Sanders shifts on gun control

[TNHarley]

Sanders gun stance shifts, but is it enough?
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has copped criticism for his positions on gun control, now appears to be open to changing a 2005 law that shields weapons manufacturers from liability – a bill he voted for.
“If you have a manufacturer that is sending guns into an area and really knows that those guns are not being used by the people or bought by the people in that area but are being sold to criminals should we hold that manufacturer liable? Absolutely,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning.
As gun control has taken a renewed focus in the wake of President Barack Obama’s announcement that he would sign executive orders to try to increase background checks, Hillary Clinton has renewed her focus on her rival’s past stances on gun laws.
Last week, she made the unusual move of calling into MSNBC’s “Hardball” to criticize Sanders’ gun position.
“I think that the excuses and efforts by Senator Sanders to avoid responsibility for this vote which the NRA hailed as the most important in twenty years, points at a clear difference,” Clinton told CBS’s “Face The Nation” on Sunday morning. “It’s a difference that Democratic voters in our primary can take into account.”

I think suing gun manufacturers is stupid as hell and opens the door to all kinds of ludicrous claims

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Sanders gun stance shifts, but is it enough?
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has copped criticism for his positions on gun control, now appears to be open to changing a 2005 law that shields weapons manufacturers from liability – a bill he voted for.
“If you have a manufacturer that is sending guns into an area and really knows that those guns are not being used by the people or bought by the people in that area but are being sold to criminals should we hold that manufacturer liable? Absolutely,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning.
As gun control has taken a renewed focus in the wake of President Barack Obama’s announcement that he would sign executive orders to try to increase background checks, Hillary Clinton has renewed her focus on her rival’s past stances on gun laws.
Last week, she made the unusual move of calling into MSNBC’s “Hardball” to criticize Sanders’ gun position.
“I think that the excuses and efforts by Senator Sanders to avoid responsibility for this vote which the NRA hailed as the most important in twenty years, points at a clear difference,” Clinton told CBS’s “Face The Nation” on Sunday morning. “It’s a difference that Democratic voters in our primary can take into account.”

I think suing gun manufacturers is stupid as hell and opens the door to all kinds of ludicrous claims

I have to agree that suing the manufacture for what someone does with their product in a illegal act is stupid to me. What it is telling the criminal is that it is not their fault for using a firearm in a crime and the person that will be punished along with them is the person that created the weapon in the first place even if the weapon was not created for the intent to be used in a criminal way...

It is like Paul Walker daughter suing Porsche for the cause of her father death when it was the driver drunken state that caused the death of Paul Walker...

Paul Walker's Daughter Sues Porsche: He Was Burned Alive

Now will Bernie Sanders flip flop on the issue cost him the nomination?

Most likely not...

 

[OldLady]

Sanders gun stance shifts, but is it enough?
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has copped criticism for his positions on gun control, now appears to be open to changing a 2005 law that shields weapons manufacturers from liability – a bill he voted for.
“If you have a manufacturer that is sending guns into an area and really knows that those guns are not being used by the people or bought by the people in that area but are being sold to criminals should we hold that manufacturer liable? Absolutely,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning.
As gun control has taken a renewed focus in the wake of President Barack Obama’s announcement that he would sign executive orders to try to increase background checks, Hillary Clinton has renewed her focus on her rival’s past stances on gun laws.
Last week, she made the unusual move of calling into MSNBC’s “Hardball” to criticize Sanders’ gun position.
“I think that the excuses and efforts by Senator Sanders to avoid responsibility for this vote which the NRA hailed as the most important in twenty years, points at a clear difference,” Clinton told CBS’s “Face The Nation” on Sunday morning. “It’s a difference that Democratic voters in our primary can take into account.”

I think suing gun manufacturers is stupid as hell and opens the door to all kinds of ludicrous claims

I have to agree that suing the manufacture for what someone does with their product in a illegal act is stupid to me. What it is telling the criminal is that it is not their fault for using a firearm in a crime and the person that will be punished along with them is the person that created the weapon in the first place even if the weapon was not created for the intent to be used in a criminal way...

It is like Paul Walker daughter suing Porsche for the cause of her father death when it was the driver drunken state that caused the death of Paul Walker...

Paul Walker's Daughter Sues Porsche: He Was Burned Alive

Now will Bernie Sanders flip flop on the issue cost him the nomination?

Most likely not...

The question was whether a manufacturer should be sued if it KNEW the guns were being sold to criminals. That's like criminal conspiracy or something, isn't it? Sounds like a pretty stupid question to me. All the lawyers will like it if gun manufacturers can be held liable: more billable hours and more deep pockets to dig into.

 

[TNHarley]

Sanders gun stance shifts, but is it enough?
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has copped criticism for his positions on gun control, now appears to be open to changing a 2005 law that shields weapons manufacturers from liability – a bill he voted for.
“If you have a manufacturer that is sending guns into an area and really knows that those guns are not being used by the people or bought by the people in that area but are being sold to criminals should we hold that manufacturer liable? Absolutely,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning.
As gun control has taken a renewed focus in the wake of President Barack Obama’s announcement that he would sign executive orders to try to increase background checks, Hillary Clinton has renewed her focus on her rival’s past stances on gun laws.
Last week, she made the unusual move of calling into MSNBC’s “Hardball” to criticize Sanders’ gun position.
“I think that the excuses and efforts by Senator Sanders to avoid responsibility for this vote which the NRA hailed as the most important in twenty years, points at a clear difference,” Clinton told CBS’s “Face The Nation” on Sunday morning. “It’s a difference that Democratic voters in our primary can take into account.”

I think suing gun manufacturers is stupid as hell and opens the door to all kinds of ludicrous claims

I have to agree that suing the manufacture for what someone does with their product in a illegal act is stupid to me. What it is telling the criminal is that it is not their fault for using a firearm in a crime and the person that will be punished along with them is the person that created the weapon in the first place even if the weapon was not created for the intent to be used in a criminal way...

It is like Paul Walker daughter suing Porsche for the cause of her father death when it was the driver drunken state that caused the death of Paul Walker...

Paul Walker's Daughter Sues Porsche: He Was Burned Alive

Now will Bernie Sanders flip flop on the issue cost him the nomination?

Most likely not...

The question was whether a manufacturer should be sued if it KNEW the guns were being sold to criminals. That's like criminal conspiracy or something, isn't it? Sounds like a pretty stupid question to me. All the lawyers will like it if gun manufacturers can be held liable: more billable hours and more deep pockets to dig into.

Good luck proving that. Hypotheticals and your OPINION is moot. Like the officer and the Sandra Bland case.

 

[OldLady]

Sanders gun stance shifts, but is it enough?
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has copped criticism for his positions on gun control, now appears to be open to changing a 2005 law that shields weapons manufacturers from liability – a bill he voted for.
“If you have a manufacturer that is sending guns into an area and really knows that those guns are not being used by the people or bought by the people in that area but are being sold to criminals should we hold that manufacturer liable? Absolutely,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning.
As gun control has taken a renewed focus in the wake of President Barack Obama’s announcement that he would sign executive orders to try to increase background checks, Hillary Clinton has renewed her focus on her rival’s past stances on gun laws.
Last week, she made the unusual move of calling into MSNBC’s “Hardball” to criticize Sanders’ gun position.
“I think that the excuses and efforts by Senator Sanders to avoid responsibility for this vote which the NRA hailed as the most important in twenty years, points at a clear difference,” Clinton told CBS’s “Face The Nation” on Sunday morning. “It’s a difference that Democratic voters in our primary can take into account.”

I think suing gun manufacturers is stupid as hell and opens the door to all kinds of ludicrous claims

I have to agree that suing the manufacture for what someone does with their product in a illegal act is stupid to me. What it is telling the criminal is that it is not their fault for using a firearm in a crime and the person that will be punished along with them is the person that created the weapon in the first place even if the weapon was not created for the intent to be used in a criminal way...

It is like Paul Walker daughter suing Porsche for the cause of her father death when it was the driver drunken state that caused the death of Paul Walker...

Paul Walker's Daughter Sues Porsche: He Was Burned Alive

Now will Bernie Sanders flip flop on the issue cost him the nomination?

Most likely not...

The question was whether a manufacturer should be sued if it KNEW the guns were being sold to criminals. That's like criminal conspiracy or something, isn't it? Sounds like a pretty stupid question to me. All the lawyers will like it if gun manufacturers can be held liable: more billable hours and more deep pockets to dig into.

Good luck proving that. Hypotheticals and your OPINION is moot. Like the officer and the Sandra Bland case.

Yes. That's why I thought it was a pretty stupid question and a pretty stupid hypothetical.

 

[imawhosure]

Just a question, but would it not be more prudent to make the dealers more liable for selling guns to criminals? Would that not basically force them to do legal background checks put forth by the government, or risk losing their rearends in a suit?

I mean, come on here! If the dealer does a background check, what database does it use? Is it NOT the governments, meaning a paper trail is created!

All this legislation is, is a backdoor way to scare the hell out of the gun manufactures forcing a rise in price. Another backdoor hidden tax, on legal owners. A stolen or illegal gun is NOT sold by gun manufacturers, it is sold by criminals, who give a sh** less about background checks, and only cares about what the market will bear for their illegal firearm.

 

[whitehall]

Same old anti corporate crap. Should automobile manufactures be held liable for drunk driving deaths or getaway cars in bank robberies? If Sanders and the rest of the democrat progressives were concerned about the proliferation of weapons they would try to get to the bottom of "operation fast and furious" and indict some of those fools who shipped 3,000 illegal weapons to drug kings like El Chapo.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's all about votes, not crime. Manufacturers sell to dealers, dealers are licensed by the state. In order to sell the gun the buyer has to pass a NICS check. And there's already laws against by passing the law. He's just trying to woo HillBilly's voters, since he smells smoke.

 

[Pogo]

Sanders gun stance shifts, but is it enough?
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has copped criticism for his positions on gun control, now appears to be open to changing a 2005 law that shields weapons manufacturers from liability – a bill he voted for.
“If you have a manufacturer that is sending guns into an area and really knows that those guns are not being used by the people or bought by the people in that area but are being sold to criminals should we hold that manufacturer liable? Absolutely,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning.
As gun control has taken a renewed focus in the wake of President Barack Obama’s announcement that he would sign executive orders to try to increase background checks, Hillary Clinton has renewed her focus on her rival’s past stances on gun laws.
Last week, she made the unusual move of calling into MSNBC’s “Hardball” to criticize Sanders’ gun position.
“I think that the excuses and efforts by Senator Sanders to avoid responsibility for this vote which the NRA hailed as the most important in twenty years, points at a clear difference,” Clinton told CBS’s “Face The Nation” on Sunday morning. “It’s a difference that Democratic voters in our primary can take into account.”

I think suing gun manufacturers is stupid as hell and opens the door to all kinds of ludicrous claims

OK but .... what's it got to do with "gun control"?

 

[Iceweasel]

OK but .... what's it got to do with "gun control"?

Presumably, if you can shut down gun makers you stop the legal supply. Libs use courts to do what they can't do with votes.

 

[TNHarley]

Sanders gun stance shifts, but is it enough?
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has copped criticism for his positions on gun control, now appears to be open to changing a 2005 law that shields weapons manufacturers from liability – a bill he voted for.
“If you have a manufacturer that is sending guns into an area and really knows that those guns are not being used by the people or bought by the people in that area but are being sold to criminals should we hold that manufacturer liable? Absolutely,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning.
As gun control has taken a renewed focus in the wake of President Barack Obama’s announcement that he would sign executive orders to try to increase background checks, Hillary Clinton has renewed her focus on her rival’s past stances on gun laws.
Last week, she made the unusual move of calling into MSNBC’s “Hardball” to criticize Sanders’ gun position.
“I think that the excuses and efforts by Senator Sanders to avoid responsibility for this vote which the NRA hailed as the most important in twenty years, points at a clear difference,” Clinton told CBS’s “Face The Nation” on Sunday morning. “It’s a difference that Democratic voters in our primary can take into account.”

I think suing gun manufacturers is stupid as hell and opens the door to all kinds of ludicrous claims

OK but .... what's it got to do with "gun control"?

touché
although I guess one could argue that bullshit like this would cause prices to change resulting in less ownership of weapons and/or weapons.
Liability reasons and all that.

 

[toxicmedia]

Sanders gun stance shifts, but is it enough?
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has copped criticism for his positions on gun control, now appears to be open to changing a 2005 law that shields weapons manufacturers from liability – a bill he voted for.
“If you have a manufacturer that is sending guns into an area and really knows that those guns are not being used by the people or bought by the people in that area but are being sold to criminals should we hold that manufacturer liable? Absolutely,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning.
As gun control has taken a renewed focus in the wake of President Barack Obama’s announcement that he would sign executive orders to try to increase background checks, Hillary Clinton has renewed her focus on her rival’s past stances on gun laws.
Last week, she made the unusual move of calling into MSNBC’s “Hardball” to criticize Sanders’ gun position.
“I think that the excuses and efforts by Senator Sanders to avoid responsibility for this vote which the NRA hailed as the most important in twenty years, points at a clear difference,” Clinton told CBS’s “Face The Nation” on Sunday morning. “It’s a difference that Democratic voters in our primary can take into account.”

I think suing gun manufacturers is stupid as hell and opens the door to all kinds of ludicrous claims

It's very dissapointing to see Sanders waffle on this. I understand why he might from a strategy perspective. Caught between idiotic liberal gun grabbers and a gun friendly home state.

This could hurt him because integrity is one of his top selling points

 

[The Rabbi]

Just a question, but would it not be more prudent to make the dealers more liable for selling guns to criminals? Would that not basically force them to do legal background checks put forth by the government, or risk losing their rearends in a suit?

I mean, come on here! If the dealer does a background check, what database does it use? Is it NOT the governments, meaning a paper trail is created!

All this legislation is, is a backdoor way to scare the hell out of the gun manufactures forcing a rise in price. Another backdoor hidden tax, on legal owners. A stolen or illegal gun is NOT sold by gun manufacturers, it is sold by criminals, who give a sh** less about background checks, and only cares about what the market will bear for their illegal firearm.

Look. I've been a dealer for a decade now.
Every gun that goes out of inventory--every single one--leaves with one of three documents:
1) An approval number on a background check through NICS
2) A copy of another dealer's license
3) A stolen weapons report to ATF and local law enforcement.
That's it. There is no other way for a gun to leave a dealer's inventory.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Sanders gun stance shifts, but is it enough?
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has copped criticism for his positions on gun control, now appears to be open to changing a 2005 law that shields weapons manufacturers from liability – a bill he voted for.
“If you have a manufacturer that is sending guns into an area and really knows that those guns are not being used by the people or bought by the people in that area but are being sold to criminals should we hold that manufacturer liable? Absolutely,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning.
As gun control has taken a renewed focus in the wake of President Barack Obama’s announcement that he would sign executive orders to try to increase background checks, Hillary Clinton has renewed her focus on her rival’s past stances on gun laws.
Last week, she made the unusual move of calling into MSNBC’s “Hardball” to criticize Sanders’ gun position.
“I think that the excuses and efforts by Senator Sanders to avoid responsibility for this vote which the NRA hailed as the most important in twenty years, points at a clear difference,” Clinton told CBS’s “Face The Nation” on Sunday morning. “It’s a difference that Democratic voters in our primary can take into account.”

I think suing gun manufacturers is stupid as hell and opens the door to all kinds of ludicrous claims

If a gun manufactuer is knowlingly selling a large number of hand guns to a gun store that has the reputation of selling to straw buyers who are purchasing for gangs and other criminals, what would you suggest be done to stop this kind of activity?

Cant really arrrest the straw buyer. Cause you dont know that they ARE a straw buyer. they pass the background check. So the sale is completed and the guns go to the wrong hands.

If a gun sold by this gun store to straw buyers is used in a crime, who you think should be responsible for making that gun available to criminals.

the straw buyer? Sure. But he has no fucking money.

the gun store? Sure. But that is a limited one time thing.

Go after the manuf. they have the deep pockets. they have the most to gain. If they stop selling to gun stores that are selling to straw buyers, the manuf loses money.

If the loss from being sued is greater than the loss of sales to certain gun stores, those straw buyers wont have a gun to purchase.

Isnt that the idea? to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

 

[Pogo]

OK but .... what's it got to do with "gun control"?

Presumably, if you can shut down gun makers you stop the legal supply. Libs use courts to do what they can't do with votes.

That's a specious speculation. Even your adverb is "presumably".

The point remains, the issue as stated isn't even about guns; it's about the legal process. "Gun control" would be something directly affecting the supply of --- guns. That's why I'm making the point that the title of this thread is misleadingly erroneous.

Sounds like this is roughly equivalent to holding a bartender responsible for continuing to serve a drunk that goes out and crashes into somebody. That exists now but it hasn't affected the lure of alcohol.

 

[Iceweasel]

OK but .... what's it got to do with "gun control"?

Presumably, if you can shut down gun makers you stop the legal supply. Libs use courts to do what they can't do with votes.

That's a specious speculation. Even your adverb is "presumably".

The point remains, the issue as stated isn't even about guns; it's about the legal process. "Gun control" would be something directly affecting the supply of --- guns. That's why I'm making the point that the title of this thread is misleadingly erroneous.

Sounds like this is roughly equivalent to holding a bartender responsible for continuing to serve a drunk that goes out and crashes into somebody. That exists now but it hasn't affected the lure of alcohol.

So you are of the belief that gun manufacturers are somehow exempt from prosecution if they sell weapons directly to known criminals? Specious my ass, it's called putting 2 plus 2 together.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK but .... what's it got to do with "gun control"?

Presumably, if you can shut down gun makers you stop the legal supply. Libs use courts to do what they can't do with votes.

That's a specious speculation. Even your adverb is "presumably".

The point remains, the issue as stated isn't even about guns; it's about the legal process. "Gun control" would be something directly affecting the supply of --- guns. That's why I'm making the point that the title of this thread is misleadingly erroneous.

Sounds like this is roughly equivalent to holding a bartender responsible for continuing to serve a drunk that goes out and crashes into somebody. That exists now but it hasn't affected the lure of alcohol.

So you are of the belief that gun manufacturers are somehow exempt from prosecution if they sell weapons directly to known criminals? Specious my ass, it's called putting 2 plus 2 together.

It isnt even possible for them to do that.

 

[Iceweasel]

It isnt even possible for them to do that.

2 plus 2? Point taken.

 

[Pogo]

OK but .... what's it got to do with "gun control"?

Presumably, if you can shut down gun makers you stop the legal supply. Libs use courts to do what they can't do with votes.

That's a specious speculation. Even your adverb is "presumably".

The point remains, the issue as stated isn't even about guns; it's about the legal process. "Gun control" would be something directly affecting the supply of --- guns. That's why I'm making the point that the title of this thread is misleadingly erroneous.

Sounds like this is roughly equivalent to holding a bartender responsible for continuing to serve a drunk that goes out and crashes into somebody. That exists now but it hasn't affected the lure of alcohol.

So you are of the belief that gun manufacturers are somehow exempt from prosecution if they sell weapons directly to known criminals? Specious my ass, it's called putting 2 plus 2 together.

I posted a grand total of absolutely nothing about what gunmongers' legal liabilities are, Sparky. Learn to read.

 

[whitehall]

Barrett is a relatively small arms company that supplies quality sniper rifles to the U.S. Military. What if one of the rifles is lost on the battlefield and used by the enemy to kill American troops? Do we sue Barrett? What if a military weapon is used by civilians to commit a murder. Can we sue the manufacturer of the weapon? Should we sue Glock because a Police Officers' weapon was stolen and used to assassinate another Police Officer?