Bernie Sanders Supported Gun Company Immunity But OPPOSED It for Other Industries

[George II]

Bernie Sanders Supported Gun Company Immunity But Opposed It for Other Industries

In 2005, Sanders voted against offering legal protections to fast food companies.

The day before then-Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders voted to grant the gun industry immunity from legal liability, he voted against doing the same for fast-food companies and opposed doing the same for half a dozen other industries during his time in the House, roll call records show.

On October 20, 2005, Sanders voted against the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, also known as the "cheeseburger bill," aimed at protecting McDonald's and other fast-food restaurant chains from lawsuits filed by plaintiffs who blamed the companies for causing obesity. The next day, he voted in favor of protecting gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits.

Hillary Clinton, the Vermont senator's chief opponent for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, has criticized the latter vote for months, pointing to it as a sign of Sanders' weakness on gun control, along with five votes against the Brady Bill.

With the Democratic primary heating up in its final weeks and President Barack Obama taking new executive actions on guns, Clinton and her campaign ratcheted up the pressure on Sanders this week, arguing that he yielded to the gun industry where she stood firm.

“When it really mattered, Senator Sanders voted with the gun lobby, and I voted against the gun lobby," Clinton said of the immunity vote in a Friday interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

While he voted to protect the gun industry, Sanders's record shows him more aligned with the party's left wing in not granting immunity to fast food and several other industries. During his time in the House of Representatives, where he served for nine terms, he opposed bills that would have barred Americans from suing over Y2K computer failures, underperforming securities and machine tool manufacturers. He supported legislation allowing Americans to sue telemarketers, health insurers and dietary supplement makers.

(more)

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-10/bernie-sanders-supported-gun-company-immunity-but-opposed-it-for-other-industries

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. There are corporatiosn that Sanders likes.

The wrong ones.

He is a disaster on gun control.

[HerbChestnut]

2. Marching orders have arrived I see.

Onward!

[George II]

3. I won the pool - I picked under 4 minutes.

[HerbChestnut]

4. Do I get a cut?

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. More like moved a rug and found an old forgotten talking point... forgot it was already posted.

And so posted it again for the eleventieth time.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Yes sir, because the BERNIE'S A GUN NUT meme hasn't been overused at ALL..

WHACK WHACK WHACK!

Beat that dead horse!

[Sancho]

5. Bernie has never supported effective gun controls...

waiting periods, restrictions on transporting guns, the Brady Bill, and protecting the gun industry are all part of the picture.

[HerbChestnut]

9. Well then you haven't looked at his entire record.

It's mixed, I'll give you that, but he has supported plenty of gun control measures despite the views of his constituency in Vermont.

[Sancho]

13. I've looked carefully...here's some of my links...

I'm a gun owner. Bernie used the code words that the NRA likes.

Background checks for all sales, no transportation of guns across state lines, the Brady Bill, no immunity from lawsuits are all ways to avoid effective gun control. Bernie likes the Scandinavian economies, but not the their gun controls!!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/13/bernie_sanders_on_guns_at_the_debate.html
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/watch-bernie-sanders-clash-with-a-gun-control-activist-who-thinks-he-sounds-like-the-nra/
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/07/10/bernies-big-break-with-the-left-on-guns
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
http://reverbpress.com/news/phillips-lucky-gunner-aurora-shooting/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/10/bernie-sanders-misleading-characterization-of-a-controversial-gun-law/
http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/01/1183784/-2005-Law-Gives-Gun-Manufacturers-and-Dealers-Protection-From-Lawsuits-Not-Given-to-Other-Industries#
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/congress-passes-new-legal-shield-for-gun-industry.html?_r=0
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/07/10/bernies-big-break-with-the-left-on-guns
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/10/bernie-sanders-misleading-characterization-of-a-controversial-gun-law/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/lets-talk-about-bernie-sa_b_8023768.html
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/07/12/gun-control-crowd-still-sour-over-sanders-view-on-second-amendment-n2024288
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/417180805/bernie-sanders-walks-a-fine-line-on-gun-control
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/252007-conn-governor-hits-sanders-on-gun-control
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/09/21/3703618/voters-conflicted-about-bernie-sanders-on-guns/

[Persondem]

14. Nice post. Thank you. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. A cheeseburger will kill you but a gun won't?

DSB

[DanTex]

8. Yes, the gun immunity vote was one of his worst. And the hypocritical excuses for it

from him and his supporters are just bizarre. I mean, of all industries to have a soft spot for, guns?

[NurseJackie]

10. Really? ... Wow. I did not know that. Hmm. Interesting.

I just assumed that Bernie was always consistent and true to his principles and never was one to be checking the direction of the wind depending on what was popular or what benefited him most. This has been the mantra from so many of his supporters, for such a long time, that I assumed it to be the 100% truth.

[George II]

12. One would think that, since he "never changes his position"!

[Armstead]

23. I guess you'd prefer he let the food industry off the hook

That'd be consistent.

Maybe he should be consistent and join Clinton in that bed with Monsanto and the other Big Agrichemical companies too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Physicians are always seeking immunity...

Well, not blanket immunity but virtual immunity in the form of caps.

For instance in many state caps for "pain and suffering" caused by medical malpractice are capped at $250,000.00 but if a corporation designs a faulty product and someone is injured there is no limit on what can be recovered for "pain and suffering."

It's a peeve of mine.

[Armstead]

24. If a gun shoots a bullet it's not faulty

It's working as it should for its stated purpose.

If you want to make that stated purpose illegal, feel free to try. But unless that happens, malpractice and negligence laws don't apply if the gun performs as it should.

[retrowire]

15. Well unhealthy food and ethics will always be bad.

And will always harm people.

Guns are sometimes used for their intended purposes, and sometimes they're not.

The food industry chooses what they serve. Therefore, they're directly responsible for serving bad product.

The gun industry is not responsible for what their consumers do with the product.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, and I'm certain no one will be confused any longer.

[George II]

16. The intended purpose of guns is to destroy things (targets, animals, people)

[retrowire]

17. Yep.

And some things are necessary to destroy. Guns are an efficient way of doing so.

Let's look at the 3 examples you listed.

Targets. Those are fun to shoot at, skeet shooting, target practice, cans, and whatever. If a person wants to shoot an inanimate object, that's great! They can, and should.

Animals. Firstly, I'm a vegan, so I don't think we should harm them at all. But I'm a realist and understand 2 things. Euthanasia is necessary at times, and people are going to eat meat regardless. Hunters gotta hunt, Farmers gotta put down sick animals.

People. Yep, we have armed criminals, and enemies of our nation.

However, FOOD, isn't supposed to be destroying anything. It should be nourishment for the masses. So when it doesn't do it's ONE JOB correctly, then things need to be done about that.

Likewise, when guns aren't doing what they're supposed to do, (destroying things they shouldn't for example) then we should get on that as well. We'll go after the ones responsible.

So I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, I'm sure there will be no more confusion.

[George II]

18. There never was confusion on my part, but I think you were confused with what I said.

My point was that the sole purpose of guns is to destroy things. On the other hand, "food" isn't designed to to destroy or harm people or things.

Conflating the intentions of those who produce food with those who produce guns is, well, just.....

[ejbr]

19. sigh....

yes, guns are supposed to kill people, but suing a company for a product that has worked correctly but by a bad person would then allow us to sue car companies for people who plow into crowds, crowbar companies for people who beats someone's head in, or a rope company whose product was used to strangle someone. If you want to outlaw guns, then say so, but don't act as if doing an end run around this desire by suing the company for making a product that works and is legal, but used by bad people, is logical.

Or, if we can use an excuse that seems to satisfy Hillary supporters when all else fails: 9/11

[George II]

21. Funny you decided to jump in here, but the legislation did a lot more to protect gun manufacturers.

I figured it was a matter of time before someone brought up that old, tired car analogy. Cars aren't designed to kill, they're designed to transport. Guns are designed to kill. They are the only devices in your laundry list of products that are designed to kill.

sigh is right......

By the way, car manufacturers haven't been given immunity to law suits as gun manufacturers have, so your analogy fails.

[ejbr]

28. This argument is nothing

Last edited Mon Jan 11, 2016, 07:26 AM - Edit history (1)

but a desperate attempt by Clinton supporters to smear Bernie. If a gun is defective, the manufacturer can be sued for that reason... Oh and don't forget 9/11

[Armstead]

25. if you want to try and outlaw guns...

Be my guest. We'd probably be better off without them.

But unless you succeed, they are a legal product.

[99Forever]

20. Let me know when a gun owner catches...

... salmonella from the poor way the maker handled the product and we'll talk.







Bwahahahahahhahahahhahahhaha.

The ridiculous runs deep in this one.

[Cha]

22. And, Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly endorsed Hillary for President.

Thank you, George.

[Dawson Leery]

26. +1,000,000

[JDPriestly]

27. You know what I think.

A lot of people are posting about stuff they know nothing about.

I trust Bernie when it comes to voting on bills.

It's pretty desperate of the Hillary supporters to pick on this ridiculous issue that they do not understand.

Whew!

If you want to impose strict liability on manufacturers of products, why not start with tobacco. There is no earthly use for tobacco that justifies the dangers of the product.

To the contrary, there are good uses for guns. Hunting -- if you eat the game that you hunt. Sport. Protecting livestock. Protecting yourself and your family if you live in the country.

There are lots of good uses for guns. There are no good uses for tobacco. So start with tobacco if you want to impose strict liability on a product.

Otherwise, guns manufacturers should not be held responsible for the insane and cruel actions of people who buy guns.

[George II]

31. Have you not seen all the stuff the Sanders supporters have been posting for the last six months?

This isn't even close to the level of "desperation" we've seen ever since the polls leveled off for Sanders.

Good uses for guns? Hunting - killing. Sport - killing. Guns are manufactured to kill.

Tobacco companies HAVE been sued for millions of dollars, and tobacco isn't meant to kill like guns are. There are no laws protecting tobacco producers.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tobacco-litigation-history-and-development-32202.html

Not only that, but there are strict controls on where tobacco can be consumed in just about every state in the union, which protect innocent bystanders from being exposed to the dangers of tobacco use.

Sorry, comparing the dangers to innocent bystanders by tobacco to the dangers to innocent bystanders by guns is extremely weak.

Lastly, I haven't read any stories lately about 26 little children being slaughtered in a few minutes by a cigarettes.

[aikoaiko]

30. Bernie is awesome.