And gun control is a real issue. But this is a sideshow of that issue.

Bernie is right on all the ones that really matter!

given the fact that we literally can't even pass a bill mandating back round checks for all sales the one and only way we could clamp down on this industry of death was in the courts, and this law forecloses that possibility. Gun manufacturers have openly flouted the law for a couple of generations and we have done nothing and thanks to this law will still do nothing for generations to come.

Let's say, hypothetically, that we are too lax in the tests given for a driver's license and the accident rate has become too high.

Safety advocates press for stricter tests to get incompetent drivers off the road. But that scares people, who are concerned that they'll be unable to drive if that goes too far. A debate ensues and stalemate.

Does it make sense to sue carmakers or dealers for the mistakes of bad drivers? I am not referring to suits or legal actions related to faulty manufacturing, sales that do not adhere to existing legal requirements or other bad effects of a legal product.

This is a debatable fine point in the larger issue. In fact, guns are currently legal, and there are laws and legal remedies for bad behavior on manufacturers and dealers. The real issue now is whether those should be tougher, and how to get there.

to take just one example of their flouting of the law. Virginia gun stores were the original source for a gargantuan percentage of the guns used in crimes on the Eastern seaboard. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Newark, Baltimore, and Washington DC all had a third or more of the guns used in crimes come from Virginia gun stores. People were driving to Virginia, buying a trunk load of guns, and selling them illegally on the streets of these cities. In response, the gun manufacturers conspired to prevent Virginia from passing a law that would limit gun sales to one gun a month. Finally, that was passed via referendum. Now even if you are naive enough to believe that the gun manufacturers had no idea this was happening until it was pointed out to them they still worked diligently to continue engaging in this behavior. This is what they were being sued for, and damn deservedly so it should be noted.

Last edited Sun Jan 17, 2016, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)

doubled down on his vote a few weeks ago. It would not have been a sideshow as you call it.
Btw--another 'sideshow" will manifest itself tonight most likely. The ball is in his court to vote for and advocate for closing the "Charleston loophole"

yeah let's use a tragedy to create a nice snappy political motto

get on board with with one also.

stock up on gunz and ammo like a militia or mental type. What took him so long?

Vermont. Just like here in Upstate NY. We hunt out in the woods to put venison in the freezer. Never heard of anyone succeeding with just a knife. Bows work, but not all want that avenue. Actually, my neighbor's wife got a deer on my property before her husband did and she did it with a bow. Not all guns are handguns nor are they all AR-15's or their like.

Of course his supporters would say he evolved. Hypocrisy at its finest

Only Bernie can evolve others they call liars and frauds

Too busy buying right wing lies

Most voters don't care if a candidate is flip flopping as long as he or she is flipping in their direction.

Flips I like.

Flops I don't.

This one looks like a flip to me.

Last edited Sun Jan 17, 2016, 09:25 AM - Edit history (1)

are distraught families who lose law suits against the manufacturers and have to pay the associated legal fees.

People do alter their views after considering them. Thank goodness for that.

Last edited Sun Jan 17, 2016, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Sure hope this doesn't hurt him during his next campaign for Senator in gun loving Vermont.

Hillary's team has been conflating the two and distorting the truth for political expediency.

Bernie's problem with the previous legislation was that it included mom an pop gun stores that sell the guns as well as manufactures who make them.

The legislation changed, not Bernie's position.

Someone needs to ask Hillary or her supporters why they feel gun stores should be liable along with manufacturers. That's where the differences lie. Instead of lying about the differences perhaps Hillary should work on explaining her position, ie, why should gun stores be included along with manufacturers?

With tobacco and alcohol it you'd sue the producers, not the mom-and-pop corner stores.

Allowing them to be targets would let the manufacturers off the hook.

So why does Hillary support that if it would help manufacturers to evade accountability by spreading it to the small businesses that sell their products?

If an alcohol dealer, like a bar or a store, sells alcohol to someone who's already drunk and that person then causes harm due to his drunken condition, the alcohol dealer can be sued under Dram Shop laws.

A similar law would be like...oh, a pissed-off individual enters the store and buys a gun, and an hour later the gun is used to kill the buyer's neighbor.

apparently specialize in running arms to criminals. In a year 2000 study of ATF data that no longer can be repeated because of the 2003 Tiahrt rider, 57 percent of guns used in crimes traced back to just 1 percent of dealers.

Since they must replace continually guns already used in crimes and dumped as unwanted evidence, crime gangs could be especially lucrative repeat customers for unscrupulous dealers.

Before the PLCAA, manufacturers who stocked high-crime dealers could have been sued in some states. But Sanders and other bloody-handed PLCAA supporters made such accountability virtually impossible everywhere.

And many here think it's a non issue?

Well, with Bernie's help that horse galloped out of that barn and it will now take a much, much greater effort to reign it in. Thanks for nothing Bernie.