Latest Breaking News

phazed0

(745 posts)

28. Reach much?

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 03:39 PM

Apr 2016

So which gun manufacturer has failed to develop safety features that adhere to the Federal guidelines?

Dealers are not manufacturers. Surely you don't think that distributors should be held liable for manufacturer's mistakes, right?

So, exactly when do we start getting rid of Alcohol and Tobacco? Maybe we should get rid of cars because the driver could have an accident. Then we can move to quads, motorcycles and bicycles. All of these things are inherently dangerous, too.

How did Bernie take away incentives for greater safety? The incentives for gun safety lay in the law, not in a bill pertaining to holding manufacturers accountable for their users' idiocy.

This is where I split from the big "D" narrative. Guns are useful and safe in many situations. Not everyone lives in a big city. Self defense is a real thing when you live on a 40-acre farm, 35 miles from anything, and a weird car pulls up in your driveway looking to steal stuff on your carport or in your house. Yes, guns can be useful.. no, not everyone gets one... and yes, guns in largely populated areas makes a lot less sense.

This gun-paranoia thing on the D side is stupid. Bernie is right on.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

237 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Connecticut Senator Not Happy With Bernie Sanders� View On Sandy Hook Lawsuit [View all] still_one Apr 2016 OP

I've never understood that absurd position n/t arcane1 Apr 2016 #1

Bernie's ABSURD position? Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #7

No, sorry, I meant the position that the manufacturers are legally liable. arcane1 Apr 2016 #10

"pimping the bodies of murdered children" ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2016 #44

No talking points, just fact and observation. The Sandy Hook killer didn't care about lawsuits. arcane1 Apr 2016 #66

The killer didn't care about Congress either ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2016 #114

And the killer wasn't Bernie either. Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #236

And Senator Murphy did not "pimp the bodies of murdered children" in his disgreement.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2016 #237

They most certainly SHOULD be liable for not improving safety features KittyWampus Apr 2016 #228

Don't you mean for not "implementing" safety features? branford Apr 2016 #232

If you promote gunz as manly, the best sniper rifle, necesaaru, etc., you have liability. Hoyt Apr 2016 #188

Really? branford Apr 2016 #192

That poster NEVER offers any proof oneshooter Apr 2016 #199

Don't agree. n/t Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #194

How on earth TeddyR Apr 2016 #197

I'm as anti-gun as they come Red Knight Apr 2016 #220

Manufactures are REQUIRED to engineer safety into their products. KittyWampus Apr 2016 #227

let the jury decide if the manufacturers are liable - I agree with Sen. Murphy wordpix Apr 2016 #233

A better idea than holding manufactuers liable for damages that guns cause would be JDPriestly Apr 2016 #75

"Imposing liability on the manufacturers does not go directly to the problem" arcane1 Apr 2016 #81

Giving them complete immunity however is part of the problem Native Apr 2016 #139

They don't have "complete immunity." Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #165

They do not have complete immunity Duckhunter935 Apr 2016 #180

Then no one would be able to own a gun. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #96

Yes. Insurance riders normally exclude criminal acts so this insurance would have to be very JDPriestly Apr 2016 #121

I carry a half million in liability insurance for mine. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #135

A gunowner needs more insurance than a half a million. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #163

Why should all gun owners pay for the crimes of a tiny handful? Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #166

Why not? JDPriestly Apr 2016 #169

Lots of reasons to reject collective guilt. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #170

But insurance is not considered to be a form of imposing collective guilt. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #172

What you want is not "insurance" by any definition of the term. branford Apr 2016 #171

Free speech, the right of assembly and the right to petition the government are all fundamental JDPriestly Apr 2016 #174

Again, what you are actually proposing is definitely not "insurance." branford Apr 2016 #176

I think my idea will become very popular, and gun owners will just have to pay up, all of them. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #179

For the last time, what you propose is not "insurance." branford Apr 2016 #189

You appear to have no idea how many regulations already exist for firearms, and the transfer thereof AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #222

What part of 'it doesn't cover intentional criminal acts' is confusing to you? AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #221

The problem is that the NRA fights even reasonable laws. LisaM Apr 2016 #134

I thnk you appeal to people in general. This insurance idea is fair to everyone. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #185

A very big part of it is the slippery slope... TipTok Apr 2016 #213

I can't believe DU has gone so pro-gun. LisaM Apr 2016 #229

There will never be required insurance on guns. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #177

Sell the insurance at the time of the gun sale. It would be part of the purchase price and JDPriestly Apr 2016 #184

You say that in one breath, but propose to price out poor rural people from hunting NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #186

If you want to exercise your free speech right in Los Angeles and get a bunch of people to JDPriestly Apr 2016 #187

Since you keep citing examples you don't fully understand - NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #190

You fail to get that no insurance company will cover intentional acts. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #195

An insurance company could be created by law for this purpose. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #211

You still don't understand the rules or policies concerning actual insurance branford Apr 2016 #212

You would still be "taxing" a civil liberty, which is not permitted. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #218

The NRA would thank you Duckhunter935 Apr 2016 #178

That's what would have to change. The insurance would have to cover intentional acts JDPriestly Apr 2016 #182

Here's an explanation for you...and it's not absurd Native Apr 2016 #126

Not necessarily true angrychair Apr 2016 #151

Read my #110 post Native Apr 2016 #159

I might be able to get worked up by this . . . markpkessinger Apr 2016 #173

Then, why is a law needed to protect gun profiteers? Hoyt Apr 2016 #191

It was passed for the same reason SLAPP lawsuits were banned. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #198

Wouldn't want to inconvenience lethal weapons profiteers. Hoyt Apr 2016 #200

I understand you have strong opinions NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #201

Like you, as a gun fancier, don't have strong feelings and irrational needs. Hoyt Apr 2016 #204

I have incredibly strong feelings in support of our civil liberties and form of government NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #205

Sounds like the creed of some American militia group. Believe it or not, we don't live in Hoyt Apr 2016 #206

Every single person who serves the US Government takes that oath. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #207

Doesn't mean you need a gun in your pants to go downtown. Hoyt Apr 2016 #208

LoL. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #209

It's part of the enlistment oath of our armed forces... TipTok Apr 2016 #214

It is when someone is promoting guns in USA, and it's used by militia groups like the Border Klan. Hoyt Apr 2016 #216

It's just odd that is where your mind goes... TipTok Apr 2016 #224

No, I spend a lot of time ridiculing mostly racist yahoos that have to strap Hoyt Apr 2016 #230

That's a pretty solid confirmation of my previous post... TipTok Apr 2016 #231

It's also in the Oath for Congress and the Civil Service. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #219

Also true.. TipTok Apr 2016 #223

Some militia group... sarisataka Apr 2016 #215

I know what it is, and I know militia groups, Oath Keepers and other Right Wing groups Hoyt Apr 2016 #217

No other industry? branford Apr 2016 #156

We're talking complete immunity - there are vaccine courts and parents can sue. nt Native Apr 2016 #162

You're moving the goal posts. branford Apr 2016 #175

They do not have complete immunity Duckhunter935 Apr 2016 #181

Hillary didn't understand her own position: appal_jack Apr 2016 #146

Hahahahaha Press Virginia Apr 2016 #202

....... azurnoir Apr 2016 #2

I've never understood that absurd position. nt silvershadow Apr 2016 #3

Hillary's voting for two wars should disqualify her from the nomination. n/t Cheap_Trick Apr 2016 #4

Obviously you didn't even bother to read the OP. This isn't a hit piece against Sanders still_one Apr 2016 #5

I read it SheenaR Apr 2016 #8

It's a hit piece. The law was a joke. It would never have made it past the SCOTUS. You rhett o rick Apr 2016 #54

Um tobacco? HillareeeHillaraah Apr 2016 #136

Closer to apples to zebras. The tobacco industry added ingredients that made their product rhett o rick Apr 2016 #141

Tobacco got in trouble for lieing. RichVRichV Apr 2016 #152

This message was self-deleted by its author Photographer Apr 2016 #6

I'm sorry, I'm pro-more gun control. But suing manufacturers isn't right. phleshdef Apr 2016 #9

that's not how products liabliity works. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #11

This was a self inflicted wound by the gun control movement hack89 Apr 2016 #21

the tobacco industry survived, as did the soft drink industry nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #24

The law has six specific exceptions that allow gun manufacturers to be sued hack89 Apr 2016 #30

Big difference between cigarrette and gun manufacturers jg10003 Apr 2016 #91

Right and if Big Tobacco would've came clean about cancer from the start... phleshdef Apr 2016 #98

It doesn't matter where the argument "plays". Its a losing argument and would never fly in courts. phleshdef Apr 2016 #22

Depends on what you mean by a safety feature jberryhill Apr 2016 #27

Well if there was a law that stated that gun manufacturers HAVE to use such technology... phleshdef Apr 2016 #33

I'm sorry that's how product liability law works jberryhill Apr 2016 #70

The Mercury Cougar case is not necessarily comparable. branford Apr 2016 #82

No, that was a handy article jberryhill Apr 2016 #87

You just want it to go to court, no matter what, because that will cost the dealers and manufacture AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #94

It will also cost the people who attempt to sue and would likely be a loss of money for those... phleshdef Apr 2016 #95

Yet, they were doing it, prior to the passage of that law. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #100

No, I popped in to discuss a frequently misunderstood point of law jberryhill Apr 2016 #99

Might want to double check your analysis then. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #101

My analysis? jberryhill Apr 2016 #103

No they don't. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #106

They don't? jberryhill Apr 2016 #107

I replied in the other thread fork. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #112

A court (and I assume you mean jury, not judge) cannot just arbitrarily declare a product defective. branford Apr 2016 #117

Did I say "arbitrarily"? Hmm... don't recall that jberryhill Apr 2016 #143

The legal system has some mechanism to deal with frivolity, branford Apr 2016 #147

So, I guess that lawsuits are only expensive for one side? jberryhill Apr 2016 #225

Sigh... branford Apr 2016 #226

I know next to nothing about guns. I don't own one. phleshdef Apr 2016 #92

Okay, then explain this behavior jberryhill Apr 2016 #105

Did you just say 'free market' in a story where the *existence* of a technology limits the firearms AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #109

Yeah, I did jberryhill Apr 2016 #148

Nothing in that liability legislation prevents those technologies from advancing. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #149

Adam was an authorized user. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #37

You are missing the point jberryhill Apr 2016 #72

No it isn't. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #88

Not only was the weapon not defective, branford Apr 2016 #123

Right TeddyR Apr 2016 #196

Reach much? phazed0 Apr 2016 #28

We'll see if people in Connecticut, the Bronx, and Brooklyn agree with you. nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #29

Convincing voters to agree with you doesn't make you right on the issue. JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #41

It would be a sad state of affairs if... phazed0 Apr 2016 #46

they live with gun violence, people in Vermont don't nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #52

That's just made up... phazed0 Apr 2016 #67

New York state isn't homogenous. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #73

That's my point.. phazed0 Apr 2016 #84

guns are shipped via interstate commerce into the Bronx from geek tragedy Apr 2016 #89

Then maybe you should lobby for a bill... phazed0 Apr 2016 #113

The NRA did, and Bernie Sanders helped them out nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #129

Vermont has the fewest gun murders per capita of all 50 states geek tragedy Apr 2016 #78

That's from 2010... no longer relevant.. nt phazed0 Apr 2016 #115

Vermont has about 4 per year and it's a pretty steady number nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #131

Yes, which puts them in rank 39, not 50 as you claimed. nt phazed0 Apr 2016 #153

your chart does not say what you think it says geek tragedy Apr 2016 #154

Why? phazed0 Apr 2016 #157

How about the voters of very liberal and Democratic Vermont? nt branford Apr 2016 #51

gun violence is a next to nothing problem there geek tragedy Apr 2016 #58

Then the majority of the problem isn't really the guns, is it? branford Apr 2016 #76

it is very hard to unbake the cake with the PLCCA. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #83

Considering I'm a lifelong New Yorker, politically active Democrat, branford Apr 2016 #144

You don't understand product liability law in the least jberryhill Apr 2016 #80

and, pardon me if I'm incorrect as it's been a while since I've done torts, but geek tragedy Apr 2016 #85

Product liability is, in general, strict liability jberryhill Apr 2016 #93

I told you I was out of date. nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #97

yeah, it was news to me a few years ago jberryhill Apr 2016 #102

either that or they don't care, because primaries nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #104

Lol, OK buddy... phazed0 Apr 2016 #111

No way. I want to see strong gun laws but this law made a mockery of true gun control. rhett o rick Apr 2016 #63

He (Sanders) is right. Unless you're willing to advocate for no one ever having a gun... dchill Apr 2016 #12

If there was something wrong with the gun,that caused a death, yes, wendylaroux Apr 2016 #13

There are six exemptions to the law in case of geniune malfunction. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #39

Seems so goddamned SIMPLE, doesn't it? If I didn't know better, I'd think some are politicizing AzDar Apr 2016 #53

these people are desperate,say anything,do anything. wendylaroux Apr 2016 #56

"Whatever it Takes(tm)" arcane1 Apr 2016 #79

The only way the gun manufaturer is liable is IF angstlessk Apr 2016 #60

Yup,as it should be. nt wendylaroux Apr 2016 #61

Stupid billhicks76 Apr 2016 #14

That is my opinion. Agnosticsherbet Apr 2016 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author LynnTTT Apr 2016 #16

I agree with Bernie LynnTTT Apr 2016 #17

+1...nt freebrew Apr 2016 #19

The McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit wasn't frivolous TexasBushwhacker Apr 2016 #133

Bernie is correct Geronimoe Apr 2016 #18

Good luck selling that argument in this city and the broader tri-state area Senator Sanders. hrmjustin Apr 2016 #20

every rational person knows Bernie is right. wendylaroux Apr 2016 #23

You people will say anything ANYTHING, no matter how wrong or disgusting, or made up- for your Queen Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #25

"you people" I encourage you to take that tone with geek tragedy Apr 2016 #32

The meaning of "you people" was militant Hillary supporters, not NYC citizens JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #43

very often the same thing in some neighborhoods nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #50

And what is NY doing, socially, to curb violence? phazed0 Apr 2016 #59

New York has drastically reduced gun violence over the past few decades. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #64

You know who I was talking to. Good luck in your life. You're going to need it! Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #137

I am not even sure how this would work in a court case. logosoco Apr 2016 #26

One thing we should do is to make parents face time for felony child endangerment JDPriestly Apr 2016 #49

I whole heartedly agree with that! logosoco Apr 2016 #140

Bernie really had a FAIL with that NYDaily interview! riversedge Apr 2016 #31

David Brock? Is that you? mac56 Apr 2016 #74

This is one reason mainstreetonce Apr 2016 #34

Wow, TM99 Apr 2016 #160

I agree with Bernie. djean111 Apr 2016 #35

I'm with you. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #45

"bun manufacturers" alp227 Apr 2016 #62

Woops! Maybe we should make them liable for obesity deaths while we are at it. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #65

Sen. Chris Murphy lastone Apr 2016 #36

because bernie protect the death industry they havent felt compelled to make the gunz safer saturnsring Apr 2016 #38

It would be easier to pass legislation regulating the gun manufacturers so that they have to JDPriestly Apr 2016 #47

Should we allow people whose loved ones have been killed by drunk drivers to sue the JDPriestly Apr 2016 #40

well, he can kiss everyones ass and call it a big love story stupidicus Apr 2016 #42

But supporting war criminals is NOT a disqualifying stance? Kelvin Mace Apr 2016 #48

And let me guess this guy is a Super Delegate for Hillary right? INdemo Apr 2016 #55

I agree with Mr. Sanders bigwillq Apr 2016 #57

One of many, many reasons he will not be the Democratic Nominee. nt onehandle Apr 2016 #68

Sanders is correct HassleCat Apr 2016 #69

Murphy sat on the Financial Services Committee while his own home got forclosed on so I'm not Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #71

He says if you are knowingly negligent, you should be liable. Not if you did nothing illegeal jtuck004 Apr 2016 #77

"Legal" and "not negligent" are two very different standards. nt SunSeeker Apr 2016 #90

Tryin' to get on at the SC, eh? You must work harder, grasshopper. n/t jtuck004 Apr 2016 #158

I agree with Chris Murphy. SunSeeker Apr 2016 #86

It's like 99% of the people on this thread have conveniently forgotten the PLCAA precedent Native Apr 2016 #142

Suing manufacturers is a nonstarter. Blue_In_AK Apr 2016 #108

it happened with tobacco MisterP Apr 2016 #119

Guns have legitimate uses, Blue_In_AK Apr 2016 #122

civilian ARs? MisterP Apr 2016 #125

I don't believe the manufacturers Blue_In_AK Apr 2016 #132

You guys are all missing the point of the article, Native Apr 2016 #110

Thank you for this information! Blasphemer Apr 2016 #235

Gun store owners and dealers should at least be held liable LiberalFighter Apr 2016 #116

I'm more inclined to agree with this Blue_In_AK Apr 2016 #124

What do you mean by "due diligence doing a background check?" branford Apr 2016 #161

Agreed. If they failed to conduct a proper check... Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #167

Agreeing with Sanders on this one. n/t Yo_Mama Apr 2016 #118

Looks like Hillary's running out of issues. jalan48 Apr 2016 #120

so a knife maker wildbilln864 Apr 2016 #127

Talking Through His Grief corbettkroehler Apr 2016 #128

The hypocritical argument that Bernie didn't vote for the wars, Loki Apr 2016 #130

Throwing Out the Baby with the Bath Water mckara Apr 2016 #138

Seriously? This is your argument? Was it supposed to be funny? nt Native Apr 2016 #145

It's an Extreme Example, But What's the Difference... mckara Apr 2016 #164

The bottom line for suing gun manufacturers because of the criminal misuse ... spin Apr 2016 #150

Bernie Bombs in NYDN Editorial Meeting, Reveals Just How Substance-Free His Campaign Is Sir Lurksalot Apr 2016 #155

Child dies from neglect... ConsiderThis_2016 Apr 2016 #168

I'm sorry, but manfactuerers are NOT responsible for what people do with their guns. Odin2005 Apr 2016 #183

What a clumsy hit piece. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2016 #193

Is he one of the $uper delegates. notadmblnd Apr 2016 #203

Being able to hold... deathrind Apr 2016 #210

Fortunately this isnt a viewpoint that is held in comminality among the electorate... Earth_First Apr 2016 #234