2016 Postmortem

retrowire

(10,345 posts) Sun Jan 10, 2016, 08:09 PM Jan 2016

Bernie Sanders Supported Gun Company Immunity But Opposed it for FOOD INDUSTRIES. [View all]

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

131 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bernie Sanders Supported Gun Company Immunity But Opposed it for FOOD INDUSTRIES. [View all] retrowire Jan 2016 OP

I think everyone needs to eat as well Kalidurga Jan 2016 #1

Seems to me that if gun companies market weapons that prove manhood, good as a sniper rifles, are Hoyt Jan 2016 #2

Ridiculous, under what statute? dreamnightwind Jan 2016 #4

They obviously can't be sued because Gman Jan 2016 #8

Exactly. Hoyt Jan 2016 #11

If someone uses their car to kill another, the car company isn't responsible. If a food merchant rhett o rick Jan 2016 #12

Puhleeeezzzz... That's the old irrelevant right wing argument Gman Jan 2016 #14

If there is something wrong with the car that is due to the manufacturer's JDPriestly Jan 2016 #27

In this case there is something wrong with the manfucaturs intentions and thx to Sanders et al they uponit7771 Jan 2016 #59

yes they can Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #65

Not sued under all complaints other companies can be sued under, the spin on this is telling uponit7771 Jan 2016 #68

most other companies Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #72

Most other companies aren't openly trying to make a dangerous product more dangerous either... uponit7771 Jan 2016 #88

Riddle Me This - How Can A Firearm Be Made More Dangerous Than It Already Is cantbeserious Jan 2016 #100

By not applying all technologies to make it safer, Obama has proposed some already uponit7771 Jan 2016 #103

Riddle Me This - What Technologies Will Make Riffles Safer That Shoot The Same Ammunition cantbeserious Jan 2016 #108

they have indeed become safer Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #111

What do you mean by "can't be sued"? JDPriestly Jan 2016 #102

Can't be sued like all other manufactuers uponit7771 Jan 2016 #104

What are you talking about? JDPriestly Jan 2016 #106

gun companies are also the one Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #113

What if the marketed cars as a battering ram or put a big knife blade fin on the front? Hoyt Jan 2016 #77

+1 uponit7771 Jan 2016 #89

Thank you, Paka Jan 2016 #105

If a bar sells alcohol to somebody who is drunk and lets them leave mythology Jan 2016 #109

check the Wisconsin case Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #114

The poster is saying those ads are legitimate reasons for litigation dreamnightwind Jan 2016 #15

That poster makes the wrong argument Gman Jan 2016 #16

So you think they should be sued for making lethal self-defense products dreamnightwind Jan 2016 #18

Stop twisting it Gman Jan 2016 #20

No that is not twisting it dreamnightwind Jan 2016 #30

Regardless, our discussion here is why Gman Jan 2016 #32

So says you. Disagree re Sanders. dreamnightwind Jan 2016 #38

Are you not aware that guns are also used for recreation? nt retrowire Jan 2016 #36

That's mostly what I use my guns for Gman Jan 2016 #42

Alright then. retrowire Jan 2016 #53

The point is not the overall debate Gman Jan 2016 #62

Looks like you've degenerated as your talking points have failed. retrowire Jan 2016 #69

Nothing I said failed Gman Jan 2016 #73

What's to excuse? He's fine. retrowire Jan 2016 #74

The parents of Sandy Hook children had no recourse Gman Jan 2016 #80

is mention if sandy hook supposed to give gravity to your argument? retrowire Jan 2016 #92

Regardless, they have no recourse Gman Jan 2016 #93

Nothing aided them after the tragedy? retrowire Jan 2016 #96

They have no recourse in holding the gun manufacturer accountable Gman Jan 2016 #98

Tat is pure deflection! sadoldgirl Jan 2016 #84

So that means it's ok for Sanders to brag about his gun record Gman Jan 2016 #85

No, what is wrong is to propose a law, sadoldgirl Jan 2016 #90

Do you realize you're arguing that a judge can decide if a law is valid Gman Jan 2016 #91

Not if it goes to the SC, which we know sadoldgirl Jan 2016 #95

I that case someone has to specifically ask a court Gman Jan 2016 #97

No. If it weren't for the Second Amendment, you could make the manufacture JDPriestly Jan 2016 #39

All that's fine and dandy Gman Jan 2016 #47

lol your tactic is showing. retrowire Jan 2016 #63

And the gun industry agrees with you Gman Jan 2016 #66

Ha, where's my foam hat? retrowire Jan 2016 #71

I have been a gun owner for decades and have never killed a living thing hack89 Jan 2016 #41

So that makes Sanders OK on the gun issue? Gman Jan 2016 #48

yes Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #61

The Democratic nominee, whoever it might be, will be good for gun owners hack89 Jan 2016 #64

The seemingly mad scramble to use standard NRA arguments Gman Jan 2016 #70

Only if you assume that voters really care and that it will be an issue in the election hack89 Jan 2016 #120

Are you sure a gun you bought will never be used to kill or intimidate someone, even if next owner.? Hoyt Jan 2016 #78

Unlike you, I am not clairvoyant. hack89 Jan 2016 #121

Take that argument to the judge and see where it goes. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #112

That doesn't at all mean it's morally right Gman Jan 2016 #115

Are the liquor manufacturers liable when people drink their brews, drive JDPriestly Jan 2016 #116

the question is Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #117

I agree. That's why gun manufacturers are not liable either. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #118

And Bernie was right Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #119

You need to back up such an assertion! Voice for Peace Jan 2016 #33

Bernie has bragged about his D- rating from the NRA Art_from_Ark Jan 2016 #83

+1, well.. well... hollow point bullets are needed for the small rabbits with big claws and the deer uponit7771 Jan 2016 #55

A hollow point usually stays inside the criminal instead of going thru him, 7962 Jan 2016 #99

Bernie Sanders' D- rating from the NRA does not sound like much Douglas Carpenter Jan 2016 #110

Ah bull. Kentonio Jan 2016 #123

Sanders has never taken a dime from the NRA. How's that equate to "back pocket"? Scuba Jan 2016 #125

Bernie is in the NRA's "back pocket"? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #130

Product Liability. Of course, Sanders and others voted that doesn't apply to gun Hoyt Jan 2016 #10

Your own excerpt pretty much shows how ridiculous this is dreamnightwind Jan 2016 #17

Then, why did Sanders feel the law was necessary. Let the courts decide. Hoyt Jan 2016 #31

Let's apply strict liability to tobacco products and alcohol first. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #45

+1 uponit7771 Jan 2016 #51

Hillary was for guns before she was against them, but never against the Monsanto types. merrily Jan 2016 #3

exactly. retrowire Jan 2016 #19

Hell she even profited from sales of them while being a shareholder and sitting on the Snotcicles Jan 2016 #52

Strawman, no one is against guns just against not using good common sense in keeping people uponit7771 Jan 2016 #60

Are you kidding? It could not be more apples to apples Gman Jan 2016 #5

lmao retrowire Jan 2016 #23

Yeah, and since it's common for 2 year olds to read, Gman Jan 2016 #24

those labels are the industries protection. Sorry. retrowire Jan 2016 #26

Labels are an attempt at reducing the risk, not absolute protection. Hoyt Jan 2016 #34

No seriously, they're a liability protection. retrowire Jan 2016 #40

Plenty of cases where label means nothing in court. Hoyt Jan 2016 #81

Auto manufacturers are not responsible if someone uses a car to kill another. Manufacturers that rhett o rick Jan 2016 #29

Thanks For Explaining "Headlines" That Seem Negative, But ChiciB1 Jan 2016 #6

You present valid rebutable to the question if gun manufacters should be liable for the still_one Jan 2016 #7

There was a lot more in the Brady Bill than background checks. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #25

I was just bringing up in this political environment, reasons why this is a debatable subject. still_one Jan 2016 #37

Yep, and you are very right. However, I want to inject some nuance into the discussion of the Brady JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #44

understood. still_one Jan 2016 #54

1, 2, 4, 8, 9? /nt demwing Jan 2016 #127

2, 4, 5, 8, and maybe 7. /Nt JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #129

I really do not understand that gun immunity sadoldgirl Jan 2016 #9

Then there are tobacco products. They have no purpose whatsoever, JDPriestly Jan 2016 #101

When someone is stabbed to death with a banana Half-Century Man Jan 2016 #13

Even if they market it as so hard you can kill someone with it? Hoyt Jan 2016 #82

Well they market the terribly unhealthy cereals, sadoldgirl Jan 2016 #87

This is the only industry which has immnity, car companies do not Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #21

No car company is responsible for the sadoldgirl Jan 2016 #35

Again the only industry which has immunity is the gun industry. Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #49

Then explain to me, please, what that immunity consists of. sadoldgirl Jan 2016 #79

Because people will try and it is a huge waste of resources when we don't want that outcome. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #86

Thank you. Good clarification. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #22

Then, why did Sanders think the law was necessary? Probably because gunz are big in Vermont. Hoyt Jan 2016 #43

Hilary's dishonest prsuit of this nonsense fools Voice for Peace Jan 2016 #28

I pretty much agree dreamnightwind Jan 2016 #50

She is not in the minority of thinking, a large majority of Americans is Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #76

And the same can be said for Sanders, he is not fooling others. Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #57

Uhhhh... ???? nt retrowire Jan 2016 #75

About what? Voice for Peace Jan 2016 #122

Looks like another Hillary supporter found an old talking point paper under a rug... cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #46

Well maybe it'll stick! lol nt retrowire Jan 2016 #56

I've been to BernieSanders.com and studied his positions on gun control, NorthCarolina Jan 2016 #58

I agree with most Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #67

that's a banana and flat tire comparison stupidicus Jan 2016 #94

It is painfully obvious how the Clintons are trying to manipulate people Android3.14 Jan 2016 #107

Yes, exactly but some people are willfully ignorant aikoaiko Jan 2016 #124

So I guess that means... vi5 Jan 2016 #126

they most certainly are when they purposely send thousands of guns dsc Jan 2016 #128

Guns are made for killing. Food is not. Bernie is right. nt thereismore Jan 2016 #131