AND he is wrong about not allowing gun mfgs to be sued, but I still support him

Anybody notice he ANSWERED all of her charges?

He did not slink away and change the subject.

And he was wrong about the lawsuits but he made sure to answer to that, so all in all this video is an advertisement for him.

Granted, not the one I want to see because i hate guns and think they are absurd, but turn this into a 30 second ad and he may be our next prez

to going to get anywhere with the absolutist position.

Bernie is about building bridges...

but i will still support him.

What do you do? have a shouting match? "you're wrong!", "no you're wrong!", "no, you're wrong!".

Tell me, who is actually right?

"I am!", "no - I am!", "no - I am!"

Please, when we take the absolutist position, we risk being excused as crackpots - and dismissed as unserious people.

We need to start with common ground, and move incrementally - as more common ground is found - toward our goal.

Unless your goal is simply to gripe from an entrenched position...

Car mnufctr if some one uses it irresponsibly too? Sue makers of alcohol ?

society with individuals having little or no regard for their fellow human beings.

If the NRA disappeared from the face of the earth today, that problem would remain...

to the faithful.

that is selling a legal product. I can see suing for false claims, or product defectiveness, or selling to an unlicensed dealer but not for conducting business in a legal manner.

There is a difference between criminal law and civil law. Civil Law allows victims to recover from negligent product manufacturers. If a gun manufacturer markets a gun to nuts and equips it so that it can mow down large numbers of people at once, is not that manufacturer negligent, even if the gun itself is legal? How about if a law dart company made a catapult that allowed you to shoot 100 steel - tipped lawn darts at once? (BTW, steel - tipped lawn darts have been sued out of existence after enough of them impaled kids). How is fair that a lawn dart manufacturer can be sued but the manufacturers of the 100-round magazine - equipped Bushmaster assault rifle that the Aurora shooter and the 30-round magazine equipped Bushmaster assault rifle the Newtown shooter used (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/popular-ar-15-style-rifle-used-in-recent-mass-killings/) can't be sued? That 2005 PLCAA law Bernie voted for gave gun manufacturers immunity from such suits.

I mean, it what sane country should this sort of marketing not be considered negligent?

They were all legal products, and sold in accordance with government mandated practices.

That would seem to eliminate any reasonable arguments about "negligence".

I'm sure you'd say the manufacturer of the 100 round mag is negligent simply for manufacturing it.

And the rifles.

And the shotgun.

That is the progression you lot had in mind.

What you want, and the PLCAA rightfully and necessarily denies, is repeated lawsuits intended to bankrupt the target.

What you want, and the PLCAA rightfully and necessarily denies, is to sue a company simply for making something you feel should not exist as a means of mitigating its existence because you have realized that legislating it out of existence is never going to happen.

The PLCAA took it out of the hands of a jury and proclaimed all gun manufacturers immune under these scenarios.

Ok. How would you change it, but still protect against nuisance/slap/nefarious lawsuits?

If a lawsuit is patently frivolous/meritless, you should be able to get it dismissed via a Demurrer or a Motion to Dismiss or a Motion for Summary Judgment. If it is a SLAPP suit, you can bring a Motion to Strike under the anti-SLAPP laws.

When a criminal uses their product to kill someone? You aren't arguing that the product is defective. Instead, you want gun manufacturer's to face potential bankruptcy when someone misuses a legal product. That is ridiculous. If you think there should be limits on magazine capacity, or that semi-automatic rifles should be banned, then work through your representatives to make that happen.

If the lawsuit is meritless, you have remedies.

You are misstating the grounds for the victims' lawsuit. It is not some unforseen misuse of the product that is the basis for liability. It is a misuse that the product is designed for and marketed for. Hence the negligent/defective design allegstions. That is what the PLCAA immunized gun manufacturers from. It is an immunity not available to any other product manufacturer.

ain't good enough.

So I guess that's a passing grade for the NRA, no?

in his answer. The whole article needs to be read, because it is a complex issue (the arguments were that the gun industry was not doing enough to stem the flow of weapons into illegal markets, and oversupplying the markets when they knew this oversupply would go into the black market). But the summary is:

There is a big difference. Sanders was implying that gun manufacturers were liable to be sued just because some criminal used one of their products to hurt someone (while someone picking up a hammer to bludgeon someone to death would not be able to sue the hammer company).

No, the issue for which advocates and cities wanted to sue was that manufacturers were engaged in practices that allowed the illegal flow of guns into their municipalities, and were flooding the markets with oversupply full well knowing that that allowed for a black-market trade (in which guns could fall into the hands of people who shouldn't have them).

It was a horrible law that protected the gun manufacturing industry to an extent that no other industry in the country enjoys. Sanders joined Republicans and only 59 House Democrats to vote for it.

The National Rifle Association thanked President Bush for signing the Act, for which it had lobbied, describing it as, "...the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law.

No industry should be singled out a immune from lawsuits.

They can be sued for manufacturing a defective product, and have been. They just aren't subject to frivolous lawsuits attempting to hold a manufacturer liable for some criminal's misuse of a gun.

so I don't think that ANY specific product or corporation should be exempt. If a lawsuit is frivolous, then it will lose.

There is lots of merit in the discovery that occurs with "frivolous" suits. The corporation obviously will always declare it silly.

More often, it's the big corporations who threaten regular folks with lawsuits they have no way to defend.

Also, in this case the gun manufacturers used the SLAPP suit excuse to lobby and get special immunity.

And the cities and advocates will always declare it 'meritous':

In general, it takes too long to get rid of dangerous products: cigarettes, auto, lead paint, bad drugs, etc. Historically, everyone wonders why.

One way to bring attention to bad products is lawsuits. Overall, I think the suits do more good than harm. I don't think any particular industry should get special treatment. In this case, there was a specific lobbying interest to get a special law.

...and yes, gun manufacturers should take responsibility to see that their product is not the the hands of dangerous people (not just criminals). If you'd like to ask me how to do it...before you ask:

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/this_is_the_nras_worst_nightmare_the_new_gun_safety_study_that_gun_nuts_dont_want_you_to_hear_about/

http://everytown.org

If you went to a range and wanted to shoot a borrowed gun - produce the license.

Works in Australia too..

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

1996 National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program

The resolutions agreed to at the APMC meeting on May 10, 1996,[22] provided for the establishment of a uniform approach to firearms regulation that would include

a federal ban on the importation of “all semi-automatic self-loading and pump action longarms, and all parts, including magazines, for such firearms, included in Licence Category D, and control of the importation of those firearms included in Licence Category C.” The sale, resale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, and use of such firearms would also be banned by the states and territories, other than in exceptional circumstances (relating to military or law enforcement purposes and occupational categories, depending on the category of the firearm);[23]
standard categories of firearms, including the two largely prohibited categories (C and D), which include certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, and a restricted category for handguns (category H);[24]
a requirement for a separate permit for the acquisition of every firearm, with a twenty-eight-day waiting period applying to the issuing of such permits,[25] and the establishment of a nationwide firearms registration system;[26]
a uniform requirement for all firearms sales to be conducted only by or through licensed firearms dealers, and certain minimum principles that would underpin rules relating to the recording of firearms transactions by dealers and right of inspection by police;[27]
restrictions on the quantity of ammunition that may be purchased in a given period and a requirement that dealers only sell ammunition for firearms for which the purchaser is licensed;[28]
ensuring that “personal protection” would not be regarded as a “genuine reason” for owning, possessing, or using a firearm under the laws of the states and territories;[29]
standardized classifications to define a “genuine reason” that an applicant must show for owning, possessing, or using a firearm, including reasons relating to sport shooting, recreational shooting/hunting, collecting, and occupational requirements (additional requirements of showing a genuine need for the particular type of firearm and securing related approvals would be added for firearms in categories B, C, D, and H);[30]
in addition to the demonstration of a “genuine reason,” other basic requirements would apply for the issuing of firearms licenses, specifically that the applicant must be aged eighteen years or over, be a “fit and proper person,” be able to prove his or her identity, and undertake adequate safety training[31] (safety training courses would be subject to accreditation and be “comprehensive and standardised across Australia for all licence categories”);[32]
firearms licenses would be required to bear a photograph of the licensee, be endorsed with a category of firearm, include the holder’s address, be issued after a waiting period of not less than twenty-eight days, be issued for a period of no more than five years, and contain a reminder of safe storage responsibilities;[33]
licenses would only be issued subject to undertakings to comply with storage requirements and following an inspection by licensing authorities of the licensee’s storage facilities;[34]
minimum standards for the refusal or cancellation of licenses, including criminal convictions for violent offenses in the past five years, unsafe storage of firearms, failure to notify of a change of address, and “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm”;[35] and
the establishment of uniform standards for the security and storage of firearms, including a requirement that ammunition be stored in locked containers separate from any firearms. The minimum standards for category C, D, and H firearms would include “storage in a locked, steel safe with a thickness to ensure it is not easily penetrable, bolted to the structure of a building.”[36]

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1996-74/current/pdf/1996-74.pdf

Ownership is a subset of 'possession', so while you did not enumerate it, you most certainly included it.

but you cannot legally operate it. Even an adult cannot legally supervise you to drive around. Even on your own property it would certainly be reckless. Whoever is the guardian would be in trouble most likely with their homeowner's insurance if they tried to explain why they let the 5 year old run over the mailman and crash through the front door after you said, "sure - it's your car - take her for a spin!". Ownership might be a legal transfer of title to the 5 year old, but they cannot have a license to drive until they are 18 and pass a test.

My license is focused on possession/or use, admission to facilities/locations designated for use. The idea is to reasonably prevent dangerous people away from guns. To possess a gun, use a gun, enter an hunting area, buy bullets, enter a shooting range, transport a gun, or even shoot guns on your own property - you would need a license.

I hope that makes sense, and I get that you think it is too restrictive to keep dangerous people away from guns. I disagree. I think dangerous people should not have easy access to guns. A license (if you want to call it a permit or certificate or whatever doesn't matter) should be the filter that keeps dangerous people from easy access to guns.

1.) YOU have never offered a way that is better than a license to prevent dangerous people from easy access to guns.

2.) The alternative to screening and restricting access for dangerous people is to take all the guns away so that virtually no one has guns. Whatever form of removing guns from society, that is the alternative. Many folks think that's a good idea.

3.) A license is obvious and legal. It also does not require a point-of-sale check or any complicated gun registration. It does not involve attempts to define and restrict different types of guns. It also leaves details up to the states so they can customize to their specific differences.

No matter how many hypotheticals or logical arguments or statistical evidences that are provided, you simply must admit at this point that you think it's ok for dangerous people to have guns - and accept the consequences of that "right". I disagree.

If you have a better idea, then let's hear it.

I do however, spend time, disagreeing with methodology I strongly disagree with.

Yours is reprehensible.

You wish to transform a right into a privilege.

There are LOTS of people too dangerous to have guns, but walking around now. Unfortunately, our laws don't look for them.

They are identified by professionals, schools, family, and themselves as dangerous. They often advertise themselves as dangerous on the internet and verbally and through numerous actions. The shooting in Charleston was another example.

Then they go out, buy guns, and shoot people.

In many cases, courts screen them and let them go - until they shoot someone.

Sorry, but you still have not given me an answer to how you would keep them from guns.

And you have not answered my question. Here it is again. Ill underline the parts you seem to have missed:

We live in a society where people are generally free, and have rights which are protected generally, from governmental interference.

This is a fact.

I'd like for you to give me some examples of people who are too dangerous to have a gun, but yet harmless enough to be allowed to walk freely amongst the rest of this society where guns and other dangerous things are as commonplace as the air you breathe.

Then you tell me, what can be done without violating anyones rights.

I was once in court with a teen that the mental health people declared dangerous, but who had not threatened to specifically kill any one. His principal and guardian asked that he be held. Juvenile justice asked the court to hold him. The judge said he had not committed a violent crime, was not old enough to be an adult, and was not insane. They let him go. Two months later he shot and killed someone during a break in. He bought a gun from a local individual somehow where no check was mandated.

In another case, a nurse was going to therapy, getting divorced, and fantasizing. Her ex and the MD she worked for asked that she be kept away from guns and drugs possibly used to commit suicide. In the only act that anyone knows of where she ever committed a crime, she shot and killed the MD when he told her he would not have an affair with her and she needed help. She possessed a gun legally.

I watched another case of a young man (early 20's) who had been convicted of drug, B&E, and minor crimes. All as a minor. Multiple family members had reported to police he had weapons and was attempting to get a gun. A judge let him go and told the family and neighbors he was free as any citizen. He went to Wall Mart after he turned 21 with a couple friends, bought a gun and knife. The went to rob a house of an alleged drug dealer and two people were killed in the gun fight.

I personally knew the shooters and most of the victims in all the above cases.

Unless we have a comprehensive license, there is no way to stop those dangerous people from easily possessing guns.

So your answer, is not to deal with these people on an individual basis, but to destroy the rights of all.

No thanks.

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.

Philly primary debate.

It's one of the weakest parts of his positions. In my case, gun control has been a top issue for me for a long time.

He is simply restating and explaining his value and previous votes. On this issue, Bernie has not evolved.

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/this_is_the_nras_worst_nightmare_the_new_gun_safety_study_that_gun_nuts_dont_want_you_to_hear_about/

http://everytown.org

This legislation is from where I live in the Australian Capital Territory, but it's pretty universal across all states and territories*. I don't know why it wouldn't work in the US...

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1996-74/current/pdf/1996-74.pdf

When it comes to suing manufacturers, I don't think we have any here, but more importantly the focus was to get the now banned weapons off the street and make things safer for the public. Which I think succeeded as there hasn't been another massacre since Port Arthur

On edit: That PDF was totally dry and boring. I found something more readable that goes into some detail and shows legislation for all states and territories...

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

Australia has much better gun control than in the US. Frankly, we feel safe in Australia. Also, in much of Europe I saw little gun violence. There is crime all over the world (break ins, pickpockets, etc.), but random gun violence is worse in the US.

In the US, some places are fine, but others are scary.

a human life means more than the right to hunt a deer in VT.

So, the two sides do not have equal standing imho.

edit to add, he is a bloviator with canned responses.

I've been reading his earlier stuff from 30-40 years ago, and the guy uses the same exact phrases... but WTH has he done? Not a damned thing, as far as I can tell, but get elected to the Senate in the very liberal state of Vermont.

... comparison to the boatload of actually important ones where I find Clinton's stands to be either reprehensible or deliberately not clearly defined. (weasel words)

There is NO candidate I agree with 100% on every issue. Senator Sanders comes closer to doing so than any candidate I have known in the last 50 years. Clinton doesn't make the top 10.

There isn't ever going to be a perfect candidate but the Senator from Vermont is very close to where I stand on a majority of issues.

when so many lives hang in the balance whe it's documents,ended how many guns take live needlessly. The collusion of gun manufacturers with the NRA to mislead the public regarding the lethality, when they enrage and enflame people to protect something that isn't being "taken away", when they brainwash the 2nd A , conspiracy theorists...all to ensure additional sales? Yes they have a responsibility.

Long time ago, and I being a girl was not that interested. But my brother, a naval commander, kept a gun collection his entire lifetime. He kept it locked up, but he loved to visit gun shows. He was awarded at Cambridge years ago for his work with NATO. He was a brilliant accomplished man. He liked his gun collection.

My father's old, should I say vintage, 22 rifle is still in the family...though none that I know of have much to do with guns now.

We took picnic lunches, went out to wooded areas, and shot at tin cans.

I think the approach Bernie is taking, which is basically the same one Hillary had in 2008...is very sensible.

I don't like guns, I don't know how to shoot. But there is a middle ground.

To 'gun control activists' anything not anti-gun may be described as 'sounds nra to me'.

Happens daily here on DU.

Because here in rural Kentucky, his economic platform would make a bigger difference than more doomed-for-failure prohibition policies.

Wayne LaPierre:

Sides, it would take an act of congress not the president by himself, unless of course it was Moses Who could wave
his magic staff and the Red Sea would open