What does Hillary Clinton mean?

[Elijah John]

Does she mean any murder is the gun makers fault, and not the criminals?

Or does she mean the physical malfunction of a firearm?

Guns are designed to kill.

Would a Clinton administration seek to prosecute the military or police for the lawful use of firearms if it resulted in the death of a dangerous criminal or enemy combatant?

Or a homeowner defending their home? Or only the manufacturer of the firearm?

Question for debate

How could a law holding a gun maker liable be reasonably implemented?

Or is this just another example of Clinton pandering?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

She is trying to make it easier to sue gun manufactorers. According to this NPR article: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolit ... -behavior] a law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protects gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, and Hilary wants this act repealed. Also according to the article Hilary was exaggerated about the effects of the law and has falsely said that it protects them from all liability, so I would say yeah, she is pandering to the anti-gun crowd. At least Bernie Sanders is sticking to his guns (if you would pardon the pun) and is not jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon that has become so popular on the left unlike Hilary of former Presidential contender Martin O'Malley.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

She is trying to make it easier to sue gun manufactorers. According to this NPR article: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolit ... -behavior] a law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protects gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, and Hilary wants this act repealed. Also according to the article Hilary was exaggerated about the effects of the law and has falsely said that it protects them from all liability, so I would say yeah, she is pandering to the anti-gun crowd. At least Bernie Sanders is sticking to his guns (if you would pardon the pun) and is not jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon that has become so popular on the left unlike Hilary of former Presidential contender Martin O'Malley.

Thanks, but exactly how in the world would a gun manufacturer be liable? What is the rationale? After all, when guns function the way they are designed to function, they kill.

The fact that firearms are made for police, military and law abiding citizens does not preclude their use by criminals. But I would ask Hillary, how is that the gun manufacturers fault?

[bluethread]

The fact that firearms are made for police, military and law abiding citizens does not preclude their use by criminals. But I would ask Hillary, how is that the gun manufacturers fault?

The left see guns as a controlled substance. Therefore, like tobacco and alcohol, the substance is blamed and the user is just one of the victims. In the hands of the government, however, it is different, because well . . . it's the government. That said, the black live matters movement is pushing that even further by suggesting that law enforcement be held criminally liable for any shooting that is improper in any way, i.e. guilty until proven innocent. This, of course, encourages gang violence, but the left never takes such things into account.

[Elijah John]

The fact that firearms are made for police, military and law abiding citizens does not preclude their use by criminals. But I would ask Hillary, how is that the gun manufacturers fault?

The left see guns as a controlled substance. Therefore, like tobacco and alcohol, the substance is blamed and the user is just one of the victims. In the hands of the government, however, it is different, because well . . . it's the government. That said, the black live matters movement is pushing that even further by suggesting that law enforcement be held criminally liable for any shooting that is improper in any way, i.e. guilty until proven innocent. This, of course, encourages gang violence, but the left never takes such things into account.

I just want to begin by saying, (whether the left likes it or not), that all lives matter, black lives, white lives and cop's lives too.

Now I can see how one could hold a gun seller liable for possibly selling to the wrong person or people.(criminals or the insane)

But it's ridiculous to hold the gun manufacterers liable, unless the gun malfunctions and causes injury to the authorized user.

Wouldn't this put the gun makers out of business? Then the police and the military and the average law-abiding citizen become defensless, at the mercy of thugs.

Don't these Dems realize the implications of their misguided policies?

Or is there something I'm missing?

[bluethread]

I just want to begin by saying, (whether the left likes it or not), that all lives matter, black lives, white lives and cop's lives too.

Now I can see how one could hold a gun seller liable for possibly selling to the wrong person or people.(criminals or the insane)

But it's ridiculous to hold the gun manufacterers liable, unless the gun malfunctions and causes injury to the authorized user.

Their point is that it is presumed that white and cop lives matter, but the fact that black people are shoot by the police more often than whites proves that it is presumed that black lives don't matter. I think that is a rather simplistic assessment, but there it is. Admittedly, this is going nowhere, but the argument is useful for electioneering.

Wouldn't this put the gun makers out of business? Then the police and the military and the average law-abiding citizen become defenseless, at the mercy of thugs.

No, then the government can take over gun manufacturing. Then they can have complete control of all guns, or so they think. They never acknowledge the fact that the black market is part of every economy.

Don't these Dems realize the implications of their misguided policies?

Or is there something I'm missing?

Not really, they then just blame the implications on those who oppose them, so they can regulate things even more. However, to be fair, there are some purple state Republicans that are also big government and anti-gun. Frankly, I think the whole two party system has shifted to the left. The RINO's hold the positions that used to be held by the blue dog Dems, the establishment Dems are now purple state Dems, and the progressives have taken control in the (non)Democratic party.

[WinePusher]

Thanks, but exactly how in the world would a gun manufacturer be liable? What is the rationale? After all, when guns function the way they are designed to function, they kill.

The fact that firearms are made for police, military and law abiding citizens does not preclude their use by criminals. But I would ask Hillary, how is that the gun manufacturers fault?

The only rationale that I can see for the law is that it would presumably motivate gun dealers and manufacturers to implement more rigorous background checks of their clients. With such a law in effect, gun dealers would theoretically be more inclined to sell only to clients with spotless records in order to avoid any potential legal action that would be associated with sales of guns to dangerous clients. Thus, the law would essentially promote stricter background checks.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to WinePusher]

Right, but gun makers don't really sell directly to the public anyway, so how can they be held responsible for a properly working firearm?

Unless Hillary wants mandatory gun locks and cabinets sold with each gun.

I can see where the dealer needs to be held reponsible though, to sell to responsible people only.

But that is different.