2016 Postmortem

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

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

Reply to Duckhunter935 (Reply #117)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 12:52 AM

Jan 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

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