NRA tweets support for Bernie Sanders
Source: The Hill
The National Rifle Association is tweeting its support for comments from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at Sunday's Democratic presidential debate.
The NRA tweeted Monday that Sanders was “spot-on” during the debate when he defended his vote for legislation that would hold gun manufacturers liable for shootings.
<...>
During the debate, CNN moderator Anderson Cooper argued that a suit brought by families of the victims from the Sandy Hook shooting against Remington may not go anywhere. He asked Sanders what he would say to those families.
Sanders replied that if a gun was legally purchased, he disagreed with holding the gun manufacturer liable.
Read more: http://thehill.com/regulation/272029-nra-tweets-support-for-bernie-sanders
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)But i agree with Bernie. Thousands of people are stabbed with knives every year.. do we go after them? I believe its important that people be responsible for their own actions. I also believe todays nra is NOT my grandpas nra and i dont give a flying fig for their opinion
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)i grew up with abuse, so have a bit of firsthand insight into this, and while sadists and psychopaths are not fundamentally sane, it's troubling that they should fall under the same banner as those who suffer from debilitating psychological disabilities.
mentally ill ppl are far more likely to be abused by ignorant, sick fucks than to commit violence upon their community. i'm annoyed that they have become collateral damage in this gun debate.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)oops. like um we feell uncomfortable here this feels strange attack it I don't know how X_X. Democrats will never succeed in banning guns. Only Republicans can do that. Only Republican in recent memory who had nothing to do with banning guns as a Republican was Jr. Thats it.
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)WhiteHat
(129 posts)Gun makers are legal US corporations offering only legally-sanctioned guns.
We can't blame gun makers for following the law. They make KILLING MACHINES, it's what they do.
If you don't think America needs neighborhoods full of assault weapons (think about that for just a sec...), then make assault weapons illegal, and gun makers can't offer them for sale.
But blame gun makers for doing their best to return a profit to their investors? That's just shabby second-guessing, based on Congress' inability to deliver life-saving laws.
Wanna reduce gun deaths?
Let's have a national debate that starts here: zero guns = zero gun deaths. Then permit specific gun types for specific purposes, and carefully vet owners by gun type/purpose.
By that measure the only people who get assault weapons are...
Um, no one. Can you even imagine a single person in the US who needs a gun that can spray lead at 60 rounds/sec?
sarisataka
(18,883 posts)
maybe a few other folks:
/
but not many people need a minigun.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Unless you have a special permit and pay a lot of money. "Assault weapons," as they are colloquially termed, are in reality simply semi-automatic rifles (i.e., one shot per trigger pull) that simply look "scary." Very, very few private citizens own a gun "that can spray lead at 60 rounds/sec," and none have been used in any sort of crime since the North Hollywood bank robbery in 1997 (so almost 20 years ago).
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)........and I just want to say that your post is a breath of fresh air.
Ellipsis
(9,124 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)Or are we supposed to have a kneejerk reaction and support her position (which I haven't heard)?
Sadly, if the gun functions as intended it is not a defective product.
lark
(23,182 posts)Gun makers could be putting gun locks on all their products, but don't. I don't see that Sandy Hook had that in play, but in the cases where kids kill with a gun with no lock on it, I can see suing the gun mfg. This is the one area I disagree with Bernie, he seems to empathize more with the gun dealers than he does with the gun victims. No one is perfect, but he's pretty darn good. I'm h0ping he will evolve on this issue.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)There's no law saying the manufacturers are required to put those locks on is there? If not, they're still not liable.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)By the manufacturer. But people are suing for criminal misuse.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)I'm really torn here. I'm not pro gun. But I support hunters and responsible gun ownership. I don't have, nor foresee myself ever owning a firearm. But I feel strongly that this comes down to government regulation.
A gun without safety locks? That sounds like a car without park, to. Instead it's always resting in neutral, one tilt and it can roll. The government should make that a requirement. But holding the gun manufacturer responsible for using the weapon to harm someone, either with intention or because it fell in to the hands of someone not intended to use it, is like holding the auto manufacturer responsible for a car accident by the same standard. Lack of responsible ownership and regulation failed us.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Her specific position on gun access and control is freely available on her website...
(just a head's-up on the wee, off-chance it was a sincere question)
Human101948
(3,457 posts)I am not a gun nut but I do understand the argument that when a manufacturer makes a product that functions as intended they should not be liable when someone uses the product to injure or kill. There's not much detail on the website so perhaps there are some subtleties that I am unaware of.
WhiteHat
(129 posts)It's not up to gun makers to decide what's legal or even socially responsible.
If we want to reduce gun deaths, it would have to start with politicians. Sadly.
Let's re-start the discussion here:
zero guns = zero gun deaths.
After that, let's permit guns for specific purposes to fully-qualified "safe" owners (knowing full well how many "accidental" deaths we have as a result).
And let's be completely honest about the types of guns gun owners need. Does anyone need an assault weapon that can spray death at 60 rounds/sec? Hard to imagine.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)but as soon as it's about fracking, wars, the private prison pipeline or any of Hillary's other centrist ideals, lol it's time to turn a blind eye.
lmao
Anyways, the NRA is right. The Gun Manufacturer should not be held liable for the misuse of a product. They preach responsible ownership of guns all the fucking time, they really can't be held accountable for the mental illnesses of people that get their hands on them.
BTW, to use an analogy of Bernie's, say I hit someone over the head with a baseball bat. You gonna sue the baseball bat manufacturer? No. You're not.
George II
(67,782 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Are there instructions for doing so?
No? The companies are always saying don't look down the barrel of a gun, always keep it pointed at the ground, keep your safety on, keep out of reach of children, etc...
So, no, the company can't be held liable. They have all kinds of disclaimers telling you not to do so.
George II
(67,782 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)That's not a question to be answered. It was a statement to be refuted but.. lol ok.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)Not for murder.
Response to Akicita (Reply #24)
Cali_Democrat This message was self-deleted by its author.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)
Do they function as intended? Should a company be responsible for the criminal of negligent misuse of their legal product?
Automobiles aren't manufactured with the intent of killing, maiming, or destroying, but they such as hell do a bang up job of it.
So, should I be able to sue Ford because someone got drunk and hit me while driving a Ford?
Of course not, and the same analogy applies to firearms.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Or at least protect the lives of myself and the family.
lark
(23,182 posts)Baseball bats by their nature and design can't have safety measures, guns can and should. Very young kids can't kill with baseball bats but can easily kill someone with an unlocked and loaded gun.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)To clarify, I do know it takes more effort to kill with a bat. But I'm just saying that you can make a safety measure for anything.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)held responsible? Same with children drowning in swimming pools or bathtubs. You never hear of manufacturer's of swimming pools or bathtubs being sued. Adults need to be responsible. Not the manufacturers if the product is not defective.
Whitney Houston's family did not sue the bathtub manufacturer for her demise. It just doesn't make sense.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Responsible for an unlocked and loaded gun? Or is the adult who left that gun unlocked and loaded responsible? Smith & Wesson didn't create the idiot.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Sums it up neatly.
Odd that with all of the outrage surrounding Sandy Hook, you rarely hear people pin the blame where it belongs --- Lanza's mother. It was her poor judgement and irresponsibility that led to the murder of all of those precious children.
George II
(67,782 posts)
malthaussen
(17,230 posts)But tell me, do you disagree with the substance?
-- Mal
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Public NRA approval of anything you say or do is not helpful for a democratic socialist. I really hope Bernie vocally renounces this statement and indicates that he isn't the least bit interested in any statements of support from the NRA.
The NRA is still led by racist bastards who would claim that the solution to opening a jar with a tight lid is to shoot it off.
Botany
(70,635 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)
kacekwl
(7,025 posts)A great way to take down Bernie . Hmmmm did he also jump from a D to an A rating ?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Even I don't believe this.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)because they will be able to use her to excite their base and sell more guns just as they have done with Obama.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)Every time he brings up gun control guns fly off the shelves and gun company stocks skyrocket. The gun manufacturers will get much richer if Hillary is elected than they will if Bernie is elected.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)If you campaign on banning all gun manufacturing in America.
Vinca
(50,323 posts)How can you hold a manufacturer responsible for a legal buyer's criminal act? I couldn't sue Toyota if someone intentionally ran over a family member.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)to win. The driver is held liable for using the product wrong, not the manufacturer.
Liquor companies don't get sued for manufacturing a substance that is addictive for some people, destroying lives and families.
spirald
(63 posts)Forcing businesses to defend lawsuits for selling a legal, properly functioning product in a legal manner makes no sense. If a product is harmful it should be regulated by legislation.
If the gun manufacturers knowingly sold product to distributors who supplied illegal channels and looked the other way, and these sales resulted in harm to people, there are still grounds for a suit.
We shouldn't have a system that allows well funded prohibitionists to bankrupt any business they don't like by forcing them to defend endless lawsuits for things they neither had knowledge or control over. We all know that alcohol abuse causes a lot of harm, but we regulate that product and have extremely stiff penalties for violators. We don't put all the breweries out of business by allowing every alcoholic and their victims to sue the industry.
Personally, I think that "machine gun" laws should cover semi-autos. These are anti-personnel weapons designed to maximize the number of human beings that can be incapacitated or killed by an unskilled operator. As a society we have a legitimate interest in reducing the chances that deranged nutjobs with nothing to lose can get access to them.
Just because the gun manufacturers want to use that bill to say that nobody can sue them for anything doesn't mean that's what the bill actually says.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)"WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton’s campaign will hold a fundraiser in Washington on March 21 that will feature as one of its hosts Jeff Forbes, who until the end of last year worked as a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.
Forbes, a former chief of staff to former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), was registered as a lobbyist for the NRA Institute from 2009 until the end of 2015 on issues such as protecting Second Amendment rights, and regulation and gun control, according to lobbying disclosures. He donated $2,700 to the Clinton campaign in April when he was still registered to lobby against gun control. In addition, a colleague at his Forbes-Tate lobbying shop, Elizabeth Greer, also donated $2,700 while registered to lobby for the NRA."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-nra-lobbyist_us_56d5e214e4b03260bf784001
Does the NRA support Clinton then? Obviously, there is one particular lobbyist that does.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. As despicable as the NRA is, I agree that you should not hold a manufacturer liable for what consumers do with their products. Guns scare me, I do not like them, I will not have them in my home by choice. That being said, what is done with legally purchased items is the responsibility of the purchaser.
captainarizona
(363 posts)Ever since Mrs. Clinton has attacked Bernie Sanders over his position on the gun issue his support among democratic and independent men has gone up see: kansas nebraska maine colorado new hampshire and he actually won iowa if the iowa democratic party ever releases the final vote.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,249 posts) 
rollin74
(1,993 posts)firearms are legal whether one likes it or not
the killers are responsible for their crimes not those that lawfully manufacture or sell a legal item
veronique25
(74 posts)im totally against guns (especially toy guns made for children) -- but, either the laws need to be tightened, or people must be licensed, like car drivers.
if someone runs down a bunch of people in a car -- how can you blame the car corporation?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)this should tell u everything need to know about Bern.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,027 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 7, 2016, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)
They must defend the bottom line of the Gun Manufacturers.
NOTE: This refers to the NRA!
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Or are you actually referring to other Dems as "amoral" and "soul sucking"?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Misread your post.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I put a note there so others will not misunderstand.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,249 posts)
WhiteHat
(129 posts)But entirely realistic. Gun makers are corporations, not people. They're responsible for making profits, with guns or otherwise, within the laws of their host countries.
If it's legal to sell assault weapons in the US, weapons makers are required to sell assault weapons to be the most profitable. If it's not legal to sell assault weapons, they would obviously respond accordingly.
It's not up to manufacturers to determine what's legal. They'll legally offer whatever is legal and profitable.
Bernie is right, however popular or unpopular his views. You don't think Americans need assault weapons?
Then make them illegal.
branford
(4,462 posts)The weapons used by Lanza and subject to the Sandy Hook lawsuit were fully compliant with CT's assault weapons ban.
According to CT, Lanza didn't actually use any "assault weapons."
In fact, "assault weapon" is not a defined term and is essentially meaningless in any discussion of firearm regulation. It's ad hoc nomenclature is intentionally vague and emotive in order to support ever increasing levels of firearm restrictions among a population largely ignorant of the mechanics and operation of guns. It's also intentionally misleading and confused with "assault rifle," i.e., an automatic weapon actually used by various armed forces, and such automatic weapons are already heavily restricted and used in virtually no crimes.
In your earlier post (#48), you effectively define "assault weapons" as any semi-automatic firearm, and seek to ban them because you believe people don't "need" them. Not only would such a definition well exceed virtually every current and proposed assault weapon ban, it would restrict tens, if not hundreds, of millions of the most popular guns in the country, the overwhelming majority of which are never used in any criminality, accident or suicide. Such a ban would also be unconstitutional under the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS precedents. Further, besides the fact that your definition of "need" is inconsistent with many of your fellow Americans, including a great many liberals and Democrats, whether something is necessary is not the standard for regulation in a free country, no less a class of product singularly protected in the Bill of Rights.
Renew Deal
(81,893 posts)Then magic happened and he became pro gun and he won.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)Vermont is liberal state with many gun owners and fewer firearm restrictions than places like Texas. It also has a very low crime rate.
One must therefore inquire, what are the beliefs and positions of the people of Vermont concerning firearms, and does Bernie's views represent that of his constituents.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)You truly have no shame.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Cali democrat said it was this one vote.
It would seem you're the one with no shame for attacking cali democrat on false pretenses.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)so you ignore.
That's a brilliant strategy.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)Gun ownership increased dramatically under President Obama and his threats of gun control. The same would be true with Hillary.
