The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[ninja007]

hey OP- ANYthing that gets you mad means its the right thing to do.

 

[Stephanie]

the uninformed in this country is damn scary in that they VOTE FOR OUR LIVES

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The twisted lunacy and blame game from the left never ceases. They have no shame, no integrity, no personal responsibility or character... just like their dear messiah, obama.

We should stop referring to the political opposite of “right” as “left”. The OP here is just one more example out of very many that proves that the true political opposite of “right” is “wrong”.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Time to tax stupid people to compensate the rest of us for wasting our time reading their stupid threads.

That's what state lotteries are, really—a tax on stupid people. But it is tempting, at times like this, to wish that stupidity could be taxed more directly and more heavily.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why on earth is Lakota resurrecting she was decimated in several years ago? Is she really so naive to think her arguments that were bad three years ago are suddenly good?

A gun is a tool. The only person responsible for it's use is the one using it. Should we be allowed to sue hammer makers and claim they are responsible if some evil man or woman starts bashing heads in with it? That's absurd.

You're responsible for your own choice. I'm responsible for mine. I'm not responsible for yours nor you for mine. Not exactly rocket science here

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The fact that guns are designed to kill people doesn't mean the one who does the killing gets off the hook. They only kill people when someone intentionally uses them for that purpose. It would be pointless to have guns for self protection if they didn't kill people.

That's a bogus argument, and it always has been. Only scumbags use it.

No surprise. Those who use that argument either are the very scumbags, or else are aligned with the scumbags who would be most likely to be lawfully killed in self-defense.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What a fucking hypocrite.

He's a liberal.

But then that's exactly the same thing you just said, isn't it?

 

[Stephanie]

since we are in a thread of stupid by that title. I was just reading this. Does liberalism drive a person into insanity or what? good grief. this is written by one of the writers of the Daily Beast and man he has man crush going on big time...

SNIP:
Time For a Showdown: Why Obama Needs to Debate the NRA President on Live TV
Mr. President, there is something you can do to get gun legislation: debate NRA chief Wayne LaPierre. Millions would watch, and you’d change many minds.

On Thursday, in the wake of yet another school shooting, President Obama went into the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room—named for the victim of a would-be assassin’s bullet in 1981—and left reporters in stunned silence with the vehemence of his remarks.

“I’d ask the American people to think about how they can get our government to change these laws, and to save these lives and let these people grow up.”

Since the president is asking for our suggestions, I’ve got one:


Barack Obama should challenge Wayne LaPierre, longtime leader of the National Rifle Association, to a one-hour primetime televised debate.

“Are we really prepared to say that we are powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?” Obama asked in 2012 after 20 children and six adults were killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.

No, Mr. President, we are not powerless, and neither are you. But we do need to think harder and a bit more imaginatively about how to re-shape the debate.


I can hear the objections now: Why should the president lower himself to giving an equal platform to the odious head of the NRA? Why would Obama—who despises campaign debates—ever agree to it? Why do I imagine it would do any good in getting the bill passed that failed narrowly in the Senate in 2013?

ALL the rest of love fest here if you can stomach it.
Time For a Showdown: Why Obama Needs to Debate the NRA President on Live TV

 

[Cecilie1200]

Guns sales are big money. Less gun sales mean less money. Therefore, it's all about money and how that money is used to influence legislators. There is no doubt that criminals, mentally ill, and domestic abusers should not have access to firearms. So, if gun manufacturers, suppliers, and the NRA were held liable each time a gun was used in a crime - I bet gun control laws would change in a hurry.

Gotta love the "logic" even my first grader would laugh at.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hold gun makers and suppliers liable. That will change things.

Oh, I'm sure that if you start persecuting people, it will change things. Problem is, no one's interested in effecting the changes you want. And your bullshit will do nothing to create the changes we DO want.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hold gun makers and suppliers liable. That will change things.

Should we hold bathtub makers responsible for everyone who slips and kills himself taking a shower in a bathtub?

I've never seen a bathtub shoot anyone. Try to focus.

The people who slip and fall in them are still dead.

But I'm sure it's of great comfort to their ghosts that they died of blunt trauma, rather than gunshot wound. Not sure if they're less dead, or just proud of their "morally superior" cause of death, but I'm sure they're feeling good about it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've never seen a bathtub shoot anyone. Try to focus.

The people who slip and fall in them are still dead.

Duh, yeah, but we're talking about guns.

Yeah? so?

If you choke on a carrot - do you blame the carrot?

Apparently you do, because if someone shoots you, you blame the gun.

No, he tries to sue the farmer who grew the carrot, because it was an "evil, immoral" carrot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hillary wants to hold gun makers and dealers accountable. Go Hillary!

Clinton's plan includes a repeal of the legal immunity gun manufacturers and dealers received under a law passed by Congress in 2005, something the NRA and other groups would be sure to fight against.

More: Hillary Clinton Calls On Gun Owners To 'Take Back' Second Amendment

Wow, Hillary agrees. That definitely convinces me . . . that I was right from the beginning.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Do you advocate that butter knife makers be held liable if a moron stabs someone in the eye with a butter knife and they die? How about pen and pencil makers. You are an idiot.

But the knife makers have no such protection .

Yes, but they don't have cadres of blithering morons like Lakhota baying at their heels.

 

[LOki]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Gun manufacturers are held liable just like other manufacturers.

What liability are you talking about? Be specific.

 

[bripat9643]

Hillary wants to hold gun makers and dealers accountable. Go Hillary!

Clinton's plan includes a repeal of the legal immunity gun manufacturers and dealers received under a law passed by Congress in 2005, something the NRA and other groups would be sure to fight against.

More: Hillary Clinton Calls On Gun Owners To 'Take Back' Second Amendment

Wow, Hillary agrees. That definitely convinces me . . . that I was right from the beginning.

The irony here is that what Hillary means by "take back" is to abolish it.

 

[kaz]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

What other manufacturers are liable when people commit crimes with their products?

You didn't' read it, did you?

 

[kaz]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Read the law and the subsequent court orders. Strict liability is for unintended consequences, such as eating a snickers bar that had poison chemicals that killed you down the line.

But guns are made to to kill. Killing is not an unintended consequence. Similar to the immunity that alcohol and tobacco receive!

Only a sick fuck would think that the purpose of guns is to kill people. You know, you. Guns are a tool. Table saws and baseball bats aren't made to kill either, but hey can

 

[kaz]

Time to tax guns and ammo.

Why dont we tax blog posts as well?

Figure 1 cent per rational post, and $1 per idiotic one.

Lakhota would owe about $50 a day.

I'd rather be paid by how many times I hit a NaziCon nerve...

Yes, Adolph, you are a rhetorical genius. Posting on a message board and getting responses, Obviously you are hitting nerves, most people can't get responses posting on message boards. Amazing

 

[Misty]

By Sergio Munoz

As major media outlets report on gun violence prevention strategies in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, they have ignored a controversial law that shields the firearms industry from being held accountable.

In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite its recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity, according to a Media Matters search of Nexis.

Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the "Gun Protection Act." The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: "To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." There are some narrow exceptions for which liability is allowed, such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct.

It is outrageous that a product that exists for no purpose other than to kill has an exemption from state tort liability. Allowing tort liability would force gun manufacturers to pay some of the costs imposed by their products, increase the prices for assault weapons and maybe even cause some manufacturers to stop making them.​

More: Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity? | Blog | Media Matters for America

Because it opens a pandora box of lawsuits not just affecting gun manufacturers. Everyone who makes anything would be liable.