being misused by a criminal, in order to smear an anti- gun politician that even wants a ban on assault weapons among other things. How very Brovian of them.
One can not sue a manufacturer of a legal product, like a car, a gun, a case of whiskey, a cigarette, an axe, a wood-chipper, a crowbar, or whatever, when someone uses the legal product to commit a crime or harm themselves with.
If the product is faulty, and causes injury to oneself for others, then yes.
Not being ignorant of he law one then realizes that the way to stop the crime is to make the product either illegal, or very restricted and regulated. Such is reality, and he holds the same stance as Obama regarding how to combat gun crime in a country that won't allow us to make them illegal like in sane countries because of that pesky Constitution (and mis-interpreted by our highest court) it's second amendment.
Daily News: So speaking of New York and issues important to New York and speaking of death. Last year, after the Oregon Community College shootings, you promised a comprehensive gun control agenda. When are we going to see that and what can you tell us...
Sanders: Well, I've talked about it, you have seen it. What the agenda is is very similar to where to where President Obama is. President Obama said at that Oregon speech…… with a great deal of emotion. That he thought this was an issue that's never going to be permanently solved. Nobody can guarantee that some lunatic is not going to pick up a gun today and kill people. But we have to do the best that we can to prevent those type of killings. And what we do, in my view, is significantly strengthen and expand the instant background check. What we do is do away with the gun show loophole, where people now are buying guns from unlicensed dealers. What we do is do away with the straw man provision, where you can buy a gun legally and then sell it to somebody who's a criminal. I think what we also is significantly expand mental health capabilities to try to address the fact that we have thousands of people walking in this country today who are suicidal and homicidal. So I support pretty much the President's agenda.
Daily News: Just to be clear, the press release your campaign put out the day of that announcement of the forthcoming comprehensive plan, you made that announcement, those were the four points you made then. Have you moved any further beyond that?
Sanders: Well, I don't know that anyone has moved...I think that's the President's vision, that's my position.
Daily News: There's a case currently waiting to be ruled on in Connecticut. The victims of the Sandy Hook massacre are looking to have the right to sue for damages the manufacturers of the weapons. Do you think that that is something that should be expanded?
Sanders: Do I think the victims of a crime with a gun should be able to sue the manufacturer, is that your question?
Daily News: Correct.
Sanders: No, I don't.
Daily News: Let me ask you. I know we're short on time. Two quick questions. Your website talks about...
Sanders: No, let me just...I'm sorry. In the same sense that if you're a gun dealer and you sell me a gun and I go out and I kill him [gestures to someone in room]…. Do I think that that gun dealer should be sued for selling me a legal product that he misused? [Shakes head no.] But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people. So if somebody walks in and says, "I'd like 10,000 rounds of ammunition," you know, well, you might be suspicious about that. So I think there are grounds for those suits, but not if you sell me a legal product. But you're really saying...
Daily News: Do you think that the discussion and debate about what defines a legal product, what should be a legal product, hence AR-15s, these automatic military-style weapons...which is the grounds of this suit at the moment is that this should have never been in the hands of the public.
Sanders: Well, you're looking at a guy...let's talk about guns for one second. Let’s set the record straight because of…unnamed candidates who have misrepresented my views. You're looking at a guy who has a D, what was it, D minus voting record from the NRA? Not exactly a lobbyist for the NRA, not exactly supporting them.
But it's interesting that you raised that question. If you'll remember this, if you were in Vermont in 1988 [gestures to Vermonter in the room], three people were running for the United States Congress. We have one seat, Vermont. Two of them supported assault weapons. One candidate, Bernie Sanders, said, in 1988, "No, I do not support the sale and distribution of assault weapons in this country." I lost that election by three points. Came in second. And that may have been the reason, that I was opposed by all of the gun people, okay? So to answer your question, I do not believe, I didn't believe then and I don't believe now that those guns should be sold in America. They're designed for killing people.
Daily News: So do you think then, with that in mind, that the merits of the current case are baseless?
Sanders: It's not baseless. I wouldn't use that word. But it's a backdoor way. If you're questioning me, will I vote to ban assault weapons in the United States, yeah, I will.
= new reply since forum marked as read
