2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat do you think about Clinton and Sanders' positions (and records) on guns and gun control?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Bernie is right that the ultimate goal of the "interesting legal theory" Clinton mentioned was to end gun manufacturing in America. Congress acted to prevent that legal theory from being carried out which would have been an end-run around the 2nd amendment via attacking the supply side.
The Brady Bill had some good provisions and some really nasty ones too. Nobody talks much about how anti-LGBT the bill ended up being in practice.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)It is wrong not matter what side does it. I think that is why some are Alright with Hillary taking bribes from .01% and screwing over the middle and lower income people. They think oh she is (D) so it is alright because we have to beat the (R) even though they pass say crap every time.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Or is there some reason corporations that profit from killing should occupy a special, protected space in the capitalist economy?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)That you have no intention of considering the contradiction is promoting immunity for gun corporations alongside a campaign agenda that calls for supposed corporate accountability.
I think we can summarize this as whatever Bernie says goes regardless of the consequences.
I resent the fact that the corporate profits are routinely championed above the lives, safety, and rights of people in my community because some have decided the only thing that matters is one man's political prospects.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)And have no interest in engaging you in what you consider discussion. You simply are not worth my time.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)But when a Clinton supporter brings issues to be discussed, they don't want to "engage".
RANGERMAN89
(91 posts)Bernie has supported banning assault weapons since the 80's he has a d- from the NRA the bill about weapon manufacturer liability is ridiculous it would kill the industry basically nullifying the 2nd amendment I support his vote because unlike most senators when he makes a vote it isn't just what is politically expedient for him he weighs the pros and cons.....if only Hillary had that type of thinking during the Iraq war vote that cost me multiple friends.
How old are you? I remember when Hillary was a defender of gun rights and she was going to protect us from Obama.
RANGERMAN89
(91 posts)For Hillary's extreme stance on gun control(trying to kill the whole industry) because that was the whole point of the bill. Bernie would have to advocate for the total shut down of wall street and for everyone who made trades to be subject to legal action. Bernie Sanders platform is to get rid of the banks that caused the crash and are now the biggest donors of Hillary Clinton.
TheBlackAdder
(28,163 posts).
I owned a small farm in NJ, in a medium density area. We had State Police coverage at night.
You know, at night, when most people fuck with your farm animals and equipment.
If we called in an emergency call, it would take from 20 minutes to 1 hour for the police to respond.
The perps know that, unless you are in a high-tier comunity, police response will be 5-10 minutes or more.
====
A lot of shit can happen in 20 minutes, and this is freakin Central New Jersey, not the pine barrens!
====
Out in PA, and VT, or when I was in NH for a year, it would take police just as long to arrive!
.
RANGERMAN89
(91 posts)Pandering and if it doesn't work use scorched earth attacks that lack any real evidence or is just a total misrepresentation of the truth.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Especially because she made it the central issues of her campaign. It was almost like her "one issue".
Gun people vote. I think this could be big trouble.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)That I am more on Hillary's side.
Not enough to get my vote, but it is something.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)On issues he now agrees with her on.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)Gun control won't stop gun violence. It makes sense to ban types that allow mass numbers of rounds fired so that should also mean banning hi cap mags.
I've thought about this for along time and the only thing that makes sense to me is it's our society that encourages violence.
Hard to stop that, and gun control advocates are on the wrong track.
Stop the violence and gun control is unnecessary.
I come from the wild west so my position is a bit different than most dems I guess.
What about you?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)what a total non-surprise.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)How's that foot taste?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)wait a while and you'll see them pile up as the days go by...
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Irrelevant, but nice...
Gun control is toxic to Democrats on Election Day. If Hillary is actually stupid enough not to pivot away from it the moment she locks up the nomination, I'll be very surprised.
Hell, I'll be impressed, for all that I find her gun control positions too extreme. For her to stand on principle in the face of political disadvantage would be basically unprecedented.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,315 posts)Hillary in hunter-orange vest, elmer fudd hat, shouldering an antique, highly carved and inlaid side-by-side shotgun.
To show she's one of the people.
kcr
(15,313 posts)Gun control is a fight worth having. Bernie is wrong on this. He IS wrong on some things.
Sure we all believe in common sense gun control but manufacturer liability for weapons is insane! It would kill the industry overnight basically nullifying the 2nd amendment. Bernie is right were the America people are on gun control while Hillary is using that ridiculous bill to paint someone with a D- from the NRA as some pawn for the gun industry.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)No skin in the game, just rude comments. If someone disagrees with you they're obviously a troll.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)most here aren't, they just don't agree on everything.
as for you, you say, practically in a footnote or parenthetical that you support gun control, but you spend almost all your breath saying those favoring gun control have it wrong (even though they support what you claim to support).
which gives you a chance to bandy the "gun grabber" argument around while seeming to put yourself in agreement with the very people you are criticizing.
eventually it will out more obviously. the Clinton stuff you posted combined with this novel (you think) approach to discussing gun control is betraying you.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)If you would use critical thought instead of knee jerk reaction you might be able to discern the truth about this issue.
Even Michael Moore acknowledges it isn't the guns, if you would actually watch 'Bowling for Columbine' and pay attention to his example of our northern neighbors.
Bernie has it right. Canadians have plenty of guns, as many as we do per person. But they never advocate for stupid brain dead ideas like open carry to one extreme or strict gun laws on the other.
I wonder why?
Yes, they limit some types of weapons civilians can own without proper licenses like the ones I mentioned above.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You realize I was responding to Creek Dog's false statement, right? Not to you in any way?
FYI: second-amendment supporter and active competition shooter here. And fairly good at critical thought...or at least that Philosophy doctorate says so.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)I'm not a competition shooter, but my father was probably the best hunter I've ever seen, and I have some very sophisticated hunting firearms. He was from the depression days and the family didn't eat if he didn't get the meat. Now we either butcher a cow (have a small family ranch and raise the things) or purchase it and I haven't hunted in decades.
I personally don't think firearm restrictions will ever work. It's not the guns, it's the society. We've got to change our concept of 'might is right'.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)While I think certain regulations do help a bit, severely restricting guns is never going to put a real dent in the problem (and would cause far more harm than would be prevented). That can't happen until root causes are addressed.
FWIW, I don't hunt either...not my thing.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)Look at Trevon Martin. (I sure hope I spelled his name correctly.) Afraid? Kill it. Worried? Kill it.
It HAS to stop. It isn't the guns, it's the 'might is right' zombies. (Sorry for comparing zombies to something as horrible as these freaks.)
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)meaning you oppose hunting which is not done for food?
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)though I'm really not qualified to opine.
It's part of your culture, and, in parts, you have a lot of potentially dangerous wilderness over there, right?
Limit & control the more military types of weapons, obviously, and open carry.
For the rest, to quote José Mujica: education, education, education.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)Are we talking about New York or Los Angeles? Our 'wilderness' is actually pretty tame except for Alaska which is on another planet. We get cougars on the ranch occasionally, but we just leave them alone. They have to make a living, too. Cows we got, cougars not so much anymore.
You're as qualified as anyone else on this. It's an issue that doesn't have a real answer as far as I can tell. the more input to solutions, the better.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Sure, no reason normally why big predators should endanger people unless provoked, leaving aside the likes of Alaska (and large parts of Canada, perhaps), and maybe some Southern swamps? And I'm happy to hear of big cats and others in their home ranges being left in peace.
Education. Invest in good quality free-at-the-point-of-use (as healthcare should be) education
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)(I'm on the Android phone small screen, so I'm not seeing avatars).
I've always felt very protective of mountain lions... without ever having been anywhere near their territory.
No threats where I grew up (British Isles), except the viper (and some humans). Wild boar can be problematic in mainland Spain (and European wolves have been succesfully reintroduced there!).
I've never been anywhere where guns are common, except Switzerland.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)I was walking home up a valley and heard a noise beside me.
Female puma (mountain lion or cougar) was RIGHT there, not three feet away.
We just looked at each other and walked off. Well, I must admit I was scared shitless, but I managed not to panic.
If you get posted pictures:
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)A magic moment. That mutual look in the eyes. Equipoise.
Thanks.
And a fine animal, the wolf. Thanks again for the food for thought.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)LOL. Another country maybe, but not another planet.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)in Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado that are on another planet.
Like Alamosa and Chama. Their weather is similar to Mars.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'm a bit on the outside as I have evolved into a flat out "gun grabber" the last couple of years.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)A strongly pro-gun-control voter who nevertheless recognizes the anti-democratic stupidity of nuisance lawsuits as an end-around being unable to get legislation enacted would logically prefer Bernie.
hack89
(39,171 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Im sure it will change as focus groups advise.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)What's it like to support the corrupt candidate?
Vinca
(50,236 posts)I don't see how a manufacturer or gun shop owner can be held liable for a legally purchased, nondefective gun used in a crime. You don't sue Toyota if a Corolla is used as a getaway car. My preference would be no guns at all anywhere, but since the Heller decision is law that will never happen so people might as well face the reality of the situation.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)In those cases, liability is determined by courts. Clearly the calculus for the corporate immunity for gun makers and sellers is that their profits are too important to be encumbered by the rights of mere citizens to petition the courts. The law has also been used to protect gun corporations from a wide range of activity that the NRA interpretation that is now repeated constantly by "progressives" does not acknowledge, like knowingly providing weapons to illegal arms dealers.
Additionally, that isn't the only different. He voted multiple times against the Brady Bill, always votes for any waiting period for background checks (hence his emphasis on instant background checks), and voted to allow loaded guns in state parks, on Amtrack, and in cockpits.
Additionally, he has voted to prohibit federal funds being used to conduct research on firearms. That is a key point for the gun lobby because research has a tendency of showing that guns kill.
Their voting records are available for any citizen who decides they want to inform themselves on issues. http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns#.VvAYXfkrI2w
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton/37/guns#.VvAYkfkrI2w
The difference is one candidate stands for gun control and the other stands with the gun lobby. Their voting records make that abundantly clear.
Vinca
(50,236 posts)Given the amount of gun violence in the country, none of them could stay in business if they were constantly defending themselves from lawsuits. The immunity isn't "blanket." If there is anything illegal in the transaction or any defect in the product, they can still be sued. You really shouldn't lump votes for bills all together and say because someone voted for or against a bill it was for or against whatever your current cause is. These aren't "stand alone" bills. There could be other issues like human trafficking or aid to flood victims or a million other things stuffed into the bill that deserves to be passed.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)I may be wrong, but I think the idea is to make the gun owner liable for damages, not the manufacturers. In that case, it is exactly like liability on your car. Run over someone or cause damage or injuries in a wreck, and you're liable both civil and criminal.
I've got mixed feelings about this idea. How would this help anything in one of those dumb shit 'stand your ground' states? They've legislated permission for use.
KPN
(15,635 posts)where I side with Hillary over Bernie.
I understand Bernie's concern and position, but things have gotten so bad, we need to take a really hard line against the industry and NRA. If they won't hold themselves accountable, we have no other option in my mind. I frankly don't think removing their immunity will spell the end of gun manufacturing. It hasn't done that in the case of cigarettes, alcohol, or prescription drugs.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)an automobile, or whatever manufactured item to do harm to another person, manufacturers can be succesfully sued?
Surely not.
Now, supplying with knowledge or reason to believe the item will be so used: that's different.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)More safer cause they're immunized from lawsuits to any degree
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Make that a requirement, especially to avoid accidents, for sure.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... Most, not all
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)uponit7771
(90,301 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The only suits prohibited are "nuisance suits" where the suit somehow expects* the manufacturer to have influence over what happens to the product multiple steps removed from them in the distribution chain.
*There is, of course, no such actual expectation...it's just the basis for filing a suit intended to be no more than a way around the fact that the folk filing it can't win via the democratic process.
djean111
(14,255 posts)people in other countries.
So - bottom line for me - Hillary is a hypocrite about whatever position on gun control she is taking, at any point in her campaign.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Sanders seems much more serious about restricting our military's guns.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)for crimes committed with their product. If a gun malfunctions, then, yes, the manufacturer can be sued, just like any other product.
I do believe there should be a moratorium on the sale of certain types of weapons to the general public. And I believe that there should be strict background checks before any gun is purchased by anyone.
I personally don't have a gun in the house and never felt the need for one, but I'm probably in the minority in my state where many people have guns for hunting or for protection from wild animals.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)I worry about kids getting the food they need, and the clothing and shelter their families need ..
I worry about a generation of kids falling through the cracks because they cannot afford to attend college (like most all ALL students who could not afford college over the last 3 decades)
I worry about working families being unable to sustain a basic existence, thanks to the very effective wage suppression tactics that have the GOP right wingers and Third Way Democrats laughing all the way to the bank ...
Guns are a huge problem ... But, we have a huge problem with poor and middle class families unable to survive under the current system ... THAT needs to change quickly ...
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)The only place it matters is in red states like mine. Even dems are pro gun here, Bernie has a distinct advantage.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)four times. Voting to give immunity to one industry, why should one industry get immunity not afforded to other industries, these are two examples, there are more issues related to the gun industry.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Gun manufacturers are not immune from lawsuit - they can still be sued if they sell a defective product. The PLCAA protects manufacturers from lawsuit when someone purchases a gun, passes a background check, and then uses that gun to commit a crime. Or in the case of Sandy Hook, if someone steals a gun and then uses that gun to commit a crime. Why exactly should a gun manufacturer be subject to lawsuit if someone steals a gun and then shoots someone with it?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I don't think immunity means what you think it does. ALL manufacturers of ALL products have immunity if their product works as it's intended and isn't defective in some way. Car manufacturers can only be sued if a design defect causes the car to blow up, for instance. Drug manufacturers can be sued if their product has dangerous side effects that they knew about or should have known about and failed to disclose but not if someone has been advised of the dangers but takes a handful of the drugs instead of the recommended dose.
Gun manufacturers are the same. If the gun works as it is intended, the manufacturer can't be held liable if a person chooses to misuse the gun. A seller might be held to a stricter standard if he knows that the purchaser has failed a background check and he sells the weapon anyway, but manufacturers, no. They're too far removed from the end use.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)All industries have immunity if their product works as it was designed. You can sue a car manufacturer if you want to if someone crashes into you, but you won't get anywhere unless there was a design defect in the car. That's just basic tort and product liability law 101.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Killed in gun violence not able to sue the gun manufactures and sellers?
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)Did the manufacturer or seller send someone to kill their families?
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I worked in the legal biz for 30 years. It is what it is. THE LAW. Under equal protection, a gun manufacturer shouldn't be treated any differently than the manufacturer of any other product.
Back to the car analogy, do you think every time someone is killed in a car wreck, they should be able to sue the automobile manufacturer even if there was nothing at all wrong with the car?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Putting in a 160 mph speedometer and the horsepower to use the full dial is obviously encouraging reckless behavior.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)special military version of their D-9 bulldozer? Essentially for the same reason a gun manufacturer can not be sued for how a third party uses their product-it was not made specifically to go out and kill people.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Vote yes on the bill?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)result of the failure of the 2003 bill calling for an investigation into her death which went nowhere fast
http://www.nimn.org/About/pressrelease/000042.php?section=Press%20Releases
Waldorf
(654 posts)murder did.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)For criminal misuse of a perfectly legal product? That's absurd.
IndyV0te
(18 posts)The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution gives the people the right to own firearms.
If the people of a state want to restrict that basic ability, then let them pass legislation to do so. If you want to be subject to those restrictions then live there.
Zira
(1,054 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I support gun control...But I also think it is inherently ineffective in its stated purpose.