In 2016 Bernie was one of only 8 Democratic caucus members failing to join a Democratic filibuster

[pnwmom]

on gun control legislation.

This was on June 16, after the Presidential race had already been decided. Apparently he was still a little bit busy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/16/why-bernie-sanders-missed-the-senate-democrats-14-hour-gun-filibuster/

Before Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) headed to the floor yesterday to begin a marathon gun safety speech, his office reached out to members of the 46-member Democratic caucus. By the end of it, early Thursday morning, Murphy announced that the Democrats would get votes on Sen. Dianne Feinstein's legislation to prevent people on the terror watch list from buying guns, and his own legislation to expand background checks. Thirty-eight of his fellow senators joined the filibuster, allowing Murphy to rest, reading comments from the Internet or describing mass shootings in their own states.

Not among them: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The runner-up in the Democratic presidential primaries was in Burlington, Vt., ahead of a simulcast speech to supporters today. (He is not expected to concede.) He'd been in Washington the night before the filibuster began, for the Democratic luncheon and a meeting with Hillary Clinton, but he was not able to return to the city.

"It just didn't work yesterday," said Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs. "We're keeping an eye on votes next week."

Sanders, who opposed the Brady Bill that expanded background checks and waiting periods, has since come into sync with the Democratic caucus. "The idea that weapons designed to do one thing — kill people by the dozens — should be sold and distributed in our country is absurd," he said Tuesday. On Wednesday, he tweeted in support of the filibuster.

SNIP

[JI7]

1. i don't consider him to be very progressive

[guillaumeb]

2. Sanders is not the perfect candidate.

No doubt about that.

But I have never voted for a perfect candidate.

[pnwmom]

3. Right now we're still in the primaries, so we're looking for the best imperfect candidate.

And compared to other members of the Democratic caucus, Sanders record on gun control has always been one of the weaker ones.

[guillaumeb]

4. Well said. eom

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Lets assume none of our candidates other than you know who are in anyway

of a concern about are they who they say they are.

And your choice was a candidate with a proven track record of NOT getting along with people or creating bipartisan partnerships but has a great agenda, or someone who has proven they can get shit done but is willing to go only 75% of the way on said agenda.

Which would you choose?

I would go for the 75%.

The one person I dont include in this is obviously Tulsi..

[guillaumeb]

28. To your last statement, it is obvious to me as well.

I am my own perfect candidate, but given that my name is far too long for a button or bumper sticker, as well as unpronounceable for most English speakers, I will be forced to choose another imperfect candidate.

One of the issues I had with JPR, and some of the posters there, was the "purity politics" that insist on symbolic protest votes in lieu of voting for the best available candidate.

And in the US system, and most systems, it is vital to work with others even if one's views differ. That is called being a reasonable adult.

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. Thank you, we have a TWO party system and these other folks you speak of either

dont literally understand what that means OR are so immature and childish they will sentence the human race to extinction because their feelings are hurt.

I wish that was an exaggeration of the situation, it is not.

YOU are someone I respect and admire on this board and have been for sometime now. You seem to be with the progressives (I am not a progressive, I am a liberal) but you also seem very reasonable and willing to do what has to be done.

Now, are most progressives also willing to do what has to be done? I hope so but I dont think it takes that many to fuck us over like before.

[guillaumeb]

31. I appreciate your praise.

And I also respect your many contributions here, and your clear articulation of the issues.

I am not certain of where the line between progressive and liberal falls. That might be a good subject for a separate post.

[Eliot Rosewater]

35. I dont want to deal with the responses, but this is what I thought of as a thread

Are you a liberal or a progressive?

I am a liberal.

This might be the biggest difference I see - connecting racism/bigotry/misogyny/homophobia/xenophobia with economics/income disparity, etc. They are not the same thing, as a liberal I say we resolve FIRST reparations, racism etc either before the rest or at the same time but NOT as if they are connected.

This thread was suggested by my friend "guillaumeb" who thought it might be an interesting topic.

As a liberal, for instance, I think all of the following should be nationalized:

energy, all of it, petroleum, electric, natural gas, etc...

access to the internet...

health care of course...

education including college (make it hard to get in, give free medical school for instance but the graduate must participate in our single payer system as the payback)

even cell service should have a national , minimum service option that has little cost as surviving in this world without it is not possible...

OK, that should be enough to get us started.

Oh, yes, as a liberal I would:

Try and get a SC decision on guns that is constitutional, Heller is not...obviously
If necessary increase the size of the court, as we are out of time and options...


Also as a liberal I would make WATER like air, everybody gets it, you dont pay for it, and if someone tries to deprive you of it you arrest them.

[guillaumeb]

38. That sounds very progressive.

Even socialistic.

Guill

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. I had a perfect day once, but as I recall mushrooms were involved.

[guillaumeb]

54. As long as they were not the Stormy Daniels orange variety.

Those could lead to some intense vomiting.

[msongs]

5. if joe is allowed to change his mind, so is bernie nt

[JI7]

8. did he change his mind ?

[George II]

6. "It just didn't work yesterday"!!!!! Unbelievable!

[aikoaiko]

7. A remember a lot of legislation came about from that effort.

Its too bad Joe Biden couldn't work his compromise magic on those Republicans.

[George II]

9. Are you seriously suggesting that the lack of legislation was the fault of Biden??????

[aikoaiko]

10. No, I'm saying its a shame his Senate mojo that he heralds didn't work.

This apparent ability is what he and his surrogates claim is a good reason to elect him.

[OilemFirchen]

11. It'll be sheer joy watching President Sanders work his magic on the same crowd.

[aikoaiko]

12. LOL

[Voltaire2]

13. nobody is going to get any support from our domestic fascist party

nobody.

At least Sanders isn't running around pretending he can.

[OilemFirchen]

16. Okay, then.

We should nominate a candidate who proffers massive, unrealistic, dramatic changes to our system of governance and to our economy, knowing that they'll never even inch forward, with no interest whatsoever in reaching across the aisle for any compromise. One who already has a record of an inability to work even with his own colleagues on matters of significance and who is, in fact, antagonistic toward anyone with whom he has any disagreement.

We shouldn't, however, nominate a candidate who will work feverishly to right the ship and promises to attempt compromise. One who has a long history of doing so.

Because pretense.

Sure! Why the fuck not?

[Skya Rhen]

18. Boom!!!!!!!!!

[Voltaire2]

20. We should support a candidate who is proposing going forward instead of one dreaming about

going back to some mythical past where both parties worked together for the common good.

[OilemFirchen]

22. I'll support a candidate who can accomplish progress.

Even if that progress is nothing more than regress to late 2016.

Perhaps in your rarefied atmosphere, you can eat the pie in the sky. I don't believe the rest of us have that luxury.

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. Someone doesnt support Democrats, sounds like to me, implying such a thing...

[sheshe2]

25. +1000

Well said.

Thank you.

[George II]

17. So how does he propose being an effective president when he can't even be relied upon....

....to support his "own" caucus?

[W_HAMILTON]

29. He's running on an even more pie-in-the-sky idea:

That he is going to create some sort of """revolution""" that will overthrow all those Republican obstructionists and allow his plans to be enacted.

Yeah, right.

[George II]

37. And he'll get little more support from many Democrats in Congress, too.

[BootinUp]

47. Lol, that gif.

[emmaverybo]

14. Think you missed an important thread. 1) yeah, Biden's mojo did work 2) Biden has said there's

no working with Congress on gun control.

This OP provides documentation of Biden’s “mojo” during the Obama administration.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=262162

[aikoaiko]

19. Oh no, I saw that that thread. That's my point.

His supporters say he can do this, but the example is from a long time ago and apparently he could not do the same in Obama's second term. My point is that this Senate is not the senate of days of yore. His ability to work with the other side and get things done might have been true for a Senate that no longer exists.

[Skya Rhen]

24. That same Senate exists - Mitch McConnell was there then and he is there now.

The difference, during a Biden presidency, will be that Joe will be more palpable to him than Obama was.

Joe was able to save the economy and ensure a second Obama term under Mitch’s hatred toward Obama. Imagine what Joe can do with a Mitch that does not hate Biden a fraction as much as Obama...

[pnwmom]

41. I think you're way too optimistic. This isn't the same Senate that it used to be.

McConnell won't be any more happy about letting Biden accomplish anything than he was with Obama. His overlords wouldn't want that.

[George II]

15. It would have been nice if ALL the members of his own caucus participated and voted.

[aikoaiko]

23. Sometimes you do -- sometimes you don't.

[Gothmog]

21. I remember this

[Politicub]

32. Sanders is more conservative when it comes to guns than some of the other candidates

He and his supporters should just own up to it. No candidate is perfect.

Sanders has made some misguided moves when it comes to firearms. Some have been for political expediency (Vermont politics or some excuse like that), scheduling (see the OP), and others for reasons I don't quite understand.

Here's a cut and paste from the Sanders campaign website:

- Expand background checks.
- End the gun show loophole. All gun purchases should be subject to the same background check standards.
- Ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons. Assault weapons are designed and sold as tools of war. There is absolutely no reason why these firearms should be sold to civilians.
- Prohibit high-capacity ammunition magazines.
- Crack down on “straw purchases” where people buy guns for criminals.

Since there's little detail about the policy that would be enacted to bring about these changes, they're hard to judge.

Beto's gun buyback proposal is a great idea for getting more weapons off the streets. Sanders does not propose anything that would reduce the number of firearms already in circulation.

[pnwmom]

33. He's also voted against legislation that would subject gun manufacturers

to product liability laws.

[Politicub]

39. I forgot about that

There’s a wide gulf in between the crackdown I would like to see and the meager proposals from Sanders.

It angers me that arms providers are immune from liability.

[TCJ70]

46. Which vote was that? n/t

[ehrnst]

48. He voted yes to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-109s397enr/pdf/BILLS-109s397enr.pdf

In 2015, a judge cited the law to stop a lawsuit from the parents of an Aurora, Colorado, mass shooting victim against gun and ammo sellers that supplied the shooter with thousands of rounds of ammunition.

[TCJ70]

49. I'm aware of the PLCAA vote...

...and generally don't disagree with it. That doesn't seem to be what the other poster is talking about, though. What legislation did he vote AGAINST?

[ehrnst]

50. Well of course... If Senator Sanders voted for it, there must have been something good in it.

Of course. No doubt...

If any of his rivals had this voting record... it would be a different story about how progressive they actually were.

He voted repeatedly against the 1993 Brady Bill that created the nation’s background check system. In December 2015, after launching his presidential bid, he urged funding research into firearms injuries, after opposing it in the late 1990s. Sanders also voted to close the “gun show loophole” in 1999.

The 2005 gun manufacturer immunity law may be most problematic for Sanders.

I am assuming that the poster you are questioning is referring to the bill I mentioned, but got the negatives mixed up - he voted "against" gun manufacturer liability by voting "Yes" to this bill. Which is an accurate statement.

[pnwmom]

52. I may have misstated. Maybe he simply voted for legislation that EXEMPTED

them from product liability laws. And many people concerned about gun legislation disagree with that.

[TCJ70]

55. Well, OK, but that's not entirely true...

...while it does stop manufacturers from being sued if their product is used in a crime, other areas of liability are still applicable. To say that they're exempt from liability laws is way too broad of a way to convey what the law actually does.

Specifically:

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 is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

[pnwmom]

56. The manufacturers were being sued for selling guns to non-compliant dealers, and that law

helped them escape responsibility.

From the link you just posted:

In 2000, Smith & Wesson, facing several state and federal lawsuits, signed an agreement brokered by President Bill Clinton, in which the company voluntarily agreed to implementing various measures in order to settle the suits.[4][5] The agreement required Smith & Wesson to sell guns only through dealers that complied with the restrictions on all guns sold regardless of manufacturer, thus potentially having a much wider potential impact than just Smith & Wesson.[6]

HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo was quoted as saying that gun manufacturers that did not comply would suffer "death by a thousand cuts", and Eliott Spitzer said that those who didn't cooperate would have bankruptcy lawyers "knocking at your door".[7]

[betsuni]

34. Good that he's being pulled to the Left on this issue by more progressive candidates' positions.

[SidDithers]

36. Yeah but, Vermont guns aren't like Chicago or LA guns...

or something.



Sid

[NYMinute]

40. K&R

He has a very high NRA approval rating for pro-gun activity.

[kcr]

42. Never forget

[NurseJackie]

44. Don't worry. I won't. Things like this reveal much to me.

No wonder his campaign staff and other supporters are trying to suppress and distract from the facts.

[kcr]

45. Yep

It explains the campaign hiring choices and everything, but it won't work.

[NurseJackie]

43. Kick. Recommend. Bookmarking.

[tirebiter]

53. AWB ban? Been there done that

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="ar"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In the Senate, <a href="https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenFeinstein</a> and I led the successful effort to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. It worked. It saved lives.<br><br>As president, I’ll take on the <a href="https://twitter.com/NRA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NRA</a> and ban military-style weapons once again.<a href="https://t.co/bPPJXCdQWt">https://t.co/bPPJXCdQWt</a></p>— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) <a href="

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">١١ أغسطس ٢٠١٩</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>