HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » All the Sandy Hook kids w...

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 03:47 PM

 

All the Sandy Hook kids would still be dead whether the liability bill was passed or not.

All the people that perished over in Iraq would not be dead if the IWR wouldn't have passed.

That's a BIG difference in my mind. Hillary is responsible for those deaths along with the other senators that voted for it.

Bernie is not responsible for any deaths, and if he were he'd have more to say than "I made a mistake, let's move on".

40 replies, 2225 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply All the Sandy Hook kids would still be dead whether the liability bill was passed or not. (Original post)
Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 OP
MrWendel Apr 2016 #1
Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #3
MrWendel Apr 2016 #5
Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #7
MrWendel Apr 2016 #8
Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #12
MrWendel Apr 2016 #14
Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #23
MrWendel Apr 2016 #27
geek tragedy Apr 2016 #2
Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #4
geek tragedy Apr 2016 #10
Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #13
Press Virginia Apr 2016 #34
frylock Apr 2016 #28
Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #6
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #19
Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #33
Bobbie Jo Apr 2016 #25
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #9
Kalidurga Apr 2016 #11
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #17
bettyellen Apr 2016 #22
Kalidurga Apr 2016 #29
bettyellen Apr 2016 #31
Kalidurga Apr 2016 #37
JoePhilly Apr 2016 #15
MFM008 Apr 2016 #16
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #18
Sheepshank Apr 2016 #20
Press Virginia Apr 2016 #30
Name removed Apr 2016 #21
aikoaiko Apr 2016 #32
jmg257 Apr 2016 #24
arcane1 Apr 2016 #26
jfern Apr 2016 #35
Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #36
angrychair Apr 2016 #38
Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #39
kcr Apr 2016 #40

Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 03:51 PM

1. How about the...

people in Afghanistan that Bernie voted to keep in, would they be alive or dead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrWendel (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 03:52 PM

3. You really think those situations are the same? How old are you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 03:53 PM

5. I see....

your ducking the question. Would they be alive or dead? You put the premise out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrWendel (Reply #5)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 03:54 PM

7. Strawman - complete strawman. I won't answer your question because it has NOTHING to do with this.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #7)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 03:56 PM

8. You...

just held her responsible for her vote, but you won't for him? That's hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrWendel (Reply #8)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:09 PM

12. You are either being a typical Hillary supporter or you don't understand war.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #12)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:12 PM

14. Not only...

do I understand war, I understand when your ducking a simple question based on a premise you put out in your OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrWendel (Reply #14)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:46 PM

23. There's the rub. Simple question complex answer

 

to complex for someone dense enough to vote for Hitlery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #23)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 05:02 PM

27. Ad Hominem...

attack aside, it's a simple question and a simple answer. But instead...

AND



Those GIFS aren't too complex to figure out are they? I mean its not like someone asked "Explain your wall street plan?"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 03:52 PM

2. you all would be well advised to just ignore this subject--you can't win by debating it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 03:52 PM

4. Not when we debate with people that can't understand the law.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:00 PM

10. when you're on the side of the NRA and against parents of a massacre,

 

you're never going to win the political debate.

one of those where the candidate takes his lumps and moves on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:10 PM

13. You are such a no-see-um. Very irritating, but easily defeated.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 06:10 PM

34. What did Remington do that makes them liable

 

for the crimes of Adam Lanza?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 05:16 PM

28. Please don't throw me in the briar patch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 03:53 PM

6. I can see I just reopened a wound.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:40 PM

19. LOL. I can't see most of the replies in the thread, actually.

 

So I'm guessing that Camp Weathervane's flipped its collective shit?

Well done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #19)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 06:09 PM

33. You said it all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:48 PM

25. Gross

This is fucking funny?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 03:56 PM

9. Your title is borderline offensive....not untrue....but damn...n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:01 PM

11. The truth is often offensive

I find it offensive that those children were murdered. It's still true though. And it is true that a back ground check and a number of proposals if passed wouldn't have saved them. The only thing that would have saved them is if we didn't have a culture where so many people are paranoid out of their minds. If Adam's mother hadn't been a wing nut with guns this wouldn't have happened. We need to dial down the fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #11)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:31 PM

17. Yes, dial down the spectacle of grief as well...n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #11)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:46 PM

22. I'm for legislation that would have taken those guns out of the house.

 

At the very least, the rapid firing ones. But really, due to that kids mental health problems- all of them. If his mom didn't have the sense to keep guns away from him, the law should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #22)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 05:35 PM

29. I would be for background checks that also inquire about the people in the house

Or anyone that would have access to the purchased guns. Even certain people who might visit such as ex felons with a violent felony on their records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #29)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 05:40 PM

31. That an increased liability is key. If we punish people for every other kind of child neglect...

 

but let them leave guns lying around, we are fucked. I know people are loathe to punish parents "a second time" when they fuck up, but I really think they'd stop being so careless if there were repercussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #31)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 06:24 PM

37. Yes it is terrible to not charge the parents.

If a book case falls on a child because it isn't secure that parent might be charged with having an unsafe environment. Maybe not, but it's a lot more likely than being charged with a gun crime if their 15 year old kills his brother while playing cops and robbers. That tragedy killed my soul a little. I can just imagine what life for that poor kid is going to be like as his parents blame him for their neglect even if they don't say the words. And even if they take responsibility that child is going to live with the guilt of killing his brother.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/minn-teen-accidentally-kills-brother-13-deadly-game-article-1.2093078

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:14 PM

15. Bernie should run on that!!

Would go over very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:26 PM

16. Oh God, just stop

It sounds like a republican argument.
Clinton caused Bin Laden
Obama caused ISIS
NO ONE KILLED ANYBODY.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:38 PM

18. Absolutely correct.

 

Lawsuits like that are intended to serve one of two purposes: to act as a way around not being able to get weapon bans and other such aggressive gun control legislation passed via the democratic process -or- a doubtless lawyer-generated attempt to monetize grief. Or, I suppose, both...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:42 PM

20. false narrative

 

You have no idea how manufacturers and retailers would have changed their habits, promotional processes, support for other related laws, and curbing the NRA support, had such a law been put in place a mere 10 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #20)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 05:36 PM

30. The rifle was registered in the state by its lawful owner/purchaser

 

The lawful owner was murdered, the gun was taken by the murderer who used it to commit more murders

What law or business practice would have prevented that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #21)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 05:44 PM

32. Ever since? What about his votes for AWB and Background checks

Those votes earned him a D- from the NRA.

The NRA has not been rewarding him ever since 1990.

PLCAA is good law. If someone can show that the manufacturer were trying defeat federal gun laws and get guns to criminals then they can sue. It is not blanket immunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:48 PM

24. Objection, your Honor! Speculation nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 05:01 PM

26. How DARE you bring FACTS into this!!!1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 06:10 PM

35. And the lawsuit would probably be thrown out either way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 06:18 PM

36. I apologize to the people that I've offended.

 

Sometimes, the truth shouldn't be used as battering ram, but in this instance, I take full responsibility for my post. Yes, the truth can sometimes be harsh. Again, I'm sorry for those I've offended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 06:29 PM

38. As anybody that wishes to look

Knows I am very anti-gun. I don't agree with OC or CC. I believe it puts the burden of trust on others without their concurrence. Meaning you carrying a gun around means I have to trust you, a stranger, to be in closed quarters with a device that was expressly invented to kill, be it animals or people.
That said, I think this attempt to create a law that allows people to sue gun manufacturers is a massive waste of energy and political capital that could be better used for other purposes to limit guns in public spaces or that find there way into the hands of the mentally unstable or violent criminals.
The law being created would only apply in very very few cases and be very hard and costly to prove and any conviction would likely be fought in the courts for years and likely to be overturned. Things like cigarette advertising was easy, they were knowingly making a product that was killing people and hiding it. Gun manufacturers have never hidden the fact that their products kill people, in fact it was invented for that express purpose.

Getting hand guns and assault-style weapons off the streets and from being made at all should far more important a goal.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #38)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 06:41 PM

39. Yes, and also the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution

 

If people have the right to own firearms, then there must be a legal way to manufacture and sell those weapons. That is the way things have always worked, and still do to this day.

You cannot hold a gun manufacturer liable for making and selling a legal product.

Bernie was right then, he's right now. I agree there is no other logical stance.

People that don't like the current situation (I'm one of them) need to get the laws changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #38)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 07:02 PM

40. Creating a law that allows people to sue them? What? They were already allowed.

People are allowed to sue when they feel like they've been wronged. Which some don't like and never have. They push the idea that this is a big problem and reforms are needed. Do you think that sounds progressive? Who do you think they're looking out for? The little people?

I don't get why all of a sudden tort reform is appealing to a sizeable number of Bernie supporters. Baffling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread