Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:29 AM Mar 2016

Sanders is wrong about the lawsuit we filed after our son’s murder in Newtown

Our son, our sweet little Daniel, was just 7 when he was murdered in his first-grade classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. We are among the 10 families suing the manufacturer, distributor and retail seller of the assault rifle that took 26 lives in less than five minutes on that terrible day.

We write in response to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s comments about our lawsuit at the recent Democratic presidential debate in Michigan. Sanders suggested that the “point” of our case is to hold Remington Arms Co. liable simply because one of its guns was used to commit mass murder. With all due respect, this is simplistic and wrong.

This case is about a particular weapon, Remington’s Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians. It is not about handguns or hunting rifles, and the success of our lawsuit would not mean the end of firearm manufacturing in this country, as Sanders warned. This case is about the AR-15 because the AR-15 is not an ordinary weapon; it was designed and manufactured for the military to increase casualties in combat. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars: uniquely deadly and suitable for specialized use only.

We have never suggested that Remington should be held liable simply for manufacturing the AR-15. In fact, we believe that Remington and other manufacturers’ production of the AR-15 is essential for our armed forces and law enforcement. But Remington is responsible for its calculated choice to sell that same weapon to the public, and for emphasizing the military and assaultive capacities of the weapon in its marketing to civilians.


More at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanders-is-wrong-about-the-lawsuit-we-filed-after-our-son-was-murdered-in-newtown/2016/03/18/d5892e2a-ebbb-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html
98 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sanders is wrong about the lawsuit we filed after our son’s murder in Newtown (Original Post) ProudToBeLiberal Mar 2016 OP
Bernie always supported a ban on assault weapons. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #1
This is not what he said during the Michigan debate. ProudToBeLiberal Mar 2016 #5
Sure, that is exactly what you felt. JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #9
Hillary talks a good game but Annie Oakley won't pursue gun control if she wins. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #12
I supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, so you don't have to lecture me on her past positions. ProudToBeLiberal Mar 2016 #13
There was no epidemic of gun violence or mass shootings before 2008? beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #15
The Black Lives Matter movement wasn't around in 2008. Nt ProudToBeLiberal Mar 2016 #16
What does that have to do with anything? Did they endorse Hillary? beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #17
The mothers of the movement have in fact endorsed Hillary Clinton. ProudToBeLiberal Mar 2016 #18
They aren't the movement. Erica Garner endorsed Bernie: beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #19
"They aren't the movement." Wow...you have gone too far scottie. ProudToBeLiberal Mar 2016 #21
I didn't disrespect anyone, I stated a fact. You implied blm endorsed Hillary. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #22
Please say their names. Nt ProudToBeLiberal Mar 2016 #25
I stand with all the parents who have lost children. Hortensis Mar 2016 #71
Oh spare me. Appeal to emotion fallacy: beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #76
Pure partisanship. If it were HRC, your argument would reverse. Hortensis Mar 2016 #91
Of course because only Hillary supporters have "principles and respect for worthy people". beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #92
And in response to your edit: horseshit! beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #93
I don't believe these posts are about policy. Hortensis Mar 2016 #94
How would you know? Your "belief" couldn't possibly be based on anything I actually posted. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #95
I'm talking about people objecting to criticism Hortensis Mar 2016 #97
I stand with democracy. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #90
What does BLM have to do with Gwhittey Mar 2016 #44
Gun violence has always been an issue -- Cluinton's "change" is just marketing Armstead Mar 2016 #50
I am aways impressed with how you try to try to educate the willfully Fairgo Mar 2016 #23
Thank you! beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #24
Thanks. I knew her position was situational, but that's incredible. kristopher Mar 2016 #26
Pushing too hard on gun control in the ge has always been a bad idea. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #27
Wow! Excellent post. Very Well said! monicaangela Mar 2016 #55
Gish gallop... XRubicon Mar 2016 #98
He's on the wrong side of this issue. Period. nt BreakfastClub Mar 2016 #2
When you have the NRA tweeting favorably on your gun position then something is very wrong. Nt ProudToBeLiberal Mar 2016 #3
+1 uponit7771 Mar 2016 #30
Sanders is on the same side of the issue as Clinton -- Period Armstead Mar 2016 #51
There is a lot of rhetoric there, but legally the question is... JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #4
I stand with the Sandy Hook families. Nt ProudToBeLiberal Mar 2016 #6
You have no response to what I said but commented anyway? Interesting, there is a word for that. JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #7
I am a bit rusty from my forced hiatus. Please give me a chance to get my mojo back. Nt ProudToBeLiberal Mar 2016 #8
Okay David. Proceed. JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #10
Thank you. You're a good dude. Nt ProudToBeLiberal Mar 2016 #11
This message was self-deleted by its author JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #14
Yes, when manufacturers advertise gunz as key to manhood, as best sniper rifle, etc. Tobacco Hoyt Mar 2016 #47
That can be applied to just about any industry Armstead Mar 2016 #52
Exactly, and they can be sued. Why special protection for gunz? My guess, lots of gun Hoyt Mar 2016 #53
Gun fanciers yes...Not gun manufacturers Armstead Mar 2016 #56
Check out the States next door. No other candidate has the guts to speak out against Hoyt Mar 2016 #64
I'm not sure what the states next door have to do with it... Armstead Mar 2016 #65
I said region. I am sure plenty of Vermontians work in gunz, gun shops, making targets that resemble Hoyt Mar 2016 #66
Take them on? She supported those "old white racists'" regional rights: beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #68
I could live with what she said. Unfortunately, almost any racist can carry a gun in this country. Hoyt Mar 2016 #69
Sure you can because she's your candidate yet you condemn Bernie. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #70
Most of the gunners here -- who usually hide in the Gungeon -- appear to be Sanders's supporters. Hoyt Mar 2016 #72
No she's not, and your claims about other posters just show your bias. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #73
What is Clinton going to do TeddyR Mar 2016 #77
Belittle and ridicule hose who need a gun in their pants to walk out the door, is a good start. Hoyt Mar 2016 #84
In 2003, Rep. Sanders voted to protect "lawful commerce in arms": ucrdem Mar 2016 #20
Federal bills banning AR15s have failed for the last 14 years aikoaiko Mar 2016 #28
Making and selling a dangerous weapon and continually making it less safe is a great reason to get uponit7771 Mar 2016 #31
How is the AR dangerous and how is it made more dangerous? aikoaiko Mar 2016 #32
I'm talking about assault weapons overall, they can be made safer but there's no mandate uponit7771 Mar 2016 #34
That can be achieved legislatively if there were enough support. aikoaiko Mar 2016 #36
In part because of the shit pile of immunity legislation Sanders supported !! If anything it made it uponit7771 Mar 2016 #37
Let's be clear that no one who wants to sue wants to make ARs safer. aikoaiko Mar 2016 #38
Wrong on its face, of course rational people want to make something that's dangerous safer... uponit7771 Mar 2016 #39
PLAACA doesnt prevent or make legislation harder. aikoaiko Mar 2016 #40
"These Sandy Hook parents and the antigun organizations who are paying them...." thucythucy Mar 2016 #54
No, that's not what I'm saying. aikoaiko Mar 2016 #59
Yeah, well, that's a pretty big mistake to make thucythucy Mar 2016 #85
How would one "make those guns safer?" Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #89
How do you make them safer? Nt hack89 Mar 2016 #61
Allowing only owner to use them after extensive background check uponit7771 Mar 2016 #74
If you purchase an AR-15 TeddyR Mar 2016 #78
Nothing wrong with strong background checks. nt hack89 Mar 2016 #80
Dangerous because ARs attract sick people. That's why they are made to look Hoyt Mar 2016 #48
You really shouldn't slur people like Gabby Giffords this way. aikoaiko Mar 2016 #60
And look where her gun love got her. Hoyt Mar 2016 #63
Are you really attacking Gabby Giffords? TeddyR Mar 2016 #79
She was a gun promoter before getting shot. Hoyt Mar 2016 #83
She's still a gun promoter TeddyR Mar 2016 #86
I disagree with your position on gunz. I think gun love is sad. Hoyt Mar 2016 #88
But but but Sanders is a true blue progressive dammit!!! uponit7771 Mar 2016 #29
Bluer than the Wall Street candidate. aikoaiko Mar 2016 #33
Overall I'd say slightly better but not so much better that he can chunk rocks like he's done. Wall uponit7771 Mar 2016 #35
Wall Street never killed anyone. Guns kill 33,000 a year. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #41
Guns, being inanimate objects without agency, have never killed anyone. aikoaiko Mar 2016 #42
We don't know mythology Mar 2016 #43
Your example shows that PLAACA is not an impediment to righteous suits. aikoaiko Mar 2016 #46
Oh My God..... Armstead Mar 2016 #58
Two thirds of which are suicides. hack89 Mar 2016 #62
This post is main difference of the progressive vs pretend ones Gwhittey Mar 2016 #45
Nothing "progressive" about gunz. Hoyt Mar 2016 #49
No kidding Sherlock. And did you know the Sky was blue? Gwhittey Mar 2016 #81
Gunz are nothing like Roe v Wade, Watson. Hoyt Mar 2016 #82
How do they differ? TeddyR Mar 2016 #87
No. Pretend ones don't realize that laws that protect corporations aren't progressive. kcr Mar 2016 #67
K&R mcar Mar 2016 #57
I do believe he is wrong on this issue alarimer Mar 2016 #75
So, the lawsuit isn't about holding Rem accountable for one of their weapons being used... Lancero Mar 2016 #96

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
1. Bernie always supported a ban on assault weapons.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:31 AM
Mar 2016
Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns. In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm


I want to shield gun shops from lawsuits, not manufacturers

Q: For a decade, you said that holding gun manufacturers legally responsible for mass shootings is a bad idea. Do you want to shield gun companies from lawsuits?

SANDERS: Of course not. This was a large and complicated bill. There were provisions in it that I think made sense. For example, do I think that a gun shop in the state of Vermont that sells legally a gun to somebody, and that somebody goes out and does something crazy, that that gun shop owner should be held responsible? I don't. On the other hand, where you have manufacturers and where you have gun shops knowingly giving guns to criminals or aiding and abetting that, of course we should take action.

Source: 2015 CNN Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas , Oct 13, 2015

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm


Bernie Sanders’ critics misfire: The Vermont senator’s gun record is better than it looks

....However, the Nation and the other reports like it don’t shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They don’t explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if there’s a consistency to Sanders’ positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernie’s position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.

Yet there is an explanation. It’s consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And it’s in Bernie’s own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. House—in 1990—where he was endorsed by the NRA, even after Sanders told them that he would ban assault rifles. That year, Bernie faced Republican incumbent Peter Smith, who beat him by less than 4 percentage points in a three-way race two years before.

In that 1988 race, Bernie told Vermont sportsmen that he backed an assault weapons ban. Smith told the same sportsmen’s groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle ban—even bringing an AK-47 to his press conference. That about-face was seen as a betrayal and is the background to a June 1990 debate sponsored by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.

I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidates—as the Sanders’ campaign press secretary—and recorded it. Bernie spoke at length three times and much of what he said is relevant today, and anticipates his congressional record on gun control ever since. Look at how Bernie describes what being a sportsperson is in a rural state, where he is quick to draw the line with weapons that threaten police and have no legitimate use in hunting—he previously was mayor of Vermont’s biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nation’s characterization, isn’t “open-minded.”

As you can see, Bernie—who moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960s—has an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. He’s not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jock—being captivated by ideas and a high school miler who hoped for a track scholarship for college. But like many people who settled in Vermont for generations, he was drawn to its freer and greener pastures and respected its local culture.

“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”

That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/


Alternet: Bernie's Gun Control Critics Are Wrong—His Stance Has Been Consistent for Decades

Next, the 1990 debate turned to gun control. The moderator, who clearly was a Second Amendment absolutist, went after Bernie—to test his mettle after Smith’s about-face.

“Do you support additional restrictions on firearms? Do you support additional restrictive firearms legislation?” he asked. “Bernie Sanders, explain yourself, yes or no?”

“Yes,” he replied. “Two years ago, I went before the Vermont Sportsman’s Federation and was asked exactly the same question. It was a controversial question. I know how they felt on the issue. And that was before the DiConcini Bill. That was before a lot of discussion about the Brady Bill. That was before New Jersey and California passed bills limiting assault weapons.

“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”


That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.

“I said that before the election,” he continued. “The Vermont sportspeople, as is their right, made their endorsement. The endorsed Peter Smith. They endorsed Paul Poirier. I lost that election by about three-and-one-half percentage points, a very close election. Was my failure to get that endorsement pivotal? It might have been. We don’t know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. All I can say is I told the sportspeople of Vermont what I believe before the election and I am going to say it again.

“I do believe we need to ban certain types of assault weapons. I have taked to police chiefs. I have talked to the police officers out on the street. I have read some of the literature all over this country. Police chiefs, police officers are concerned about the types of weapons which are ending up in the hands of drug dealers and other criminals and our police oficers are getting outgunned.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-gun-control-critics-are-wrong-his-stance-has-been-consistent-decades


Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban


Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:

In 1994, however, Sanders voted in favor of the final version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a bill that expanded the federal death penalty. Sanders had voted for an amendment to the bill that would have replaced all federal death sentences with life in prison. Even though the amendment failed, Sanders still voted for the larger crime bill.

A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."

Sanders reiterated his opposition to capital punishment in 2015. "I just don’t think the state itself, whether it’s the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people," he said on a radio show.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/

ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
5. This is not what he said during the Michigan debate.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:50 AM
Mar 2016

After making progress on the gun issue, I felt like he took a step back.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
12. Hillary talks a good game but Annie Oakley won't pursue gun control if she wins.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:56 AM
Mar 2016

She pandered to gun nuts in 2008 and she'll do it again.

Hillary hits Obama on faith, guns

Yesterday, Clinton hit Obama for calling Pennsylvanians "bitter," ground on which he fairly ably engaged.
Today, she's onto the other half of his San Francisco remarks, in which he linked economic frustration to clinging to religion and guns (the part he sought to walk back this morning in Muncie, Ind.).

"Sen. Obama's remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch," Clinton said. "The people of faith I know don't 'cling to' religion because they're bitter. ... I also disagree with Sen. Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration. People of all walks of life hunt — and they enjoy doing so because it's an important part of their life, not because they are bitter."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/04/hillary-hits-obama-on-faith-guns-007747


Hillary Clinton goes bold on gun safety — but she sounded a different note in 2008

But Clinton hasn’t always been so forceful in her fight for gun control. As the Post highlights, Clinton has dramatically shifted her tone on gun control since the 2008 campaign. While Clinton touted her husband’s record record on gun control (former President Bill Clinton signed into the law an assault weapons ban that has since lapsed) she also heralded personal memories of learning to shoot with her father and defend gun ownership, saying, “there is not a contradiction between protecting Second Amendment rights” and the effort to reduce crime.

You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” Clinton said while campaigning ahead of the Indiana primary, where white working class Democrats propelled her to a narrow victory over then-Sen. Barack Obama. “You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter,” she continued, in a dig at Obama’s remark at a fundraiser that disenfranchised Americans often “cling” to cultural symbols like guns and religion.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/10/hillary_clinton_goes_bold_on_gun_safety_but_she_sounded_a_different_note_in_2008/




Clinton's Hunting History

WAUSAU, WIS. -- At a campaign stop this afternoon, Hillary Clinton's focus was on the economy and health care but some in the crowd had other things on their minds. Clinton was asked to discuss gun control which prompted Clinton to talk about her days holding a rifle in the cold, shallow waters in backwoods Arkansas.

"I've hunted. My father taught me how to hunt. I went duck hunting in Arkansas. I remember standing in that cold water, so cold, at first light. I was with a bunch of my friends, all men. The sun's up, the ducks are flying and they are playing a trick on me. They said, 'we're not going to shoot, you shoot.' They wanted to embarrass me. The pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck and they were surprised as I was," Clinton said drawing laughter from the crowd.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clintons-hunting-history/



Let states & cities determine local gun laws

Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?

A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you’re referring to is before the Supreme Court.

Q: But what do you support?

A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?

A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else [should be able to] come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.

Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?

A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm





ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
13. I supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, so you don't have to lecture me on her past positions.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:59 AM
Mar 2016

In 2008, there was no Sandy Hook. In 2008, there was no Charleston massacre. In 2008, there was no Aurora shooting. In 2008, there was no...the list is endless. We need to stop the epidemic of gun violence.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
15. There was no epidemic of gun violence or mass shootings before 2008?
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:00 AM
Mar 2016

You sure you want to go with that?

Both candidates are solidly in the gun control camp, trying to portray Bernie as a pro-NRA gun nut won't work.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
19. They aren't the movement. Erica Garner endorsed Bernie:
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:14 AM
Mar 2016



In fact Bernie has better proposals to deal with police violence than Hillary:




Blm has nothing to do with your op, they didn't endorse anyone.

ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
21. "They aren't the movement." Wow...you have gone too far scottie.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:18 AM
Mar 2016

This is too much even from you. The mothers of the movement deserve your respect and sincerity. These are the mothers who have lost their childs.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
22. I didn't disrespect anyone, I stated a fact. You implied blm endorsed Hillary.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:20 AM
Mar 2016

The truth has no bias, you're just upset because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Now unless you'd like to challenge anything I've posted we're done here.

You have a nice day.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
71. I stand with all the parents who have lost children.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:40 PM
Mar 2016

Sanders supporters should not let partisanship put them on the other side.

Right is right. Wrong is wrong.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
76. Oh spare me. Appeal to emotion fallacy:
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:42 PM
Mar 2016
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

Wikipedia › wiki › Appeal_to_emotion


You don't get to claim we stand in opposition to the families simply because we disagree.

The way Hillary supporters love to exploit victims of gun violence is the WORST kind of partisanship.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
91. Pure partisanship. If it were HRC, your argument would reverse.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:42 AM
Mar 2016

THAT is my claim.

And this: Watching this forum, I see no principles and no respect for previously admired people that aren't dropped the moment they get in the way of supposedly promoting Sanders.

And this: I see new principles and new people to be admired arise the moment they can be useful in promoting Sanders.

And I wonder: Why on earth didn't you guys just pass on this one, instead of rushing to criticize and attack the actions of parents of dead children because they criticized something Sanders did? What goes on in your heads to cause knee-jerk support of or opposition to just about anything that becomes connected to the name you support?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
92. Of course because only Hillary supporters have "principles and respect for worthy people".
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:50 AM
Mar 2016

More pretension and grandstanding from the folks who think they're morally superior and "prove" it by exploiting victims of gun violence almost on a daily basis.

Your declaration that you "stand with all the parents who have lost children" implies that it's not possible to stand with them and support Bernie.

It's no different than the idiotic and meaningless slogan: "Think of the children!"

Get off the soapbox and quit pretending you have the high moral ground here because we differ on policy, you don't.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
93. And in response to your edit: horseshit!
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:02 AM
Mar 2016
And I wonder: Why on earth didn't you guys just pass on this one, instead of rushing to criticize and attack the actions of parents of dead children because they criticized something Sanders did? What goes on in your heads to cause knee-jerk support of or opposition to just about anything that becomes connected to the name you support?


I never criticized and attacked the parents of dead children, you're making up falsehoods again because the only thing you care about is scoring points by vilifying Bernie supporters.

Attacking and lying about liberals who support gun control simply because we support Bernie and disagree with you on policy proves that this isn't about finding a solution, it's all a partisan game.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
95. How would you know? Your "belief" couldn't possibly be based on anything I actually posted.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:32 AM
Mar 2016

Instead of addressing what I actually wrote you deliberately misrepresented my posts. You accused me of attacking women who lost their children so you could pretend you're morally superior.

It's intellectually dishonest and it's not the first time.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
90. I stand with democracy.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 01:15 AM
Mar 2016

Want to take a firearm off the market? Pass the fucking law. Trying to do it with nuisance lawsuits and specious arguments about the intent of the designer is anti-democratic. Bernie was absolutely right with his vote on that law.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
50. Gun violence has always been an issue -- Cluinton's "change" is just marketing
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:38 AM
Mar 2016

Yes there have been a burst of high profile mass shootings in a concentrated period of time.

But the basic issue has been the same all along. If Hillary were not a hypocrite, she would have had the same stance in 2008 as she does today.

Fairgo

(1,571 posts)
23. I am aways impressed with how you try to try to educate the willfully
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:21 AM
Mar 2016

ignorant. I finally hit saturation and had to start using the ignore button. I will miss your edifaction, but not their complete ignoring of same.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
24. Thank you!
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:24 AM
Mar 2016

I can do it in my sleep by now, this meme ran its course last summer.

I don't usually argue the point, just post the facts and move on.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
26. Thanks. I knew her position was situational, but that's incredible.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:52 AM
Mar 2016

I can see how the GE spending against her would drive her unfavorables even higher than they are now. A lot of people don't know this, but pandering eventually has consequences.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
27. Pushing too hard on gun control in the ge has always been a bad idea.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:03 AM
Mar 2016

And frankly I don't believe for one minute that Hillary would push it even after she was elected.

It's just the only issue she can use against Bernie and the appeal to emotion works.


monicaangela

(1,508 posts)
55. Wow! Excellent post. Very Well said!
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:55 AM
Mar 2016

Thank you for posting this beam me up scottie, this is the best explanation I have seen so far. Bernie should start using this information when he is attacked by the campaign smear campaigning.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
51. Sanders is on the same side of the issue as Clinton -- Period
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:42 AM
Mar 2016

He made a gaffe to a gotcha question in a debate.

But he was giving an honest reaction, unlike Clinton who gives politically calculated responses.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
4. There is a lot of rhetoric there, but legally the question is...
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:49 AM
Mar 2016

Should a manufacturer, while obeying the laws of the municipality the firearm was marketed and made for sale in, be subject to suit for selling this piece of hardware?



People do hunt with these firearms, fwiw.

Response to ProudToBeLiberal (Reply #11)

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
47. Yes, when manufacturers advertise gunz as key to manhood, as best sniper rifle, etc. Tobacco
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:28 AM
Mar 2016

Tobacco manufacturers were similarly sued.

Gun manufacturers also lobby for lax gun laws through NRA.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
52. That can be applied to just about any industry
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:45 AM
Mar 2016

Media, movies, video games, music.....

They all will promote messages that will sell images of violence, bad behavior, sexism...etc.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
53. Exactly, and they can be sued. Why special protection for gunz? My guess, lots of gun
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:51 AM
Mar 2016

manufacturers and gun fanciers in Sanders' region.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
56. Gun fanciers yes...Not gun manufacturers
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:58 AM
Mar 2016

The gun industry is not a presence in Vermont

Bernie made a gaffe in that debate question.

But ultimately his point is that in a legal sense gun manufacturers are like any industry. Legally no better and no worse. If you don't like the product of the industry, either regulate it or ban it.

I'll betchya -- were she not in campaign mode -- Clinton would say the same thing.



 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
64. Check out the States next door. No other candidate has the guts to speak out against
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 11:48 AM
Mar 2016

the NRA, gun fanciers, etc. I admire that.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
65. I'm not sure what the states next door have to do with it...
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 11:55 AM
Mar 2016

But I don't see Clinton as a profile in courage on this issue. And not all that different than Sanders (especially considering her message in 2008)....She's just a better salesperson on the issue.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
66. I said region. I am sure plenty of Vermontians work in gunz, gun shops, making targets that resemble
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:12 PM
Mar 2016

humans, gun shows where mostly old white racists go to get excited, etc. I admire Clinton for taking them own.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
68. Take them on? She supported those "old white racists'" regional rights:
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:24 PM
Mar 2016
Let states & cities determine local gun laws

Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?

A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you’re referring to is before the Supreme Court.

Q: But what do you support?

A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?

A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.

Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?

A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
69. I could live with what she said. Unfortunately, almost any racist can carry a gun in this country.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:33 PM
Mar 2016

Since 2008 even more white wing racists have started carrying and accumulating gunz -- you know the "take our country back" types and other gun admirers that really need to take advantage of the mental health programs she supports.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
70. Sure you can because she's your candidate yet you condemn Bernie.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:37 PM
Mar 2016

It's the double standard that's so galling.

Both are pro-gun control, the "old white racists" NRA types you referred to won't vote for either one.

Anyone who truly cares about this issue would go after the real enemies instead of Democrats.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
72. Most of the gunners here -- who usually hide in the Gungeon -- appear to be Sanders's supporters.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:42 PM
Mar 2016

Clinton is much more progressive on gunz than Sanders.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
73. No she's not, and your claims about other posters just show your bias.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:44 PM
Mar 2016

This is all about carrying grudges and scoring points for some people.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
77. What is Clinton going to do
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:56 PM
Mar 2016

That you think she should Hoyt? All she's proposed are some platitudes about "taking on the NRA." As you know, the problem isn't "gunz" but the criminals who misuse them, but solving THAT problem is really difficult, so it easier to blame inanimate objects. So exactly how is Hillary "more progressive" than Bernie on this issue?

And yeah, I support Sanders, but not because of his position on the Second Amendment, but because he isn't likely to be indicted for using a private server for official purposes, and even if Hillary isn't indicted the use of that private server shows a complete lack of regard for the rules.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
84. Belittle and ridicule hose who need a gun in their pants to walk out the door, is a good start.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 07:30 PM
Mar 2016

Same with those who need a closet full to feel whole. She'll do more than any Prez, and appeal the the effective group Moms Against Guns.

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
28. Federal bills banning AR15s have failed for the last 14 years
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:19 AM
Mar 2016



The worst school shooting in US history didn't involve an AR or even a rifle. Even if you could confiscate every AR you wouldn't prevent the next Sandy Hook.

The state of CT had a state level version of the Assault Weapons Bill and the Lanza rifle was compliant.

Im glad Bernie voted for PLAACA. Anti-gun organizations are exploiting grieving parents.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
31. Making and selling a dangerous weapon and continually making it less safe is a great reason to get
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:29 AM
Mar 2016

... sued but thx to legislation Sanders supported people have a higher bar to hurdle over.

He's to the far right on this issue, when the NRA responds positively to you on any issue then you know you're in trouble

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
32. How is the AR dangerous and how is it made more dangerous?
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:37 AM
Mar 2016


Really. Tell me how my 2016 AR is less safe than my 2002 AR which I bought legally under the AWB.. Is it the bayonet lug?

The honest way to go after ARs is legislation and not emotionally based lawsuits.

And the NRA has Bernie at a D- rating by the way for his support for an assault weapons ban. Hardly an endorsement.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
34. I'm talking about assault weapons overall, they can be made safer but there's no mandate
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:39 AM
Mar 2016

... by the gumper community in part because they don't have to thx in part to Sanders support of that... corporatist.... legislation he supported

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
36. That can be achieved legislatively if there were enough support.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:42 AM
Mar 2016

But there isn't.

And note that making AR guns "safer" is not what the lawsuit featured in the OP was about.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
37. In part because of the shit pile of immunity legislation Sanders supported !! If anything it made it
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:46 AM
Mar 2016

... harder to make them make those guns safer or even to come up with something practical.

The irony of having an anti corporation candidate run who has supported the most corporatist legislation I've ever seen blows the mind

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
38. Let's be clear that no one who wants to sue wants to make ARs safer.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:57 AM
Mar 2016

These Sandy Hook parents and the antigun organizations who back them want to have them unavailable to law abiding civilians because of their misuse by criminals.

PLAACA does not in anyway prevent legislation on designs.

PLAACA also protects small businesses and even individual gun dealers who are also the targets of these types of lawsuits

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
39. Wrong on its face, of course rational people want to make something that's dangerous safer...
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 06:03 AM
Mar 2016

...what...were did that logic come from that people wouldn't want that!?

I disagree on that point

and no one said PLAACA prevents anything, I already know the talking points and that's why I said "makes it harder" and it does

it pretty much takes the deciding of the validity of the suite out of the hands of the magistrates it would be placed in during pretrial like all other suites.

Sanders is wrong on this issue hands down and to the right of Clinton on guns

Sanders reasoning for it recently is another reason why PoC have not been impressed with him; Rural VT SHOULD not trump safety of the whole country and intimates a false dichotomy.

He can have rural VT, whatever that means, and people can have safe streets too with safe weapons that are meant for hunting people

... cause no one in their right mind believes folk are hunting dear with that damn thing

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
40. PLAACA doesnt prevent or make legislation harder.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 06:09 AM
Mar 2016

Last edited Sat Mar 19, 2016, 10:08 AM - Edit history (5)

Protecting lawful access to firearms is actual protecting a civil liberty which makes it a liberal position.

The Sandy Hook parents don't want to make ARs safer, they to prevent their lawful sale to nonleo civilians. Thats not making something safer -- thats attempting to restrict a civil liberty.

And yes some people do use them for hunting. They fire the same or rounds that your grand-pappy's single shot.


thucythucy

(7,986 posts)
54. "These Sandy Hook parents and the antigun organizations who are paying them...."
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:52 AM
Mar 2016

Are you implying that these parents--whose children were massacred in a most brutal fashion--are doing this because they're getting paid?

Really, that's a pretty despicable accusation, given what was a horrific experience and, I would assume, a nightmare for any parent.

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
59. No, that's not what I'm saying.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 10:14 AM
Mar 2016

Yes, it was a nightmare for them and their grief is very real and so is their desire to do something meaningful.

But I will remove that reference because I think I may have confused them with another set of parents who are receiving income while while suing the gun manufacturers and dealers.



thucythucy

(7,986 posts)
85. Yeah, well, that's a pretty big mistake to make
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:01 AM
Mar 2016

and in this context it did make you sound rather heartless.

Then again we all screw up from time to time (I know I do) so I'm glad you removed the reference.

Best wishes.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
78. If you purchase an AR-15
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:59 PM
Mar 2016

You are subject to a background check. There are very few exceptions to this requirement. So I'm not clear what you think should be done differently.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
48. Dangerous because ARs attract sick people. That's why they are made to look
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:32 AM
Mar 2016

like a military weapon, or something used by action heroes, Klansmen, etc.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
79. Are you really attacking Gabby Giffords?
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:01 PM
Mar 2016

Or blaming her for the fact that some crazy guy shot her? That's really low. What other victims of crime do you hold responsible?

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
86. She's still a gun promoter
Mon Mar 21, 2016, 11:03 PM
Mar 2016

So is the Democratic Party. Do you disagree with the party platform that the Second amendment protects an individual right?

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
35. Overall I'd say slightly better but not so much better that he can chunk rocks like he's done. Wall
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:41 AM
Mar 2016

... Street, whomever they are today, includes gun makers too...

so...

there it is then

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
42. Guns, being inanimate objects without agency, have never killed anyone.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 07:41 AM
Mar 2016

Its absurd to think otherwise, but even if you did, who many of those deaths do think would have been prevented if PLAACA didn't exist?
 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
43. We don't know
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 08:44 AM
Mar 2016

Because the gun lobby has blocked the CDC from studying gun violence. Because the gun lobby made it very difficult to sue gun shops that repeatedly sell guns to straw purchasers. There was a case in Wisconsin last year where the straw purchaser was being openly directing the purchase and yet the gun shop played dumb and tried to hide behind this law. Fortunately the jury gave it the respect it deserves and awarded the victims 6 million dollars. It's only the second time in 10 years a jury has been able to decide a case like this on negligence. It is not the second time in 10 years that a gun shop has sold illegally.

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
46. Your example shows that PLAACA is not an impediment to righteous suits.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:24 AM
Mar 2016

If you can show that a manufacturer or dealer knew they were making illegal sales, they can be sued and prosecuted.

And let's be clear that the CDC was only prohibited from taking advocacy positions and research was still possible. They could still collect and publish data.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
58. Oh My God.....
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 10:02 AM
Mar 2016

Wall St. greed and its sibling Corporate greed has killed millions of people over the years through bad products, bad healthcare, economic deprivation, War for Profit.....


hack89

(39,171 posts)
62. Two thirds of which are suicides.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 11:33 AM
Mar 2016

You would save more lives with decent mental health care and a national focus on suicide prevention.

 

Gwhittey

(1,377 posts)
45. This post is main difference of the progressive vs pretend ones
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:03 AM
Mar 2016

People who are supporting HRC want to by-pass the the supreme courts by passing laws that use means to make it prohibited to exercise your rights. This is same thing GOP is doing with Abortions. As a progressive I want more control laws, but I want the laws not laws that try and overcome the constitution by using legislating around the rights. If we want to get rid of guns are this policies would do then we must do it the right way and change the supreme court rulings on 2nd amendment, not laws that try and subvert do this. This is partisan crap 101.

 

Gwhittey

(1,377 posts)
81. No kidding Sherlock. And did you know the Sky was blue?
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:18 PM
Mar 2016

What makes you think I don't want gun control? No where have I said I was against it. Maybe read post and the law and you might have a clue about something. Other than parroting a talking point of Hillarys. But trying to pass laws that try and get around Supreme Court rulings is fucking stupid. It is stupid when Dems do it and it is fucking stupid when Republicans do it. So you are all for laws that are being passed by states trying to get around roe vs wade? That is same thing as this law. You have to take off your partisan blinders and see that.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
87. How do they differ?
Mon Mar 21, 2016, 11:05 PM
Mar 2016

The Second Amendment states explicitly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

kcr

(15,300 posts)
67. No. Pretend ones don't realize that laws that protect corporations aren't progressive.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:19 PM
Mar 2016

I don't get why it's wrong to admit he's wrong on some things. There is absolutely nothing progressive about his stance on this. Not one thing. Passing laws to protect corporations from lawsuits is not progressive in the least. Not even guns.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
75. I do believe he is wrong on this issue
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:37 PM
Mar 2016

It's just that Hillary is wrong on so many more things that I'll deal with it.

Lancero

(2,983 posts)
96. So, the lawsuit isn't about holding Rem accountable for one of their weapons being used...
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 08:12 AM
Mar 2016

In a mass shooting, because it's actually about holding them accountable for allowing it to be sold on the open market, which allowed it to be used in a mass shooting?

I'll give them the first point, Sanders comment was simplifying things. But he isn't 'wrong' about the reasons - He just simplified them.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Sanders is wrong about th...