Bernie Sanders Supported Gun Company Immunity But Opposed it for FOOD INDUSTRIES.

[retrowire]

I can see that this is the spin of the day for Anti-Bernie people, so I'll clarify this in a way that clears it all up.

-------

Unhealthy food and ethics will always be bad.

And will always harm people.

Guns are sometimes used for their intended purposes, and sometimes they're not.

The food industry chooses what they serve. Therefore, they're directly responsible for serving bad product.

The gun industry is not responsible for what their consumers do with the product.

This clearly isn't an apples to apples comparison, and it makes perfect sense to hold the food industry accountable for what it serves us.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, and I'm certain no one will be confused any longer.

This is a response to this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251991886

[Kalidurga]

1. I think everyone needs to eat as well

people do not have to buy a gun. So, we are literally forced to make choices in purchasing, growing, or otherwise obtaining food. I think the more information we have in order to make informed choices is better. But, it's still going to be an issue complicated by food deserts, income, education levels, and personal preferences.

[Hoyt]

2. Seems to me that if gun companies market weapons that prove manhood, good as a sniper rifles, are

tactical weapons, etc. They are contributing to misuse of gunz and violence. That's reason enough to be sued in my opinion.

[dreamnightwind]

4. Ridiculous, under what statute?

This is obviously not something they could be rightly sued for, hopefully you aren't serious.

I find those ads revolting and am no friend to guns, but your suggestion is way off base.

[Gman]

8. They obviously can't be sued because

Legislators like Sanders make sure they can't get sued because they're in the back pockets of the NRA.

And BTW, what is the point of hollow point bullets?

You can't win this debate. You and Sanders are on very weak ground.

[Hoyt]

11. Exactly.

[rhett o rick]

12. If someone uses their car to kill another, the car company isn't responsible. If a food merchant

poisons someone, they are responsible, however, if they sell good food to someone that in turn lets it get bad and it kills someone then the food merchant isn't responsible. Is a very simple concept. The person that commits the crime is responsible, not the person that makes the product that is used for a crime.

[Gman]

14. Puhleeeezzzz... That's the old irrelevant right wing argument

That is absolutely ludicrous. Cars aren't made to kill people and aren't marketed as such. Furthermore car makers have been sued and lost over lack of safety features which is one of the reasons why they are so much safer today. There are no safety features in a gun besides the safety. And cars can't fire hollow points.

[JDPriestly]

27. If there is something wrong with the car that is due to the manufacturer's

intention or negligence, and that "something wrong" causes an injury or death, then the car manufacturer may be found liable.

Only if the manufacturer is at fault, can it be found liable. The manufacturer has to have caused the injury or death in some way. That's just normal tort theory. That's the way our system works.

[uponit7771]

59. In this case there is something wrong with the manfucaturs intentions and thx to Sanders et al they

... can't be sued

[Duckhunter935]

65. yes they can

There are 6 exceptions, it just has to be a legitimate case.

[uponit7771]

68. Not sued under all complaints other companies can be sued under, the spin on this is telling

...

[Duckhunter935]

72. most other companies

Do not have SLAAP suits to deal with. Abortion providers needed the same remedy.

[uponit7771]

88. Most other companies aren't openly trying to make a dangerous product more dangerous either...

... all his has been hashed before.

This vote was not Sanders finest ... really bad judgement here

[cantbeserious]

100. Riddle Me This - How Can A Firearm Be Made More Dangerous Than It Already Is

Just because a firearm is black and has attachments does not necessarily make it more dangerous than it already is.

Both of the weapons below fire the same ammunition - .223 rem.

Both are semi-automatic.

How is one inherently more dangerous than the other?

[uponit7771]

103. By not applying all technologies to make it safer, Obama has proposed some already

... this is not an arguable position.

There was no reason to give them immunity against certain suites

[cantbeserious]

108. Riddle Me This - What Technologies Will Make Riffles Safer That Shoot The Same Ammunition

Please do not respond with Smart Gun tech tied to the firearm and owner.

That technology is still largely in development and is not easily retrofittable to existing firearms.

So - what will make the existing 300 plus million firearms safer?

[Duckhunter935]

111. they have indeed become safer

Mechanical safeties , magazine safeties, loaded chamber indicators, drop testing standards. I have no problem with safe gun technology as an option but not a mandate as it it does not work at all times and is not mature. Fingerprint readers do not work if you are wearing gloves. The gun requires batteries. A gun needs to operate 100% of the time the trigger is pulled. Less is better. When the police use them, maybe then people might look at them. The military never will as you need to be able to use a fallen soldiers weapon.

[JDPriestly]

102. What do you mean by "can't be sued"?

Do you mean they can't be sued in strict liability or do you mean that they can't be sued for negligence or criminal conduct.

The actions that give rise to a lawsuit have to be defined in terms of what are called "elements." Those are the specific acts and intentions that, when proved, usually when proved each and every one, constitute a cause of action. The plaintiff states all those elements in pleading a cause of action. Then in a trial the plaintiff usually has to prove those elements.

What would be the elements of a cause of action against a gun manufacturer in the absence of a flaw in the gun or some misconduct or wrongdoing or negligence on the part of the manufacturer?

It's complicated because the right to bear arms is so fundamental that it is specifically spelled out in the Constitution. It would be hard to make manufacturing guns illegal considering that the right to bear them is guaranteed in the Constitution.

[uponit7771]

104. Can't be sued like all other manufactuers

[JDPriestly]

106. What are you talking about?

All manufacturers including gun manufacturers can be sued if something they did wrong causes harm to someone.

Maybe the nuclear industry is immune from lawsuits. There may be a couple of others, but gun manufacturers?

They can't be sued unless they or their products are negligent or violate the law or are in some way responsible for causing damages. They can't be sued for what other people do with their products provided the products are without flaws and the manufacturers deal with the public according to the law.

Of course, anyone can file a lawsuit for pretty much anything, but lawsuits filed against the manufacturers of products for no good reason are likely to be thrown out of court.

[Duckhunter935]

113. gun companies are also the one

Manufacturer that by federal law can not sell directly to the public. They must sell to a federally licensed distributer. The case is, the have no choice in who purchases a weapon as they are not a part of the transaction. So how are they responsible if that third party uses that legal item in a crime?

[Hoyt]

77. What if the marketed cars as a battering ram or put a big knife blade fin on the front?

They essentially do that with gunz. And NRA picks up where manufacturers leave off.

[uponit7771]

89. +1

[Paka]

105. Thank you,

for that very clear distinction.

[mythology]

109. If a bar sells alcohol to somebody who is drunk and lets them leave

the bar can be sued in the event of a drunk driving accident. But a gun shop that repeatedly sells to straw purchaser. There is currently a lawsuit where the straw purchase was openly made in front of the gun shop owner. And what are the gun shop owners relying on as their defense? The same law that Sanders voted for.

Laws were passed mandating seat belts in cars and other safety mechanisms. But we can't sue gun manufacturers for not providing biometric safe guards. I can go buy a phone that I can unlock with my finger print, but guns don't come equipped with that function. It would drastically cut down on accidental deaths where kids get a hold of their parent's gun.

[Duckhunter935]

114. check the Wisconsin case

A retailer was just sued and found guilty of that exact thing. See Badger guns.

[dreamnightwind]

15. The poster is saying those ads are legitimate reasons for litigation

No way is that true.

You want to sue gun manufacturers when their products are misused. I just don't see the legitimacy of that argument.

I am all for less guns and for a better taken care of, more economically secure, less militant culture in general, as is Bernie.

[Gman]

16. That poster makes the wrong argument

Although I'm not sure that's what the poster meant. In fact gun makers should be sued for their products that have no other use but to kill someone.

[dreamnightwind]

18. So you think they should be sued for making lethal self-defense products

apparently because they aren't always used for self-defense. Good luck with that.

[Gman]

20. Stop twisting it

The purpose of all guns is to kill something. I don't remember Ssmuel Colt ever saying his product only was for self defense.

[dreamnightwind]

30. No that is not twisting it

One purpose is to kill something, another is as a deterrent.

Killing something, in the case of hunting, is considered legal (I don't like hunting but I eat meat so my dislike of hunting is rather hypocritical).

Many of these products are not legitimately for hunting, of course, they are for defense or offense from/upon other humans.

I'd personally be fine if nobody was able to own guns (including most if not all cops), I hate them and don't like many of the people that cling to them (some exceptions, I've known a few people I otherwise respect who disagree with me re guns, they feel they are a necessary means of defense).

But saying all they can do is kill something is your own way of twisting it.

[Gman]

32. Regardless, our discussion here is why

Sanders is very weak on the issue for a progressive. And guns are a huge issue.
You can't make him strong on the issue or even change perceptions by explaining why those long held perceptions are now wrong.

[dreamnightwind]

38. So says you. Disagree re Sanders.

[retrowire]

36. Are you not aware that guns are also used for recreation? nt

[Gman]

42. That's mostly what I use my guns for

But guns are used to kill in addition to recreation. In fact, recreation us a secondary use next to killing.

[retrowire]

53. Alright then.

So lets say you manufactured guns and you told people they could be used to kill, they could be used to hunt or they could be used for good ole' recreation, and the people used it wrongly, should YOU be punished for it?

I mean, after all, you told them it could be used for many things, you told them what NOT to do with it and yet they went ahead and did it.

Now you're being sued. Sound fair? Because there's this Gman guy on the internet who think's that's an awesome idea.

[Gman]

62. The point is not the overall debate

The point is Sanders' lack of support for gun regulation while claiming to be a progressive

[retrowire]

69. Looks like you've degenerated as your talking points have failed.

Bernie's supported regulation just fine. I'm sure you'll bring up the Brady Bill next. He was voting in the best interests of his state and wanted a background check that didn't take as long. He never ever ever said he didn't want background checks.

So now that I went ahead and defeated the Brady Bill argument, how else is Bernie not a progressive when it comes to guns?

And honestly, is its progressive to be completely Anti Gun?

They're here, and they're everywhere. You won't make progress suing the manufacturers, you WILL make progress by encouraging education and safety. Kind of like sex ed. Abstinence programs cause problems. Gun abstinence will do the very same.

[Gman]

73. Nothing I said failed

You just excuse him on the issue.

[retrowire]

74. What's to excuse? He's fine.

I explained why and this is your retort?

If you're a progressive, then where is the progression?

You're hitting a brick wall by doing this.

[Gman]

80. The parents of Sandy Hook children had no recourse

For what a gun was used for. Sanders' vote helped deny holding the manufacturer accountable for the deaths from a clearly dangerous product. There is no getting around that.

He's even walking it back saying he'd vote for changes which is real safe to say considering this congress' opposition to any gun control legislation.

[retrowire]

92. is mention if sandy hook supposed to give gravity to your argument?

I'm betting that suing the manufacturers won't prevent another sandy hook from happening.... and I'm certain those parents understand that too.

[Gman]

93. Regardless, they have no recourse

Because of a bill Sanders supported. I suggest you make your case to them.

[retrowire]

96. Nothing aided them after the tragedy?

Nothing?

[Gman]

98. They have no recourse in holding the gun manufacturer accountable

[sadoldgirl]

84. Tat is pure deflection!

If the product of a gun is legal, no court could
support this kind of law. And THAT is the issue.

But I want to hear HRC making that an issue in
a lot of Western states.

You know what? She will avoid it like hell!

[Gman]

85. So that means it's ok for Sanders to brag about his gun record

In Western states?

[sadoldgirl]

90. No, what is wrong is to propose a law,

which no court could support, and then make it
into a political issue.

[Gman]

91. Do you realize you're arguing that a judge can decide if a law is valid

That's not how it works. A judge applies the law as written according to his interpretation of the law.

[sadoldgirl]

95. Not if it goes to the SC, which we know

would never find it constitutional.

[Gman]

97. I that case someone has to specifically ask a court

If a law is unconstitutional versus (the way I understood your point) a judge deciding in a court case under the law that the law was not valid.

You are correct by he SCOTUS can ultimately rule on constitutionality.

[JDPriestly]

39. No. If it weren't for the Second Amendment, you could make the manufacture

of guns illegal. But so far no one has been able to sue the manufacturer of a product that is legally manufactured and on the market without proving that somehow the product was defective.

Cigarettes cause cancer in a good portion of smokers. But they are still legal.

The way to end the crisis of guns and violence is by educating people as to the fact that guns are really deadly and that if you buy and have them, someone in your family could be killed by your gun.

It's a matter of education. Just as it is with alcohol and tobacco.

Drink enough alcohol, and chances are very great that you will die. In that sense, alcohol is a deadly product, a real killer -- liver disease for starts.

Also we have other chemicals on the market that have the capacity to kill us if we do not use them wisely.

You are talking about strict liability. Not likely to be enacted with regard to guns.

If we wanted to make a product manufacturer strictly liable for deaths caused by the product, I think we should start with tobacco. Then alcohol. Guns would be way down the line.

That's because guns can have a good purpose -- not the military-grade guns -- but ordinary guns can kill game for food. They can be used for self-protection in certain circumstances.

What good purpose do tobacco products have -- other than to kill insects maybe? Not even sure about that.

[Gman]

47. All that's fine and dandy

It's standard gun industry arguments. But are you saying it makes Sanders ok on the gun issue? Do you realize how counter to the progressive position everything you say is?

[retrowire]

63. lol your tactic is showing.

When you can't diffuse the argument you accuse it of being "right wing" or "gun industry" argument.

Sorry, it's neither of those, it's common sense.

[Gman]

66. And the gun industry agrees with you

I don't.

[retrowire]

71. Ha, where's my foam hat?

The one with the gun on it?

Nice try. But I guess that's all you've got left.

[hack89]

41. I have been a gun owner for decades and have never killed a living thing

your premise ridiculous. The vast majority of guns and gun owners will never kill someone. So obviously there are many uses for guns other than killing. Competitive target shooting in my case.

[Gman]

48. So that makes Sanders OK on the gun issue?

Why?

[Duckhunter935]

61. yes

Treat gun manufacturers like any other one that has SLAAP south directed at them. You do know there are the six exceptions and the still are sued for legitimate safety issues. There have been several safety recalls after lawsuits.

[hack89]

64. The Democratic nominee, whoever it might be, will be good for gun owners

just like Obama.

This nitpicking over who is tougher on guns is irrelevant.

[Gman]

70. The seemingly mad scramble to use standard NRA arguments

To say Sanders is right on guns is ridiculous.

Fact is, Sanders does not have a great record in gun control and he is vulnerable on the issue.

[hack89]

120. Only if you assume that voters really care and that it will be an issue in the election

history says otherwise.

[Hoyt]

78. Are you sure a gun you bought will never be used to kill or intimidate someone, even if next owner.?

[hack89]

121. Unlike you, I am not clairvoyant.

It certainly will not be me killing or intimidating someone.

[JDPriestly]

112. Take that argument to the judge and see where it goes.

So far it has gone nowhere. And it has been tried.

[Gman]

115. That doesn't at all mean it's morally right

[JDPriestly]

116. Are the liquor manufacturers liable when people drink their brews, drive

cars and kill people because they are drunk?

No. In some states the bartenders who serve a drunk person who later drives and kills someone might get sued, but that is as close as I have heard of it getting. And the reasoning behind the bartender possibly having liability is that he or she should not have served a person who was visibly drunk already.

It's very unlikely that we will have strict liability for gun manufacturers.

So we had better educate people about the drawbacks to gun ownership and gun use. We have a gun culture. I don't belong, and evidently you don't either. But we have to change it anyway. Education is the answer. Also cultural change.

[Duckhunter935]

117. the question is

the distiller responsible? of course not, they did not sell to the drunk person. How and under what cause could you sue them?

[JDPriestly]

118. I agree. That's why gun manufacturers are not liable either.

[Duckhunter935]

119. And Bernie was right

I agree

[Voice for Peace]

33. You need to back up such an assertion!

"back pocket of the NRA"

Bernie?

[Art_from_Ark]

83. Bernie has bragged about his D- rating from the NRA

"Back pocket of the NRA", indeed

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/bernie_sanders_brags_about_d-.html

[uponit7771]

55. +1, well.. well... hollow point bullets are needed for the small rabbits with big claws and the deer

... who look at the gumpers mean and stuff

[7962]

99. A hollow point usually stays inside the criminal instead of going thru him,

and hitting another person.
You cant sue a company for selling legal products that arent defective.
You CAN sue a dealer who sells to someone who isnt legally allowed to own a weapon

If you change those rules, then people will start suing food companies because they got fat. Or suing car companies because they actually drove their sports car fast and wrecked it. Or suing Netflix because you got fired for laying out of work to watch 50 straight episodes of "Breaking Bad"

[Douglas Carpenter]

110. Bernie Sanders' D- rating from the NRA does not sound like much

like being in the back pocket of the NRA. Considering that Howard Dean an A rating.

[Kentonio]

123. Ah bull.

This was nothing more than an attempt to make something legal become illegal via the backdoor.

Look, if I could wave a magic wand and make private gun ownership illegal, I'll do it in a heartbeat. If that's going to happen though, it requires a movement to change the 2nd Amendment. Trying to go around the constitution by suing companies out of existence when they are selling a legally permitted product is just underhand and dishonest.

[Scuba]

125. Sanders has never taken a dime from the NRA. How's that equate to "back pocket"?

http://www.nracongress.com/all-nra-recipients.html

[beam me up scottie]

130. Bernie is in the NRA's "back pocket"?

[Hoyt]

10. Product Liability. Of course, Sanders and others voted that doesn't apply to gun

manufacturers.

There are several theories of product liability, including:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Product+Liability

Misrepresentation in the advertising and sales promotion of a product refers to the process of giving consumers false security about the safety of a particular product, ordinarily by drawing attention away from the hazards of its use. An action lies in the intentional concealment of potential hazards or in negligent misrepresentation. The key to recovery on the basis of misrepresentation is the plaintiff's ability to prove that he relied upon the representations that were made. Misrepresentation can be argued under a theory of breach of express warranty or a theory of strict tort liability.

Strict liability involves extending the responsibility of the vendor or manufacturer to all individuals who might be injured by the product, even in the absence of fault. Injured guests, bystanders, or others with no direct relationship to the product may sue for damages caused by the product. An injured party must prove that the item was defective, the defect proximately caused the injury, and the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous.


I think there could also be action based upon fact gun manufacturers know that their guns will be used by criminals, racists, intimidators, spousal abusers, terrorists, etc. They pander and market directly to those folks. They support the NRA that pushes the right wing racist agenda.

So, yeah, there is every reason it should be decided in court.

[dreamnightwind]

17. Your own excerpt pretty much shows how ridiculous this is

An injured party must prove that the item was defective, the defect proximately caused the injury, and the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous.

So, can't sue under that provision.

I think there could also be action based upon fact gun manufacturers know that their guns will be used by criminals, racists, intimidators, spousal abusers, terrorists, etc. They pander and market directly to those folks. They support the NRA that pushes the right wing racist agenda.

So sue te manufacturers of opiate-based prescription meds, who know full well their products will be used by criminals. There may be other better examples, thaat's the first one I could think of.

I agree with what you are trying to do but not how you are trying to get there.

[Hoyt]

31. Then, why did Sanders feel the law was necessary. Let the courts decide.

[JDPriestly]

45. Let's apply strict liability to tobacco products and alcohol first.

We know not only that they kill or cause illnesses in a certain percentage of their users, but that they serve no real purpose. Tobacco products in particular serve no purpose that is any better than guns.

You can shoot a gun. You just burn up tobacco and it makes a certain percentage of its users very sick.

First things first.

[uponit7771]

51. +1

[merrily]

3. Hillary was for guns before she was against them, but never against the Monsanto types.

[retrowire]

19. exactly.

[Snotcicles]

52. Hell she even profited from sales of them while being a shareholder and sitting on the

BOD of this country's largest firearms and ammo retailer.

[uponit7771]

60. Strawman, no one is against guns just against not using good common sense in keeping people

... safe

[Gman]

5. Are you kidding? It could not be more apples to apples

If a company has a product that a child chokes on and dies, the company was highly negligent in not foreseeing their product could kill a child. A gun is a product that can kill. But there is no accountability. How is that right?

[retrowire]

23. lmao

you know how conducted protect themselves from little kids choking on stuff?

warning labels.

know what guns have?

warning labels.

try again.

[Gman]

24. Yeah, and since it's common for 2 year olds to read,

Then how can they be responsible, right?

Makes no sense.

[retrowire]

26. those labels are the industries protection. Sorry.

It's the adults responsibility to read them and understand the consequence of handling the product irresponsibly.

[Hoyt]

34. Labels are an attempt at reducing the risk, not absolute protection.

[retrowire]

40. No seriously, they're a liability protection.

The company is typically guarded from legal action because of warning labels. It's essentially a "We told you not to do that" defense.

Why again, did McDonalds have to print on their coffee cups that coffee is in fact, hot?

Because someone got away with suing them for burning themselves with that hot coffee. It's a real legal protection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

[Hoyt]

81. Plenty of cases where label means nothing in court.

[rhett o rick]

29. Auto manufacturers are not responsible if someone uses a car to kill another. Manufacturers that

manufacture products for children are responsible that the products are safe for children. If a child gets a kitchen knife and injures itself, the knife manufacturer isn't responsible.

Yes, it's apples and oranges.

[ChiciB1]

6. Thanks For Explaining "Headlines" That Seem Negative, But

really aren't. I'm sure we'll be seeing MORE of this as we roll along!!

[still_one]

7. You present valid rebutable to the question if gun manufacters should be liable for the

misuse of their product.

To play devils advocate though, while gun companies do NOT have zero liability for their goods, they do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy, and that makes it a valid subject for debate.

The other fact is that Bernie did vote against the Brady Bill and background checks, though he has subsequently evolved on that issue, it bothers some that an issue as reasonable as background checks should have even been opposed.

Regardless, I think we all realize this is the season for politics, and both sides will jockey for what they believe will be to their advantage

[JonLeibowitz]

25. There was a lot more in the Brady Bill than background checks.

Unfortunately, things come to an up or down vote as a whole, not always in pieces. Part of what I am speaking of is waiting periods (an issue I am personally torn on), and part is what would disqualify someone from purchasing a background check.

For example, of the provisions in the background check to disqualify a purchaser (from wikipedia, pardon me):

1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
2. Is a fugitive from justice;
3. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
5. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
6. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
8. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
9. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

I find myself agreeing with only 4-4.5 of those provisions.

[still_one]

37. I was just bringing up in this political environment, reasons why this is a debatable subject.

[JonLeibowitz]

44. Yep, and you are very right. However, I want to inject some nuance into the discussion of the Brady

Bill. I don't see it as a black or white issue that should be used to whack candidates with. I find myself only agreeing with part of it, and I am from a state where gun violence is a problem.

[still_one]

54. understood.

[demwing]

127. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9? /nt

[JonLeibowitz]

129. 2, 4, 5, 8, and maybe 7. /Nt

[sadoldgirl]

9. I really do not understand that gun immunity

issue. If you sell a legally permitted product, how
can you be held responsible for the customer's abuse?

Then we should hold companies responsible for selling
knives or cars or axes? I don't see that any court
could uphold that kind of law.

And if you drink alcohol and drive, cause an accident,
then which company is responsible for your abuse?

Food is a totally different problem, because we all have
to rely on its being safe.

[JDPriestly]

101. Then there are tobacco products. They have no purpose whatsoever,

and they cause serious illness or death in a certain percentage of their users. If we want to apply strict liability to a product, we should apply it to tobacco first. You smoke and you get cancer. The tobacco companies have to pay your damages and your healthcare costs. Why not?

[Half-Century Man]

13. When someone is stabbed to death with a banana

I think the grower should not become a target of litigation.

[Hoyt]

82. Even if they market it as so hard you can kill someone with it?

[sadoldgirl]

87. Well they market the terribly unhealthy cereals,

The question I have would the courts ever agree
with this issue, when the product is totally legal?

I doubt it very much.

I wait for HRC to make that issue an important
one here in the West. I doubt that even more.

Thus it is only a political ploy right now.

[Thinkingabout]

21. This is the only industry which has immnity, car companies do not

Have immunity. The NRA only pushed the immunity for the gun industry, if it was not the only industry it would be a different story. The NRA has pushed laws which the large majority thinks should be repealed. Having voted for these laws is something Sanders should say was a total mistake, he has only said he would look at them again.

[sadoldgirl]

35. No car company is responsible for the

abuse of its product by the customer.

If the product shows faulty design, that would be
a different story.

I detest guns, but as long as they are a legal product,
and have no faulty designs, I cannot even see how
any court could find the producer guilty of the
customer's negligence.

[Thinkingabout]

49. Again the only industry which has immunity is the gun industry.

If it is true a car company can not be sued for negligence of user then why does the gun industry need immunity.

[sadoldgirl]

79. Then explain to me, please, what that immunity consists of.

[JonLeibowitz]

86. Because people will try and it is a huge waste of resources when we don't want that outcome.

[JDPriestly]

22. Thank you. Good clarification.

If the manufacturer or seller of a gun disobeys a law or does something negligent or wrong, then they should be subject to a lawsuit.

But if they don't, then they should not be liable for what someone else does with the guns or ammunition they manufacture.

I don't understand why people want anything else.

If they irresponsibly sell a gun to someone who is not allowed to have it, that is a different matter.

But if a manufacturer does nothing wrong, then they aren't liable.

[Hoyt]

43. Then, why did Sanders think the law was necessary? Probably because gunz are big in Vermont.

Let courts decide if someone has a case as they do on just about every other product.

[Voice for Peace]

28. Hilary's dishonest prsuit of this nonsense fools

nobody but her own devout followers. She knows better but this is her typical tactic. I loathe dishonesty.

[dreamnightwind]

50. I pretty much agree

She was desperate for an issue to position herslef to the left of Sanders on, however disingenuous it may be.

[Thinkingabout]

76. She is not in the minority of thinking, a large majority of Americans is

Thinking with Hillary. Sanders has been pulled back to the left on the gun issue.

[Thinkingabout]

57. And the same can be said for Sanders, he is not fooling others.

[retrowire]

75. Uhhhh... ???? nt

[Voice for Peace]

122. About what?

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. Looks like another Hillary supporter found an old talking point paper under a rug...

forgot it had been posted eleventy times, in eleventy OPs, and so posted it once more.

[retrowire]

56. Well maybe it'll stick! lol nt

[NorthCarolina]

58. I've been to BernieSanders.com and studied his positions on gun control,

and I agree with them.

[Duckhunter935]

67. I agree with most

The AWB is a farce and bans cosmetic features.

[stupidicus]

94. that's a banana and flat tire comparison

eom

[Android3.14]

107. It is painfully obvious how the Clintons are trying to manipulate people

And what a joy it is to see the people politely decline to consume this tripe.

[aikoaiko]

124. Yes, exactly but some people are willfully ignorant

And refuse to accept the difference

[vi5]

126. So I guess that means...

I should vote for the candidate who I disagree with on at least a dozen issues rather than the one I disagree with on one issue?

Makes sense. Good logic.

[dsc]

128. they most certainly are when they purposely send thousands of guns

to stores in the middle of nowhere which happen to be close to Chicago or DC and then sit and watch as straw buyers buy hundreds of the same gun. That is what gun makers did (at one point VA was the source of a full third of guns used in crimes in New York) and that is what they were being sued for and that is what Sanders voted to immunize them against.

[thereismore]

131. Guns are made for killing. Food is not. Bernie is right. nt