2016 Postmortem

krispos42

(49,445 posts)

190. Nobody that owns a gun for self-defense will trust a fingerprint reading gun.

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:51 PM

Mar 2016

Too much that goes wrong.

There might be other ways to do it, but nobody is clamoring for them. Not the cops, not the feds, and not the general public.

People that don't own guns and never will seem to be hot for them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

249 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary advocating suing gun manufacturers for shootings is ridiculous. If a person buys a gun [View all] JRLeft Mar 2016 OP

That is precisely why the law as it is today prevents COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #1

There would be lawsuits all of the time. JRLeft Mar 2016 #3

Yep. nt COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #5

Thank you, it's absolutely absurd. JRLeft Mar 2016 #7

Precisely. This is why Secretary Clinton is on the wrong side of this issue. n/t Stand and Fight Mar 2016 #59

It would be identical from an ethics standpoint of suing a kitchen knife ladjf Mar 2016 #2

It is, but it is the wet dream of those who want to get rid of all guns. JRLeft Mar 2016 #4

We need guns for some valid reasons. But, we will become more accurate in the ladjf Mar 2016 #13

It is my opinion that a lot of gun violence will go away with improved quality of life. JRLeft Mar 2016 #15

It's a right not a privilege Press Virginia Mar 2016 #177

I disagree. PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #171

Thank goodness, what you want will never come to fruition. JRLeft Mar 2016 #182

Again, I disagree. PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #185

Good luck with that. The democratic would be decimated in an election. JRLeft Mar 2016 #194

You are entitled to your opinion but the notion of banning all guns is frightening to me. AgadorSparticus Mar 2016 #202

Gun haters want guns taken away no matter what. JRLeft Mar 2016 #207

You are probably right. It bugs me, though and I am not even a gun owner. AgadorSparticus Mar 2016 #212

A lot of gun deaths are from illegal guns. States like California and Illinois have very strict JRLeft Mar 2016 #213

My point exactly! That criminal element will always get the guns AgadorSparticus Mar 2016 #218

The gun laws are there to make people feel better. If someone wants a gun bad enough it's not hard JRLeft Mar 2016 #219

Exactly. I think addressing education, economics, mental health, gang violence AgadorSparticus Mar 2016 #221

Agreed, a better quality of life would have the biggest impact on violence. JRLeft Mar 2016 #222

It's the only thing she can cling to in a Dem debate, because she is significantly Svafa Mar 2016 #16

She's antagonizing gun owners like myself. JRLeft Mar 2016 #19

Don't worry though! if she gets the nomination, Svafa Mar 2016 #52

I hope so, threats like that one will be a down ticket disaster. JRLeft Mar 2016 #142

I don't even own a gun and I find that offensive. Nt AgadorSparticus Mar 2016 #203

If kitchen knives were designed to kill... scscholar Mar 2016 #79

I anticipated that someone would make your point and it's a good one. ladjf Mar 2016 #81

Thank you, a ton knives are made to kill people. JRLeft Mar 2016 #102

A machete is not designed to kill but as a tool for jobs like clearing brush. ... spin Mar 2016 #227

For some people hunting is their only source for food. JRLeft Mar 2016 #235

I live in one of the poorest counties in my state. ... spin Mar 2016 #249

Guns aren't designed to kill HoustonDave Mar 2016 #246

What has this got to do with the primaries? Vincardog Mar 2016 #6

Hillary's campaign looks to start making a big deal out of Bernie's vote on this. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #11

Especially in PA, OH, and Mich. JRLeft Mar 2016 #14

No kidding. Go after guns in hunting states. Great idea, Hill. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #18

Most have the attention of a gnat and she knows it. JRLeft Mar 2016 #23

Additionally TM99 Mar 2016 #8

Yea, I don't agree with being able to sue a manufacturer bigwillq Mar 2016 #9

Of course. And that's why that law is a good one. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #10

If they made that into a law. Gwhittey Mar 2016 #12

The lawsuit has no merit and she knows it. She is supporting it to score political points. Vattel Mar 2016 #17

I think she knows this, judging by her lobbyist donors. Eleanors38 Mar 2016 #20

She should continue to advocate this. It will go over well in many of the western states Autumn Mar 2016 #21

She will lose the election in the fall if she's the nominee. JRLeft Mar 2016 #45

Yes she will. Autumn Mar 2016 #53

Yes. She jumped the shark last night and it will cost her dearly. Cowpunk Mar 2016 #208

At the least she cost some Democrat a seat for being pro gun grabbing. JRLeft Mar 2016 #210

As a person who would be OK with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment -- Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #22

Exactly, the fact she could advocate for repeal gives me a reason not to vote for her. JRLeft Mar 2016 #25

Agree and though I support the 2nd amendment I do believe their are better ways to regulate guns. Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #33

I do too, but most democrats advocate banning some or all guns. JRLeft Mar 2016 #37

I dont' think you should ban guns. hollowdweller Mar 2016 #91

Against banning high capacity weapons. It's fun to shoot such weapons. JRLeft Mar 2016 #105

That would be difficult to do now Mnpaul Mar 2016 #119

They're illegal in California. JRLeft Mar 2016 #128

Anything made during the ban is now legal Travis_0004 Mar 2016 #131

Thanks for pointing that out Mnpaul Mar 2016 #138

I'm going to Arizona to get licensed there, I'm buying a home out there. JRLeft Mar 2016 #140

Yeah like how hard right people think they can ban abortions. PyaarRevolution Mar 2016 #113

Both are preposterous. JRLeft Mar 2016 #115

Truth!! AgadorSparticus Mar 2016 #206

this is why there 6 exceptions Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #126

Those lawsuits would be justified IMO. JRLeft Mar 2016 #129

As I understand it..... LAS14 Mar 2016 #24

She needs to move on from guns. She's knows nothing about them. JRLeft Mar 2016 #26

Yes, that's it Dem2 Mar 2016 #29

Tell her to persue taking away all guns in the general election. JRLeft Mar 2016 #34

Like all cars were taken away Dem2 Mar 2016 #90

She's the one that implied it. JRLeft Mar 2016 #101

Then put a speed governor on every car so that no one can drive more than 25 miles per hour. Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #30

so would they be sued Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #127

Nobody that owns a gun for self-defense will trust a fingerprint reading gun. krispos42 Mar 2016 #190

They know guns are being used to unlawfully kill people. MillennialDem Mar 2016 #27

So are knives, hammers, and dozens of other things. Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #28

^ This JRLeft Mar 2016 #40

Guns have no other purpose besides killing animals and practice killing (ie shooting paper targets MillennialDem Mar 2016 #41

People will kill people no matter what. Getting rid of guns won't change that. JRLeft Mar 2016 #43

They will be less likely to kill others. This has been evidenced by homicide studies in MillennialDem Mar 2016 #46

Canadians have a lot of gun owners too and they don't have nearly the gun deaths JRLeft Mar 2016 #50

Canada has 1/4 the guns per capita the US does. MillennialDem Mar 2016 #55

But nowhere near that fraction of gun deaths. That's 1/10. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #60

There are OTHER factors of course. When did I say guns were the only factor? MillennialDem Mar 2016 #63

Not claiming you did. Just pointing out an interesting difference in those comparative rates. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #77

A lower quality of life than Canada. JRLeft Mar 2016 #100

I shoot paper (and steel) targets at least once per week. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #71

Yes guns are about practice killing. And I don't carry a gun and I've never hurt another human MillennialDem Mar 2016 #73

Gee, nice refutation of my several points. /smh Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #95

No, I just disagree with you regarding practice killing MillennialDem Mar 2016 #198

Your fear does not change liability law. jeff47 Mar 2016 #74

You assume I'm a believer in the law. I'm not. Guns must be destroyed for the MillennialDem Mar 2016 #78

You're attempting to use "the law" to get the result you want. jeff47 Mar 2016 #82

The law is only a tool to enact it. I would utilize other ways if they were more practical. MillennialDem Mar 2016 #84

What other ways? Press Virginia Mar 2016 #87

Except the law can not enact your goal jeff47 Mar 2016 #88

Sounds like meeting the gun nuts where they would meet us anyway, which means MillennialDem Mar 2016 #199

Not true, a gun's purpose for many is self defense. That is the purpose. It does this through Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #149

Hollow points are actually safer Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #130

This seems to go along with her statement about fracking starroute Mar 2016 #31

She's flat out pro fracking, that was her way of talking around the issue. JRLeft Mar 2016 #36

I'm amused by all of the highly progressive folks in this thread who are soft/conservative on guns. LonePirate Mar 2016 #32

Not everyone is for taking away guns. Some of us are members of the NRA. JRLeft Mar 2016 #35

And that is perfectly fine so long as you realize that is not the progressive stance on the issue. LonePirate Mar 2016 #38

If the Democrats ever run on complete gun confiscation, they would get JRLeft Mar 2016 #42

So Dems should only run on positions that are popular and not what's best for America? LonePirate Mar 2016 #94

Hillary should stop shilling for Wall Street and actually help people. She only gives a damn about JRLeft Mar 2016 #109

Progressive is empowering the people. hollowdweller Mar 2016 #89

Just to be clear: are you suggesting that "progressive" means trusting the police jonno99 Mar 2016 #99

The police give us ample reason to be armed. JRLeft Mar 2016 #110

I'm sure glad I'm not a progressive Mnpaul Mar 2016 #120

Where do you stand on this issue? JRLeft Mar 2016 #132

Against the bill Mnpaul Mar 2016 #136

Thanks, Hillary was being disingenuous. JRLeft Mar 2016 #144

I've done hundreds of background checks Mnpaul Mar 2016 #148

I with you JRLeft Mar 2016 #151

I think there's a difference between Democratic stance and progressive stance. Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #152

I think personal bias sometimes colors what we think is progressive n/t kcr Mar 2016 #160

I agree, you prefer to be on the wrong side of the issue. JRLeft Mar 2016 #166

What, the issue of lawsuits? n/t kcr Mar 2016 #167

You come off as anti gun. JRLeft Mar 2016 #168

I'd like to know how that's possible given I haven't said one word in this thread kcr Mar 2016 #169

Maybe I was wrong. JRLeft Mar 2016 #173

Maybe. I don't know how anti-gun you would think my position is kcr Mar 2016 #176

I can respect that. JRLeft Mar 2016 #180

Probably. Is there a rulebook somewhere? Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #178

Do you think there is? kcr Mar 2016 #181

Handing over a monopoly on the projection of armed power to a racist oligarchy is "progressive"? Marengo Mar 2016 #215

Because a lot not most progressives have guns... Kalidurga Mar 2016 #39

So if I support Bernie on practically every issue except for guns, then I should not support him? LonePirate Mar 2016 #49

I have no idea what you are trying to get at Kalidurga Mar 2016 #57

You found my avatar amusing in the context of me essentially saying Bernie is soft on guns. LonePirate Mar 2016 #66

You don't get it Kalidurga Mar 2016 #70

Then you find my post amusing and not my avatar. Specifics are hard!!! LonePirate Mar 2016 #72

I find what you think you are communicating amusing and that is from a holistic Kalidurga Mar 2016 #76

No true progressive would argue for special protections for any industry kcr Mar 2016 #51

Well said! I am in complete agreement. LonePirate Mar 2016 #54

They already were immune, in that the cases could not be won. jeff47 Mar 2016 #80

It's still no excuse to support a law that protects a corporation from lawsuits. kcr Mar 2016 #83

The law you loathe actually retains "consumer protectionism" jeff47 Mar 2016 #86

Who decides what they're liable for? How is that supposed to be decided? kcr Mar 2016 #96

If someone is killed with a phone should that phone maker be sued? JRLeft Mar 2016 #133

If the family wants to sue them. kcr Mar 2016 #154

It's a ridiculous fuckin lawsuit. JRLeft Mar 2016 #156

Oh fucking well kcr Mar 2016 #157

seriously? HoustonDave Mar 2016 #248

True Progressives support the Bill of Rights. nt hack89 Mar 2016 #65

True progressives brought us a whole host of amendments: 13th, 17th, 19th, 26th, et al. LonePirate Mar 2016 #68

Why not try to repeal the RKBA portion of the Democratic Party platform first? hack89 Mar 2016 #69

It would be anti American. JRLeft Mar 2016 #111

So the 1st, 2d and 4th TeddyR Mar 2016 #121

Not to gun haters. JRLeft Mar 2016 #145

Where might I find the platform of the "true progressive"? Marengo Mar 2016 #214

Keep fighting to stop citizens access to court. Nt NCTraveler Mar 2016 #44

I agree, guns are legal. Logical Mar 2016 #47

"Ending the gun industry's legal immunity is an important step in tackling the epidemic of gun ecstatic Mar 2016 #48

If a gun has a design flaw, you can sue the manufacturer. Travis_0004 Mar 2016 #134

Hillary Supporter here... I agree with you. n/t Stand and Fight Mar 2016 #56

Ok, so let's hold manufacturers and sellers responsible Mufaddal Mar 2016 #58

^^^This^^^ panader0 Mar 2016 #107

It's OK because those guns kill Muslims. JRLeft Mar 2016 #112

There is Smart Gun technology that gun manufactures resisted... timlot Mar 2016 #61

You know very well why they resisted hack89 Mar 2016 #67

The history of the NRA opposing any gun regulations mythology Mar 2016 #97

Ironically, that was the case exactly. noamnety Mar 2016 #75

because they do not work Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #141

There wasn't a market for that stuff. krispos42 Mar 2016 #196

There wasn't a market for seat belts either YCHDT Mar 2016 #237

That's not a useful analogy. krispos42 Mar 2016 #242

Seat belts are mechanically simple like guns - that is why they are reliable. hack89 Mar 2016 #244

A sound bite she knows will never happen katsy Mar 2016 #62

Here you go! wildeyed Mar 2016 #64

I was thinking something similar. If a jerk of a husband got in his Jarqui Mar 2016 #98

I think civilians injured during US bombing raids overseas should be able to sue WDIM Mar 2016 #85

Also sue cluster bomb manufacturers and legislators who voted to enable them Jim Lane Mar 2016 #93

She is a war profiteer and beholden to the MIC. WDIM Mar 2016 #231

Hell no she wouldn't. JRLeft Mar 2016 #114

if a person buys tobacco, should that company be sued? DrDan Mar 2016 #92

No JRLeft Mar 2016 #116

The tobacco industry was sued (and rightfully so). RichVRichV Mar 2016 #192

Read something about majority of gun deaths suicides silenttigersong Mar 2016 #103

Last night H said there are 92 deaths a day using guns. marew Mar 2016 #106

Yep - Japan has a much higher rate of suicide than the US - and WAY fewer fire-arms...nt jonno99 Mar 2016 #123

Exactly! marew Mar 2016 #104

Well lets see -- manufacturers run ads that appeal to yahoos' baser instincts, support racist Hoyt Mar 2016 #108

The NRA is a great way to get deals on guns, knives, and ammo. JRLeft Mar 2016 #117

Support national racists. Nice. Hoyt Mar 2016 #118

Let me know when you're in favor of banning hip-hop. Or do you support cop-killing and misogyny? jonno99 Mar 2016 #124

The poster above is so anti gun, he/she is blinded about why people JRLeft Mar 2016 #135

Did I miss the story TeddyR Mar 2016 #122

This message was self-deleted by its author cyberpj Mar 2016 #125

Why do the gun manufactures need a law that says they can't be sued? itsrobert Mar 2016 #137

it is called SLAAP suits Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #143

Brilliant! kcr Mar 2016 #155

That kind of corporation deserves special protection BainsBane Mar 2016 #139

how is a firearm manufacturer Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #146

Right, if someone slits their wrists with a blade, should the blade maker JRLeft Mar 2016 #150

I'm sorry, but your argument would open up lawsuits for just about anything. JRLeft Mar 2016 #147

Do you know that a lady sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself? kcr Mar 2016 #158

did she sue the coffee bean Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #159

Given I wasn't responding to you kcr Mar 2016 #161

the point still applies Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #164

No, because of the context of a discussion I was having with another DUer. kcr Mar 2016 #165

How fuckin ridiculous that she won. Unless the cup was defective. JRLeft Mar 2016 #162

But I hardly think we can wonder at how much our legal system can be opened up to lawsuits kcr Mar 2016 #163

The lawsuit was still ridiculous. JRLeft Mar 2016 #170

See? I called it. kcr Mar 2016 #172

It's true. LMFAO! JRLeft Mar 2016 #174

Did you see the burns on her legs? MattP Mar 2016 #183

There must have been a design flaw on the cup. JRLeft Mar 2016 #186

And the temp was so hot third degree burns MattP Mar 2016 #188

She wanted just hospital bills they refused MattP Mar 2016 #191

That's completely different. Her lawsuit made sense. JRLeft Mar 2016 #197

I know kcr Mar 2016 #189

Yeap, Wall Street and coporations bad ........... except for MIC corps and gun manufacturers YCHDT Mar 2016 #238

Agreed. Shadowflash Mar 2016 #153

Would you blame mass murderers on guns or on society? JRLeft Mar 2016 #175

And what if the suit wins? Ken Burch Mar 2016 #179

Blaming guns for murders are dumb, guns don't fire themselves. JRLeft Mar 2016 #184

Giving blanket immunity is insane and only one industry has it MattP Mar 2016 #187

It's not blanket immunity though. JRLeft Mar 2016 #209

Exactly. Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #193

HRC: We were trying to pressure gun makers moondust Mar 2016 #195

I am ACTUALLY a fan of a strict liability approach to guns; HOWEVER... basselope Mar 2016 #200

This message was self-deleted by its author Freelancer Mar 2016 #201

This message was self-deleted by its author Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #228

In the 1990s, the Commerce Department shut down the "ring of fire" gunmakers Recursion Mar 2016 #204

If only cigarette manufacturers convinced Republicans to pass soch a law. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #205

People are using this issue to attempt to ban all guns. I say hell no to that. JRLeft Mar 2016 #211

It is used to protect the profits of large corporations who make a living over dead innocents. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #220

How does your gun laws prevent someone from acquiring a illegal gun. JRLeft Mar 2016 #223

How do laws against theft keep people from stealing. They don't. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #225

Really, homie I'm from Oakland, CA my city and state has strict gun laws, last year my friend JRLeft Mar 2016 #232

Now we will discuss the fact that guns are not being outlawed. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #239

Suing the manufacturer for what someone else has done is ridiculous. JRLeft Mar 2016 #240

Well, now, lets the courts decide that. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #243

I tend to disagree with sanders on the gun issue. beedle Mar 2016 #216

How will stronger gun laws stop illegal guns from flowing in this country? JRLeft Mar 2016 #217

The same way it has reduced beedle Mar 2016 #241

The 2nd amendment ain't going no where. JRLeft Mar 2016 #245

And therein lies the problem. n/t beedle Mar 2016 #247

I think I agree with you dana_b Mar 2016 #226

Her whole campaign is based on two or three Sanders votes over a thirty year period. AgingAmerican Mar 2016 #224

I'm torn on the issue. While I don't feel the gun manufacturers are at fault. raouldukelives Mar 2016 #229

Those lawsuits are not about individual shootings. alarimer Mar 2016 #230

A lot of illegal guns aren't made in the USA. JRLeft Mar 2016 #234

The whole thing is about giving an entire industry blanket immunity. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #233

The law doesn't protect them from defective products though. JRLeft Mar 2016 #236