Bernie Sanders supports holding gun manufacturers liable for gun crime
A couple of weeks ago Hillary Clinton came out in support of letting victims of gun crimes sue the gun manufacturers and now Bernie Sanders seems to be on board with this radical idea. Although he previously sided with the Bush regime in passing protections for gun store owners he now claims he thinks it is legitimate to let gun crime victims sue the gun manufacturers.
Here is more:
That was a complicated vote and I’m willing to see changes in that provision. Here’s the reason I voted the way I voted: If you are a gun shop owner in Vermont and you sell somebody a gun and that person flips out and then kills somebody, I don’t think it’s really fair to hold that person responsible, the gun shop owner.
On the other hand, where there is a problem is there is evidence that manufacturers, gun manufacturers, do know that they’re selling a whole lot of guns in an area that really should not be buying that many guns. That many of those guns are going to other areas, probably for criminal purposes. So can we take another look at that liability issue? Yes.
That is some pretty convoluted logic right there and it is disingenuous if you ask me and here is why: Bernie Sanders claimed he did not support suing gun shop owners and I think it is safe to assume the reason behind his position is because owning a gun shop and selling a legal product is not a sueable offense. However he now supports letting victims sue the manufacturers of a legal product but the convolution (I don’t know if that is the right word but I am going with it anyway) does not end there.
He claims that because the gun manufacturers know “a whole lot of guns” are being sold without the best gun safe systems and in areas where they should not be that this opens them up to lawsuits, but could not the same thing be said for the gun shops which are actually up and running in or near these areas? Yet he does not support letting people sue the owners of gun shops in these areas? To follow this to its logical conclusion would not this also mean gun shops should not even be allowed to exist in these areas?
And what are these nameless areas of which he speaks? Could he possibly be talking about urban, black areas? It sounds a little racist to me, Vermont is 95% white after all…
Hillary Clinton does not have the full trust of the far left and she has been moving toward them in an effort to prove her liberality in order to compete with Bernie Sanders. But the second amendment is the one issue Bernie Sanders has a problem with the left over because he comes from the state with the weakest (read best) gun laws in the nation and it appears as if this is the one time he feels the need to move to the left of Hillary Clinton. It does not seem like he thought this one through however…
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
Reblogged this on Brittius.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He wants to do this, instead of them using tax payers money for crisis actors and having to pay people off for false flags and to keep their mouths shut. They’ll have people sue the manufactures and put them out of biz – more job lost. He’s a sick individual. But that’ the Regime kind of politician. They’re the one suppling guns to gangs and such – no registration.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree part of the plan is to strangle the guns makers out of existence and another part of the plan, which has been mentioned by some but not by Sanders (yet) is putting a heavy tax on every bullet. I think gun control is going to be Obama’s top priority in the time he has left.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s what the enemy does – conniving and subtle. Of evil intent and forked tongue. Like Hilly, Obama doesn’t want people to wake up and get rid of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and then there is also the lead. The EPA is going to go after the ammo from that angle as well.
LikeLike
Next in line will be the car dealers IF there is an accident….I am SO sick of all this PROGRESSIVE crap! Then I read this morning that we are BANNING pork products in Federal Prisons,,,,wtf? The pork people are up in arms,,,of course they say it is because of the cost, but pork is less that beef, so once again, we KNOW it is because of the Muslims. I also read that schools were also going to take pork out of their menus. What happened to assimilating into a country? I would say that the Muslims among others want to come here and make US over. And still we let it happen, don’t we?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Being lawful, we can’t do much about the usurpers in ruling positions revamping this Nation. And we’re becoming aware of it – where only a few years ago we were blind to their intent. And that’s why they want to get rid of the guns, so people don’t have a say period. BUT, there’s got to be some in the know working for / in our behalf. Frustrating but reality … for now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The prisons, which are a privately owned and operated I believe, do what they are told by the government like most other businesses. Look out your window and sooner than later the censors will be here once congress gets the balls to pass the legislation.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Prisons are BIG $$$ makers for some! Those who run and manipulate the Gov., Corps & Wall-street (elitist banksters).
LikeLiked by 2 people
It just doesn’t end Lou, it always expands. As if there aren’t enough lawsuits already!
LikeLike
I believe that some prisons are privately owned but I do not think they all are.
LikeLike
mr Spock couldn’t figure out the logic of this wrinkly old left wing socialist hypocrite.
LikeLiked by 3 people
LikeLiked by 4 people
We need to ban the sale of guns to the public. Commercial sale can continue to gun ranges, however. This can create jobs, because more ranges will be sought after, given they would be the only place to get one’s gun fix (and I do mean fix, and not fixed).
LikeLike
That’s fine as long as the amendment process is used…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Steve, this comment was meant for the posting ABOVE yours, not you….but you probably figured that one out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Amend away! 🙂
LikeLike
Of course I do not support repealing the second amendment but I mentioned it because I have debated people in the past who wanted to ban all guns and when I mentioned it would take an amendment to repeal the second amendment they would not listen to me based on the “militia” language in the Constitution, but that is the only way a total ban on guns can possibly come about.
LikeLike
Well, that is a load of crap! I will not be told I cannot buy or own a gun! Thought we still lived in America? As for a “fix”, I will be the judge of IF I need a “gun fix” or not and it will not be the government telling me if I can or cannot! Sorry, but you are screwed in the head if you think that will work!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am curious to see how he responds to my comment. Most anti-second amendment people use the militia language to claim you don’t need to repeal the second amendment but that is not true because the US Code defines what the militia is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just because this is the USA and we have our freedom, the government doesn’t give us the right to do anything our hearts desire. I understand, if you are a gun fanatic, that this could be a hard pill to swallow. But you should be able to get the same experience from the idea that I’ve suggested.
Maybe you can handle the responsibility that comes with owning a gun, but there’s no way in hell that everyone who seems legit does.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing, owning and carrying firearms is a Right upon which the Constitution forbids the federal government from infringing. Your opinion regarding who is responsible enough to own a firearm means diddly-squat. You don’t get to decide that and neither does the federal government.
Our Rights are not to be defined or regulated by the federal government. The Constitution delegates it no authority to do either and specifically forbids the feds from infringing on them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I visited Cuba in 1999. The citizens had no guns (only the soldiers on most street corners had automatic weapons slung over their shoulder- and the people on the streets were silent lest a gov’t spy should interpret any mumbling as anti-Castro grumbling), this along with very little food. Our friend Wordizborn might be happy there knowing only a soldier and not a gun crazed fanatical citizen could shoot him. Of course he may starve to death before anyone shoots him.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I appreciate what you are saying, but it was written 228 years ago when it made more sense. The amendment process should be able to get us there, as it did for the right of women to vote.
LikeLike
I had a nice reply all typed out, but then I read your other responses and, well, nevermind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. It’s the thought that counts. 🙂
LikeLike
(Typo correction from my reply: replace the last word, ‘does’ with ‘can’.)
LikeLike
The problem with your argument in my opinion is two-fold. First, the government does not give us our rights. They are God-given or, if you prefer, natural rights. The Constitution and the BoR protects and guarantees our rights and tells the government what it cannot do. The preamble to the BoR makes this very clear: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
The second problem I have with your argument is that you make it sound as if target practice is what the second amendment protects and of course it is not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spot on Laura, I expanded on what you said in my comment above.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you and very well said, Steve!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That could never happen here, right Peter… 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
The BoR might as well protect us from our God given right to smoke crack. Guns are fun, but they are also totally unnecessary, unless we end up in a third world situation.
I appreciate that we should make our best effort to responsibly uphold all that is written, but God didn’t write it, so we should be able to collectively make adjustments as to benefit the people that it is written for.
Guns are so dangerous, a baby can easily kill his or her whole family with one, not to mention, themselves. The risk doesn’t outweigh the reward.
LikeLike
I mean, the reward doesn’t outweigh the risk.
LikeLike
What arms do we have the right to bear? I guess it would be any, such as rocket cannons and the like, since this right “shall not be infringed”.
Hypothetically, if in the future, a compact death ray gun is invented that gives its operator the capability to vaporize anything or anyone by means of thoughts alone. Should it be our right to own a technology like that?
LikeLike
Wordizborn, what you just said was just plain STUPID and people here know what I think of STUPID people. The GOVERNMENT is not who gives us the right to bear arms and it is sure not up to them to make it where all we can do is go and target practice with someone elses weapons and have a feel good moment! If you are of the opinion that we have the second amendment only to target practice and we could get our FIX as you called it by going to a GOVERNMENT approved facility to get that FIX, you had best read that second amendment over and open you close mind to what it really says. If you do not want to own guns, that is your choice. You may feel guns are unnecessary, and you are entitled to your opinion. l also do not like that word “collectively” that you speak of, it sounds controlling and oh so progressive.
This statement is worth mentioning and reprinting here: Guns are so dangerous, a baby can easily kill his or her whole family with one, not to mention, themselves. The risk doesn’t outweigh the reward.
IF you were a responsible gun owner you do not have guns down where babies can get to them. You, are an alarmist!
LikeLiked by 2 people
He’s not worth your time, Lou. He has no understanding of Rights and from where the delegated authority on which the government operates originates. He actually thinks government gives us Rights.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is true, Laura! I just fail to understand IF we all live in AMERICA, how there can be such differences of opinions on what our Amendments and Bill of Rights say. Of course now that the Supremes are questioning it, guess we have those coming out of the woodwork doing the same. I am full up on “do gooders” and those that know what I need! And, NO, I am not going to go along to get along, that is just NOT in my nature! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s a combination of things, Lou. The idea that the Constitution is a ‘living’ document – one that can be interpreted with different meanings by each new government; a deliberate effort to rewrite our history and on what our Country was founded; that ‘rewritten’ history being taught in schools so that we have a couple of generations who have no idea what the truth and facts are.
Stand your ground, Lou. There are many, many who stand with you!
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are right, it does not take more than a generation or 2 at the most when something is “rewritten” to not know the whole truth. The Supremes are NOT supposed to interpret the law, guess they forgot this! The laws are black or white, NOT somewhere in between. This just did not start, but we are seeing the results of years of slowly changing the way people think. So much for the public school system and the people that change history. We have them to thank, but we also have NOT listened and kept our eyes open….I doubt we make that mistake again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed down for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. Ronald Reagan
President Reagan was speaking of freedom, but this is applicable for facts and truth, also.
LikeLiked by 1 person
P.S. That’s my favorite President Reagan quote. 🙂
LikeLike
You are using an extreme position to justify another extreme position. When you say the second amendment is not relevant today I believe you are talking about the fact that the people can no longer defend themselves against a tyrannical government due to the army which would shut them down. And this is why the Constitution does not allow for today’s standing army, but that has been disregarded. But even if we let that go we still have a natural, or God given, right to defend ourselves against anyone who wants to harm us and that will never be “outdated.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am wondering, IF you own guns, does that MAKE you an actual GUN FANATIC? It must BE!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just because you own a gun for protection it doesn’t mean you are a “fanatic” but of course you know that. Funny how they try to spin this, isn’t it?!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Owning doesn’t make you one. I just assumed you were. My apologies. That was a biased assumption.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well it’s been a slice. You all have made some good points – even Lou. I was just hoping to inspire a view outside the box. Black and white constitutional confines might not be adequate for today’s society.
Lou, you sound like you might be an angry dude, who jumps straight to the name calling, when we all were just expressing our opinions.
You should simmer down some. I’m sure we all can agree that all legal gun owners need to be level headed. You’ll catch more bees with honey.
Also, I’m not in favor of any of the candidates – democrat or republican.
Sanders has said some good things, but frankly he’s a wimp.
I actually think Trump is a relevant contender, but he might be a liability with his unfiltered attitude and some of his crazy accusations, etc. We know his track record isn’t as good as he tries to makes it sound.
Rand…?
F’ it! Hillary for president! Lol!
LikeLike
Wordizborn, you might want to reread the post, I did NOT call names and if you want to say I am angry, you might be right! It is comments like: You need to simmer down some, that are uncalled for. I am assuming I am much older than you and maybe wiser with knowledge, so I do NOT simmer anymore. I know you think your comments were “cute”, but in this day and age, we cannot do “cute” anymore, it is not an option. I do not think the Government has the right to control us. We pay their paychecks and THEY answer to us, not the other way around. SOME people have forgotten that. You seem young, so I will cut you some slack on that, but you need to open your eyes to what is really going on. By the way, I am not a DUDE, does that make what I have to say more or less relevant in your eyes? Am I still entitled to my opinion? After all, I am just a woman.
Here is what I said: Wordizborn, what you just said was just plain STUPID and people here know what I think of STUPID people. So, I said what you SAID was stupid, I do not know you, so I cannot make a judgement on your stupidity or not for sure. You spoke your opinion and I spoke mine. this is serious stuff you are messing with when you want to take protection away from a private law abiding citizen. Now, had you mentioned taking guns away from the ones that illegally have them, we already have rules and laws for that, they are just not being enforced. You did not bring up all the gun handling/supplying the Government is doing with foreign countries, either. If you look at other countries where their citizens do not have protection, well, would you want to live there? We neither need law abiding citizens having their guns taken or more laws, surely you can see that! There will always be illegal guns floating around, that is not going to change, but you think the answer is to take my protection away? I don’t think so.
Your true colors showed, with your last comment: F’ it! Hillary for president! Lol! After all, isn’t that what you were actually here for? You seem to be quite an entertaining man/woman with all your observations and suggestions! Please stop by again.
LikeLiked by 3 people
👏
LikeLike
I Just hope it was as good for you, as it was for me. 😂
LikeLike
I still feel you think this is all a game, but it is not. We have very little room for mistakes from here on out and you will suffer the consequences along with the rest of us. That is the sad part of all of this. I will leave it at that and wish you well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You go GIRL! 😉 And there is nothing wrong with being angry at what our government has been up to…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess we’ll just have to purchase from Russia over the net.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Da! (Google tells me that is Russian for yes)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Damn, with 300 million firearms in the hands of private citizens the Feds may have to nuke us. So golly gee maybe we should give up our guns. Cuba, Soviet Union, N. Korea, Nazi Germany they all had it right, no? They never enslaved their peeps…
LikeLiked by 3 people
It could never happen here… 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
OT, but goes with the DoubleSpeak – getting rid of the evidence.
‘Why Andrew Breitbart, Michael Hastings and Tom Clancy were Murdered’
LikeLiked by 2 people
I also remember Breitbart saying he had information and videos he was going to release shortly before his death and I thought it was strange, and I remember Hastings saying he was on something big and needed to get off the grid. I also found that to be too coincidental, but the Clancy thing is new to me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We know how the game is being played and they did not fit in, so take them out!
LikeLiked by 1 person
They will never give up trying to take our guns. Bernie is/was in a bit of a bind coming from his State but I am sure he will find a way to take care of all of the “clingers”
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t doubt that he will!
LikeLike
Ya, he was up against Clinton on the guns….heck of a place to be, isn’t it?
LikeLiked by 2 people