Sanders shifts on gun control

[TNHarley]

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.

Gun manufacturer legislation wont affect guns?
Prior probability fallacy

 

[TNHarley]

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?

indeed. Our govt gives guns to terrorists, accidently drops them to our enemies and gives them to Mexican kingpins. Weird ey?

 

[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.

Gun manufacturer legislation wont affect guns?
Prior probability fallacy

Read my last paragraph -- did litigation against bars squash the practice of drinking?

OK then. Specious speculation. Or for short, "speeshulation". Your issue as presented doesn't affect guns, it affects the legal process. "Gun control" would be something that makes some kind of gun unavailable to some kind of buyer. This doesn't.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Gun manufacturer legislation wont affect guns?
Prior probability fallacy

Read my last paragraph -- did litigation against bars squash the practice of drinking?

OK then. Specious speculation. Or for short, "speeshulation".

That's your analogy? lol
Squashing wasn't the point, pogo.

 

[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.

Gun manufacturer legislation wont affect guns?
Prior probability fallacy

Read my last paragraph -- did litigation against bars squash the practice of drinking?

OK then. Specious speculation. Or for short, "speeshulation".

That's your analogy? lol
Squashing wasn't the point, pogo.

"Squashing"?

The point's very simple: your title refers to "gun control", and that characterization is erroneous. Period.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Gun manufacturer legislation wont affect guns?
Prior probability fallacy

Read my last paragraph -- did litigation against bars squash the practice of drinking?

OK then. Specious speculation. Or for short, "speeshulation".

That's your analogy? lol
Squashing wasn't the point, pogo.

"Squashing"?

The point's very simple: your title refers to "gun control", and that characterization is erroneous. Period.

I said touché, pogo...
But since you brought it up, if you think about the long run, if could very well lead to a classification of "control". Unless, of course, you want to use a prior probability fallacy.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Gun manufacturer legislation wont affect guns?
Prior probability fallacy

Read my last paragraph -- did litigation against bars squash the practice of drinking?

OK then. Specious speculation. Or for short, "speeshulation".

That's your analogy? lol
Squashing wasn't the point, pogo.

"Squashing"?

The point's very simple: your title refers to "gun control", and that characterization is erroneous. Period.

I said touché, pogo...

And you did it avec le proper accent grave too

But since you brought it up, if you think about the long run, if could very well lead to a classification of "control". Unless, of course, you want to use a prior probability fallacy.

Not to belabor the point but that's a whole 'nother issue, and has nothing to do with Sanders. What you have there is a Slippery Slope.

 

[g5000]

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.

Please explain how a gun manufacturer sells guns directly to known criminals. Let's start from the moment the gun is put in a box at the factory. Go from there.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

What is it you fail to understand that the federal government licenses and has the responsibility to monitor gun dealers. A manufacturer never sees anything but paperwork from a dealer. So how can you hold the manufacturer responsible for the conduct of a federally licensed dealer?

 

[TNHarley]

Gun manufacturer legislation wont affect guns?
Prior probability fallacy

Read my last paragraph -- did litigation against bars squash the practice of drinking?

OK then. Specious speculation. Or for short, "speeshulation".

That's your analogy? lol
Squashing wasn't the point, pogo.

"Squashing"?

The point's very simple: your title refers to "gun control", and that characterization is erroneous. Period.

I said touché, pogo...

q

And you did it avec le proper accent grave too

But since you brought it up, if you think about the long run, if could very well lead to a classification of "control". Unless, of course, you want to use a prior probability fallacy.

Not to belabor the point but that's a whole 'nother issue, and has nothing to do with Sanders. What you have there is a Slippery Slope.

Intellectuals HAVE to win the conversation, no matter how ARROGANT or fallacious it might be. Right?
You said it wasn't gun control, and I ceded. But then I pointed how it could be, and you say "slippery slope" lol
whatever.
I guess it could only be gun control if it DIRECTLY effects availability. Again, prior probability fallacy. And shows an inability to think.
BTW, learn how to reply properly
NOTE : I only added that because it is something you would do

 

[NightFox]

Please explain how a gun manufacturer sells guns directly to known criminals. Let's start from the moment the gun is put in a box at the factory. Go from there.

Happens all the time, the Federal Government buys direct.

 

[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

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?

What is it you fail to understand that the federal government licenses and has the responsibility to monitor gun dealers. A manufacturer never sees anything but paperwork from a dealer. So how can you hold the manufacturer responsible for the conduct of a federally licensed dealer?

Maybe the manufacturers should start doing background checks lol

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Gun manufacturer legislation wont affect guns?
Prior probability fallacy

Read my last paragraph -- did litigation against bars squash the practice of drinking?

OK then. Specious speculation. Or for short, "speeshulation". Your issue as presented doesn't affect guns, it affects the legal process. "Gun control" would be something that makes some kind of gun unavailable to some kind of buyer. This doesn't.

Bars have a liability for their conduct, not their customers and the liquor manufacturers are not liable for the conduct of the bar. So your comparison is pure BS.

 

[g5000]

Sanders gun stance shifts, but is it enough?
“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.

A manufacturer is "sending guns into an area". What does he mean by this?

Then the guns are really "being sold to criminals". How is this happening?

Someone please explain.

 

[TNHarley]

Sanders gun stance shifts, but is it enough?
“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.

A manufacturer is "sending guns into an area". What does he mean by this?

Then the guns are really "being sold to criminals". How is this happening?

Someone please explain.

I would tell you to ask him, but I fear he doesn't know either..

 

[g5000]

Sanders gun stance shifts, but is it enough?
“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.

A manufacturer is "sending guns into an area". What does he mean by this?

Then the guns are really "being sold to criminals". How is this happening?

Someone please explain.

I would tell you to ask him, but I fear he doesn't know either..

It sounds to me like Sanders wants gun manufacturers to redline those areas he is talking about.

Hmmm...

"No guns for negroes...because Black Lives Matter."

 

[g5000]

Here's an idea. Poverty begets violence and other crimes.

Let's solve the poverty problem and everything else will fall into place.

 

[TNHarley]

Here's an idea. Poverty begets violence and other crimes.

Let's solve the poverty problem and everything else will fall into place.

nobody ever wants to actually fix anything anymore.

 

[g5000]

Clinton is feeling some pressure. Sanders is gaining on her in the early primary states. She had to find a wedge issue, and guns are it. Now she is using it to put Sanders on the defensive.

Smart politicking.

 

[g5000]

Here's an idea. Poverty begets violence and other crimes.

Let's solve the poverty problem and everything else will fall into place.

nobody ever wants to actually fix anything anymore.

It's easier to oppose the other guy than it is to come up with solutions.

This has been the GOP's primary strategy for way too long.