That calls for a graphic meme....

Would legislation along these lines have to stipulate that cutlery manufacturers would be exempt, or could someone sue Ginsu if one of their knives was used in a murder?

Used to kill....

Do I think the victims of a crime with a gun should be able to sue the manufacturer, is that your question?

In the same sense that if you’re a gun dealer and you sell me a gun and I go out and I kill him [gestures to someone in room]…. Do I think that that gun dealer should be sued for selling me a legal product that he misused? [Shakes head no.] But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people. So if somebody walks in and says, “I’d like 10,000 rounds of ammunition,” you know, well, you might be suspicious about that. So I think there are grounds for those suits, but not if you sell me a legal product. But you’re really saying…

Do you think that the discussion and debate about what defines a legal product, what should be a legal product, hence AR-15s, these automatic military-style weapons…which is the grounds of this suit at the moment is that this should have never been in the hands of the public.

Well, you’re looking at a guy…let’s talk about guns for one second. Let’s set the record straight because of…unnamed candidates who have misrepresented my views. You’re looking at a guy who has a D, what was it, D minus voting record from the NRA? Not exactly a lobbyist for the NRA, not exactly supporting them. But it’s interesting that you raised that question. If you’ll remember this, if you were in Vermont in 1988 [gestures to Vermonter in the room], three people were running for the United States Congress. We have one seat, Vermont. Two of them supported assault weapons. One candidate, Bernie Sanders, said, in 1988, “No, I do not support the sale and distribution of assault weapons in this country.” I lost that election by three points. Came in second. And that may have been the reason, that I was opposed by all of the gun people, okay? So to answer your question, I do not believe, I didn’t believe then and I don’t believe now that those guns should be sold in America. They’re designed for killing people.

So do you think then, with that in mind, that the merits of the current case are baseless?

It’s not baseless. I wouldn’t use that word. But it’s a backdoor way. If you’re questioning me, will I vote to ban assault weapons in the United States, yeah, I will.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/433727/new-york-daily-news-sandy-hook-attack-bernie-sanders-unfair

The Clinton's attempt at a "Legalese Spin" on what Bernie stated is pretty dodgy...
It seems to me to be avery well thought out logical statement, clearly guns are a legal product used by many living in the US for a variety of legal reasons, including sportsmen and women, collectors, personal protection, armed security, police, military, etc...

I qualified expert on the M-16 rifle yearly which is similar to the AR-15, except it has a selector switch which allows it to fire fully automatic where multiple rounds may be fired with a single trigger pull when I was serving in the military...
I myself own several, a shotgun, a small caliber rifle, a high powered scoped rifle, and a pistol. I do not however own any assault rifles as they serve no useful legal purpose. as they are a military style weapon, made exclusively for killing people...

Now I do see a situation where the citizens of Yemen would have legal grounds to sue the manufacturers of the F-15 aircraft and components used by the Saudi government in their illegal war, the US government for allowing the sale, and Secretary of State Clinton for her role in promoting the sale in return for Saudi money, and Boeing money, donated to the Clinton Foundation in return for favoritism on a sale, which should not have been allowed due to the Saudi human rights issues...

I fully agree with what Bernie has stated as a well thought out logical statement on which guns should be legal, and which ones should not. It is also a well thought out statement as to when a arms manufacturer and, or, when a seller, should assume liability for their product being used for killing a person or, persons...

Let the lawsuits begin! Bernie is on the right side of this issue...

In addition as far as using weapons for personal protection that is something that needs to be addressed. In a few months I'll be turning 60 and like many Americans, I have yet to encounter a situation where I have needed to use a firearm for personal protection or protection of my property...

The laws in some states as far as what is allowed for personal protection or protection of property is an abomination...

The stretching of "Stand Your Ground" to include "Pursuit of a Person" or, "Hunting Them Down," to place yourself in a situation where you "Feel Threatened" or, where you "Feel Threatened" by someone merely turning around in your driveway, so that you are allowed to kill them, is insane...

It is my belief that when it comes to Gun Control Legislation that the NRA Position, and that of the Anti-Gun people are both wrong and we will never see meaningful and functional gun laws passed in this country. I believe Bernie is very capable of separating the proposals which should be passed and will function well for both the gun owners and the citizens of this country desiring protections from gun violence. This intelligent position will not get him an A+ grade from either the NRA nor the Anti-Gun people, but should break the logjam of gun control legislation we have faced for decades and bring common sense solutions to bear...

The reality is both the "Uncontrolled Access To Guns" position of the NRA, and the "Eliminate Guns" position of the Anti-Gun people, are wrong. There is a common sense middle ground, which hasn't been explored yet...

I am a "Gun Owner" and "The NRA Does Not Represent My Interests."