Bernie Sanders, 2nd Amendment Advocate?

An article penned at Slate, takes presidential candidate [and admitted Socialist] to task for supporting common sense 2nd Amendment protections. Yes, that’s right…..I used the same framing that the gun control camp uses: “common sense”. Since the term has no defined metric, no meaning beyond personal bias….it’s just as applicable if the gun rights camp were to employ it. I won’t be continuing to use it…..as it’s a lazy tactic lost on the gun control cabal, but the point is made.

What’s interesting beyond the fact that Sanders doesn’t buy into the empty gun control narrative, writ large anyway……is that Slate uses this article to rail against a 2005 piece of legislation that they would not support were it directed against any other lawful industry. That legislation is the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)”. This bill protects firearm manufacturers against lawsuits and punitive damages stemming from the criminal use of its products.

The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it.

This, apparently, is a bad thing. The author attempts to bolster his disdain for this protection by citing invented examples of other industries that he sees as analogous.

But the act’s primary purpose is as simple as it is cold-blooded. Every state imposes liability on manufacturers who are negligent in their production and sale of products. If I crash my Prius because its accelerator malfunctions, I can sue Toyota for negligently manufacturing a faulty pedal. If my child dismembers himself with a blender at Sears, I can sue Sears for negligently leaving that blender within a child’s reach.

The glaring hole in his assertion however, is that he cites negligent faults in the product themselves, or negligence on the part of the intermediary, the retailer. He thinks you, the reader, are too stupid to see the difference. Firearms manufactures are protected….as are other industries…..from tort liability in cases where a person takes a lawful, and lawfully procured item…and uses it in a criminal act. If the author were correct, or had journalistic integrity, he would assert that because Sears left a blender within reach of a child…one could sue the manufacturer of the blender. But since cannot, he concoct a fantasy where he would have you believe that the firearm industry has been granted special protections, because…….eeevill NRA.

To recap, gun control supporters such as this author, would advocate for punitive liability judgements against the manufacturer of a non-defective lawful item, lawfully distributed to a lawful retailer, [presumably] lawfully sold to an appropriate consumer……..but only if the item is a firearm. A legal product. Wow.

That idiocy aside…..I might actually watch a debate between Sanders and Clinton, if gun control is on the agenda. No, Sanders is not a champion for individual liberty, writ large….he’s a collectivist….but he’s an interesting cat.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders, 2nd Amendment Advocate?

  1. He's also form Vermont and takes a similar stance on firearms issues to Howard Dean.

    As for the bill in question, it masks the fact that it is in the best interest of manufacturers to flood the country with guns just as it is in the interest of defense contractors to keep the peeps worried about the scary Muslims.

    Like

  2. Your opinion is about the bill is unrelated to the bill itself. You transparently use the term 'flood' for it's emotional appeal, disregarding that you would likely not support the same punitive measure against any other lawful industry.

    Not unlike the gun con trip camps hypocritical stance on the 2nd Amendment….desiring to regulate it in a manner utterly irreconcilable with what they would support for other Constitutional rights.

    Like

  3. Sanders is generally with you guys on the gun laws, CI, though I think a President Sanders would probably do some things you wouldn't like. I don't know why you have this blind spot for the gun industry, though. I wonder, does the flood, oops, I mean, MILLIONS OF F'ING pills on the streets have you question the ethics of the pharmaceutical industry at all, or are you just the kind of guy who reflexively backs all industrial interests all the time because you have a mental disease?

    JMJ

    Like

  4. See, now that's just sad. You make a reasonable statement and ask a somewhat cogent question, but in true Pavlovian form, you are forced to reflexively be a dick with regards to a subject you disagree with. Why is that? Why does the issue of the 2nd Amendment cause you to love any modicum of maturity and reason?

    You display and odd sort of intellectual Tourettes, and compel me to not give a damn about answering your question….thus making your comment an exercise in poor time management.

    But by all means, do tell why you would hold a lawful industry to a separate standard [equal protection under the law] than any other lawful industry.

    Like

  5. And yes, Sanders is an interesting cat. For the public interest/the rights of the people on some things. .. while he takes the authoritarian, fascistic, side-of-the-rulers side on most issues.

    Like

  6. So it really just is a mental disorder. You really just automatically back any industrial interest credo quia. It's like you really truly believe there are no responsibilities or accountability that should go with any right. Wow.

    JMJ

    Like

  7. A little off topic: reading more about the case of Virgil Smith. the Michigan Legislative Black Caucus (an explicitly racist organization) has come out in defense of Virgil Smith, due to his skin color. They don't do that when a white legislator has been caught in crime.

    The “get a free pass if you are the right color” racism didn't reach as far as the State Democratic leadership, however, and they stripped Smith of leadership positions.

    Smith got failing grade on Second Amendment rights. I hope his replacement doesn't also fail the Constitution. It should be a given that legislators are experts in the United States Constitution.

    Like

  8. It's cute to see how smart you think you are. But as I can't access Blogger from my worksite [.mil], I can't approve posts to be visible for around 8-10 hours during the weekday. Oh my…would you look at the time stamps…..

    Internet punk indeed.

    Like

  9. If that is what you believe, then I must conclude that you are intellectually retarded. First, name said “mental disorder”. Oh, you can't? Just more verbal diarrhea. You see, we adults call this a difference of opinion, instead of imagining farcical 'disorders' to cover for our lack of reason.

    Let's move to the next point. I support holding industry accountable and responsible for proffering faulty, toxic, mechanically unsafe products, or misrepresenting their wares. I presume you do as well. What I don’t support, is holding a manufacturer liable for what you, or any other citizen, might do in the commission of a crime or act of negligence…unrelated to the safe use or operation of their product(s). Why would you? Or do you only support this with regard to the firearm industry, making you a hypocrite of monumental proportions? Which is it?

    Would you hold Ford liable anytime a drunk driver got behind the wheel of a Fiesta and plowed into a busy crosswalk? Would you hold Stanley liable if I employed a hammer with a loose grip and beaned yourself in the forehead? Should the manufacturer of the knife used in the 2014 Isla Vista killings be held liable?

    Tell me why you would discard reason, logic and equal protection under the law….in pursuit of your emotional need to demonize the lawful firearm and the lawful citizens who use them? It is not I with a mental disorder.

    Like

  10. Jersey said “So it really just is a mental disorder. You really just automatically back any industrial interest credo …”

    That's not happening here. Defending innocent people from deceptively-crafted frivolous lawsuits that are designed with the goal of depriving individuals of a basic right… that is what is happening.

    I've never seen any pro-industry stuff from C.I., Jersey. However, I have seen it from you. We have locked horns on the wisdom of the Federal government giving many billions to the auto industry… pure corporate welfare. I opposed, you supported.

    Like

  11. CI: Jersey accusing those who (on this issue, anyway) are better-informed and better-intentioned of having a “mental disorder” is way too close to those on the Right who accuse gay people of having a “mental disorder”.

    It's an anti-intellectual, knee-jerk reaction. Of the same mindset that brought us the Spanish Inquisition and the re-education camps common in socialist nations.

    Jersey can do better. He often does. If he applied his mind to the gun issue as he does with the MIC, marriage equality, the war on drugs, etc, he'd be singing a different tune entirely.

    Like

  12. dmarks – Jersey appears to favor unequal protection under the law, only punitive liability against any industry he does not approve of.

    Of course, since he has yet to proffer a an intellectually mature position, simply to hurl childish insults and pejoratives…..it's hard to say what his position right be.

    Like

  13. Yes. and it is thuggish and vindicative (and fascistic) persecution of innocent individuals with absolutely no evidence of them having done any wrong.

    CI, it is a massive stretch to connect your view, of the protection of individual rights and respect for due process, with any sort of “industrial interest”

    If the rule of law, due process, preventing witch hunts against innocent people, is destroyed in this nation due to a false perception that all of this “industrial interest”, then welcome to Hell, North Korea, or the typical socialist nation.

    Like

  14. Yes indeed. This one case study is a study in left-wing racism, and hypocrisy (the Left, in this case, wanting to steal guns from law-abiding citizens, while engaging in or supporting the right to commit violent firearms offenses… if the felon is of the correct skin color).

    Like

  15. This moderation s#!t sucks. Causes confusion.

    First off, I hate and detest simpleminded semantic nit-picking. If you really don't understand that by “industry” I mean a 'particular business sector' then you're just not up for a serious conversation here.

    The “gun industry” for example, includes retailers, dealers of all sorts, small to large manufacturers, distributors, sales and PR, etc, etc.

    So, when someone says, “we need to hold an industry to account,” they aren't specifying a particular part, like just the manufacturers or just the exporters, but saying that somewhere with that industry some bunch needs to be held accountable for something.

    Manufacturers of guns, like the Phama mfrs, know full well they are producing more than the legitimate market can absorb. So somehow, we should do something about that. But going after them would probably be useless. We have to look at distribution.

    JMJ

    Like

  16. Jersey; I think I knew exactly what you meant.

    Yes. CI talked extensively about the need for businesses to be held accountable for wrong doing. I agree with his description.

    ” We have to look at distribution.”

    Or actual gun crimes.

    Like

  17. I agree, comment moderation sucks…but when a blog is plagued by a pathetic troll who create blogs to carry on imaginary conversations with those he takes issue with…..it's often a necessity.

    The firearm “industry” is already beholden to follow the law with regards to NICs checks and those who are by law, prohibited from purchasing/owning a firearm. You still haven't stated why you would support holding a manufacturer [as stated in the aforementioned bill, and as the target of the 'Sandy Hook Families' lawsuit against Bushmaster] punitively liable, unlike any other industry.

    Finally, Why should we “do something about that” when every industry produces more stock than can be purchased at any given time? How should we “go after distribution”….of a lawful item?

    Like

  18. “every industry produces more stock than can be purchased at any given time?”

    No. They don't.

    “How should we “go after distribution”….of a lawful item?”

    Within the law the way it is now, the best way is to scrutinize sales to look for straw purchasers. There's only so much we can do, as we really don't have much in the way of firearms regulation in this country to start with.

    As for gun crime, dmarks, trying to prevent that in the first place would be what I'm talking about here. And believe me, we're already as a society well aware of it and dealing with it. Guns are everywhere.

    JMJ

    Like

  19. No. They don't.

    Prove it. The mere fact that shelves are stocked, with even more product in distribution centers and in transport, for nearly every conceivable retail item in our society, negates your assertion. So prove it.

    Why can you still not answer my question? If you oppose the aforementioned bill, why would you hold one manufacturing base to a standard of unequal protection under the law?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s