Voting against the Brady Bill versus voting for the Iraq War Resolution?

[Nye Bevan]

What do you see as the bigger negative in a Democratic Presidential candidate?

18 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Voting against the Brady Bill is the bigger negative
	0 (0%)
	Voting for the Iraq War Resolution is the bigger negative
	18 (100%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Renew Deal]

1. Your post proves nothing

Because they are both bad and cannot be compared. It can be argued that there were justifications for the Iraq War (though I disagree with them). What justifications are there for voting against the Brady Bill?

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. Voting against the Brady Bill ...

Du would be in a tizzy if Clinton had Sander's view on gun control. People are so forgiving when it comes to sanders.

[BainsBane]

4. Absolutely true

It's totally selective.

[JaneyVee]

61. Guns kill more people every year.

[BainsBane]

3. Not just the Brady bill

He voted for gun manufacturers to have immunity from tort liability. How can people claim to be anti-war while supporting or turning a blind eye to the domestic war of gun violence at home, one that has killed more Americans since 1968 than all US wars in history?

[GGJohn]

6. He voted for the PLCAA because he knows that holding a manufacturer liable for

the criminal or negligent misuse of their product is ridiculous.
You can still sue the firearms manufacturers if their product is defective causing injury or death, what you can't do is sue them for the criminal or negligent use of their product.

[bigwillq]

7. Good post.

[BainsBane]

10. There would be no need for a separate law for that

and it has been applied to exempt gun companies who knowingly delivered weapons to illegal gun runners. Any support for gun manufacturers and against gun control is pro-murder and pro-domestic war as far as I'm concerned. People go on about Americans being killed with drones but don't bat an eye when they are massacred with guns. Murder is murder. Evil is evil, and the gun situation in America is the embodiment of evil itself.

[GGJohn]

11. Oh? And what firearms manufacturers delivered weapons to illegal gun runners?

You do know that firearms manufacturers are prohibited by Federal law from selling to the general public? They can only sell to FFL dealers.

The reason for this law was the Brady org. talking several cities into suing the manufacturers for the criminal misuse of weapons, they wanted to wear down the manufacturers with SLAPP suits and hoped to bankrupt the industry, instead, it badly backfired on them, so in essence, the Brady org. kicked themselves in the nads.

[Hoyt]

34. Manufacturers know purchasers will take care of that. Manufacturers know guns will be misused,

yet still pump them out for gun fanciers. Might be legal, but darn sure immoral.

[GGJohn]

37. Oh really?

And you know this how?
How about some links to prove what you're claiming?

[Hoyt]

41. If you made a living off something that hurt so many people, would you keep doing it?

I know it might be difficult to forget you have at least three gun safes packed with lethal weapons.

[GGJohn]

48. Oh, so that would apply to the auto industry also,

after all, automobiles have hurt and killed millions since their inception.

[Hoyt]

50. Nope, cars aren't built to kill. Do you have three garages full of cars?

[GGJohn]

51. Oh, so you're not just as injured or dead because a car wasn't built for killing?

I have a barn full of farming equipment and several farm vehicles.

[beevul]

55. " People go on about Americans being killed with drones..."

"People go on about Americans being killed with drones but don't bat an eye when they are massacred with guns."


And if some future administration kills mass numbers with drones, will you blame the administration, or the drones?

If you are consistent with the logic you use when it comes to guns, you'll blame the drones.


I'm not sure theres a better way to illustrate the absurdity of your position.

[treestar]

60. What was the bill going to do?

If it made them immune from tort liability - what you just described is tort liability. Of course they are strictly liable for defects or their own negligence. But they would never be liable for another's negligent use of their product. So what was there to immunize them from?

[dsc]

65. No they are not

the bill specifically exempts them from such negligence.

[treestar]

67. Exempts them from their own negligence?

It can't be the negligence of others, since they already aren't liable and don't need exemption.

[Bjorn Against]

13. As disturbing as your statistic is there is no form of gun violence worse than war

I say this as a very strong and vocal opponent of guns, the people in the gungeon hate me so don't think for a second that I don't recognize the severity of gun violence domestically.

The statistic you cite is no doubt extremely disturbing and serious steps need to be taken to reduce those gun deaths. Your statistic is flawed in one major regard however, it only counts American deaths. The vast majority of deaths that have resulted from US wars have not been Americans, I think their lives need to be counted as well. Domestic gun violence is horrible, but there is no form of gun violence worse than war and the body count clearly shows that when you count all lives lost.

[BainsBane]

21. That may be

It's true those are only American lives and not all those who die in war. Still, I'm very disappointed to learn of his position on guns and how little it concerns people here.

[Bjorn Against]

26. It does concern me, unfortunately there is not a candidate that does not have some bad positions

Last edited Wed May 6, 2015, 11:29 PM - Edit history (1)

I support Sanders, but I do not support his position on guns, if he were to get elected President this is an issue I would protest him on. I love Sanders on most issues aside from guns and Israel/Palestine so I will support his bid for the Presidency, but no matter who takes office after the election their feet need to be held to the fire.

[arcane1]

31. I am too, though I still agree with him more than anyone else out there.

It's not a game-changer for me, anyway. I wouldn't mind if he were pulled to the left on this issue

[BainsBane]

44. Absolutely

People insist criticism is supposed to raise attention of issues for candidates, yet when it comes to someone they decide they like, they will hear none of it. This brand of politics that makes some individuals heroes above reproach and others the embodiment of all ills is simplistic. Do people care about real issues or just finding a figure head? I have never understood a view of politics, history, or society more generally that focuses on individuals above broader social forces. It strikes me as about next to nothing. Either people care about human life and gun control or they don't. Either promoting corporate interests is bad or it's not. Merchants of death are not better than bankers. In fact they are worse, in my view, because murder is worse than usury.

People discuss their hatred (and it is hatred) for Clinton rather than issues. They project rather than examining voting records. They discuss Greenwald and Snowden as individuals, focusing on endless trivia, and forsake the important issue about the NSA and the conflict between privacy and national security. They like Wikileaks so they assume Assange must be a saint and shouldn't be held responsible for legal charges of sexual assault. What is lost in all of this is any semblance of principle, principles flung out the window in a second if it conflicts with their views of a particular individual. That's not a concern for social reform or economic justice; it's cult of personality for and against, nothing more.

Now I can see how people can weigh the pros and cons on various issues and decide in Sanders favor. But to claim any concern about a voting record is "piling on" or somehow illicit is weak and unprincipled. It's like when people refuse to discuss public financing because they want to make it all about their antipathy for a single candidate. Meanwhile, money continues to corrupt government and they could care less as long as one person is kept out of the White House. There are issues far more pervasive than a single candidate, election, or presidency, yet people insist on making every discussion as small as possible.

[Scootaloo]

35. You're disappointed in the same way I'm disappointed at the lack of vegemite cheesecake

[BainsBane]

42. What?

If you think you're funny, you're not. You're also full of it.

[Scootaloo]

53. My apologies, BainsBane, I actually had you mixed up with someone else, somehow

[BainsBane]

22. Though it also includes the Civil War

and thus accounts for casualties on both sides. That was the deadliest war in US history for American lives, and yet it still pales in comparison to the numbers killed from gun violence since 1968 alone.

[Bjorn Against]

29. Even so, when you count the Iraqis and Vietnamese killed the number of war deaths is astronomical

On edit: I want to be clear that I am not discounting the number of domestic gun deaths. It is very disturbing fact that more Americans were killed by guns at home than in war and I don't want to sound like I am dismissing what you are saying.

[BainsBane]

45. I understand

and I don't have a grasp of the numbers involved. Both are atrocious.

Did you see the graphic favorably comparing Sanders to Teddy Roosevelt, Americans most prominent early imperialist and a man who relished killing people. That is a case of white washing history to overlook warmongering and TR's crucial role in constructing American empire.

[Bjorn Against]

5. Anyone who opposes guns should have opposed the Iraq War

Many people here know I am very anti-gun and I am also a long-time anti-war activist who has been in literally hundreds of anti-war actions.

Opposing guns and opposing war are not two separate issues, let's face it the Iraq War led to huge numbers of gun deaths. I am a big supporter of the Brady Bill, but I can not deny that the Iraq War caused a hell of a lot more gun deaths than the Brady Bill prevented.

[Thinkingabout]

33. There are lots of lives dying in the US from guns, how can any one defend one vote over the other

and say other isn't. More soldiers died in Iraq than died in 9/11. There are still many being killed by ISIS but this vote was overlooked apparently.

[Bjorn Against]

39. Both votes were wrong, but their effects were not equal

The Iraq war literally resulted in hundreds of thousands of gun deaths, the rise of ISIS is a direct consequence of the war so people are continuing to die as a result of the Iraq War Resolution.

The Brady Bill has no doubt saved lives, it is impossible to measure how many but I am sure it is significant. No matter how many it saved however it does not make up for the hundreds of thousands who have died and continue to die in Iraq.

[Thinkingabout]

59. You are right both votes may be wrong, for the number of poster claiming they would never

Vote for Hillary because of her IWR then a vote against the Brady Bill and the vote against holding the gun manufactures not held responsible for their product will not be looked on kindly.

[arcane1]

32. "he opposed the bill because he felt handgun waiting periods could be dealt with at the state level"

That is a point often overlooked in these kinds of discussions. Thanks for highlighting it!

[PowerToThePeople]

9. no contest

International war criminal or not?

[GGJohn]

12. Are you suggesting that Sen. Sanders is a war criminal? eom.

[PowerToThePeople]

14. you people..

Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq.

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq: Passage of the joint resolution that would authorize President Bush to use the US military as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend U.S. national security against Iraq and enforce UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. It would be required that the president report to Congress, no later than 48 hours after using force, his determination that diplomatic options or other peaceful means would not guarantee US national security against Iraq or allow enforcement of UN resolutions and that using force is consistent with anti-terrorism efforts. The resolution would also give specific statutory authorization under the War Powers Resolution. Every 60 days the president would also be required to report to Congress on actions related to the resolution.

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Bernie_Sanders_War_+_Peace.htm

[GGJohn]

17. Ok, sorry.

One of the many, many reasons I greatly admire the man.

[PowerToThePeople]

19. sorry if I came across badly

It felt to me as if you were trying to turn my statement into the opposite of what I meant by it. This has been going on for years by BOGers and is a tactic I am seeing now by HRC supporters on this site. It gets very old having to fight it constantly. Sorry for being so jumpy.

[GGJohn]

20. No problem,

I probably would've been the same way.
I try to stay away from those groups, my blood pressure is bad enough already.

[Thinkingabout]

36. Voting NO on the ISIS resolution was not a good vote either. People are still getting killed.

[BainsBane]

23. So domestic war, no problem?

I don't understand how one can claim to be anti-war while enabling domestic war through gun violence.

[GGJohn]

24. That's the problem,

you can't understand why others have a differing opinion.

[99Forever]

27. Amen to that. n/t

[BainsBane]

47. I understand people have differing opinions

but when those opinions reflect inconsistencies, I will comment on it. Either one places a value on human life or one doesn't. Either one opposes corporate interests that undermines democracy or one doesn't. Such a glaring inconsistency needs to be pointed out. Some place a higher value on property and individual liberty over the common good. That is their right. I happen to disagree, and I have a right to voice those disagreements, even as the NRA is working to take that right away.

I have also stated quite publicly that I do not care whom anyone votes for. Some will vote Sanders, some Clinton, some O'Malley and some GOP. We all have the the right to make that choice. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026557489

[PowerToThePeople]

30. Ban all Guns!

I think that gun control on the national stage is a failure at the present time. We need to work locally just like we have with marriage equality and legalization of marijuana. Once enough states are in the fold, it can go national.

[BainsBane]

49. The gun lobby is working to overturn local and state restrictions

While people here don't want to be disturbed with discussions of gun violence in GD, the NRA is rapidly eroding their rights. They are overturning regulations at the state and municipal level, not just gun bans but restrictions on concealed carry. They are making it a national right, through legal activism, for anyone to carry guns anywhere, without permit or training. They are also restricting First Amendment rights, inserting lines in bills like ACA that prohibit speech on guns. They are the most powerful and best funded lobby in the US, and anyone who thinks that isn't about corporate profits isn't paying attention. Who else can see a bill (background checks) defeated that has support from 90% of the population? All of what people legitimately worry about in regard to Wall Street is enacted in spades by the corporate merchants of death. They have made it impossible to work at the local level because they are systematically overturning those laws. They are a real threat to our democracy, and people who care about the corruption of democracy by corporate America ought not make excuses for them.

Additionally, the issues concerning militarization of the police and killing of citizens is also linked to guns. People say they want an unarmed police force. With a citizenry armed to the teeth, that simply isn't possible.

[guillaumeb]

38. And "domestic war", to use your phrase,

enables the constant foreign war. War becomes, or rather always was, the norm in the US. The constant violence desensitizes people and makes the violence seem the natural state of things.

Senator Sanders feels that gun control is best accomplished on a state level. Whether or not that is a sound tactical move is another debate.

[BainsBane]

46. excellent point

about the connection between domestic and foreign war. We can see it in throughout our culture. We are not the most militaristic society in history by accident.

That state's level argument is a canard. When it comes to promoting gun proliferation, the gun lobby works to overturn not only state but municipal restrictions. He knows that. If the gun lobby respected state's rights, that might be another matter, but they don't. The real divide is between urban and rural, and the gun lobby has ensured that cities like Chicago and DC are not allowed to prohibit hand guns or even concealed carry. They have sought to make it a national issue, so pretending it is about state's rights rings false.

[guillaumeb]

69. I ckecked out the Senator's main contributors.

Predominantly unions. The NRA is NOT listed as a contributor. Just saying.

I agree that the states' rights argument is a fiction. And increasingly, the percentage of US citizens who actually own guns is not very large, but the total number of guns owned is large.

[BainsBane]

70. I think it's forty something percent of Americans who own guns

but yes, there are more guns than people in this country. It's frightening.

Sanders may well believe that gun companies deserve a protected status above other corporations. I do not. They are the most powerful lobby in the country and do a great deal to erode democracy. They are every bit as bad as Wall Street.

[tammywammy]

15. Neither one are in my top issues for a candidate. n/t

[NuclearDem]

16. I can despise both just as much, and neither candidate gets a pass.

[99Forever]

18. Ever notice how the very same folks...

... that sing the praises of polls that they agree with, are the first to discount ones that go the other way?

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. It's a DU rule. n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. To the average voter?

Probably neither matters all that much.

Time and again, it's been proven, what American voters care about is their own pocketbooks, their own jobs.

[Rex]

40. Standard reply, followed by snarky ending.

Emoticon.

[TheKentuckian]

43. Let's see a good vote I support versus one of the most foolish ones ever that I don't?

This is a toughie! I guess I have to go with Iraq being something like infinitely worse.

A mote of dust stacked against a super massive black hole is my vote.

[MADem]

52. Gee, let's see....

One candidate is from a gun state. The people who vote for him like guns.

The other candidate is from the state that got hit with the worst loss of human life in a terror attack ever in the US. A massive number of the people who voted for this candidate personally knew someone who died in the attack, and the effects of the loss of life, and commerce, resonated across the state for YEARS after the event.

Both votes were in reaction to these rather specific constituencies.

Sounds to me like we've got two legislators who respond to the desires of their constituents. In short, they dance with the ones what brung them.

Of course, this is DU, so let's toss some mindless SHIT about that, instead!!!! Let's make it all PERSONAL....and NEFARIOUS....and while we're at it, let's call each other NAMES!!!!!

Because that's what makes for good political discussion, ya?

[Gman]

54. False equivalent

[joshcryer]

56. Since Brady around a quarter of a million people have been murdered.*

Its effect has been minimal. Assuming even the 2% of felons who were denied guns got one, and assuming they went on to murder someone, that's 10k murders. A more reasonable number would probably be a small percentage of that. Perhaps 500 people saved by Brady.

But the Democratic platform is pro-gun regulation. So that will have to be reconciled. Even pro-gun liberals are for better enforcement of the regulations (the Brady Bill hardly convicts anyone).

*not suicides, not accidental discharges, murdered in an act of violence.

[treestar]

57. The excuses are appalling

Far more people die of gun violence than died in the Iraq War.

[cali]

58. false. and don't put that in the past tense. They're still dying and it's due

to the war.

the excuses are disgusting. Had we NOT gone to war, a million would likely be alive. Had every gun control measure been passed that was proposed, the lives saved would have been a relatively small percentage. And it's likely that some of those measures would have been deemed unconstitutional. No sweeping legislation to ban guns was introduced- and that's what you'd need to do to substantially reduce gun violence in this country.

But hey, they're just feriners, right?

[stevenleser]

62. Yep. I've already said I think the way folks characterize Dems votes for IWR is revisionist history

but even if I didn't, the damage from guns to the US year after year is a much bigger deal than the Iraq War.

[LittleBlue]

68. Wrong

Without the IWR, the Iraq War couldn't have happened. Gun legislation has only a marginal effect on gun violence. The Brady Bill prevented 1.9m gun sales. But those felons could have easily bought a gun at a gun show, from a private party or from the black market. It had almost no impact in a country with ~300m guns.

[bullwinkle428]

71. I honestly believe any attempt to justify the Iraq war is kind of appalling.

[cyberswede]

63. The bottom line is: no candidate is going to have a perfect track record.

Vote for whichever candidate best reflects your views.

Either Hillary or Bernie will be light years better than any Republican.

[ScreamingMeemie]

64. People write sane stuff, and sane stuff gets ignored in favor of the sexy stuff.

Thanks for being sane, cyberswede. Thank you very much.

[Rex]

66. But but but...ponies! If the small group of shit stirrers don't stir the shit

early it will never set correctly! To those of us that will vote for the primary winner...these groups infighting looks pathetic and childish.