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

hellofromreddit

hellofromreddit's Journal
hellofromreddit's Journal
May 25, 2016

Suing gun makers

To distract from all the petty threads about who's the meanest meanie, how about we discuss guns? Specifically, can anyone describe how letting victims sue gun makers will depress gun violence? On her site, Hillary talks about reigning in straw purchasers, which makes obvious sense. It's this other part that concerns me:

She voted against the dangerous immunity protections Congress provided gun dealers and manufacturers that prevent victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable.

The part about immunity is not completely true. However, the most relevant paragraph from the PF article:

The law at issue is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush and seen as a victory for gun rights advocates. The purpose of the law is to protect gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits when their products are misused. For example, if a person buys a gun legally and then uses the gun to intentionally kill someone, the gun dealer and manufacturer cannot be held liable for the crime under the law.

...gets at the "immunity" she often describes. No suing of manufacturers.

For Clinton to achieve what she advocates she'd need to pass some new legislation explicitly allowing those suits or just repealing the old law (that would still be iffy though, since it would then be an open question for courts to decide). I don't really see how that would be much of a direct benefit to those victims. It seems like gun makers would simply purchase some form of liability insurance, make the guns marginally more expensive to cover the cost, and go back to business. Then the victim of an attack would have to not only wade through the legal system to get a settlement of some kind, but also go head-to-head with some well-heeled legal teams. It would simply be a minor nuisance for gun makers and a generally non-viable option for gun crime victims.

Obama's still pushing the TPP. That has some provisions in it that make suing foreign manufacturers far more difficult. How would things play out with a victim attempting to sue a foreign gun manufacturer? Could a foreign victim sue one of our manufacturers?

It's not that I disagree on the basic concept of addressing gun violence; I just think suing gun makers won't get it done. If we go through all the fight to pass such a law, then even if it's totally ineffective, it'll give some cover to anyone opposing an improved law later: "We already fixed that, now you're just piling on." So the old adage, "something is better than nothing" isn't necessarily true.
May 24, 2016

If Bernie had dropped weeks ago he could not have gotten the influence he now has over the DNC.

Looks like those donations people sent in despite Clinton's "inevitability" weren't in vain. Realizing that should make Clinton's latest snub of Bernie and California voters feel even more foot-shooty.

May 20, 2016

Hillary reneges on California debate

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/19/hillary-clinton-ducking-final-debate-with-bernie-s/

Rationalize it how ever you want, a promise is a promise and she broke hers. People already accuse her of not sticking to her word. This isn't going to help that at all.

Edit to add:
May 20, 2016

The Nevada kerfuffle wasn't actually violent

According to the NPR Ombudsman Elizabeth Jensen:

Donovan and I disagree on this; "violence," which NPR more often uses to describe events in war zones, seems too strong a term to me based on the evidence I have seen so far.


http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/05/18/478579787/fact-checking-nprs-reports-on-vegas-violence
May 20, 2016

People are already throwing around the N-word.

Nader!

Apparently the smear goes:

Sanders running for president -> in second place -> hurts Hillary somehow -> President Trump. Thanks, Nader 2.0.


As Dean himself just said in an interview, Sanders did the democrats a massive favor by running as a democrat so that he is NOT the spoiler. Beyond that, this is still the primary. He's in second, but it's a close second. If Hillary is really as experienced/ready/vetted as people say she is, I'm pretty sure she'll be fine. If she can't hack it, an early bow out by Bernie won't help. Like that time Dubya royally fucked up everything and also oopsed up into a war, but Kerry lost to him anyway without any subterfuge from the likes of other also-rans.

Relax. Breathe. Don't be so insecure about your candidate that you need to refight battles from 16 years ago.
May 17, 2016

I don't need any luck.

I'm not banking on being infinitesimally less unpopular than Trump.
I'm not running a campaign on exclusion of new voters.
I don't make my points by beating up on spouses, making fun of hair, or retconning other's lives.
I don't have to lie about facts to support my decisions.
So I don't need even a single goddamn scrap of luck.

But Hillary and her tribe around here do. Bernie is handing her and the DNC a solid platform and an energized new generation of voters on a silver platter. All they had to do was be a tiny bit gracious. But all they did do was slap it away and hurl insults.

Good fucking luck with that plan. Luck is all you've got and you'll desperately need it.

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:15 PM
Number of posts: 1,182
Latest Discussions»hellofromreddit's Journal