Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SunSeeker

(57,492 posts)
78. There is no legitimate consumer use for an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 06:21 PM
Dec 2015

You acknowledge as much by refusing to answer the question.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Sanders: Gun control no &...»Reply #78