I had no intention of ever doing a negative diary on any other candidate in the Democratic primary. Being a HRC supporter I didn't think it seemed like a very helpful thing to do. However while reading comment in a Hillary diary it came to my attention that people do not know what Bernie's record is on gun control. Those people include his supporters as well as people on the fence.
Now to be fair I should maybe say his record is mixed. But there are two particular votes which cause me to use the word "terrible" and I will get to that. Also to be clear I am a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment. I have carried a gun in the past when I lived near Philly. But I also certain gun control laws are good and I would like to see new and creative legislation that would solve the problem we have with gun violence in this country without punishing people who are not part of the problem.
Read more.....
Because he once had an F rating from the NRA, people assume it still stands. But even if you go check his rating now it looks misleading. I looked and can not find out exactly what his rating is now, but it is a D or D+ according to one news source.
Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut
He supported the most reprehensible pro-gun legislation in recent memory.
I would not call him a "gun nut". However I do agree that he voted for some of the most reprehensible pro-gun legislation in history. Here is some of the actual article from Slate.
When Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders jumped into the 2016 presidential race, he was widely hailed as a far-left socialist who would appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. A liberal challenge to Hillary Clinton, said Politico. True progressives’ liberal alternative, trumpeted FiveThirtyEight. But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should remember that the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton’s right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun control. During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.
(cut)
As a senator, Sanders supported bills to allow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns.
(cut)
But Sanders’ vote for a different kind of pro-gun bill is more puzzling—and profoundly disturbing. In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. 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. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)
Because the PLCAA deals with tort law—not a topic of great interest for most Americans—it didn’t stir much outrage when first passed. 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. If I get stabbed by a teenager with a switchblade, I might be able to sue the pawn shop owner who illegally sold a knife to a minor.
Before the PLCAA, most states imposed some form of tort liability on gun makers and sellers. If a gun manufacturer made an assault rifle that could slaughter dozens of people in a few seconds, for instance, one of its victims might sue the company for negligently making a gun that could foreseeably be used for mass murder. If a gun seller sold a gun to a customer without performing any kind of background check—and then the buyer opened fire on the subway—his victims might sue that seller for negligently providing a gun to a mentally unstable person. The standards in each state differed, but the bottom line remained the same: Victims of gun violence and their families could recover financially from the people and companies who negligently enabled gun violence.
The PLCAA changed all that. Remarkably, the act wiped out gun liability laws in all 50 states, rendering them invalid except for a handful of narrow exceptions. (So much for states’ rights.) Thanks to the law, victims of mass shootings are barred from suing the companies that produced a wartime weapon that no civilian could ever need. With few exceptions, victims cannot sue a gun seller for negligently providing a semiautomatic weapon to a lunatic who shoots them in a movie theater. Even if a jury decides a gun maker or seller should be liable, the PLCAA invalidates its verdict. The law tramples upon states’ rights, juries’ rights, and fundamental precepts of America’s civil justice system. And it received Bernie Sanders’ support—in both 2003 (when it was first introduced) and 2005 (when it finally passed).
(cut)
. Right now, the families of Sandy Hook victims are searching for a loophole in the law, so they can sue Bushmaster for making the gun that sent 154 bullets through 20 children and six adults in 264 seconds. They will probably fail.
(cut)
Hillary Clinton, who voted against the act as a senator, would almost certainly sign a repeal bill. Would a President Bernie Sanders? Until he says otherwise, we have every reason to believe the ostensible progressive hero would stand behind the vile legislation he championed just a decade ago.
Politico takes a slightly more moderate tone in their article. The call him erratic in the article entitled
Bernie Sanders’ Awkward History
With Guns in America
Sanders didn’t ignore the tragedy in Charleston, though there was an uncomfortable moment when his rally outside the Capitol for bolstering union retiree benefits overlapped briefly with a prayer vigil nearby for the victims of the shooting at the historically black church.
He canceled a campaign event for this Sunday in South Carolina and urged supporters in an email to make a contribution to the Emanuel AME Church with a link to the church’s website. He also issued a statement saying, “The Charleston church killings are a tragic reminder of the ugly stain of racism that still taints our nation.”
The statement did not mention guns, and when asked for further comment, Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver offered a less-than-forceful call for addressing the issue of gun violence: “This sick and tragic attack is an example of why we need to ensure that guns do not end up in the hands of dangerous people. We also ask ourselves how we rid our country of the repugnant racist views which apparently fueled this killer’s depraved act against our fellow Americans while they were in the sanctuary of a house of God.”
Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, delivered a more direct call to action during a speech in Las Vegas. “We have to face hard truths about race, violence, guns and divisions,” she said. She asked, “How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?”
(CUT)
And on liberal comedian Bill Maher’s television show last year, Sanders said mental health was “maybe the more important issue” than gun control. “We’ve got millions of folks walking the streets who are need of mental health and they can’t walk into a place and get it,” he said.
“This is the NRA talking point. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I’m just saying, that’s what they say,” Maher responded.
Asked about those statements, Gross said: “Clearly a guy running for president … He does not do the truth any favors when he seeks to walk those fine lines,” adding that Sanders is trying to have it “both ways.”
(CUT)
Seems to me that people could make the case that Bernie is just practicing politics as usual, flip flopping and pandering to get votes. Maybe maybe not. But at least I have posted real facts here. Make of it what you will.
1:14 PM PT: One of the Years Howard Dean ran for reelection in VT he signed a bill making VT the first state to permit gay marriage. The reaction was vile from in and out of state. There were death threats. For months as he was campaigning and explaining signing the legislation he had to wear a bullet proof vest.
That is having a back bone. That is my impression of an independent guy from VT who stands by his ideals and doesn't pander for votes.
Bernie, I don't feel so much that way about him anymore. He seems to have a very narrow focus. His supporters to be able to rationalize anything. I don't expect anyone to stop supporting him because of one issue. I just don't expect this massive rationalization for really crappy legislation. No other corporate behemoth would get this kind of support from this same group.