2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNewtown Alliance slams Sanders for gun-maker liability stance.
TWEET
Dan Malloy @DanMalloyCT Mar 9
Newtown Alliance slams Sanders for gun-maker liability stance. On issue of gun safety, choice is clear. #ImWithHer
http://ctmirror.org/2016/03/09/newtown-alliance-slams-sanders-for-stance-on-gun-maker-liability/
View summary
36 retweets 29 likes
Newtown Alliance slams Sanders for stance on gun-maker liability
By: Ana Radelat | March 9, 2016
Washington The Newtown Alliance, a group created after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings to promote gun control, said it is outraged that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders doesn't think gun manufacturers should be liable for all the harm caused by their firearms.
During a debate in Flint, Mich., Saturday evening, Sanders said making gun makers liable for the damage caused by guns that are purchased legally would amount to a ban on the manufacture of guns.
Sanders said the issue is, If somebody wh o is crazy or a criminal or a horrible person goes around shooting people, the manufacturer of that gun should be held liable.... What you're really talking about is people saying , 'let's end gun manufacturing in America.' That's the implications of that, and I don't agree with that."
On Monday, the National Rifle Association praised Sanders for his stance in a tweet that said, "Sen. Sanders was spot-on in his comments about gun manufacturer liability...".........
NRA Verified account
@NRA
Sen. Sanders was spot-on in his comments about gun manufacturer liability/PLCAA http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/sanders-what-youre-really-talking-about-ending-gun-manufacturing-america-I #DemDebate
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Protecting manufacturers for baseless, nuisance lawsuits was and is the right thing to do.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)radical noodle
(8,013 posts)This is one of many reasons I support Hillary.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)It's telling: the only big, corrupt industry Bernie doesn't want to break up is the gun manufacturers! Suddenly he's all, well, that's an imposition on commerce! They murder our children with impunity, raking in the bucks.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)A manufacturer shouldn't be held liable for improper use of its product. Some guy got his face eaten off by a man high on Bath Salts, do you think the manufacturer should be held liable?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)They don't want a sensible discussion of the issue. They just want to paint Sanders as some sort of NRA tool.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)... with solutions.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)can help you too. Then they funded the NRA to push lax gun legislation, stand you ground hogwash, and more. By God that is similar to what the tobacco industry did and had to pay billions. Sanders is a tool for gunz, as are his supporters.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)If a woman commits suicide or slashes someone with one, Gillette shouldn't get sued.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)solve your problems, so buy enough razors for the lonely weekend. Jeeez, some of you guys are really obtuse.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)I'll wait.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and why it's a good deal. Gunners will either oil theirs up, or run out and buy one.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The only "pro gun" (which, of course, it isn't) stance of his is his vote on the law protecting manufacturers from nuisance lawsuits. That was the right vote.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)It's why they resist all efforts to strengthen enforcement. The only things that will stop them is civil suits, just like the tobacco companies. The only big, destructive industry Bernie wants to protect is that gun manufacturer trash, that gleefully protect the legal-to-illegal pipelines that murder our children? Man of principle my royal Irish ass.
Good on Newtown.
Every illegal gun begins as a legal gun. Every single one.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)That being said, I disagree with his vote on the PLCAA. I think the courts should assess the merits of claims against gun manufacturers using common law principles that are much more sophisticated than a statute like PLCAA. Trying to define the limits of the liability of gun manufacturers by means of PLCAA is a bad idea for the same reason that most tort reform is a bad idea: it results in arbitrary lines being drawn that will in some cases prevent the courts from ensuring a just resolution of lawsuits.
However, I see no reason to think that Sanders is not a man of principle just because he disagrees with me about this.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)During Hillary Clintons years as secretary of state, arms sales to the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation ran at nearly double the value of sales to the same nations during George W. Bushs second term. There was also an additional $151 billion worth of armaments sold to sixteen nations that had donated funds to the Clinton Foundation; these were deals organized by the Pentagon but which could only be completed with Hillary Clintons authorization as secretary of state. They were worth nearly one and a half times the value of equivalent sales during Bushs second term.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)if guns are a legally manufactured and sellable product, the makers should not be held liable for their abuse any more than ginsu should be held liable when someone is stabbed to death.
if they want to go after the legality of guns, then that is a completely separate and worthy conversation.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 18, 2016, 06:06 PM - Edit history (2)
racism, and worse.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)special treatment for this industry.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Other industries dont need those protections because they already have them. Its only because judges with an agenda allowed the lawsuits so the law was written.
Same reason the fast food industry has legal protection against fat people suing, it became a problem.
If a bunch of people start suing budweiser after a DUI I thibk we should write a law to protect them. Or hell, write the law now if it makes you happy.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...and the way the PLCAA (link here) is painted as some sort of blanket immunity is just wrong. There are still plenty of ways gun manufacturers and dealers can be held liable for criminal activity. People should really do some reading about this stuff before just accepting it. This is one of the most egregious distortions Clinton has used against Bernie as it's just flat out wrong what she says about it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)You can not sue them for making you fat.
renate
(13,776 posts)But it's not. Someone doing something stupid with an object that it is legal to produce and/or own isn't the manufacturer's fault. So I think he's intellectually right to take the position he does.
That doesn't mean I'd do the same if I were a senator. I'd do anything I could to end the production and ownership and profitability of guns--at least, of guns more powerful than those available in 1776 that are designed to kill anything with fewer than four legs. (And in an ideal world, since I'm a vegetarian, I'd like to see hunting ended too, but that's a different story.) But if I made gun manufacturers, who were operating legally, responsible for what happened with those guns, I wouldn't have a principle to stand on... I'd just be an anti-gun activist.
I wish Bernie's position were different, because I hate guns and everything about them. But I understand it.
stone space
(6,498 posts)The day before that, we heard Gabby Giffords at a Hillary event.
Gabby was very persuasive.
I couldn't believe that Bernie didn't think the topic even worth mentioning the very next day at a venue just 30 miles away.
I don't want to hear about the woes of Mom and Pop Gun Manufacturers.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)you've lost your WAY.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Bank it.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)There is nothing wrong with pragmatic politics. I'm looking forward to hearing a few more stories about Hillary Oakley learning to shoot on pawpaw's farm.
With respect to guns, I see no difference between Clinton and Sanders as POTUS. If a gun control bill makes it through Congress, either of them would sign.
riversedge
(70,290 posts)giving up on this issue at all. IMHO
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The delegates to the convention create the platform.
It's likely she'll walk back the rhetoric and try not to mention it.
But it will come up in debates.
hack89
(39,171 posts)This is the part that always seems to be forgotten.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Democrats never have been nor are they "gun grabbers." I'm just saying Clinton's rhetoric is already part of the platform. The only thing surprising is that a presidential candidate is talking that way, when 8 short years ago the same person was talking about hunting with daddy. Just goes to show how far we've progressed that that kind of talk, talking about regulations as opposed to talking about being pro gun, is acceptable rhetoric to the voting population.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it should not be an issue.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Like building walls, banning muslims, or deporting undocumented.
And I'll bet before it's over Trump says he's a Sandy Hook Truther.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cha
(297,574 posts)Thanks rivers.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and people like myself don't like what we see.