banning of "assault weapons", registration, etc.

Hope that helps.

that is my understanding but I might be wrong

oppose, wrongly, BGC's for private sales.

but have morphed into a different form of retail
and the NRA opposes BCG at gun shows

it is a problem

although, most firearms sales at firearms shows do go through an FFL BGC, and most gun shows have undercover cops and ATF agents looking for straw purchases and sleazy individuals selling to prohibited persons.

The op isn't about gun control.

It is not a state, but Puerto Ricans are American citizens.

post a picture from an event held at the Clinton Foundation--with the goal of making a "dire" association--I'll post an equally shitty, unfair and nasty picture in response....mmmkay?

How's this one?



I'd post the "other" essay....but that one is obscene and NSFW....

If cartoons and bumper-stickers are all a person has, I guess we may expect little else from you...


(insert righteous justification below to maintain pretense you actually can thinnk deeper than a bumper-stikcers

Great tradition.

Here some more righteousness; a picture is worth a thousand words.

I like Bernie just fine, but I'm ready to photoshop him with an AK-47 in front of Sandy Hook, I am so tired of these asinine snipes. Yeah, that's descending to their level, but this is really getting tiresome. It's just not promoting good conversation here, and every time someone gets challenged, and they can't come up with a decent retort, well BOOM, it's another dumbass photo accompanied by snark and innuendo, completely taken out of context.

No one has done OPPO research on Bernie to any extent, but if his supporters keep this shit up, someone is going to start in on that. And given that there's an entire DECADE missing from his campaign website, I'd say the smart OPPO researcher would start with that missing decade, and begin with his first wife.

It's almost as though people don't WANT to talk about the issues, they'd rather fling shit. If they keep it up, they might get more than they've bargained for....

Last edited Mon Jun 15, 2015, 08:01 PM - Edit history (1)

to kill.