Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandySF

(58,786 posts)
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:16 PM Jan 2016

On guns, Sanders has an authenticity problem

But here’s the thing: When Sanders and his supporters defend his votes, they like to make the point that Sanders has represented Vermont, where an awful lot of pickup trucks sport NRA stickers, and where an awful lot of gun dealers make a decent living and don’t want to get sued out of business.

“I come from a rural state, and the views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states,” Sanders explained during the Democratic debate in Las Vegas in October. In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” last year, he said: “The people of my state understand, I think, pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles. In our state, guns are used for hunting.”

In other words, Sanders was representing the interests of his constituents. And you know what that makes Bernie Sanders?

A politician, that’s what.

And this is the problem the gun issue creates for Sanders. Because a politician is precisely what he purports not to be. His entire rationale as a candidate is that he alone chooses principle over polls, that he votes his convictions and can’t be corrupted by powerful interests or his own ambition.


https://www.yahoo.com/politics/on-guns-sanders-has-an-1337642634199094.html

106 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
On guns, Sanders has an authenticity problem (Original Post) RandySF Jan 2016 OP
+1. A reasonable gun or two for hunting is fine. Vast majority of gun fanciers don't hunt animals. Hoyt Jan 2016 #1
Many gun owners also wish to have a firearm for self defense. SCOTUS holds that to be a right. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #4
A gun in the HOME, approved by a right wing Court. Hoyt Jan 2016 #8
Many of what you call 'gunners' are content with that. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #16
Maybe, most vocal ones aren't. They need more and more, in more places. Hoyt Jan 2016 #21
SCOTUS gave us W and corporate personhood. onehandle Jan 2016 #64
They also gave us marriage equality. nt hack89 Jan 2016 #96
Classic Rovian tactic. Hit him where he is strongest, his Authenticity. Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #2
The Clinton campaign has been doing this a lot jfern Jan 2016 #91
Everything you say is true. I still don't see where the problem is. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #3
Voting for common sense legislation for the country doesn't hurt his constituents at home, that's... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #19
PLCAA does hurt his constituents if gun violence is not an issue to his constituents, but yet JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #26
But he vote for, not against common sense legislation. passiveporcupine Jan 2016 #86
You mean like Hillary did in 2008?: beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #5
Awesome! Hillary doesn't have a problem with his position, why do her supporters? Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #9
I don't think the op knows why Obama called her Annie Oakley. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #10
HRC Supports sensible regulation, I don't see SBS's votes on guns as sensible at all. 5 times uponit7771 Jan 2016 #20
You mean you don't agree with his votes for background checks and assault weapons bans? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #22
No, I don't see his votes against the commons sense stuff in the past making sense at all.... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #24
You mean these votes? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #28
K & R SunSeeker Jan 2016 #6
Where is the supposed problem? I can't see it. Vincardog Jan 2016 #7
I don't either. Maybe the op can elaborate. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #13
BERNIE has an authenticity problem? Bwahahaha! djean111 Jan 2016 #11
no. he doesn't. next issue please? nt restorefreedom Jan 2016 #12
Yeah, he's tied to the gun industry and his overall lifetime votes on the issue speak louder... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #23
His lifetime votes get him a D- from the NRA. Howard Dean ad an A rating. n/t eridani Jan 2016 #27
Sanders gun industry votes speak louder than amoral NRA hacks ever could uponit7771 Jan 2016 #34
D- is a D-, period. They backed a Republican against him in 1996. Why? n/t eridani Jan 2016 #92
he supports pres o executive action restorefreedom Jan 2016 #29
Of course he does now !!! uponit7771 Jan 2016 #35
He supported gun control for decades. Surely you knew that. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #42
No he didn't, I can do a google search on Sanders and NRA... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #44
I posted the links twice in this thread but if you need me to I'll post them again. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #55
are you seriously suggesting restorefreedom Jan 2016 #73
No, I'm being overt when I posted Sanders voted against some of the commons sense gun legislation uponit7771 Jan 2016 #76
unlike hrc, he has explained his positions on guns restorefreedom Jan 2016 #81
How is he "tied" to the gun industry? Link please, tia! beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #32
His well known gun industry immunity vote... I'm not a LIV uponit7771 Jan 2016 #36
That's not what "tied" to an industry means, if you don't know that you're probably not a hiv. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #39
Link inside... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #43
Where does it say he's tied to them? You also said they contributed to him but that says otherwise. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #46
Tie = benefited from the actions of, your definition?... lets level set on the word "ties" uponit7771 Jan 2016 #49
You said they contributed to Bernie, can you post the excerpt? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #53
NRA made no contribution towards Sanders 1990 win? NONE at all?! Not just money but endorsements uponit7771 Jan 2016 #57
You said they contributed to him and failed to provide proof, just admit you were wrong. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #60
An endorsement isn't a contribution to his campaign in any way?! Are we talking about the same uponit7771 Jan 2016 #63
And we're redefining words now! beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #65
OK, helped SBS out and SBS returned the favor.. better?! uponit7771 Jan 2016 #67
How? By voting for an assault weapons ban? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #69
No, voting against the common sense stuff... Didn't Sanders vote against a ban at one time? tia uponit7771 Jan 2016 #77
Voting for common sense stuff - like background checks and assault weapons bans. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #78
no,the brady bill uponit7771 Jan 2016 #79
So you do acknowledge he voted for gun control decades ago? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #80
He's going to need a lot of ice for that much of a stretch. Tennis Magnet Jan 2016 #95
I just posted I think HRC is a more rounded leader for America and this is one of the reasons... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #14
You mean his common sense pro-gun control record? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #25
No, his votes against the common sense stuff and the non answer for doing so... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #30
Where are your links to those "ties" to the gun industry? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #33
His immunity vote is well known and searchable... prove the obvious obfuscation noted uponit7771 Jan 2016 #37
You specifically said ties, where's your proof? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #38
His well known votes?! They're contribution to him winning during the beginning of his career!?!? uponit7771 Jan 2016 #40
That's quite a claim. Link to their contribution to Bernie? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #41
How the NRA Helped Get Sanders Elected uponit7771 Jan 2016 #45
Where does it say they contributed to him? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #47
Strawman noted, no one is talking about "contributions" AKA money in regards to ties. Nice uponit7771 Jan 2016 #52
Your words: "They're contribution to him winning during the beginning of his career!?!?" beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #56
I'm thinking you're referring to money because the NRA endorsed and supported the guy... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #58
You specifically said they contributed to Bernie, where's your proof? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #62
Their endorsement, it's in the link I posted uponit7771 Jan 2016 #66
Bzzzt! Fail! An endorsement is not a contribution. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #68
Right, they worked against him by endorsing him then... Look, they helped him he helped them... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #70
Now it's "helped"? Way to move the goalposts! beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #71
assisted!? What words would you like to use to describe the back scratching that went on between uponit7771 Jan 2016 #72
Now it's backscratching? So he repaid them by voting for background checks and assault weapons bans? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #74
Moving on to Armstrong style stretch Tennis Magnet Jan 2016 #97
What exactly is your problem with the "immunity" bill? TeddyR Jan 2016 #104
It immunizes a whole industry from being sued because they make a dangerous device even more dangero uponit7771 Jan 2016 #106
Only to some. To others his voting record on guns is just fine Autumn Jan 2016 #15
Do you realize why Obama called Clinton Annie Oakley? Prism Jan 2016 #17
Annie Oakley Clinton? Rosa Luxemburg Jan 2016 #18
The only problem is for hillary supporters, they see the writing on the wall and it says 2008 bowens43 Jan 2016 #31
Now we are seeing Sanders getting pulled back left on gun issues, Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #48
When you are elected to Congress the people who elect you expect you to ... spin Jan 2016 #50
I think you just made the point of article. RandySF Jan 2016 #85
The people that voted for Bernie and that he represented most likely opposed ... spin Jan 2016 #90
I love to see justifications for voting against the Brady Bill. nt LexVegas Jan 2016 #51
He said because his constituents live in rural Vermont and it's not like Chicago (mine)... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #59
So you want the president to call up the national guard TheFarseer Jan 2016 #54
Nah, how about just commons sense stuff like not giving the gun industry immunity against lawsuites uponit7771 Jan 2016 #61
This message was self-deleted by its author postatomic Jan 2016 #75
It makes him a State Representative. That's what it made him. As president he will represent the Hiraeth Jan 2016 #82
Wow. The Shillary desperation gets thicker and heavier...... concreteblue Jan 2016 #83
like Hillary has on EVERY ISSUE? Doctor_J Jan 2016 #84
the clinton supporters are getting desperate mentalslavery Jan 2016 #87
What are urban states? ecstatic Jan 2016 #88
When did Bernie say he wasn't a politician? aikoaiko Jan 2016 #89
K&R! stonecutter357 Jan 2016 #93
This posts helps to solidify my views about the candidates. My votes will go to Hillary ... NurseJackie Jan 2016 #94
Gosh your voting Hillary. This is such...news. Katashi_itto Jan 2016 #98
Well, hello there! How are you? NurseJackie Jan 2016 #99
Yup, I thought it was funny too Katashi_itto Jan 2016 #100
I don't care for this statement... Bobbie Jo Jan 2016 #101
Why? Because His former votes fredamae Jan 2016 #102
Of course he is a politician. And your point brings out only one concern for me, given I have randys1 Jan 2016 #103
I believe Bernie already fredamae Jan 2016 #105
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
1. +1. A reasonable gun or two for hunting is fine. Vast majority of gun fanciers don't hunt animals.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:23 PM
Jan 2016
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
8. A gun in the HOME, approved by a right wing Court.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:29 PM
Jan 2016

I'd be OK with that if gunners could live with one gun left at home, but they can't.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
16. Many of what you call 'gunners' are content with that.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:36 PM
Jan 2016

Either way, that's their business not yours.

jfern

(5,204 posts)
91. The Clinton campaign has been doing this a lot
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 03:24 AM
Jan 2016

He got swiftboated so hard that somehow going to the MLK I have a dream speech became a fucking liability.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
3. Everything you say is true. I still don't see where the problem is.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:24 PM
Jan 2016

Here's where you lost me, and this is perhaps where there is a disconnect between the Bernie supporters and the Hillary supporters -- why is that a bad thing? Vermont has the lowest gun murder rate in the country (source: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls)

What if different states have different needs with respect to gun laws? Should their representatives vote based on those differences when Federal legislators attempt to make national changes when (in some people's view) state-by-state decisions are more appropriate?

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
19. Voting for common sense legislation for the country doesn't hurt his constituents at home, that's...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:37 PM
Jan 2016

.. where he lost me.

The statement by sanders proffers a false dichotomy

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
26. PLCAA does hurt his constituents if gun violence is not an issue to his constituents, but yet
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:44 PM
Jan 2016

his firearms dealers are open to civil liability for following the law.

Bernie does not oppose what I would consider common sense gun legislation (of course, what Bernie supporter wouldn't say that)

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
5. You mean like Hillary did in 2008?:
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:26 PM
Jan 2016
Clinton touts her experience with guns

“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said.

“You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/clinton-touts-her-experience-with-guns/


Let states & cities determine local gun laws

Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?

A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you’re referring to is before the Supreme Court.

Q: But what do you support?

A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?

A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else [should be able to] come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.

Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?

A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
20. HRC Supports sensible regulation, I don't see SBS's votes on guns as sensible at all. 5 times
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:38 PM
Jan 2016

... to vote against the Brady Bill.

That make no sense...

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
22. You mean you don't agree with his votes for background checks and assault weapons bans?
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:40 PM
Jan 2016

That's a pretty extreme position but you're entitled to your opinion.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
24. No, I don't see his votes against the commons sense stuff in the past making sense at all....
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:43 PM
Jan 2016

... I'm giving him the same purity test with guns he's giving HRC on Wall Street and he fails hands down.

The industry immunity thing is crazy... why?!!?

Sanders is to close to [Fill in Blank]

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
28. You mean these votes?
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:44 PM
Jan 2016

He already explained his vote against the Brady Bill:

Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns. In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm




And his record is consistent:


Bernie Sanders’ critics misfire: The Vermont senator’s gun record is better than it looks

....However, the Nation and the other reports like it don’t shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They don’t explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if there’s a consistency to Sanders’ positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernie’s position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.

Yet there is an explanation. It’s consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And it’s in Bernie’s own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. House—in 1990—where he was endorsed by the NRA, even after Sanders told them that he would ban assault rifles. That year, Bernie faced Republican incumbent Peter Smith, who beat him by less than 4 percentage points in a three-way race two years before.

In that 1988 race, Bernie told Vermont sportsmen that he backed an assault weapons ban. Smith told the same sportsmen’s groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle ban—even bringing an AK-47 to his press conference. That about-face was seen as a betrayal and is the background to a June 1990 debate sponsored by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.

I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidates—as the Sanders’ campaign press secretary—and recorded it. Bernie spoke at length three times and much of what he said is relevant today, and anticipates his congressional record on gun control ever since. Look at how Bernie describes what being a sportsperson is in a rural state, where he is quick to draw the line with weapons that threaten police and have no legitimate use in hunting—he previously was mayor of Vermont’s biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nation’s characterization, isn’t “open-minded.”

As you can see, Bernie—who moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960s—has an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. He’s not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jock—being captivated by ideas and a high school miler who hoped for a track scholarship for college. But like many people who settled in Vermont for generations, he was drawn to its freer and greener pastures and respected its local culture.

“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”

That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/


Alternet: Bernie's Gun Control Critics Are Wrong—His Stance Has Been Consistent for Decades

Next, the 1990 debate turned to gun control. The moderator, who clearly was a Second Amendment absolutist, went after Bernie—to test his mettle after Smith’s about-face.

“Do you support additional restrictions on firearms? Do you support additional restrictive firearms legislation?” he asked. “Bernie Sanders, explain yourself, yes or no?”

“Yes,” he replied. “Two years ago, I went before the Vermont Sportsman’s Federation and was asked exactly the same question. It was a controversial question. I know how they felt on the issue. And that was before the DiConcini Bill. That was before a lot of discussion about the Brady Bill. That was before New Jersey and California passed bills limiting assault weapons.

“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”

That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.

“I said that before the election,” he continued. “The Vermont sportspeople, as is their right, made their endorsement. The endorsed Peter Smith. They endorsed Paul Poirier. I lost that election by about three-and-one-half percentage points, a very close election. Was my failure to get that endorsement pivotal? It might have been. We don’t know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. All I can say is I told the sportspeople of Vermont what I believe before the election and I am going to say it again.

“I do believe we need to ban certain types of assault weapons. I have taked to police chiefs. I have talked to the police officers out on the street. I have read some of the literature all over this country. Police chiefs, police officers are concerned about the types of weapons which are ending up in the hands of drug dealers and other criminals and our police oficers are getting outgunned.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-gun-control-critics-are-wrong-his-stance-has-been-consistent-decades


Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban


He even voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:

In 1994, however, Sanders voted in favor of the final version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a bill that expanded the federal death penalty. Sanders had voted for an amendment to the bill that would have replaced all federal death sentences with life in prison. Even though the amendment failed, Sanders still voted for the larger crime bill.

A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."

Sanders reiterated his opposition to capital punishment in 2015. "I just don’t think the state itself, whether it’s the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people," he said on a radio show.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
11. BERNIE has an authenticity problem? Bwahahaha!
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:33 PM
Jan 2016

And if your point is that he is a politician, we know that. We don't expect perfection, either.
Bottom line - there is nothing you could charge Bernie with that would make Hillary a politician I would even considering supporting.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
23. Yeah, he's tied to the gun industry and his overall lifetime votes on the issue speak louder...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:40 PM
Jan 2016

... than any supporters words.

5 times against the Brady Bill!?

Really!?!?

He can represent his contituents and bring common sense gun laws to America also... it's not one or the other.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
29. he supports pres o executive action
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:44 PM
Jan 2016

as well as background checks, closing loopholes, increased mental health services, and not allowing people on the terror watch list to buy guns.

what are om and clinton advocating that he is not? i can't think of a single area where the three are in disagreement as to how to proceed.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
73. are you seriously suggesting
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:22 PM
Jan 2016

he wanted mentally ill people or terrorist watch list persons to be able get guns BEFORE???

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
76. No, I'm being overt when I posted Sanders voted against some of the commons sense gun legislation
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:27 PM
Jan 2016

... and doesn't live up to the purity test in regards to the gun industry that he holds HRC up to in regards to Wall Street.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
81. unlike hrc, he has explained his positions on guns
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:47 PM
Jan 2016

and will he happy to remind people of vermonts extremely low death rate from gun violennce. when are we going to see some transparency from hillary about the incestuous relationships she has with big banks and corporate america?

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
43. Link inside...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:00 PM
Jan 2016

How the NRA helped Sanders get in congress

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

As a candidate in 1990, Sanders won over gun rights groups by promising to oppose one bill they hated — a measure that would establish a waiting period for handgun sales. In Congress, he kept that promise. The dynamic served as an early demonstration that, despite his pure-leftist persona, Sanders was at his core a pragmatic politician, calculating that he couldn’t win in rural Vermont without doing something for gun owners.


These "gun rights groups" are supported by the gun industry... period

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
46. Where does it say he's tied to them? You also said they contributed to him but that says otherwise.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:02 PM
Jan 2016

Surely they wouldn't give him a D-rating after paying him off?

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
49. Tie = benefited from the actions of, your definition?... lets level set on the word "ties"
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:04 PM
Jan 2016

... cause "paying him off" isn't the only indicator of a beneficial association.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
57. NRA made no contribution towards Sanders 1990 win? NONE at all?! Not just money but endorsements
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:08 PM
Jan 2016

... and support.

I don't see where the Wapo article is false..

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
63. An endorsement isn't a contribution to his campaign in any way?! Are we talking about the same
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:12 PM
Jan 2016

.. terms!?

tia

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
69. How? By voting for an assault weapons ban?
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:16 PM
Jan 2016
Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns. In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm


Wow that Bernie he even sucks at being a paid shill for the nra!

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
78. Voting for common sense stuff - like background checks and assault weapons bans.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:31 PM
Jan 2016

Damn Bernie, doesn't he even know when he's being bought by "contributions"?


uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
14. I just posted I think HRC is a more rounded leader for America and this is one of the reasons...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:35 PM
Jan 2016

... cause Sanders was NOT prepared to answer this question.

His answer damn near says screw urban America... there's no room for common sense gun legislation cause "rural".

Sanders stance on guns undermines his message about wall street and HRCs closeness to it...

At this point it's well known Sanders can't throw stones in the "ties" to industry category.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
25. You mean his common sense pro-gun control record?
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:43 PM
Jan 2016

He already explained his vote against the Brady Bill:

Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns. In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm




And his record is consistent:


Bernie Sanders’ critics misfire: The Vermont senator’s gun record is better than it looks

....However, the Nation and the other reports like it don’t shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They don’t explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if there’s a consistency to Sanders’ positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernie’s position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.

Yet there is an explanation. It’s consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And it’s in Bernie’s own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. House—in 1990—where he was endorsed by the NRA, even after Sanders told them that he would ban assault rifles. That year, Bernie faced Republican incumbent Peter Smith, who beat him by less than 4 percentage points in a three-way race two years before.

In that 1988 race, Bernie told Vermont sportsmen that he backed an assault weapons ban. Smith told the same sportsmen’s groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle ban—even bringing an AK-47 to his press conference. That about-face was seen as a betrayal and is the background to a June 1990 debate sponsored by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.

I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidates—as the Sanders’ campaign press secretary—and recorded it. Bernie spoke at length three times and much of what he said is relevant today, and anticipates his congressional record on gun control ever since. Look at how Bernie describes what being a sportsperson is in a rural state, where he is quick to draw the line with weapons that threaten police and have no legitimate use in hunting—he previously was mayor of Vermont’s biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nation’s characterization, isn’t “open-minded.”

As you can see, Bernie—who moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960s—has an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. He’s not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jock—being captivated by ideas and a high school miler who hoped for a track scholarship for college. But like many people who settled in Vermont for generations, he was drawn to its freer and greener pastures and respected its local culture.

“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”

That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/


Alternet: Bernie's Gun Control Critics Are Wrong—His Stance Has Been Consistent for Decades

Next, the 1990 debate turned to gun control. The moderator, who clearly was a Second Amendment absolutist, went after Bernie—to test his mettle after Smith’s about-face.

“Do you support additional restrictions on firearms? Do you support additional restrictive firearms legislation?” he asked. “Bernie Sanders, explain yourself, yes or no?”

“Yes,” he replied. “Two years ago, I went before the Vermont Sportsman’s Federation and was asked exactly the same question. It was a controversial question. I know how they felt on the issue. And that was before the DiConcini Bill. That was before a lot of discussion about the Brady Bill. That was before New Jersey and California passed bills limiting assault weapons.

“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”

That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.

“I said that before the election,” he continued. “The Vermont sportspeople, as is their right, made their endorsement. The endorsed Peter Smith. They endorsed Paul Poirier. I lost that election by about three-and-one-half percentage points, a very close election. Was my failure to get that endorsement pivotal? It might have been. We don’t know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. All I can say is I told the sportspeople of Vermont what I believe before the election and I am going to say it again.

“I do believe we need to ban certain types of assault weapons. I have taked to police chiefs. I have talked to the police officers out on the street. I have read some of the literature all over this country. Police chiefs, police officers are concerned about the types of weapons which are ending up in the hands of drug dealers and other criminals and our police oficers are getting outgunned.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-gun-control-critics-are-wrong-his-stance-has-been-consistent-decades


Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban


He even voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:

In 1994, however, Sanders voted in favor of the final version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a bill that expanded the federal death penalty. Sanders had voted for an amendment to the bill that would have replaced all federal death sentences with life in prison. Even though the amendment failed, Sanders still voted for the larger crime bill.

A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."

Sanders reiterated his opposition to capital punishment in 2015. "I just don’t think the state itself, whether it’s the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people," he said on a radio show.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
30. No, his votes against the common sense stuff and the non answer for doing so...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:45 PM
Jan 2016

... Sanders fails the purity test he's holding others to in regards to ties to industry and votes.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
40. His well known votes?! They're contribution to him winning during the beginning of his career!?!?
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:54 PM
Jan 2016

.. Again, the "prove the obvious" is disenginuous at best

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
41. That's quite a claim. Link to their contribution to Bernie?
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:58 PM
Jan 2016

Surely it's easy to find if it's that "obvious".

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
52. Strawman noted, no one is talking about "contributions" AKA money in regards to ties. Nice
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:04 PM
Jan 2016

... try but we gotcha.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
56. Your words: "They're contribution to him winning during the beginning of his career!?!?"
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:08 PM
Jan 2016
uponit7771

40. His well known votes?! They're contribution to him winning during the beginning of his career!?!?

.. Again, the "prove the obvious" is disenginuous at best

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=982482


Now you're going to pretend you didn't post that?

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
58. I'm thinking you're referring to money because the NRA endorsed and supported the guy...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:08 PM
Jan 2016

... that's not a contribution to his winning in 1990?!

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
70. Right, they worked against him by endorsing him then... Look, they helped him he helped them...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:17 PM
Jan 2016

... facts is facts.

We can give it whatever words you'd like

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
72. assisted!? What words would you like to use to describe the back scratching that went on between
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:21 PM
Jan 2016

... the gun industry via the NRA and Sanders?!

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
104. What exactly is your problem with the "immunity" bill?
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 01:03 PM
Jan 2016

Here's the summary of the law from Wikipedia:

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.


What part of the bill is problematic?

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
106. It immunizes a whole industry from being sued because they make a dangerous device even more dangero
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 01:37 PM
Jan 2016

... and Sanders voted for it in practice.

Sanders knew this or should've known this...

There was no reason for those truly on the left to vote for this bill

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
48. Now we are seeing Sanders getting pulled back left on gun issues,
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:03 PM
Jan 2016

I am glad he is seeing problem with gun violence, 80 people a day on average in the US, changes needs to be made.

spin

(17,493 posts)
50. When you are elected to Congress the people who elect you expect you to ...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:04 PM
Jan 2016

represent their state.

If your state has a large number of gun owners they elect you expecting that you will defend their rights to own firearms.

If your state is gun unfriendly the voters expect you to push for strong gun control.

If you get elected and decide to ignore the wishes of those who voted for you, you most likely will not be reelected and someone who promises to better represent the voters who elect him will take over your seat.

RandySF

(58,786 posts)
85. I think you just made the point of article.
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 01:19 AM
Jan 2016

Sabders failed to lead. When Dems laid down their seats in Congress in the 90's to pass common sense legislation, Bernie ran for the hills.

spin

(17,493 posts)
90. The people that voted for Bernie and that he represented most likely opposed ...
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 02:56 AM
Jan 2016

the legislation and perhaps he actually agreed with them.

For example the idea that a gun owners should be able to be sue Smith & Wesson when someone misuses one of their firearms to injure or kill another person. If that were to become law why couldn't Ford Motor Co be sued when a drunk driver in one of their cars kills another person? Legislation allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for an individual's actions would set a bad precedent assuming it was not overthrown by the court system.

I don't consider making gun manufacturers liable for the illegal actions of a gun owner using one of their firearms to be common sense legislation. Gun manufacturers can be sued if they produce a defective product that endangers people just as car manufacturers can be. That is common sense legislation.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
59. He said because his constituents live in rural Vermont and it's not like Chicago (mine)...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:10 PM
Jan 2016

... I thought it was a very bad answer

TheFarseer

(9,322 posts)
54. So you want the president to call up the national guard
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:05 PM
Jan 2016

And go door to door confiscating everyone's guns or what are we talking about? And Hillary supporters say Bernie 's policies are unworkable. We can't even get expanded background checks and 93% of Americans support that.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
61. Nah, how about just commons sense stuff like not giving the gun industry immunity against lawsuites
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:11 PM
Jan 2016

... and the Brady bill just for starters.

Sanders votes against the common sense stuff is well documented

Response to RandySF (Original post)

Hiraeth

(4,805 posts)
82. It makes him a State Representative. That's what it made him. As president he will represent the
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:54 PM
Jan 2016

nation.

ecstatic

(32,689 posts)
88. What are urban states?
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 01:57 AM
Jan 2016

Every state has its share of rural areas. NY, IL, etc. Does he mean democratic leaning states?

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
94. This posts helps to solidify my views about the candidates. My votes will go to Hillary ...
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 09:23 AM
Jan 2016

... she's better prepared than ALL of the other candidates, in ALL areas, global and domestic.

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
101. I don't care for this statement...
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 12:48 PM
Jan 2016
I think, pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles. In our state, guns are used for hunting.”


He goes on to say...

In Chicago, they're used for kids in gangs killing other kids or people shooting at police officers, shooting down innocent people. We need a sensible debate about gun control which overcomes the cultural divide that exists in this country. And I think I can play an important role in this.


http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

Ugh... No, I don't care for this "cultural divide" argument at all.

Good guys with guns vs Bad guys with guns. This is nothing more than NRA-speak.





fredamae

(4,458 posts)
102. Why? Because His former votes
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 12:53 PM
Jan 2016

on matters of Gun Control/Safety were at the bequest of His VT constituents? I find that a Great quality and these days quite Rare that politicians Actually Do represent Their constituents. VT has the Best record in the country.
Give this a rest, already.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
103. Of course he is a politician. And your point brings out only one concern for me, given I have
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 12:54 PM
Jan 2016

a very high degree of trust in Bernie.

What I dont like, and it is a relatively new development, is his reaching out to Trump's folks.

I dont like being beholden to or associated with rabidly racist and bigoted assholes.

Maybe Bernie, of all people, could educate them and mature them into being adults and to behave like adults, if anybody could it is Bernie, but I dont like associating with people who LOVE to see Black people beaten for speaking out, and I dont like associating with people who LOVE to hear HATRED of ALL Muslims and ALL Latino's.

Dont like it at all.

fredamae

(4,458 posts)
105. I believe Bernie already
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 01:07 PM
Jan 2016

Is educating them-along with the rest of us. You can't listen to Bernie and Not be educated...which cuts him from the establishment herd-out of the gate.
He is appealing to Many in the Republican Party...they're just as pissed off about the same stuff we are. I believe this points more to the fact he will represent Americans..not just Dems/Progs etc.

I realize this is unusual..but I have yet to see a good argument as to why we should maintain political division where people can agree.
But, that's just how I view this.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»On guns, Sanders has an a...