My Mom was Killed at Sandy Hook. Bernie Sanders defended his vote on the day of her Murder.

[msanthrope]

https://twitter.com/EricaSmegs?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


Tweets from the Principal's Daughter at Sandy Hook....

[NWCorona]

1. I think these tweets aren't helping Hillary at all

[Bill USA]

2. It just might be that that tweet was an just an expression of how that person feels re BS's vote and

defense of his vote.

[NWCorona]

5. That very well may be and I won't knock him for that

But Hillary has used these victims for her benefit and there's a backlash growing.

[msanthrope]

9. excuse me....but what makes you think that woman is being "used?"

Think she does not know her own mind?

[NWCorona]

14. I think it's obvious when Hillary uses a tragedy to score political points

[msanthrope]

17. So, you think this woman is coordinating with the HRC campaign?

Or maybe she's just pissed as shit at Bernie all on her own.

[NWCorona]

22. And that is probably true

But I'm not focusing on this one person.

[synergie]

130. So of course you're also condemning Bernie for his use of Erica Garner, right?

[NWCorona]

133. Your point would be valid if Erica/Bernie used the death of her father to bash Clinton.

Does that seem reasonable?

[Jitter65]

196. Bernie does in his "artful" way. nt

[NWCorona]

197. Maybe the "respectful" way is a better term nt

[ibegurpard]

24. Her motivations are not relevant

I feel for her but we can't allow empathy and compassion to drive us into horrendous policy decisions.

[whatchamacallit]

46. You're using her so...

I'm sure you're not alone.

[Yurovsky]

88. Bernie didn't have a goddamn thing to do with Sandy Hook...

and it's obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature what the hell is going on here. The only area where HRC thinks she can score points with progressives is on gun control, and only if she's able to bamboozle them. Well, here's a news flash... We're not stupid. And she's only digging the hole deeper with progressives by pulling this crap.

HRC doesn't scratch her ass without her campaign team sweating over the details for 72 hours first. Don't try and convince me or any other Sanders supporter that HRC's team had nothing to do with this BS. Maybe her supporters are willing to buy that tripe, but as far as I'm concerned, they can go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here thanks to Team Clinton.

[msanthrope]

3. Day of the shooting, he defended his pro-NRA vote. mt

[NWCorona]

7. See post #5

[workinclasszero]

191. Sickening

Sanders pro NRA votes are pathetic.

[MFM008]

72. nothing to do with her.

The daughter of a murder victim, entitled to say whatever she wants.
Hillary isn't responsible,
she is not the cause of global warming
she did not sink the Bismark
she didn't cause dinosaurs to go extinct
She did not make my dad smoke
she did not cause the 2004 Tsunami
she did not cause my appendicitis
she is not, did not Sam I am, green eggs or ham.
Some of us are starting to sound like we migrated from Red State, Brietbart or Daily Caller.

[CobaltBlue]

194. Hillary's Iraq Vote

When Hillary Clinton voted for the unnecessary war in Iraq … she was responsible for the deaths of thousands.

[timlot]

4. Don't think its about what side it helps...

Sanders took the sides of the Gun industry over the murder of 6 and 7 year old babies. He'll have to live with that. Politics aside.

[NWCorona]

10. Bernie can't be blamed for that but if that was the case

What about Hillary and the 500k babies killed in Iraq?

[Gwhittey]

18. Yea mean he did not pass a law

That is same thing as GOP do in trying to counter Roe vs Wade. If we want gun control we should be focusing on getting money out of politics. This is just another dam distraction so people like Clinton can keep grave train. Then GOP do same thing take money from the NRA and block even a single smart gun control. We need smart gun control not gun control that the SCOTUS will strike down first time a case is won. It was just a feel good thing people try to do to appease people knowing it is against the Constitution.

[angrychair]

67. That is a nasty and disgusting thing to say

The law to have the ability to sue gun manufacturers or not has NOTHING to do with the murder of those children.

That is a seriously shitty and vulgar comment and I suggest a self-delete.

[TheFarS1de]

138. Well I guess it is outrageous .

HC is only responsible for the death of brown babies so that's of no consequence . A massacre is so much worse than a civil / religious war now isn't it .

She will have to live with that , politics aside . Somehow though I feel she will laugh it off , that's how she rolls when it comes to death .

[MoonRiver]

173. She is exactly as responsible as Kerry, Biden, and all the other Senators who voted for IWR.

Do you agree with that?

[PowerToThePeople]

6. It was a good answer from Bernie.

imho.

[Onlooker]

8. Sanders is driven by ideology more than compassion

His answer was wrong and he sounded dismissive. Of course, gun manufacturers should face liability. What's to stop from developing guns that can fire 2000 rounds? Are there ever any consequences? The only language big business understands is lawsuits. If a gun manufacturer has to pay out $50 million, they will rethink their guns.

[msanthrope]

13. Exactly....the only goddamn language negligent business understands is lawsuits. nt

[Press Virginia]

39. How was Remington negligent?

[Duckhunter935]

78. Crickets

Not surprised

[Press Virginia]

84. Any answer would have been based on emotions and probably some plea

To let a jury decide.

[anigbrowl]

132. I think it's negligent to run ads conflating gun ownership with health and gender identity

In tort law, there's a concept known as the 'eggshell skull' rule - if someone falls due to your negligence and splits their head open, you can't defend yourself with the argument that the person's skull was too fragile. By publishing advertising suggesting that 'Adam L is just unmanly' Bushmaster (not Remington, who is AFAIK not a party to the suit) may have caused Adam Lanza, the shooter, to feel that his identity as a young man was compromised and created the belief that he needed to take action to restore it. Now, my opinion is that Adam Lanza was probably seriously mentally ill, but that's beside the point; taunting people is generally correlated with the desire or expectation to provoke a reaction - in this case, a reaction that was intended to result in increased gun sales - and any publisher has to consider the possibility that what they publish may well be encountered by people with mental illness.

Consider a simple analogy. Suppose your actual name was 'Press Virginia' and you saw an ad saying 'Press V. deserves to die.' Well, you would probably just feel slightly uncomfortable and offended but you would no doubt move on. But if you were so mentally ill as to be suicidal, then you might take this as confirmation of your worst fears and act upon the suggestion therein. I think it would be negligent of any corporation or individual to run advertising that was likely to distress mentally ill persons by appearing to call them out specifically.

[Press Virginia]

136. Adam Lanza stole his gun...so you can't blame the marketing.

Furthermore you don't even have any evidence that Lanza ever saw the ad or that his mother, the legal owner, sought a man card when she made the purchase

So how is Remington, who is named in the suit, along with its parent company, liable for a stolen gun being used to kill people?

[Duckhunter935]

142. Surprise, more crickets, lol

[anigbrowl]

150. Excuuuse me for not replying quick enough

I don't spend every waking moment on DU and during the interval I also had to feed and medicate my dog, clean up the yard, and kiss my wife before she went out with a friend. I'm sorry that you were unable to bear the suspense of waiting for me to do those things and compose a reply within a timeframe which you consider to be acceptable.

So sorry about your pathetically short attention span. You should not waste your valuable time waiting for me to reply to other people, as I frequently engage in other activities besides conducting conversations here.

[Duckhunter935]

153. I have found from my experience

Most do not reply when challenged, or they will go into insult mode or better yet, the sexual insults.

[anigbrowl]

158. I have found from my experience

that people like you are trolls. Since I engaged in neither insult nor sexual innuendo I suggest you apologize and refrain from such rude behavior in future. Unlike you I won't be holding my breath in anticipation of a reply.

[Duckhunter935]

164. Since I never mentioned you but only

Generalities by others, I have nothing to apologize for. I have been here for almost ten years with thousands of posts, hardly a troll, lol

[anigbrowl]

146. Completely irrelevant

You overlooked the fact that I was not suggesting his purchase of the gun was motivated by the ad - the gun was bought in 2010, which as far as I know was before the ad in question was run.

My argument is that by asserting a correlation between the possession (and implicitly, the use) of an AR-15* and some socially acceptable level of manliness, and presenting itself as being an authority in the determination of such social status with regard to specific individuals, Bushmaster's advertising foreseeably risked creating anxiety and abreaction in a mentally ill individual who might assume himself to be the target of such advertising, notwithstanding the humorous intent of the campaign that would have been apparent to a a reasonable sane reader.

In plainer language, it's not a good idea to market deadly weapons with mean-spirited jokes that seem to call out individuals for general mockery.

Whether Adam Lanza saw the ad in question or not, I don't know. I don't have access to the list of what was in the house or which websites he visited while the ad campaign in question was underway, but if I was acting for the plaintiffs I'd try to get as much information about the campaign as possible during discovery in order to establish the probability that he encountered it or better yet, the certainty that he did so by (say) cross-checking a list of IP addresses of visitors to Bushmaster's website against the IP address records of the Lanza's internet service provider and so on.

You asked what would be a plausible legal theory and I offered you mine, but it's not reasonable to expect me to put together all the evidence and provide the equivalent of a final amended complaint in a casual discussion on a political website. Given Bushmaster's established position in the firearm's industry I think there's a decent chance that someone with a keen interest in firearms could have encountered a national-level advertising campaign during its publication run, so if I were litigating the case that would be something I'd investigate.

You're right about Remington being named in the suit, sorry about that. I misremembered the names of all the firms involved.

* I am typing 'AR-15' for convenience. This isn't a court filing and I am not going to waste time typing out 'Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a rifle based on the AR-15 platform' every damn time. I am, however, cognizant of the difference between full auto, semi-auto, and so on; I just don't want to get derailed by terminological pedantry.

[Press Virginia]

148. The fact that he stole the gun is irrelevant? That, in itself, would negate liability

by everyone named in the suit.
It's also a little odd to name a specific ad, then admit that it ran AFTER his mother bought the gun.

[anigbrowl]

152. Nope

It's clear that you don't understand the argument I'm making, and appear to think that it depends upon the completion of a commercial transaction in response to the publication of the advertisement. It doesn't; I'm not arguing that the sale of the gun was negligent, but rather that the publication of the advert was negligent. Perhaps you should sleep on it and reread it tomorrow.

[Duckhunter935]

155. Should the magazine or paper

Then be sued?

[anigbrowl]

159. If I was fighting such a case I'd consider doing that, yes

I'm very pro first amendment and I don't like the chilling effect that would result, but on the other hand I think a lot of commercial speech is wildly irresponsible, to the detriment of civil life. I think, but have not checked, that the ad in question was website-based rather than in a print publication.

[Duckhunter935]

165. And gets most of its airplay here

Thanks to posters like you, lol

[anigbrowl]

172. Which is entirely appropriate

It would be much more convenient for companies like Bushmaster to have everyone forget about their shitty manipulative ad campaigns and for some interest groups to divert attention from the way sexual insecurities are used to market weapons.

[Duckhunter935]

175. Lol

[Press Virginia]

156. The SALE of the gun is the only pertinent fact. To establish liability

the manufacturer, distributor and dealer would have had to commit a negligent act. Since theft of the gun, from the legal and registered, owner isn't part of the manufacturing/distribution/sale of the gun, there was no negligence involving anyone named in the lawsuit.
The advertisement would have no bearing on the case because of the nature of advertising, which is to induce sales.

He may very well have been influenced by the video games he played, which were first person shooter.

[anigbrowl]

157. No it isn't, who told you that?

I'm not making a product liability argument.

The advertisement would have no bearing on the case because of the nature of advertising, which is to induce sales.


That's the primary purpose of advertising, but that doesn't define the nature of advertising.

Simple example: I run an ad for a type of gun I sell with the title "TARGET PRACTICE", a picture of the President in the crosshairs of a sniper scope, and a smaller picture of my firm's sniper rifle at the bottom. Do you think I'd get away with that by arguing that it was just business? Under Brandenburg, criminal proceedings would be pretty unlikely as it wouldn't satisfy the imminence prong, but I wouldn't want to be on the defense team if someone chose to act on the implicit suggestion and civil litigation ensued.

[Press Virginia]

160. The exceptions to the law, protecting gun makers and dealers, in cases that aren't

based on defective products is negligence in the sale and distribution. The plaintiffs are seeking to establish liability in the sale of the gun itself. Since the gun was stolen there can be no negligence in the distribution or sale on behalf of the manufacturer, distributor or dealer.
There is no evidence that Adam Lanza committed murder, with the guns he stole from his mother after murdering her, based on any advertisement that could reasonably be interpreted as inciting violence. Incitement to violence is an actual restriction to free speech rights.

The plaintiffs lawyers are arguing negligent entrustment, saying the very nature of the gun makes the manufacturer liable for deaths because the weapon is too dangerous for civilians to own in the first place. And such sale violates the laws of the very state that approved the sale to Lanza's mother and legal owner/purchaser.

[anigbrowl]

161. Now you're arguing a whole different case

I did not characterize the plaintiff's lawsuit, and I have not even read the complaint - frankly, because spending too much time on it is likely to set off a depressive episode. I'm telling you the theory I would pursue, not how I expect their suit to unfold. Sorry if that was not clear, but I thought it was very obvious that I was offering up my own idea rather than analyzing the litigation already in progress.

I don't think the mere availability of such weapons for sale is inherently negligent, any more than I would hold the manufacturers and retailers of gasoline responsible for its use in arson. However, I have a big moral problem with the way that some participants in the firearms industry exploit peoples' psychosocial vulnerabilities to market deadly weapons. As a parallel I am OK with the sale of tobacco and favor drug legalization in general, but I'm glad that the advertising of tobacco products is restricted and that monies from the settlement with the tobacco firms is used to produce and distribute anti-tobacco PSAs.

[Press Virginia]

162. Ahhh. I got you. Yeah we were talking about different things altogether

[anigbrowl]

163. OK, glad we got that straightened out. nt

[Duckhunter935]

154. Very true

[stone space]

178. That's up to a jury to decide.

How was Remington negligent?

[Duckhunter935]

186. They were not

As it is just a frivolous lawsuit for publicity. As far as I know it was not a Remington rifle.

[stone space]

188. Tell it to the jury. (nt)

[Press Virginia]

190. You realize that ad campaign had nothing to do with a stolen gun, right?

[ibegurpard]

16. compassion is no excuse for bad policy

Allowing lawsuits against manufacturers for anything other than malfunctions and defects is very bad policy that sets very bad precedents.

[Hoyt]

32. Do you feel that way about cigarettes. How about gun manufacturers using NRA

to influence lax gun laws to spur sales, or advertising to appeal to gun yahoos' baser instincts and racism.

[aikoaiko]

36. The problem with cigarettes was that companies lied about harm

Gun manufacturers are very clear that horrible injury or death can occur if you shoot someone with a gun.

[msanthrope]

49. So you think the gun industry does not lie? nt

[aikoaiko]

53. Not about what their products can do to the human body.

[Duckhunter935]

80. So what are the lies?

[Hoyt]

121. That gun owners, particularly the public toting types, are responsible, for one.

[Press Virginia]

123. Yeaaaah...they non stop shootouts in the streets really proved them wrong

oh wait

[Duckhunter935]

141. Please link to a manufacturer

That says that

[DrDan]

170. so a manufacturer who elects to sell products through a disreputable source should be protected

even if they knew their distributors are disreputable

just let those profits roll in . . .

[Duckhunter935]

176. You mean the ones that are vetted by the state and federal

government and are duly licensed?

[DrDan]

180. are you referring to the licensing process where revocation can take 2 years

and dealers are allowed to continue selling during that period?

And where ATF is restricted to 1 unannounced dealer visit per year allowing corrupt dealers to go undetected and unpunished?

And the federal process that found only 62% of licensees in 2011 were compliant with respect to federal gun laws?

Oversight is negligible - and any manufacturer who knowingly exploits this should not be immune from law suits.

[Duckhunter935]

185. Maybe you should work at fixing that instead

I am all for that instead of suing a manufacturer for a criminal act by a third party.

[DrDan]

187. if a manufacturer is aware of a corrupt dealer and continues to use that channel

they should be sued as well

[Duckhunter935]

189. Dealers have been sued and the dealer lost

It is one of the exceptions written into the law now. You just have to have a legitimate case. A dealer that followed state and federal laws, conducted a legal sale after completing a background check. They are not responsible for her third party son murdering her the firearms owner and steeling her weapons to commit additional murders.

[Bettie]

171. Exactly

I am very, very anti-gun.

And yet, I agree with your point.

Unfortunately a gun working as designed kills people.

Go after the people selling them if there were problems with background checks or if they had reason to believe the person was unstable or violent.

But, suing the manufacturer for making the gun and then selling it to a distributor (of whatever sort) makes as much sense as suing Smirnoff because some dude got drunk and decided to drive. It was his choice. Go after the bartender who served him when he was clearly intoxicated, but you can't sue a manufacturer for making a non-defective product because some idiotic asshole killed some people.

[ecstatic]

19. Exactly. Just like the VA scandal.

Bernie had his ideology blinders on and didn't act when vets were dying on that waiting list. He thought the complaints were part of a conspiracy to destroy the VA.

[mhatrw]

108. That's because they WERE. His first instinct was to protect the VA from the Koch Bros assault.

Are you saying that he was wrong to defend the VA while at the same time working to reform it?

[ecstatic]

137. "while at the same time working to reform it." He was NOT working to reform it.

According him, the VA was perfect and the families were exaggerating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/us/politics/faith-in-agency-clouded-bernie-sanderss-va-response.html

Faith in Agency Clouded Bernie Sanders’s V.A. Response

Despite mounting evidence of trouble at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Senator Bernie Sanders, then the chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, initially regarded the complaints as overblown, and as a play by conservatives to weaken one of the country’s largest social welfare institutions.

“There is, right now, as we speak, a concerted effort to undermine the V.A.,” Mr. Sanders said in May 2014, two weeks after the story was picked up by national news organizations. “You have folks out there now — Koch brothers and others — who want to radically change the nature of society, and either make major cuts in all of these institutions, or maybe do away with them entirely.”

But the scandal deepened: The secretary of veterans affairs resigned. Reports showed major problems at dozens of V.A. hospitals. And an Obama administration review revealed “significant and chronic systemic leadership failures” in the hospital system.

Mr. Sanders eventually changed course, becoming critical of the agency and ultimately joining with Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, and other colleagues to draft a bipartisan bill to try to fix the veterans health care waiting list.

[mhatrw]

166. LOL. 100% Repuke talking points.

Do you think the VA should exist or not?

[PatrickforO]

23. We already have a gun like this. It's called a puff. Or that's what they used to call them.

But think about this:

You buy a Ford and then get drunk on Jim Beam, crash and kill someone. Should the family of the person you killed while drunk be able to sue:
a) Ford?
b) Jim Beam?

You buy a Glock, get angry, stop at a fast food place and open up, killing 2 people and wounding six. Should the families of the victims be able to sue:
a) Glock?
b) The ammunition manufacturer?

It's the SAME logic. This is why we elect people to create legislation for us, and why we have a federal court system to check and balance that legislation. Sometimes we can't be emotional looking at this stuff - yeah I knew people who died at one of the mass shootings and I'm sick over it - but, Bernie was correct on his vote.

You can feel howsoever you want about that, and I'm sure you disagree with me, but he was correct.

[mythology]

31. Do realize that people can and do sue car makers for safety related issues around drunk driving

http://komonews.com/news/local/state-high-court-rules-drunk-drivers-can-sue-after-car-wrecks

http://accident.usattorneys.com/austin-family-sues-car-manufacturer-bar-connection-deadly-crash/

Also you can sue a bar that serves obviously drunk people.

Car makers have been sued for lack of safety features like useless seat belts or reckless placement of fuel tanks. But a gun manufacturer can't be sued for not having biometric locks.

Sanders was really wrong on this.

[Press Virginia]

35. Safety issues related to the design of the vehicle

how would a biometric lock have stopped Adam Lanza? He lived in the house, his mother took him shooting it's not unreasonable to believe he would have been indexed on the lock

[Duckhunter935]

81. Those are defects

And firearms mnufacturers can and are sued for that. What was the issue with a legal weapon that was allowed to be sold by the state that had an assault weapons ban in place.

[Press Virginia]

34. You know that a gun that fires 2000 rounds wouldn't be a civilian gun, right?

Why would the manufacturer be responsible for the crimes of a kid who murdered the lawful gun owner and then took her guns to commit more murders?
Remington didn't sell the weapon to his mother. She passed the required background check. Lawfully registered it with the state. So where's the manufacturer liability?

[Duckhunter935]

82. Again crickets, lol

[uponit7771]

115. The gun that fires 1 round at a time can be easily made to fire 2000... but you know that...

... uber defense of guns is .. well

[Press Virginia]

117. Easily? That would require 33 trigger pulls per second

[uponit7771]

118. or a bump trigger mod... again, you're not talking to a LIV

[Press Virginia]

119. Bump fire still requires 33 pulls per second

[uponit7771]

120. Which is greatly aided by the mod and make very easy to do... but go ahead and act like you're ..

... talking to someone who doesn't know what the effects of guns are to non "VT" like environments.

I see Sanders never tries to defend his gun vote in front of PoC... for a reason.

sigh...

Not impressed with the guy

[Press Virginia]

122. It's not a modification. And you'd never get close to 2000 rpm any gun you could

bump fire

What do POC have to do with it?

[uponit7771]

124. More sophistry, it is a mod to the firearm stock and only someone with a weak position on this will

... argue whether its 1000 or 2000 rounds

If you're asking what does PoC have to do with the effects of guns on their community then wow

[Press Virginia]

126. Oh good lord...it is a device that doesn't change the operation of the gun

and you're the one who said making a gun fire 2000 rpm was easy don't let the actual limitations of the gun stop your fantasy.

What do gun manufacturers have to do with crimes committed in their communities?

[uponit7771]

114. +1, apathetic about racial issues.. apathetic about gender issues... apathetic about LGBT issues..

... apathetic about how he's even going to get his plan done.

Fuck everything, be angry at "the banks" and fight for guns in peoples hands...

Somehow that's supposed to be uber progressive !?!?

[islandmkl]

139. you don't know much about Bernie's stance on automatic weapons, do you?

or, more likely, you DO know but you want to keep this bullshit apples/oranges/mixed fruit meme going for your girl...

nice use of the victims...that was a real compassionate touch...

[LexVegas]

11. Gun nuts like that answer. nt

[ibegurpard]

12. we are not going to put bad policy in place

Because someone lost a loved one. No.
Murder is already against the law.
We don't set the awful precedent of allowing people to go after the manufacturers of weapons. That leads down a horrible rabbit hole.
I am very sorry for her loss.

[msanthrope]

15. The only language bad business understands is losing money.

Make it so.

[ibegurpard]

20. repeal the 2nd Amendment

And maybe you can start having an actual argument. And I will NEVER support going after someone who manufactures something because someone else uses it to kill someone. That opens up all sorts of Pandora ' s boxes.

[msanthrope]

21. Absolutely not!!! I can own my guns and NOT support

the NRA or their corporate masters.

[ibegurpard]

26. it has nothing to do with guns or the NRA

We cannot allow these kinds of lawsuits against parties who aren't responsible for the actions of others.

[Press Virginia]

37. You'll never be able to get through

emotional overload won't allow for reason

[Jarqui]

77. I agree with you.

If a guy uses a car to murder someone, should the manufacturer be liable? Where does it stop? Sue President Obama too for saving the auto industry?

Let's say such a law passes. What are the manufacturers going to do? Shut down their US operations and move the plant and the business to where US civil judgments cannot be enforced. Game over. You haven't solved anything because as long as the gun stores/dealers are allowed to sell them, they'll get their 100 cartridge magazines and people killers on the shelves in no time fro offshore manufacturers. And with the tax havens Hillary got them in her trade deals, they'll probably make more money.

Bernie's right, that's a dead end. You have to go after some of the other aspects - getting assault weapons outlawed, getting mental health professionals allowed to work like medical doctors who can pull your driver's license after a neurological injury (for example in some places). They could pull the gun license for someone who is mentally sick which might trigger the police to pickup the gun.

Improvement in mental health care with single payer (what a novel idea!!) would reduce such gun deaths.

Hillary is going to nibble at improvements - follow Obama's progress on gun control = none.

Bernie is talking about a political revolution. I don't care for the term but Bernie has the right idea. If you're going to get the guns, you have to get the mandate in congress. 60+ Dem senators plus a decent majority in the house (to deal with blue dogs types).

Forget this stupid stuff about trying to sue manufacturers that's not going to do anything of substance. Fight to get a lot of Dems elected and then these policies we like might come to pass.

[Karma13612]

85. ^^ precisely ^^^ +10 eom

[LP2K12]

25. So...

If a drunk driver kills my wife, can I sue Jack Daniels for manufacturing the liquor?
Can I sue the liquor or grocery store that allowed said person to purchase that liquor for consumption?

If my child dies while sledding down a snowy hill, should I sue the manufacture of the sled?

If a soldier, twenty years removed from the military, takes that training and commits a crime such as murder... should I be able to sue the military for training that soldier?

This is all quite ridiculous. Manufacturers and distributors are not the issue. Firearms aren't magically going away. Sorry.

[DrDan]

45. what other manufacturing industry has liability protection via legislation?

why do gun makers need it? Afraid of the courts?

[Duckhunter935]

86. It's called SLAAP suits

And yes other manufacturers have similar protections. Abortion providers also have this protection, I guess you are for getting rid of those laws.

[JeffHead]

113. Vaccine manufacturers via the supreme court.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE71L41420110222

[DrDan]

169. that particular law specifically shields them from liability when the vaccine was govt-mandated

but you are correct - it is legislation offering protection from product liability

[kcr]

52. Yes. You can.

You'll very likely lose. But you can.

Tort reform is right wing nonsense. It's ridiculous to see it touted by liberals.

[Seeinghope]

63. Seriously

As long as the laws say that the guns can be manufactured and sold, the liquor can be mad and sold, the cars be made and sold, knives be made and sold you cannot sue the manufacturers without going after the laws that allow the guns, liquor, knives...to be sold to people

[Press Virginia]

65. Which was exactly the intent of those who sought to sue gun makers

over the criminal acts of others.

[Seeinghope]

69. Probably true but the laws have to change 1st.

Suing the manufacturers would be useless unless laws could be shown to be broken. Something has to be proven to be wrong with the gun such as it malfunctioning for a suit to be valid in court. A gun being sold illegally would be another cause for a case. The laws are just too lax. As long as the laws are lax the gun manufacturers are in the clear.

[Press Virginia]

74. What do you mean by lax? Secondary market?

if the original owner sells his gun, it's got nothing to do with the manufacturer.

Federal laws require background checks, manufacturers sell to licensed dealers

[Seeinghope]

129. Right. That is what I mean

What law was broken that would warrant a law suit that would hold up in court? In that case none. It is all about the laws. As long as the laws are not broken by the gun manufacturers it would be foolhardy to try to sue them.

[Travis_0004]

29. So if I get in a crash doing 90mph while drunk, I can sue Ford on Budweiser?

Sorry if your new car cost 60 grand, we had to pay out a few lawsuits.

[Press Virginia]

42. What did the business do to that makes them liable?

[restorefreedom]

27. very well said. nt

[DrDan]

40. no other manufacturing industry needs this protection - why the gun makers

[Press Virginia]

44. No other business is being sued over the criminal actions of an unrelated party

[DrDan]

47. so you have no faith in the courts

[Press Virginia]

50. I have no faith in people who substitute emotion for reason

the entire argument against Remington is based on emotion.

[DrDan]

54. got it - no faith in the courts

[Press Virginia]

57. Not when the argument involves parading 23 dead kids in front of a jury

demanding retribution for the parents

[DrDan]

58. I understand . . . no faith in the courts and juries

the gun makers need to be protected - other manufacturers are on their own

sounds fair

[Press Virginia]

62. see? Your emotions don't allow you to reason

[DrDan]

64. lol

[LP2K12]

71. I believe that...

All manufacturers of products should be free from liability. They are providing a product. The distributors who sell those items should be responsible for to the extend of ensuring all laws and rules are followed.

Want a car? Have a license.
Want liquor? Be of age.
Want a firearm? Pass a background screening, verify mental health, comply with a waiting period and be open to limiting ammo and types of firearms sold.

Do I think suing a manufacturer will ever be the answer? No.

[DrDan]

168. so manufacturers have no responsibility in choosing distribution channels

they should be free to sell at gun shows or through whatever means whereby they can maximize profits - got it

[Duckhunter935]

177. They can't sell to the public

Only government vetted and approved vendors.

[Travis_0004]

179. I dont think a manufacturer has ever sold a gun at a gun show.

Im sure a liscensed FFL has sold a few, but they are required by law to conduct background checks.

if they dont and it ends up in the wrong hands, you would be free to sue them, and the ATF would be going after them as well.

[DrDan]

181. it can take forever to have a license revoked - and they can continue to sell during that period

[Travis_0004]

182. then write your congressmen

If that is the case the ATF needs to get off their ass and improve it, but I still dont see how it justies a lawsuit against a manufacturer.

[DrDan]

184. if a manufacturer is aware of dealer "inconsistencies" and continues to feed that dealer

they should be held accountable

[Travis_0004]

192. Do you have any proof they were aware?

Also, manufactures dont sell to dealrers, distributors do, and I dont think they were named in any lawsuits.

[DrDan]

193. no - that would be for a court/jury to decide

[frylock]

116. There are people who have been wrongly incarcerated and have lived 20+ years on death row.

You have absolute faith in the courts and juries?

[islandmkl]

140. you have faith in the mob with pitchforks and torches...???

that worked SO WELL back in Dixie in the day...

or are you looking for anarchy and total breakdown of the social fabric...

or is it that YOU want to be the judge?

[frylock]

143. I don't recall saying that.

[islandmkl]

147. it appears that you and DrDan asked the same rhetorical question...

with no alternative offered to the 'juries question'...that was all

[frylock]

149. Oh, okay.

[DrDan]

167. ridiculous - of course not

but you don't throw out the system because of that - you continue to improve it

[Duckhunter935]

87. SLAAP suits are not designed to win

They are by design to bankrupt the company by defending frivolous lawsuits

[SoLeftIAmRight]

28. mental health care for all - sounds like a solution - single payer

oh - hillary does not believe

[wendylaroux]

30. My cousin overdosed on pain killers made

by the same pharm. co.'s that donated millions to clinton.

[Martin Eden]

33. Are you saying Bernie should have refused to address the question of his vote ...

... in deference to the tragedy of that day?
-- OR --
... are you saying he should have lied and said his vote was wrong?

He obviously believes his vote regarding lawsuits against gun manufacturers was right, and I agree with his vote. If it's legal to manufacture the gun, and it was not defective, and the manufacturer broke no law in the manner in which the gun was sold to the distributor, then suing the manufacturer has no basis in logic or justice.

If the objective is to make the gun illegal to manufacture, then pass legislation or amend the Constitution to accomplish that goal directly.

[aikoaiko]

38. I feel for the victim but Bernie was correct to vote for PLCAA

[Prism]

41. Well, if you must crawl over bloody children in America

To make your case. Ignoring, of course, the hundreds of thousands of bloody children in the Middle East who "enjoy" Clinton's policies.

I seriously don't get how some of you pull these stunts with a clear conscience.

Do only white American children count? Is that how that is?

[msanthrope]

43. Perfect answer to this daughter. nt

[Prism]

48. I don't do emotional appeals

Maybe that has currency with you. Or you think it has currency with others. But I see an incident where the manufacturer liability bill would've done zip in Newton.

And then I see Clinton's policies that have actually had tangible, life-ending consequences for hundreds of thousands.

"A daughter feels things. How dare you!"

K.

Hillary actually does things.

So, how dare you?

[msanthrope]

51. Okay. Placeholder. nt

[Prism]

56. I'll just note you're not answering

I mean, hey, we both know you can't. You want to exploit Newton while ignoring the consequences of Clinton's policies on hundreds of thousands.

But isn't it nice to pretend you care? Gives kind of a self-righteous boosty charge, doesn't it?

*backpat* To save you a bit of self-exertion.

[pantsonfire]

55. This smear campaign and spectacle of grief needs to stop....

"If we did have a theatre, would you, tragic woman, stand there time and again, so frail, so naked, so utterly without the pretext of a role, before those who satisfy their impatient curiosity with the spectacle of your grief?" - The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge

[Autumn]

61. You can't expect it to stop, they have a new tool to use to smear Bernie.

[pantsonfire]

66. I can hope, I've heard other parents have called her comments inappropriate n/t

[Autumn]

70. Some people you just don't hear from unless they post hit pieces on Bernie.

And discussion accomplishes nothing.

[pantsonfire]

73. Right...n/t

[AgerolanAmerican]

59. oh great

"Sandy Hook" is now the new "9/11"

[Politicalboi]

60. How many mothers can send tweets to Hillary from Iraq?

We're all sorry what happened in Newtown. Suing the manufactures won't solve the problem. Sue the people who want guns everywhere.

[hrmjustin]

68. So sorry for her loss.

I have no doubt in my mind that Sanders cares about this issue but I disagree with his vote.

[snowy owl]

75. This is dirt. Slimey. Basically untruthful. Exploiting mom? Should be ashamed.

Did you listen to his reasoning? He was assault weapons banned instead of small business owners who sell hunting rifles. Sure this person was raised to be a better thinker than this crap.

[msanthrope]

76. The daughter should be ashamed? nt

[Press Virginia]

79. She obviously lacks the ability to be shamed

[msanthrope]

89. The daughter or HRC?

[Press Virginia]

90. Both

[msanthrope]

93. Well..now we know why his surrogates are losing NY for him. nt

[Press Virginia]

95. Yeah, it's our fault she uses her dead mother to attack Bernie

for using common sense.

[msanthrope]

97. She "uses her dead mother?" Here's a bullhorn. Can't wait to see what the

true progressives say to you.

[msanthrope]

100. Still waiting.....Sandy Hook victim "uses" her dead mother. nt

[Press Virginia]

101. Yeah...she uses her dead mother as both a shield and to give her

some moral authority to attack Sanders over a vote that prohibits her from getting a wad of cash from a company that did nothing to kill her mother

[msanthrope]

103. "uses" her dead mother to get a "wad of cash." Still waiting on the Bernie supporters. nt

[Press Virginia]

104. Yep. why else would she be mad over a law protecting Remington from baseless

lawsuits

[dr60omg]

83. I think it is ridiculous to use this to campaign

since Secy Clinton gets money from gun lobbyists parsing language for the guy who stands for the assault weapons ban while parsing and spinning is absurd

[msanthrope]

91. Why, preciscely, do you think this comes from the campaign? nt

[Beowulf]

92. This is a distraction from the real problem

and the real people who are responsible: policy makers who lack the political will to stand up to the NRA and make these weapons illegal. By large majorities, Americans want this. BTW, who has an NRA lobbyist organizing fundraisers?

[msanthrope]

94. Indeed. Keep telling the Sandy Hook victims that are a distraction. nt

[Press Virginia]

96. They are shamelessly using dead kids to attack Bernie

[msanthrope]

98. Can't wait to see what the true progressives say to you. nt

[Press Virginia]

102. You're not a true progressive?

[Beowulf]

105. Disingenuousness seems to be your strongest trait.

You know that's not what I meant. But to be clear, I consider people like you who use victims of tragedies like Sandy Hook to score political points that help neither the survivors nor in preventing similar tragedies a cancer on legitimate public discourse.

[TheFarseer]

99. I think this is really misplaced

Calling out Bernie Sanders because she can't sue the gun manufacturers. It's a step even further than being mad at Ford because a drunk driver killed your mom. I feel horrible for anyone that lost someone in a mass shooting but this is the biggest reach pretty much ever.

[mhatrw]

106. That puts the PROP

in propaganda.

Sanders wants to ban assault weapons. So what exactly is this tweet than a lot of false outrage for craven political gain?

[Mike Nelson]

107. I support the mom...

...gun manufacturers need to be more responsible about their product. All they seem interested in is selling more guns. It's overkill. Firearms should be licensed and "well regulated."

[Press Virginia]

109. The gun in question was licensed and regulated by the state of CT

how was Remington irresponsible in its manufacture of their legal product and its subsequent transfer to a federally licensed dealer?

[Kalidurga]

110. So you posted that to prove that they aren't going to push for a 2A strike down?

Because that is where the problem is. What you need to do is strike down the 2nd Amendment and make personal gun ownership illegal. I have looked for ways that would have stopped this tragedy and the only way is if Adam had no access to a gun. But, he did have access and those guns were legal. They shouldn't be legal, but they are. So, this is a problem of having a bad amendment in the constitution and having those kinds of guns legal in the first place.

[frylock]

111. Stay classy, Hillary.

[libtodeath]

112. You really have no shame or professional integrity.

[synergie]

125. The abuse that the BSer are hurling at her is simply disgusting.

[Press Virginia]

127. Why? Because her mother's dead?

[synergie]

131. Because she dared to criticise Bernie and his votes to protect the Gun industry from the

lawsuits from the families (she's not one of the parties to that suit.)

[Press Virginia]

134. I'm anxious to hear how Remington caused a single death that day

surely she can tell us

[Duckhunter935]

144. I bet you will not get an answer

[Press Virginia]

145. I'm pretty sure you're right.

[Doctor_J]

128. A shame this person is politicizing her mom's death,

and blames Sanders instead of the shooter, the NRA, the shooter's mom, and the republicans and other conservatives who don't think the US should have healthcare.

[msanthrope]

174. She gets to do whatever she thinks is best. nt

[left-of-center2012]

135. Hillary using the death of innocents?

Has she no shame?

[jack_krass]

151. I disagree with the daughter here, but I won't criticize her. However..

I *will* criticize the Clinton puppets here who are tripping all over themselves trying to use dead kids as tools to get some slime on Sanders(and failing miserably by any objective standard). You truly have no shame.

[NewImproved Deal]

183. Shameless. The Clinton machine has no shame...

n/t

[msanthrope]

195. Prove it. nt