Latest Breaking News

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)

21. Actually, I don't regard it either way

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 07:38 PM

Dec 2015

Manufacturers should not be liable for criminal use of their products. Nikon doesn't get lawsuits because some freakshow uses their camera to take pictures of kiddy porn. Toyota is not liable if someone plots a pickup through a Christmas parade. Dran-O isn't liable if someone uses their lye in an "honor-burning."

That said, there didn't exactly need to be a law preventing it, either, since such claims are pretty universally thrown out of court.

Either way Sanders voted is functionally meaningless. No manufacturer would be held liable anyway. No lives would be saved or lost beyond what's already the case.

Which is not something that can be said about Clinton's cluster bomb vote. Restrictign hteir use in civilian areas woudl spare a lot of lives and suffering. Refusing to trade them to other nations with lax standards would mean there would be a lot more yemenis and Lebanese people with intact limbs and families.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sanders: Gun control no "magic formula" for terrorism [View all] Attorney in Texas Dec 2015 OP

The mental health angle lancer78 Dec 2015 #1

I think mental health INSTEAD of sensible gun regulation is a right-wing talking point, but plenty Attorney in Texas Dec 2015 #2

No proposed gun laws lancer78 Dec 2015 #20

Stopped - probably not. Reduce death toll significantly - absolutely. Mopar151 Dec 2015 #28

"Reduce"... Only based on your preconceived notions Taitertots Dec 2015 #68

No it is not. TM99 Dec 2015 #4

No, the mental health angle is the correct angle zalinda Dec 2015 #7

There isn't just a single cause, and mental health does play a role. PersonNumber503602 Dec 2015 #45

I see Sanders is STILL defending his gun manufacturer immunity vote. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #3

So you believe that Kitchenaid should be sued for stabbing deaths? d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #6

Blenders weren't designed to kill mass amounts of people. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #9

Neither were guns d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #15

Yes, they were. Especially AR-15s with 100 round magazines. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #19

They're selling a weapon to the public that is allowed by LAW d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #37

No ar-15 comes with a 100 round magazine. beevul Dec 2015 #70

The U.S. Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004; the PLCAA was passed the next year. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #77

So what? N/T beevul Dec 2015 #80

Under this legislation, can someone sue thucythucy Dec 2015 #65

They can still be sued for selling guns to people who commit crimes d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #66

Thanks. Good to know. thucythucy Dec 2015 #74

How're those cluster bombs working out? Scootaloo Dec 2015 #8

Ask Bernie. He voted to pay for cluster bombs. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #10

Clinton voted against restricting their use in civilian areas Scootaloo Dec 2015 #11

If I was a Bernie supporter I would deflect from gun discussions too. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #12

I'm calling out your hypocrisy Scootaloo Dec 2015 #13

Seems to me you are the one displaying hypocrisy here. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #16

I'm not arguing that guns are good. Scootaloo Dec 2015 #17

So you admit Sanders' vote in favor of the PLCAA was bad? SunSeeker Dec 2015 #18

Actually, I don't regard it either way Scootaloo Dec 2015 #21

You are wrong. Those lawsuits were gaining taction. That is why the PLCAA was an NRA priority. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #22

Those SLAPP suits most certainly were NOT gaining traction, GGJohn Dec 2015 #24

GGJohn, I am QUOTING the PLCAA. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #31

The question is whether a manufacturer is liable for criminal use of their product Scootaloo Dec 2015 #25

I'm not "gyrating" a "special exception." I'm QUOTING the PLCAA.. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #29

Show me the quote. Scootaloo Dec 2015 #30

See post 19. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #32

That doesn't say anything that I haven't already covered. Scootaloo Dec 2015 #35

A car manufacturer would still be liable for defects even if driven criminally. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #38

See post 37. nt d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #40

Post 37 appears to admit I quoted the PLCAA correctly. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #41

Post 37 states the opposite of what you said d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #42

No, post 37 does not say I misquoted the PLCAA. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #43

You should google more d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #44

WTF? Neither of the NY labor law cases you cite involve statutory product liability immunity. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #47

You asked for it d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #48

No, read again. I asked for consumer product manufacturers that were bestowed the same immunity. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #49

I did say the Monsanto Protection Act d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #55

No, you only cited two irrelevant cases. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #57

Read section 735 of the act d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #67

I did. It does not affect nor even mention consumer product liability for any manufacturer. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #69

Now you're nit picking d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #71

No, I am giving words their actual meaning. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #76

Nonsense. beevul Dec 2015 #72

There is no legitimate consumer use for an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #78

Thats your opinion. beevul Dec 2015 #81

It's a shame, too, because that totally would've prevented these mass shootings. arcane1 Dec 2015 #33

You mean defending the US constitution? Guilty! n/t Old Union Guy Dec 2015 #50

No, he's defending gun manufacturers who sell shit that should not be in the hands of civilians. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #51

If they "shouldn't be in the hands of citizens," get a law passed to that effect. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #53

The courts are there for when the government fails to do its job. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #54

That's not remotely how the checks and balances are supposed to work. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #56

No, it's not. Courts are how we protect our environment and civil rights. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #58

The right to sue over actual product defects remains intact. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #59

False. Victims can't sue for military weapons sold irresponsibly to nuts. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #61

Um...I quite specifically said DEFECTIVE products. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #62

That IS a defective product: an unreasonably dangerous design and irresponsibly marketed. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #63

There are no " military weapons sold" to anyone in the civilian market... beevul Dec 2015 #73

An AR-15 with a 100 round magazine is a military weapon. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #75

The ar-15 regardless of magazine is no military weapon. beevul Dec 2015 #79

Agree with some of it, disagree on a couple of points madville Dec 2015 #5

France has some very restrictive christx30 Dec 2015 #36

Straw man laws TexasBushwhacker Dec 2015 #39

Sometimes the straw purchaser is a victim, too. JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2015 #52

I didn't that of that TexasBushwhacker Dec 2015 #60

Yup. Criminals will use any means necessary to get what they want. pablo_marmol Dec 2015 #64

This is why Bernie Sanders will be the next President of the United States. Major Hogwash Dec 2015 #14

I tend to like Sanders, but I'm not sure that will help him win PersonNumber503602 Dec 2015 #46

That sounds a lot like what the GOP says MaggieD Dec 2015 #23

Yep! leftofcool Dec 2015 #26

Sanders knows we have a long ways to go, not in his lifetime likely, before the randys1 Dec 2015 #27

Because terrorists might also hunt ... LannyDeVaney Dec 2015 #34