Bernie and the "gun" thing

[pdsimdars]

It's amazing how they whipped this one up so that people seem incoherent about it.

If someone ran into your car with their car because they were drinking. . . .

You would want to sue them.

But, do you think you should be able to sue Budweiser and Ford for making the beer and the car they used to smash your car?

That was what Bernie voted against. I think he has a D- rating from the NRA. But you think that being able to sue Ford because their car was used to smash yours, that makes sense to you? If so, I don't think your are rational.

[HumanityExperiment]

1. NY primary...

HRC and her supporters will be whipping that horse like there's no tomorrow until NY votes

More folks need to highlight this about HRC

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/09/hillary-clinton-wants-to-regulate-fracking-but-still-accepts-a-lot-of-fracking-money/

HRC is in the pocket of fossil fuel special interests

with NY in the cross hairs... HRC will have a tough time...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/nyregion/cuomo-to-ban-fracking-in-new-york-state-citing-health-risks.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-climate-change.html?_r=0

You hammer HRC on this and she's toast

[amborin]

2. somewhat analogous: court just ruled Porsche not responsible for Paul Walker's death

[stone space]

3. Why do Ford and Budwiser not have the protections of the PLCAA?

Why only gun manufacturers?

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. They should.

But you'll never see broad-based tort reform when legislatures are largely composed of attorneys.

[stone space]

6. Then you should be pushing for a general corporate immunity legal givaway bill, ...

...not one singling out a single industry for special treatment, like the PLCAA.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. There's no "giveaway" in protecting from frivolous lawsuits.

The tort system was never intended to substitute for not being able to achieve one's political aims. It's for recovering legitimate damages.

[stone space]

13. Then make it available to Big Tobacco and Lawn Dart manufacturers. (nt)

[DanTex]

10. That's exactly the question. And the answer is, because PLCAA was a corporate giveaway,

designed to thwart lawsuits that were proving successful in holding the gun industry accountable for knowlingly making profit from designing, selling, and marketing guns in ways that are likely to end up being used in crimes.

[onecaliberal]

4. Except for Hillary lies!

In 2014, out of 7,686 firearms recovered and traced in New York, only 55 were first purchased in Vermont, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That’s compared to 371 that came from Pennsylvania, 395 that were sourced to Virginia, and 386 from Georgia, government data shows.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/04/robert-farago/hillary-clinton-vermont-a-major-source-of-new-yorks-crime-guns/

[Hiraeth]

7. Jury Duty brought me here

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"If so, I don't think your are rational."

Fuck that noise. I cannot believe some gun nutter comes in and makes excuses for this bullshit by telling other people who are sick of the NRA and their fucking gun laws killing our children that we aren't "rational".

Rude, divisive and highly insensitive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 6, 2016, 10:45 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A passionate alert. However, there are many here that can take this idea down in their replies, and those replies need to be written and read.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: meh
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yeah, I suppose it would have been better if s/he had left off the very last comment about being rational. But as insults go around here, that's awfully mild, and the rest of the post is cogent.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[DanTex]

9. Yet another repetition of the NRA talking point in defense of Bernie's absurd vote.

Actually, yes, you can sue both Ford and Budweiser for a drunk driving accident because neither of them have the same legal immunity that the gun industry enjoys. Of course, you'd lose, and you'd have to pay the legal fees for the defendant if the lawsuit was deemed frivolous. There are already protections for frivolous lawsuits, enough to handle the silly hypothetical examples of lawsuits that the NRA/Bernie have but forward to defend the law.

The lawsuits that this bill was designed to thwart were mainly filed by states and municipalities against gun manufacturers who were knowlingly profiting from guns that ended up in criminal hands. Their business and marketing practices lead to more gun violence, they could prevent it, but they don't because they make more profit by ignoring the common good. And, in fact, some of the lawsuits were succeeding (google Smith and Wesson). This is why the NRA wanted the law so badly -- they didn't want to see the profits of gun manufacturers hurt by either having them pay out settlements or else having to adopt responsible business practices.

The bill was nothing but a big corporate giveaway at the expense of the public. It gave the gun industry special legal protection that no other industry enjoys. If it were really a sound legal principle, then the bill should have covered all industries, not just guns. But it didn't because the gun industry had better lobbyists.

[hollowdweller]

11. I don't give a shit about guns

We have a mass shooting problem in the US but our homicide rate is lowest it has been.

For years dems have been VERY for gun control, reproductive and gay and minorities rights which is fine with me.

We have been for helping the poor.

But we have not been for the middle class.

I personally would like to see the cultural issue take a back seat to some FDR populisim for a change. We might be able to put together a winning majority.

[BernieforPres2016]

12. This issue is beyond stupid, but Hillary made it clear this morning she will pursue it

This gun liability issue came up in a debate and Bernie repeated his answer 2 or 3 times to make sure it was absolutely clear. He said if the gun was purchased legally and was not defective, no, the family of a victim of gun violence should not be able to sue the gun manufacturer or retailer. He said if people want to ban guns, fine, that's a different issue.

When you could sue a gun manufacturer or retailer, as Bernie has noted, is if gun safety locks didn't work properly. Or if the gun was intentionally manufactured to be easy to convert into an automatic weapon. Or if a manufacturer or retailer was selling guns into a channel that they could have or should have known was designed to facilitate illegal purchases.

So Hillary was basically suggesting this morning that Bernie is standing with gun manufacturers against the victims of Sandy Hook. That is about as cheap a demagogic stunt as you could ever pull, but in line with Hillary's character. If that is her belief, why isn't she calling for a complete ban on gun manufacturing and sales in the U.S.? Let her campaign on that in Pennsylvania.