Connecticut Democratic Senator says "Sanders can not be the party nominee due to stance on guns" - Polidicks

[quote] Presidential populist Bernie Sanders came under blistering fire Tuesday for opposing efforts by families of Sandy Hook shooting victims to sue gun manufacturers. Sanders, in an exclusive interview with the Daily News last week, said, “No, I don’t,” when asked if victims of a crime with a gun should be able to sue the manufacturer. His Democratic rival and her Connecticut supporters took aim at the upstart, saying the Vermont senator was out of touch on the issue after the full transcript of his remarks were released Tuesday. At issue is whether the manufacturer, distributor and seller of shooter Adam Lanza’s AR-15 assault rifle can be sued for the deaths of 20 students and six school staffers killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre. The plaintiffs claim they can sue the companies because manufacturers knew the AR-15 rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting wasn’t suitable for civilian use when it was introduced in the market. Freedom Group, the North Carolina-based parent company of AR-15 maker Bushmaster Firearms, argues that it is protected by a 2005 federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms law that shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products. Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy said the public doesn’t need “apologists for the NRA. He is just wrong,” Malloy, criticizing Sanders, told The News. “He is dead wrong on guns. He had an opportunity to educate the people of Vermont about guns. Vermont is small enough that he could have gone house to house to educate people about guns.” Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy took to Twitter to shoot down Sanders’ gun stance, saying the presidential candidate is out of line. “For Sanders to say that the Sandy Hook families should be barred from court, even if the weapon was negligently made, is wrong,” Murphy tweeted. “Bernie is a friend, but this is really bad. Dems can’t nominate a candidate who supports gun manufacturer immunity.[/quote] [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/conn-sen-murphy-burns-bernie-sanders-gun-lawsuit-stand-article-1.2589519[/url] i hate this state, these individuals helped pass some of the most reactionary and stupid gun laws in the country

Bernie is probably the most sane about gun rights than Hillary, and Trump and his views on guns are basically to just get all the bubba fud's who don't care about anything BUT guns to vote for him. Hey Clinton, instead of using tragedy to further your agenda, why not actually work with pro and anti-gun folks to reach fair, understandable legislation that isn't fucking over one side or the other. [editline]6th April 2016[/editline] I mean, I can understand Sanders point when he says you don't need an AK for deer hunting, but at the same time I don't think he understands how effective 7.62x39 is for medium to large game.

Lol my senators make me ashamed to live here. Fuck you Dannel Malloy and fuck you Chris Murphy. Bernies stance is that gun manufacturers should have immunity unless they had knowledge before selling guns/ammo that they would be used for a crime.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50081252]Bernie is probably the most sane about gun rights than Hillary, and Trump and his views on guns are basically to just get all the bubba fud's who don't care about anything BUT guns to vote for him. Hey Clinton, instead of using tragedy to further your agenda, why not actually work with pro and anti-gun folks to reach fair, understandable legislation that isn't fucking over one side or the other. [editline]6th April 2016[/editline] I mean, I can understand Sanders point when he says you don't need an AK for deer hunting, but at the same time I don't think he understands how effective 7.62x39 is for medium to large game.[/QUOTE] Or how effective it is against any target for that matter.

So they are having a go at Sanders because he refuses to agree with them for their right to sue the gun manufacturers, where they really should be attempting to get the AR-15 off the streets instead.

[QUOTE=cody8295;50081267]Lol my senators make me ashamed to live here. Fuck you Dannel Malloy and fuck you Chris Murphy. Bernies stance is that gun manufacturers should have immunity unless they had knowledge before selling guns/ammo that they would be used for a crime.[/QUOTE] which is the same for how it is with every other product sold

[QUOTE=Boilrig;50081271]So they are having a go at Sanders because he refuses to agree with them for their right to sue the gun manufacturers, [B]where they really should be attempting to get the AR-15 off the streets instead.[/B][/QUOTE] Do you know how uninformed you sound when saying this. In the case of Adam Lanza, he tried to legally acquire a gun and was denied, so he stole his parents legally acquired weaponry, killed his mom then went on a rampage in Newtown. You're not going to prevent gun theft by hurting law abiding citizens in the process.

These are members of the same state democratic party that said in december that of you're against using no fly lists to ban people from getting guns, then you're ok with terrorism. Fuck the Connecticut democrats

I'm quite pro-gun, to the point where I'd actually favor deregulation in some aspects (mainly the NFA of 1986) but I can't imagine gun rights being anything more than a tertiary issue for me. I'd be interested in how many Democrats even support the type of legislation Murphy and Malloy support.

"democratic senator"

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50081289]Do you know how uninformed you sound when saying this.[/QUOTE] Considering I live New Zealand, which is basically a completely different planet than America, I would say, I'm completely uninformed when it comes to the continuous ongoing gun debate of America.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;50081316]Considering I live New Zealand, which is basically a completely different planet than America, I would say, I'm completely uninformed when it comes to the continuous ongoing gun debate of America.[/QUOTE] Most gun crime in the US is committed with illegally acquired weaponry, either black market guns or stolen from lawful owners. So trying to enact laws that only affect law abiding citizens and not these law disregarding twats is counter productive to the issue as a whole.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;50081271]where they really should be attempting to get the AR-15 off the streets instead.[/QUOTE] Don't look on the streets for those either, you won't find them there...

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50081302]I'm quite pro-gun, to the point where I'd actually favor deregulation in some aspects (mainly the NFA of 1986) but I can't imagine gun rights being anything more than a tertiary issue for me. I'd be interested in how many Democrats even support the type of legislation Murphy and Malloy support.[/QUOTE] i wish gun rights wasn't considered just a republican issue, i am sure there are a lot of left-leaning people for whom it is a bigger issue for them. i'm still voting for a democrat come the general election, mostly in hope they won't be able to get enough support to strengthen regulation

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50081342]i wish gun rights wasn't considered just a republican issue, i am sure there are a lot of left-leaning people for whom it is a bigger issue for them. i'm still voting for a democrat come the general election, mostly in hope they won't be able to get enough support to strengthen regulation[/QUOTE] Truthfully I don't think Sanders cares about guns nearly as much as most Democrats would and his presidency would probably be similar to Obama's, where he talks it up for progressives who want stricter regulation then lets legislation die in the house or senate. Especially when he would be trying to push so many social welfare programs.

Personally I think doing away with the right to carry guns would improve US as a whole, but that's not gonna happen - and in the meantime it makes no sense to make manufacturers responsible for guns sold legally. It's insane.

AR-15s and similar weapons aren't the issue, statistically you're as likely to be killed by a rifle as you are by fists. Useless feel-good policies like this and the assault weapons ban do nothing to improve public safety and turn lawful gun owners against the Democratic Party. They should try coming up with policies that actually protect against gun crime. EDIT: [url=https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_11_murder_circumstances_by_weapon_2014.xls]Less than half as likely actually[/url]

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50081492]Personally I think doing away with the right to carry guns would improve US as a whole, but that's not gonna happen - and in the meantime it makes no sense to make manufacturers responsible for guns sold legally. It's insane.[/QUOTE] Do you have any idea how minuscule the number of people who commit crimes with legally carried firearms are? Find me three instances in the last 3 years of that happening.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50081579]Do you have any idea how minuscule the number of people who commit crimes with legally carried firearms are? Find me three instances in the last 3 years of that happening.[/QUOTE] I didn't really want to discuss this, but there is a reason why there are so many firearms in the possession of criminals in the US, and it isn't because they suddenly manifested themselves out of the thin air. Either way, I just wanted to put my opinion out there to say you can both be "anti-gun" [I]and[/I] against retarded legislation.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50081698]I didn't really want to discuss this, but there is a reason why there are so many firearms in the possession of criminals in the US, and it isn't because they suddenly manifested themselves out of the thin air. Either way, I just wanted to put my opinion out there to say you can both be "anti-gun" [I]and[/I] against retarded legislation.[/QUOTE] But what you suggested, and using your own words, is exactly that "retarded legislation". Why not leave things as they are, but make the NICS database publicly searchable, make punishments for crimes involving firearms much more serious, and allowing those who have proven themselves as morally and legally responsible to do as they please within the law? In what logic does it make sense to restrict that class of people?

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50081751]But what you suggested, and using your own words, is exactly that "retarded legislation". Why not leave things as they are, but make the NICS database publicly searchable, make punishments for crimes involving firearms much more serious, and allowing those who have proven themselves as morally and legally responsible to do as they please within the law? In what logic does it make sense to restrict that class of people?[/QUOTE] I don't think I proposed any legislation, though? If I could magically change the US into Denmark with regards to guns, I'd do so - when I said it wasn't going to happen, I wasn't just talking about congress and whatever getting in the way, but the reality of the situation (hello 400 (?) million guns!). It isn't feasible. I think there is legislation that could prove effective in making it harder for criminals to get access to guns, but as I said - I don't feel like having the same discussion we've had a billion times before. To me, this subject was honestly discussed to death maybe 2 years ago, and it's just too fatigued. Not that it matters too much, but anyway; I have nothing against guns, they're inanimate objects and I find a lot of the history and the weapons themselves interesting. Edit: Actually I see now how my post could be interpreted as a proposed policy, just removing the 2nd amendment. It wasn't meant as such.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50081782]I don't think I proposed any legislation, though? If I could magically change the US into Denmark with regards to guns, I'd do so - when I said it wasn't going to happen, I wasn't just talking about congress and whatever getting in the way, but the reality of the situation (hello 400 (?) million guns!). It isn't feasible. I think there is legislation that could prove effective in making it harder for criminals to get access to guns, but as I said - I don't feel like having the same discussion we've had a billion times before. To me, this subject was honestly discussed to death maybe 2 years ago, and it's just too fatigued. Not that it matters too much, but anyway; I have nothing against guns, they're inanimate objects and I find a lot of the history and the weapons themselves interesting. Edit: Actually I see now how my post could be interpreted as a proposed policy, just removing the 2nd amendment. It wasn't meant as such.[/QUOTE] As you're saying, it's really hard for Europeans not to sound ignorant when it comes to gun rights because (no offense) you are. I'm of the opinon that Euros should really just stay out of the US gun debate because there is no way you have a basic foundation for a realistic opinon unless you've spent considerable time in the US.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50081782]I don't think I proposed any legislation, though? If I could magically change the US into Denmark with regards to guns, I'd do so - when I said it wasn't going to happen, I wasn't just talking about congress and whatever getting in the way, but the reality of the situation (hello 400 (?) million guns!). It isn't feasible. I think there is legislation that could prove effective in making it harder for criminals to get access to guns, but as I said - I don't feel like having the same discussion we've had a billion times before. To me, this subject was honestly discussed to death maybe 2 years ago, and it's just too fatigued. Not that it matters too much, but anyway; I have nothing against guns, they're inanimate objects and I find a lot of the history and the weapons themselves interesting. Edit: Actually I see now how my post could be interpreted as a proposed policy, just removing the 2nd amendment. It wasn't meant as such.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry if I misread into your post. But, yeah the topic is beaten to a pulp. Unfortunately, 2 years later, not many people have the sense to make logical debate or decisions on the topic.

[QUOTE]Presidential populist Bernie Sanders came under blistering fire Tuesday for opposing efforts by families of Sandy Hook shooting victims to sue gun manufacturers. Sanders, in an exclusive interview with the Daily News last week, said, “No, I don’t,” when asked if victims of a crime with a gun should be able to sue the manufacturer.[/QUOTE] Well, no shit? You should never be allowed to sue the manufacturer of a product when it's being used for something nefarious [b]unless[/b] you can prove beyond a doubt that the manufacturer knew that it was going to be used for said purpose. If some arms company is caught selling to ISIS or domestic terrorists of some variety sue the fuck out of them, but you can't sue them for legally selling a legal product.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50081252]Bernie is probably the most sane about gun rights than Hillary, and Trump and his views on guns are basically to just get all the bubba fud's who don't care about anything BUT guns to vote for him. Hey Clinton, instead of using tragedy to further your agenda, why not actually work with pro and anti-gun folks to reach fair, understandable legislation that isn't fucking over one side or the other. [editline]6th April 2016[/editline] I mean, I can understand Sanders point when he says you don't need an AK for deer hunting, but at the same time I don't think he understands how effective 7.62x39 is for medium to large game.[/QUOTE] I think expanded background checks, limits on how many guns one can buy, closing gun show and private dealer loopholes are all reasonable. I don't think an assault weapons (read: "I saw it in a war movie once") ban will be effective in preventing crime or even mass shootings, but I think making sure every purchase of guns in this country is catalogued and registered is important. I think one ought to have a license to sell guns, even over Craigslist so that we can document who owns what guns to tie them back to crimes. Then, if a gun was sold without a license, the seller should be held responsible.

[QUOTE=SnakeHead;50081815]As you're saying, it's really hard for Europeans not to sound ignorant when it comes to gun rights because (no offense) you are. I'm of the opinon that Euros should really just stay out of the US gun debate because there is no way you have a basic foundation for a realistic opinon unless you've spent considerable time in the US.[/QUOTE] The same way Americans should be able to way in on the refugee crisis, Europeans should be able to debate gun laws in the US. There are probably many US citizens more ignorant than me.

Reminder that Denmark outlawed fucking pepper spray. The problem with assuming that the U.S. can use a European solution to "gun control" is that the U.S. is way too drastically different than European countries in terms of crime, our shitty system in the U.S. practically forces people into criminal behaviors. The ability for one to defend themselves in certain parts of the U.S. is much, much more necessary than it would be in the majority of Europe, And no amount of punishing legal gun owners is ever going to change that. After we start taking care of our poor and homeless, and removing the factors that drive people to committing crimes as a lifestyle, then come back to us about increasing gun control, but in our current state it does nothing but disenfranchise and even punish responsible gun owners.

The argument that the AR-15 is not a "civilian" firearm, as they are trying to insist, is a load of horse shit. It's been sold in America for almost 50 years now, and it's used for hunting and numerous competitive shooting sports. There are entire shooting disciplines centred around the AR-15 and similar firearms. It is a sporting firearm designed for civilian use, and it is an incredibly versatile and effective hunting firearm. I wish they weren't arbitrarily restricted in Canada because with the purchase of some parts and calibre conversion kits I'd be able to hunt anything from gophers to moose with one.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50081993]The same way Americans should be able to way in on the refugee crisis, Europeans should be able to debate gun laws in the US. [B]There are probably many US citizens more ignorant than me[/B].[/QUOTE] you can guarantee that there are plenty

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50081892]I think expanded background checks, [B]limits on how many guns one can buy, closing gun show and private dealer loopholes are all reasonable.[/B] I don't think an assault weapons (read: "I saw it in a war movie once") ban will be effective in preventing crime or even mass shootings, but I think making sure every purchase of guns in this country is catalogued and registered is important. [B]I think one ought to have a license to sell guns, even over Craigslist so that we can document who owns what guns to tie them back to crimes. Then, if a gun was sold without a license, the seller should be held responsible.[/B][/QUOTE] Do you know how buying a gun legally works, especially when it comes to legally buying and selling a firearm online? Because if you say yes, you're lying. All of these things you say "happen" don't, at least legally I mean. To legally buy and sell firearms, even online and from third parties, you need an FFL license holder, usually a gun store owner, to be the "transferring" party that legally sees over ownership of the firearm from one person to another, and filing the proper paper work from both parties to the state and federal governments. You can't legally buy a gun from craigslist unless they say they're going through the FFL process, otherwise it's illegal. Same with specialized websites like armslist, there's a lot of guns there but if you're smart you're buying from the people who say "will only meet at an FFL location".