Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Sanders is wrong about the lawsuit we filed after our son’s murder in Newtown [View all]
Our son, our sweet little Daniel, was just 7 when he was murdered in his first-grade classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. We are among the 10 families suing the manufacturer, distributor and retail seller of the assault rifle that took 26 lives in less than five minutes on that terrible day.
We write in response to Sen. Bernie Sanderss comments about our lawsuit at the recent Democratic presidential debate in Michigan. Sanders suggested that the point of our case is to hold Remington Arms Co. liable simply because one of its guns was used to commit mass murder. With all due respect, this is simplistic and wrong.
This case is about a particular weapon, Remingtons Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians. It is not about handguns or hunting rifles, and the success of our lawsuit would not mean the end of firearm manufacturing in this country, as Sanders warned. This case is about the AR-15 because the AR-15 is not an ordinary weapon; it was designed and manufactured for the military to increase casualties in combat. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars: uniquely deadly and suitable for specialized use only.
We have never suggested that Remington should be held liable simply for manufacturing the AR-15. In fact, we believe that Remington and other manufacturers production of the AR-15 is essential for our armed forces and law enforcement. But Remington is responsible for its calculated choice to sell that same weapon to the public, and for emphasizing the military and assaultive capacities of the weapon in its marketing to civilians.
We write in response to Sen. Bernie Sanderss comments about our lawsuit at the recent Democratic presidential debate in Michigan. Sanders suggested that the point of our case is to hold Remington Arms Co. liable simply because one of its guns was used to commit mass murder. With all due respect, this is simplistic and wrong.
This case is about a particular weapon, Remingtons Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians. It is not about handguns or hunting rifles, and the success of our lawsuit would not mean the end of firearm manufacturing in this country, as Sanders warned. This case is about the AR-15 because the AR-15 is not an ordinary weapon; it was designed and manufactured for the military to increase casualties in combat. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars: uniquely deadly and suitable for specialized use only.
We have never suggested that Remington should be held liable simply for manufacturing the AR-15. In fact, we believe that Remington and other manufacturers production of the AR-15 is essential for our armed forces and law enforcement. But Remington is responsible for its calculated choice to sell that same weapon to the public, and for emphasizing the military and assaultive capacities of the weapon in its marketing to civilians.
More at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanders-is-wrong-about-the-lawsuit-we-filed-after-our-son-was-murdered-in-newtown/2016/03/18/d5892e2a-ebbb-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
98 replies, 5816 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (35)
ReplyReply to this post
98 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
Sanders is wrong about the lawsuit we filed after our son’s murder in Newtown [View all]
ProudToBeLiberal
Mar 2016
OP
Hillary talks a good game but Annie Oakley won't pursue gun control if she wins.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2016
#12
I supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, so you don't have to lecture me on her past positions.
ProudToBeLiberal
Mar 2016
#13
There was no epidemic of gun violence or mass shootings before 2008?
beam me up scottie
Mar 2016
#15
I didn't disrespect anyone, I stated a fact. You implied blm endorsed Hillary.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2016
#22
Of course because only Hillary supporters have "principles and respect for worthy people".
beam me up scottie
Mar 2016
#92
How would you know? Your "belief" couldn't possibly be based on anything I actually posted.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2016
#95
Gun violence has always been an issue -- Cluinton's "change" is just marketing
Armstead
Mar 2016
#50
Pushing too hard on gun control in the ge has always been a bad idea.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2016
#27
When you have the NRA tweeting favorably on your gun position then something is very wrong. Nt
ProudToBeLiberal
Mar 2016
#3
You have no response to what I said but commented anyway? Interesting, there is a word for that.
JonLeibowitz
Mar 2016
#7
I am a bit rusty from my forced hiatus. Please give me a chance to get my mojo back. Nt
ProudToBeLiberal
Mar 2016
#8
Yes, when manufacturers advertise gunz as key to manhood, as best sniper rifle, etc. Tobacco
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#47
Exactly, and they can be sued. Why special protection for gunz? My guess, lots of gun
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#53
Check out the States next door. No other candidate has the guts to speak out against
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#64
I said region. I am sure plenty of Vermontians work in gunz, gun shops, making targets that resemble
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#66
Take them on? She supported those "old white racists'" regional rights:
beam me up scottie
Mar 2016
#68
I could live with what she said. Unfortunately, almost any racist can carry a gun in this country.
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#69
Most of the gunners here -- who usually hide in the Gungeon -- appear to be Sanders's supporters.
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#72
No she's not, and your claims about other posters just show your bias.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2016
#73
Belittle and ridicule hose who need a gun in their pants to walk out the door, is a good start.
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#84
Making and selling a dangerous weapon and continually making it less safe is a great reason to get
uponit7771
Mar 2016
#31
I'm talking about assault weapons overall, they can be made safer but there's no mandate
uponit7771
Mar 2016
#34
In part because of the shit pile of immunity legislation Sanders supported !! If anything it made it
uponit7771
Mar 2016
#37
Wrong on its face, of course rational people want to make something that's dangerous safer...
uponit7771
Mar 2016
#39
"These Sandy Hook parents and the antigun organizations who are paying them...."
thucythucy
Mar 2016
#54
Overall I'd say slightly better but not so much better that he can chunk rocks like he's done. Wall
uponit7771
Mar 2016
#35