Holding gun makers accountable

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
So Hillary went all in during the debate last night saying gun makers should be held liable and should be able to be sued. Kind of shockingly Bernie said he disagreed and said it would end up essentially eliminating all gun makers in America. Hillary accused him of using a NRA talking point.

Maybe I'm wrong but I see it exactly as Bernie describes. Can anyone articulate to me how gun makers could be held liable yet not have all U.S. gun makers eliminated?
 
cawacko said:
So Hillary went all in during the debate last night saying gun makers should be held liable and should be able to be sued. Kind of shockingly Bernie said he disagreed and said it would end up essentially eliminating all gun makers in America. Hillary accused him of using a NRA talking point.

Maybe I'm wrong but I see it exactly as Bernie describes. Can anyone articulate to me how gun makers could be held liable yet not have all U.S. gun makers eliminated?
Click to expand...

While that may resonate with some of her supporters and give them a tingly feeling down their leg, this may be her undoing with a good amount of liberal gun owners.
 
Theoretically they could subsist on government contracts. Of course that ignores more than a few things, the largest of which being that most gun companies aren't owned or based in America. More over, these non-American companies are the ones that most often secure government contracts. Glock, FNH, Beretta, H&K. These are all European companies.
 
Vepr 12 said:
Theoretically they could subsist on government contracts. Of course that ignores more than a few things, the largest of which being that most gun companies aren't owned or based in America. More over, these non-American companies are the ones that most often secure government contracts. Glock, FNH, Beretta, H&K. These are all European companies.
Click to expand...

So is this essentially a back door way to eliminate guns by making it so no one sells them here? (other than to the government as you mentioned)
 
cawacko said:
So is this essentially a back door way to eliminate guns by making it so no one sells them here? (other than to the government as you mentioned)
Click to expand...

Yes. Of course, one could also sue them for government misuse as well....it'd make companies reluctant to sell to police of they were held liable for those actions as well.
 
Vepr 12 said:
Yes. Of course, one could also sue them for government misuse as well....it'd make companies reluctant to sell to police of they were held liable for those actions as well.
Click to expand...

you know, as well as I do, that there would most definitely be exemptions in the laws for any weapon sold to and used by a government agency being not applicable for holding gun manufacturers accountable.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
While that may resonate with some of her supporters and give them a tingly feeling down their leg, this may be her undoing with a good amount of liberal gun owners.
Click to expand...

Fuck liberal gun owners. They should have disarmed at those gun exchanges a few years ago.
 
Held liable for what? Is hillary saying every time someone is killed by a gun, the manufacturer should pay out a million bucks? We sure don't do that with cars even though car makers sell cars that do 3 times the legal speed limit!!!
 
cawacko said:
Can anyone articulate to me how gun makers could be held liable yet not have all U.S. gun makers eliminated?
Click to expand...

It would be complex legislation. The area that concerns most people is mass-murder by means of assault weapons . It shouldn't be in the least difficult to ensure that such weapons are available only to the military. That would be a good start.
 
moon2012 said:
It would be complex legislation. The area that concerns most people is mass-murder by means of assault weapons . It shouldn't be in the least difficult to ensure that such weapons are available only to the military. That would be a good start.
Click to expand...

Except that of any type of gun out there, military style "assault weapons" meet the 2nd Amendment protection criteria on all points:

For the possession and use of a type of gun to be protected (which means that any power claimed by government to restrict its possession and use must be invalidated) the gun must be of a type that is "part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" or that it is, "of the kind in common use [by the citizens] at the time".

That "assault weapons" are utilized in mass killings isn't a reason to ban them or allow them to be sued out of availability; the effectiveness of a gun in killing people is a prong of the protection criteria established by SCOTUS some 77 years ago.
 
Abatis said:
Except that of any type of gun out there, military style "assault weapons" meet the 2nd Amendment protection criteria on all points:

For the possession and use of a type of gun to be protected (which means that any power claimed by government to restrict its possession and use must be invalidated) the gun must be of a type that is "part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" or that it is, "of the kind in common use [by the citizens] at the time".

That "assault weapons" are utilized in mass killings isn't a reason to ban them or allow them to be sued out of availability; the effectiveness of a gun in killing people is a prong of the protection criteria established by SCOTUS some 77 years ago.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about gun laws, admittedly, but I'm very interested in human rights. I see gun possession as obstructing human rights, not enabling them- and so I'll do my best to oppose the possession of assault weapons by the public.

Federal law strictly regulates machine guns (firearms that fire many rounds of ammunition, without manual reloading, with a single pull of the trigger).

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm
How does that equate with your Second Amendment interpretation ?
 
cawacko said:
So Hillary went all in during the debate last night saying gun makers should be held liable and should be able to be sued. Kind of shockingly Bernie said he disagreed and said it would end up essentially eliminating all gun makers in America. Hillary accused him of using a NRA talking point.

Maybe I'm wrong but I see it exactly as Bernie describes. Can anyone articulate to me how gun makers could be held liable yet not have all U.S. gun makers eliminated?
Click to expand...

Too bad we can't sue politicians for stealing our money and doing incredibly stupid things with it.
 
I don't know why anyone would be shocked that a Liberal would come up with an incredibly stupid unconstitutional idea. That's what liberals do.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Held liable for what? Is hillary saying every time someone is killed by a gun, the manufacturer should pay out a million bucks? We sure don't do that with cars even though car makers sell cars that do 3 times the legal speed limit!!!
Click to expand...


I think any car-maker who set out to make a car so that people could kill with it should be locked away. Clearly the gun-makers and the NRA should be co-defendants in any murder trial: thy all have blood on their hands.
 
moon2012 said:
It would be complex legislation. The area that concerns most people is mass-murder by means of assault weapons . It shouldn't be in the least difficult to ensure that such weapons are available only to the military. That would be a good start.
Click to expand...
completely negating the intent of the 2nd Amendment. you wish for tyranny?
 
moon2012 said:
I don't know much about gun laws, admittedly, but I'm very interested in human rights. I see gun possession as obstructing human rights, not enabling them- and so I'll do my best to oppose the possession of assault weapons by the public.
Click to expand...
what about the human right of freedom?

moon2012 said:
Federal law strictly regulates machine guns (firearms that fire many rounds of ammunition, without manual reloading, with a single pull of the trigger).

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm
How does that equate with your Second Amendment interpretation ?
Click to expand...
it's an unconstitutional law that cowards who hate freedom approve of.
 
Guns are legal to manufacture. Once it leaves the manufacture's hands/plant/distribution -what happens is not the fault of manufacturers.

Much as I'd be happy not to see any guns in anyone's hands...it's all legal and protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Hillary is pandering *shocking*
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what about the human right of freedom?
Click to expand...

Sorry- but you just can't have your own fully-armed attack helicopter. It's a ' freedom ' you're going to have to live without- for the sake of everybody else's.

it's an unconstitutional law that cowards who hate freedom approve of.
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional ? I don't think so. See above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top