Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumNRA Praises Sanders' Comments On Gun Manufacturer Liability
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nra-praises-sanders-gun-manufacturer-liability'The National Rifle Associated tweeted Monday that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was "spot-on" when he said that gun manufacturers should not be liable for crimes committed with their products.'
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)The PLCAA was enacted in 2005. Product liability laws did not put gun manufacturers out of business before there was any PLCAA - not even close. The reason gun manufacturers wanted that law was because the NRA got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire in 2004, so they were gearing up to sell lots of military style weapons designed for rapid mass killing on the battlefield -- and would be marketing them to unhinged civilians. They wanted to escape liability for this obviously negligent behavior and Sanders was happy to help them out.
So, thanks to Sanders vote, gun manufacturers flooded the country with ridiculously dangerous military style weapons, using irresponsible ads like this:
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)I'm sure he'll condemn that corporatist entity.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Tep64
(2 posts)In following the "logic" of holding the gun manufacturer's and gun shops liable for the illegal use of their products, should not the pharmaceutical manufacturers, and people who have their narcotics stolen by friends/family who are addicts be liable for the heroin epidemic?
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)another incredible leap in logic.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)I know this won't be popular here, but I agree with Senator Sanders on this one. I just think his approach to answering it was round about and clumsy.
Satch59
(1,353 posts)Don't think gun manufacturers or gun stores can be held libel if a gun was purchased legally BUT he could have danced around it by saying he wasn't sure if those parents could win a lawsuit but they have every right to sue and bring attention to the horror of assault weapons.
He showed no empathy for those poor parents...it was dry and didn't come off well at all...
It was not a good debate from Bernie overall: the yelling, finger pointing, ghetto comment...and he can back pedal on the auto industry vote: but truth is he didn't vote for it. AND I thought he contridictated himself when saying the crime bill had some good things and some bad but he voted for it...wasn't the bailout the same?
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)kjones
(1,053 posts)It's such a strange question, really, and it's in such a strange legal area.
I don't know...
but it's always been his other gun votes that bugged me more anyway.
mcar
(42,309 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)spooky3
(34,446 posts)When both were Senators, part of their job was to represent the interests of their constituents in addition to taking into account their own judgment about what is right - in Bernie's case, Vermont gun owners, and in Hillary's case, New York City finance employees. So, she had more of an obligation to think about "Wall Street's Interests" than did the typical senator. This point almost never seems to be mentioned.
wysi
(1,512 posts)... in a nutshell, is all you need to know.