Shame on you

that would have been alerted. Then I realized this is bait.

Or any other time.

shooting was inappropriate. But, like he said, the NRA's got their press releases coming, and that's exactly what they are going to say.

Give it a fucking rest

voted for the horrible immunity bill. He's described gun control as elitist.

The NRA's go-to talking point in the wake of every mass shooting for the last 10 years has been to insist that talking about gun control is "politicizing a tragedy". And now you're saying the same thing. Congrats.

You're going way over the line here

it inconveniences Wayne LaPierre or Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz or anyone else.

To put a good man in the company of those assholes, and to use this horrific occasion to grind your axe - it just stinks.

to give the gun industry legal immunity.

about gun control after a mass shooting, write the president.

Disingenuous bullshit. Do you actually think you do your candidate any good with this shit?

He also voted against the Brady Bill. His record on gun control is horrible. If he was a Republican instead of Saint Bernie, I imagine you wouldn't have a problem holding him accountable for his votes at a time when the consequences of lax gun laws make themselves tragically clear.

that suing gun manufacturers is not the solution. If an individual commits a crime with a weapon, isn't it the individual that is responsible. However, there is absolutely no excuse for him voting against the Brady bill, and his supporters should acknowledge that.

If the weapons were obtained without the appropriate background checks, or the person was sold those weapons when he should not have been, that is an entirely different story. Not only should the seller be sued, but also is in violation of the law in that case.

If Congress would limit the capacity of gun clips, and ban certain types of weapons, and increase the background checks and waiting period, that would be a good start, though it still wouldn't eliminate all the mass shootings, it would eliminate some, and that is a good thing

The reason the NRA wanted this so bad is because lawsuits were actually starting to hold gun companies accountable from business practices that resulted in them profiting from gun violence, knowingly if not intentionally. Here's a post I made about it a while back.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629325

few personal attacks being leveled at you, when instead they should be discussing and debating the issue, not being so defensive that they have to throw out personal attacks

Used to it.

Can I sue them too.

Hell 7-11 sells me 24 at a time when 6 is more than anybody really needs. Lets sue them too.

their legal expenses.

I'm tired of NRA talking points on DU. Obama is a rare bird in DC, he knows how to cut through the NRA's bullshit.

I think Hillary would do the same.

Bernie? Not so much.

His record on gun control is pathetic.

And, yeah, Bernie's record on gun control is pretty bad. It's gotten a little better, likely when he set his eyes on the presidency, but still.

to avoid the issue when they know they are guilty. Now it's being used for the good of BS!

It's quite apparent there are many people who just can't face criticism of Bernie. Yet it was so necessary to criticize other politicians.

forum. In fact I would argue it is exactly the time to bring something like this up, when it is fresh in peoples mind so they can discuss whether certain things would or would not help stop the insanity, and where the candidates stand on it

It's also misleading to imply that Sanders is anti-gun control, but that's not even important compared to the fact that a tragedy is used to score cheap points, no matter what candidate.

that, why should gun manufacturers be sued for something that was done by an individual criminal act? Passing laws to increase waiting times, more intensive background checks, and limiting the capacity of gun clips along with making certain types of weapons illegal would be the approach that may not eliminate it, but would certain reduce its frequency

It's not just for asshole conservatives anymore.

If he was anti-gun control they would have a point but it's clear they're just pushing their own agenda.

was vote to forstall the only possible way we had to get any regulation of firearms and under a doctrine that for any other industry he would find laughable. Gun companies, and only gun companies, can't be sued or held liable in any way, shape or form for any conduct relative to the sales of their merchandise. Supply a million guns to a store outside of Chicago that everyone on the planet knows is selling guns to gun runners and its all good. Thanks to this law. Sell a ton of guns to gun stores in Virginia that sell thousands of guns to gun runners up and down the east coast, yet again, hunky dory thanks to this law. And yes, today is the abosultely correct day to point this out.

Now is the time to talk about legislators who fail in the gun control issue.

liable for the idiot controlling them.

..be clogged for many years. Not a gun lover but fair is fair.

Despite the clear attempt in the OP to link them.

But if the weapon was sold legally there is no reason why they should be held liable.

Besides the awful intent of this law, it's maddening to realize Bernie gave the NRA a gift and sided with protecting the gun industry.

You're going to have to make them illegal. There can be no repercussions for selling a legal product. Sanders is correct. We can put background checks and restrictions in place but until a Supreme Court ruling that differs significantly from previous ones comes along the 2nd amendment is in the way.

the gun industry a specific immunity that sellers of other products don't get? Shouldn't all industries be held to the same standard? Does Sanders support all of the right-wing's efforts on "tort reform", trying to make it more difficult to hold corporations accountable for their irresponsible actions? Or just gun manufacturers?

Automakers aren't sued for a drunk driver. You can't sue a mill for a paper cut. Bernies position is legally correct and consistant. Otherwise it will turn the legal system upside down.

Get rid of the guns.

America's litigiousness is not the proper way forward.

with Bernie's help. And by the way, the "litigiousness" thing is a straight right-wing talking point. They've been fighting for a long time to make it more difficult to hold corporations responsible for their actions, be it personal injury, environment, fraud, or whatever. Does Bernie support all the right wing's "tort reform" efforts, or only the ones that help gun manufacturers?

Why would you sue a gun manufacturer for a properly working gun?

Here is a potential solution in that general area: Gun insurance.

BTW, the claim "RW talking point" is silly. Ideas do not have political labels on them and sometimes people from different idalogies may share an opinion, so you should really drop that approach. It's silly.

If it were really about suing Ford because some crazy guy ran over some people, there wouldn't need to be a law, because those lawsuits wouldn't go anywhere. As yourself why they decided to specifically protect the gun industry, and not all corporations. What makes the gun industry so special? And why was it the NRA's top legislative priority?

And yes, tort reform is a big right-wing cause. Trying to make it harder for people to hold corporations accountable, like Bernie did with this vote, is Koch Brothers territory.

Not all industries and law suits can be lumped together as if there is not different logic behind the issue of lawsuits.

Why not just argue this case without the blanket generalization? Because you wouldn't be able to argue for it logically.

Would you sue a car manufacturer for causing asthma? No.

But following your logic, you should be able to. See how silly?

As for this law, have you googled the Smith and Wesson case yet? Like I said, you have no clue what this law was about. The lawsuits were far from frivolous, they were actually successful. This is why the NRA was so determined to stop them.

It simply does not make any more sense than suing a maker of a drug for its misuse.

Out law guns, enact gun legislation, make it a law that all guns can only be sold if insured, like cars.

THAT would make sense.

The point is that suing gun manufacturers for gun violence is illogical.

Like suing a drug manufacturer for an overdose.

It's illogical. I don't know how often I have to repeat that.

If you can only link to an article and cannot articulate why it is, in fact, logical, then you might as well stop talking.

Really, google it. Or at least read that post I made in the gun control group. I get that you really like Bernie very very very much. But he's wrong on this issue.

Can you argue for why it would be logical to sue a manufacturer for a products misuse or not?

I am guess not given the number of replies you have made and the complete absence of any appearance of an argument.

I'm not wading into another OP because you're lazy.

If you want to talk, talk. All I see is links from you.

If you can't articulate your position, maybe you don't really have a good argument.

What we are left with is this that you posted:

Even the silly Ford analogy can be made into a case that should be tried in court. For example, suppose:
1) The Ford had special spikes on it
2) Because of the spikes, an extra 30 kids died
3) The spikes have no use except for killing more kids
4) Ford internal research showed that the profit they were getting by offering the spikes came almost entirely from people who ran over kids
5) Being run over by spiked Fords was killing thousands of people every year
6) Ford worked with dealerships to market the spiked cars in areas where they knew a lot of kid-runner-overs would buy them
Kinda changes the picture, doesn't it?

Please read that over, everyone. THAT is the length that Dan from Texas has to go to even TRY to demonstrate his position. Any read shows how absolutely head-over-heels ridiculous and nonsensical it is.

If that is all you've got after your clucking about "RW talking points" and "Saint Bernie" utterances, you literally have nothing to demonstrate why it makes any sense to sue gun manufacturers for gun violence.

I am as opposed to guns as ANYONE. But you are pursuing an agenda that is illogical and doing so only to attack the candidate you oppose.

It's as clear as day.

Bernie Sanders analogy about a hammer. You would know this if you weren't scared of googling the Smith and Wesson case.

The fact is, the lawsuits were succeeding, because gun manufacturers were knowingly profiting from gun violence. That should tell you something about their "frivolousness".

Sure, maybe you and the NRA disagree. You know what a good way to decide who's right is? Bring all the evidence in front of a court. This is exactly what Bernie and the NRA wanted to avoid.

And please, don't tell me it's in a link. That's such a cop-out.

The most obvious one is that you actually can sue a hammer manufacturer in such a case. Of course, you'll lose, and then you'll owe the hammer manufacturer legal fees because it will be deemed a frivolous lawsuit. But, unlike for guns, hammer manufacturers don't have any special legal immunity.

Another reason is that hammer manufacturers aren't knowingly profiting from an epidemic of hammer violence. If they were, they'd probably get sued for it.

"The most obvious one is that you actually can sue a hammer manufacturer in such a case."

That is called misdirection. It does not address the validity or invalidity of the analogy. It addresses the different legal status of hammer vs. gun lawsuits. Your inability to see your logical fallacies is beginning to make talking to you feel pointless.

"Another reason is that hammer manufacturers aren't knowingly profiting from an epidemic of hammer violence. If they were, they'd probably get sued for it."

This is a START of a kind of argument. Can you explain how gun manufacturers are knowingly profiting of an epidemic of gun violence as opposed to, for example, selling guns that people THINK will protect them against violence? (I stress THINK here because I personallly do not feel that guns are a good choice for protection as they actually increase one's chance of being a fatality of gun violence.)

And you would know this if you weren't scared of googling the Smith and Wesson case. Like I said, the spiked car analogy is much closer. Yes, the law did prevent lawsuits like that hammer one, but it also prevented a whole lot of other legitimate lawsuits. "Hammer-style" lawsuits would never have won in court (or even made it to court) anyway, so there didn't need to be a law to prevent those.

As to how do you prove that gun manufacturers are knowingly profiting? You present the evidence, and let a court decide. Obviously.

Some courts would decide one way, some another. A decision would not constitute proof. It would merely be a ruling.

But the overwhelming number of law suits that would proceed would represent a defacto obstruction of commerce.

This is not to argue whether or not guns SHOULD so manufactured at all. But if they are deemed legal to manufacture, the law must protect that industry against the massive number of lawsuits that would, in effect, put them out of business.

Being against guns as I am, I would support any legislation that actually made guns illegal for people to possess.

But promoting this backhanded way to destroy the gun industry is not the right way to proceed with a goal that we both seem to have in common.

industry. How do we decide whether a chemical company intentionally polluted a stream? Present the evidence to a court.

"But the overwhelming number of law suits that would proceed would represent a defacto obstruction of commerce." LOL. You really have been reading from the NRA playbook. Or maybe you're just a natural. Do you have any evidence whatsoever of this? Of course not. Neither did the NRA.

The fact is, before this law was in place, such lawsuits were allowed to go forward, and it wasn't the "sheer number" that the NRA had a problem with, it was the fact that the lawsuits were successful, and some gun manufacturers (like Smith and Wesson) were starting to alter their business practices because of them. The result would have been lower gun violence, had Bernie not stepped in to prop our our gun murder rate along with gun industry profits.

The real question is, what makes the gun industry so special that they need their own legal loophole? Why can't they play by the same rules as everyone else? If you can think of a reason, I'd love to hear it.

The funny thing is, if, say, the financial industry made the same ludicrous "obstruction of commerce" claim in order to get congress to pass them a special legal immunity bill against lawsuits they didn't like, Bernie and all his fans would be up in arms. How about the oil industry? Same thing. Pharma complaining about "a defacto obstruction of commerce". LOL.

Secondly, whether you like it or not, not all things ARE the same.

A cat and a dog are both animals but you won't be able to get a dog to shit in a sandbox.

Now, again, I do not believe that lawsuits are the way to enact change in society. That is the role of the legislative branch. But guns being legal means, unfortunately, that they should be allowed to engage in their commerce without being hobbled overly by a massive number of lawsuits.

Why are gun manufacturers special? I have already said so. That an endless cascade of civil lawsuits, beyond being illogical to sue a gun manufacturer for a gun that works, would be a de facto obstruction of their right to engage in legal commerce.

The comparison to the financial industry is a particularly inept one because gun manufacturing is not against the law in the same way that financial impropriety is. I shouldn't really need to explain that.

Now, if there were a law that required gun makers to have trigger locks and they failed to do so, then you would be right.

And so, we are right back to the fact that it is the responsibility of the legislative branch to enact laws that protect people. That is where we should focus and not in some kind of back-handed cure through civil lawsuits.

At least now hopefully you understand that it's not about hammers.

As I pointed out, this fantasy "cascade of lawsuits" you were talking about never happened. Last time I pointed out that you were speculating without evidence (shocker), but it's worse than that. We already know whether there would be a "cascade", because until Bernie and the NRA passed the law, these kinds of lawsuits could make it to court. And there wasn't one. What did happen were legitimate lawsuits that were succeeding.

By the way, lawsuits are a common way to get corporations to change harmful practices, and not just in the gun industry. The people who don't like this are right-wingers, hence their massive push for tort reform (check out the movie Hot Coffee). They're 100% with you on your caveat emptor approach to corporate responsibility.

But even if in your fantasy world where there was a cascade of lawsuits, I happen to believe that if a corporation can't remain profitable under the same standards of legal liability for wrongdoing as everyone else, that corporation either should not exist, or should change its practices so that its legal penalties don't drive it bankrupt. The argument "we do so much harm that we owe millions, make the lawsuits go away" doesn't excite me much. That goes for a bank, pharma, oil company, or gun company.

Anyway, it's getting late, going to sleep. Always a good time.

Huh?

Nobody needs 700hp. They just did it to be cool.

700 hp is more dangerous than 300hp.

If somebody wrecks a 700hp dodge viper can we sue them?

for Dodge's legal bills.

and courts cost will be paid to the gun manufacturer.....the only industry with such previously unknown protection.

settled, and there were more lawsuits in the courts. The NRA wanted them thrown out. And Bernie complied.

red herring also used by the NRA.

Not sure where to drop this post, but I like you and hope you won't mind the interjection.

The logic is...if an inanimate product performs as designed, and in the hands of thinking planful humans, causes an unjustified death, then industry that produces this product should be sanctioned, and the politicians who think otherwise should be besmirched...OK,

I accuse all of the legislators who voted to kill thousands of innocent women, men, and children by voting to support the wars that make the war industry possible. They practically pulled the trigger. They should have made the war industry liable for every wrongful death. Drones should come with a life-back guarantee and anyone who approves there use in say, targeting a wedding, or a private home, or a marketplace, or hey, a school, is guilty of murder all the way up the ladder...respondeat superior. Show me your hands Mr. Nixon, I'm looking for blood. Show me your hands, senator MacBeth. And who is the master of these errant politicians? Everyone who voted for them. The blood splatters all the way to your door. It's along way back to the middle east, but just look for the columns of smoke and the columns of refugees. You had a hand in that. I accuse you. And while we are at it, who is the master of the gun industry? Coming full circle, to the jerks who buy the weapons from these death mongers. You subsidise the factories that build them and the lobbyist who protect them. These are the few, the proud, the posters who lovingly rattle off the selling points of their human killing machines while drone on how somehow U.S. culture has so devolved that nothing can be done, ever, to change anything. In essence, you have consigned us to endless mass killings with your money and propaganda, just as your politicians have consigned us to never ending war. There is a way to change both, but you are right, in this do-loop of illogic you can't get there from here. I accuse you (not you specifically, you are one of the sane people) quizlings of murder by proxy. QED.

Pretty much what I was going for. No offence intended.

The blood of the innocents stains us all. We are complicit in every tragedy. We walk on the grounds of holocaust everyday...the thought should humble us and open our minds and hearts to the hard work of atoning with a better world. Instead, we claim our comfort and position as birthright and rewrite history to hide our guilt. We abandon values and reason for sophistry. It's a path to ignorance paved with absurd arguments. Sometimes it is so absurd, so inappropriate (identity politics appropriating the death of students as a debate tactic) that we are made momentarily aware that we have lost yet another piece of our dwindling humanity.

...then we return to the game.

to be against lawsuits. You'd think the chance at suing "the corporations" would be right on. "Litigiousness" as a bad is a thing of the corporatists. Too funny BS can end up defended with that.

giving corporations free reign while taking away a major means that the public has for holding them accountable. The Koch Brothers use the "litigiousness" language to make it seem like they are standing up for "freedom" and the little guy against evil greedy lawyers. But it's really about corporate profits.

And it's way too funny that Bernie, who rails against corporate power, voted for this giveaway.

But, oh hell no, we can't hold gun manufacturers libel for anything.

So we have posters on DU that now defend the gun industry, use rw sites to bash Hillary, hate the Democratic party, hate every Democrat that endorses Hillary, hate the DNC, don't like VP or Obama, and threaten not to vote.

"I come from a state where ... that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or Los Angeles. In Chicago, they're used for kids in gangs killing other kids"

This was Oregon, not Chicago or Los Angeles.

Gangs account for something like 10 or 15 percent of gun homicides, but the NRA likes to pretend that the only problem is the "gangsters" and "thugs". And everyone knows what they mean by that.

a recent NRA convert like most others here. Credit for consistency.

It should not have been this close.

On Fri Oct 2, 2015, 07:45 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

From you, that's a complement. But at least you've been pro-NRA the whole time, rather than
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=639925

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Accuses the poster of being an NRA supporter, only has bait, since we all know Logical has never said he supports the NRA.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Oct 2, 2015, 07:55 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: These are not the droids you're looking for.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In what universe is this hideworthy?
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

he just felt he owed the NRA a favor. Good point.

So are cigarettes. The tobacco industry was sued for lying about the products it was msking. There is no lying about guns. They are weapons. When they kill they are working as intended. If you want to go after gun manufacturers you are going to have to find some way to modify the 2nd amendment because there is no way that anyone should be able to be sued for making something that is not illegal.

Strange bedfellows these days, right?

Impressive.

Your hyperbolic posts are nothing new.

FIXNews and Breitbart http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=635336

This thread defending gun industry. A bunch of endorsements thrown under the bus, post after post complaining about "the establishment", etc.