Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Connecticut Senator Not Happy With Bernie Sanders’ View On Sandy Hook Lawsuit [View all]Hoyt
(54,770 posts)200. Wouldn't want to inconvenience lethal weapons profiteers.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
237 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Connecticut Senator Not Happy With Bernie Sanders’ View On Sandy Hook Lawsuit [View all]
still_one
Apr 2016
OP
No talking points, just fact and observation. The Sandy Hook killer didn't care about lawsuits.
arcane1
Apr 2016
#66
And Senator Murphy did not "pimp the bodies of murdered children" in his disgreement....
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
Apr 2016
#237
If you promote gunz as manly, the best sniper rifle, necesaaru, etc., you have liability.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#188
let the jury decide if the manufacturers are liable - I agree with Sen. Murphy
wordpix
Apr 2016
#233
A better idea than holding manufactuers liable for damages that guns cause would be
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#75
Yes. Insurance riders normally exclude criminal acts so this insurance would have to be very
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#121
Free speech, the right of assembly and the right to petition the government are all fundamental
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#174
I think my idea will become very popular, and gun owners will just have to pay up, all of them.
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#179
You appear to have no idea how many regulations already exist for firearms, and the transfer thereof
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2016
#222
What part of 'it doesn't cover intentional criminal acts' is confusing to you?
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2016
#221
I thnk you appeal to people in general. This insurance idea is fair to everyone.
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#185
Sell the insurance at the time of the gun sale. It would be part of the purchase price and
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#184
You say that in one breath, but propose to price out poor rural people from hunting
NutmegYankee
Apr 2016
#186
If you want to exercise your free speech right in Los Angeles and get a bunch of people to
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#187
That's what would have to change. The insurance would have to cover intentional acts
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#182
I have incredibly strong feelings in support of our civil liberties and form of government
NutmegYankee
Apr 2016
#205
Sounds like the creed of some American militia group. Believe it or not, we don't live in
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#206
It is when someone is promoting guns in USA, and it's used by militia groups like the Border Klan.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#216
I know what it is, and I know militia groups, Oath Keepers and other Right Wing groups
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#217
We're talking complete immunity - there are vaccine courts and parents can sue. nt
Native
Apr 2016
#162
Hillary's voting for two wars should disqualify her from the nomination. n/t
Cheap_Trick
Apr 2016
#4
Obviously you didn't even bother to read the OP. This isn't a hit piece against Sanders
still_one
Apr 2016
#5
It's a hit piece. The law was a joke. It would never have made it past the SCOTUS. You
rhett o rick
Apr 2016
#54
Closer to apples to zebras. The tobacco industry added ingredients that made their product
rhett o rick
Apr 2016
#141
It doesn't matter where the argument "plays". Its a losing argument and would never fly in courts.
phleshdef
Apr 2016
#22
Well if there was a law that stated that gun manufacturers HAVE to use such technology...
phleshdef
Apr 2016
#33
You just want it to go to court, no matter what, because that will cost the dealers and manufacture
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2016
#94
It will also cost the people who attempt to sue and would likely be a loss of money for those...
phleshdef
Apr 2016
#95
A court (and I assume you mean jury, not judge) cannot just arbitrarily declare a product defective.
branford
Apr 2016
#117
Did you just say 'free market' in a story where the *existence* of a technology limits the firearms
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2016
#109
Nothing in that liability legislation prevents those technologies from advancing.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2016
#149
We'll see if people in Connecticut, the Bronx, and Brooklyn agree with you. nt
geek tragedy
Apr 2016
#29
and, pardon me if I'm incorrect as it's been a while since I've done torts, but
geek tragedy
Apr 2016
#85
No way. I want to see strong gun laws but this law made a mockery of true gun control.
rhett o rick
Apr 2016
#63
He (Sanders) is right. Unless you're willing to advocate for no one ever having a gun...
dchill
Apr 2016
#12
Seems so goddamned SIMPLE, doesn't it? If I didn't know better, I'd think some are politicizing
AzDar
Apr 2016
#53
Good luck selling that argument in this city and the broader tri-state area Senator Sanders.
hrmjustin
Apr 2016
#20
You people will say anything ANYTHING, no matter how wrong or disgusting, or made up- for your Queen
Elmer S. E. Dump
Apr 2016
#25
The meaning of "you people" was militant Hillary supporters, not NYC citizens
JonLeibowitz
Apr 2016
#43
You know who I was talking to. Good luck in your life. You're going to need it!
Elmer S. E. Dump
Apr 2016
#137
One thing we should do is to make parents face time for felony child endangerment
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#49
Woops! Maybe we should make them liable for obesity deaths while we are at it.
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#65
because bernie protect the death industry they havent felt compelled to make the gunz safer
saturnsring
Apr 2016
#38
It would be easier to pass legislation regulating the gun manufacturers so that they have to
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#47
Should we allow people whose loved ones have been killed by drunk drivers to sue the
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#40
Murphy sat on the Financial Services Committee while his own home got forclosed on so I'm not
Bluenorthwest
Apr 2016
#71
He says if you are knowingly negligent, you should be liable. Not if you did nothing illegeal
jtuck004
Apr 2016
#77
It's like 99% of the people on this thread have conveniently forgotten the PLCAA precedent
Native
Apr 2016
#142
Bernie Bombs in NYDN Editorial Meeting, Reveals Just How Substance-Free His Campaign Is
Sir Lurksalot
Apr 2016
#155
I'm sorry, but manfactuerers are NOT responsible for what people do with their guns.
Odin2005
Apr 2016
#183
Fortunately this isnt a viewpoint that is held in comminality among the electorate...
Earth_First
Apr 2016
#234