Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What kind of thinking is this? Last time I checked, gun manufacturers aren't immune from defects, so how are they totally immune? I thought liberals were the more intelligent group in this political world.
What kind of thinking is this? Last time I checked, gun manufacturers aren't immune from defects, so how are they totally immune? I thought liberals were the more intelligent group in this political world.
But Hillary who oversaw us running guns out of Benghazi to the terrorists is?
But Hillary who oversaw us running guns out of Benghazi to the terrorists is?
I have to wonder if she actually believes in what she says about "going after gun manufacturers" in the case of criminal negligence. How come we aren't seeing the same about drunk driving? Should we be going after alcohol companies for alcoholism, drunk driving and other behaviors? This is splitting hairs.
I have to wonder if she actually believes in what she says about "going after gun manufacturers" in the case of criminal negligence. How come we aren't seeing the same about drunk driving? Should we be going after alcohol companies for alcoholism, drunk driving and other behaviors? This is splitting hairs.
It is easily one of the ludicrous agendas being pushed by some on the left.
The gun manufacturer is responsible for the actions of a nutjob?
WHAT.....
SO according to Bernies' Brain It would be OK for the victims in a car crash to sue the auto manufacturer if the driver was drunk and caused the crash?
It is one thing to be able to sue if a product is defective and causes injury say a steering wheel locks up on a car and it crashes or a gun barrel explodes because of shoddy metal work.
If Sandy hook survivors can sue the gun manufacturer can the victims in the Boston Marathon bombing sue the maker of the pressure cookers the terrorists used to make their bombs?
How about suing the store where they bought them? Should we have a waiting period and background checks on pressure cookers?
What is the difference between pressure cookers and guns? They are both products that are usually bought and enjoyed by responsible people. Any product can be bought and then misused causing damage to the user or innocent bystanders.
How about cigarettes? They have warning labels all over them and everyone knows the risks of first and second hand smoke yet people still light up? Now with smokes we have seen successful lawsuits but those had to do with the added chemicals that triggered addiction.
Guns like cars and most other things require a person to use them and it is up to them to use those items responsibly and within the law.
What kind of thinking is this? Last time I checked, gun manufacturers aren't immune from defects, so how are they totally immune? I thought liberals were the more intelligent group in this political world.
What kind of thinking is this? Last time I checked, gun manufacturers aren't immune from defects, so how are they totally immune? I thought liberals were the more intelligent group in this political world.
Gun makers are not and never have been immune from lawsuits for defective products. If your firearm blows up in your face due to a defect, or the firing mechanism or safety fails and someone is hurt or worse, they can and are being sued, as it should be.
What they are and should be shielded from is lawsuits over the criminal misuse of their product. Suing a gun manufacturer over Sandy Hook, etc, makes as much sense as blaming Toyota for a drunk driver in one of their products running someone over. The problem isn't the product, it's the criminal.
Of course Democrats will continue to lie and pander to weak minded people by claiming that the industry is exempt to the same safety issues others are liable for. No surprise, integrity is not part of their playbook, especially Clintons.
Allow me to translate this and all other "stories":
We are the establishment, and we fear outsiders, so we will make anything and everything a gigantic issue despite the fact that there's nothing to actually make an issue about.
Im with Bernie on this one. This is the most absurd lawsuit of all time. Whats next? families suing Jack Daniels and Ford when a drunk driver hits and kills someone?
"Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat -- and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it," Koskoff, the attorney for the families, said. "They took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making a lot of money."
If you don't think that's a valid claim, fine, let them have their time in front of a jury who can say so. Right now, the law prevents them from having their day in court because too many lawmakers have been bullied into submission by the NRA, including Bernie. Juries should decide these things, not gun manufacturers who have purchased immunity laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
