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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 03:02 PM Dec 2015

Sanders: Gun control no "magic formula" for terrorism

Source: CBS News

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said Sunday that no one believes expanded gun control is "a magic formula" to prevent future terror attacks in the U.S., but he still supports several provisions to try to keep guns away from people who should not have them.
...
In an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation," Sanders talked about his vision for the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and called for tougher screening policies in the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino, California. Moderator John Dickerson asked why, unlike many Democrats, he did not include gun control in that list.... He supports Democratic legislation to bar people on the no-fly list from owning guns - which failed in a Senate vote last Thursday - and said the U.S. should expand instant background checks. Sanders also advocates ending a loophole that allows people to buy certain guns at gun shows without passing a background check, banning assault weapons, and preventing people from legally buying guns and passing them onto criminals.

In addition to measures that apply to gun ownership directly, Sanders called for a "revolution in mental health" to make sure that people who are suicidal or homicidal are able to get help.... As for the broader fight against ISIS, Sanders reiterated his belief that the U.S. must "be as aggressive as we can" to destroy the group but argued that only Muslim nations should supply the troops on the ground. The proper role for the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, Iran and other countries is to support them.

"It is the Muslim nations that are fighting for the soul of Islam who have got to lead the effort in crushing ISIS," he said.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sanders-gun-control-not-a-magic-formula-for-terror-attacks/

81 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sanders: Gun control no "magic formula" for terrorism (Original Post) Attorney in Texas Dec 2015 OP
The mental health angle lancer78 Dec 2015 #1
I think mental health INSTEAD of sensible gun regulation is a right-wing talking point, but plenty Attorney in Texas Dec 2015 #2
No proposed gun laws lancer78 Dec 2015 #20
Stopped - probably not. Reduce death toll significantly - absolutely. Mopar151 Dec 2015 #28
"Reduce"... Only based on your preconceived notions Taitertots Dec 2015 #68
No it is not. TM99 Dec 2015 #4
No, the mental health angle is the correct angle zalinda Dec 2015 #7
There isn't just a single cause, and mental health does play a role. PersonNumber503602 Dec 2015 #45
I see Sanders is STILL defending his gun manufacturer immunity vote. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #3
So you believe that Kitchenaid should be sued for stabbing deaths? d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #6
Blenders weren't designed to kill mass amounts of people. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #9
Neither were guns d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #15
Yes, they were. Especially AR-15s with 100 round magazines. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #19
They're selling a weapon to the public that is allowed by LAW d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #37
No ar-15 comes with a 100 round magazine. beevul Dec 2015 #70
The U.S. Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004; the PLCAA was passed the next year. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #77
So what? N/T beevul Dec 2015 #80
Under this legislation, can someone sue thucythucy Dec 2015 #65
They can still be sued for selling guns to people who commit crimes d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #66
Thanks. Good to know. thucythucy Dec 2015 #74
How're those cluster bombs working out? Scootaloo Dec 2015 #8
Ask Bernie. He voted to pay for cluster bombs. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #10
Clinton voted against restricting their use in civilian areas Scootaloo Dec 2015 #11
If I was a Bernie supporter I would deflect from gun discussions too. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #12
I'm calling out your hypocrisy Scootaloo Dec 2015 #13
Seems to me you are the one displaying hypocrisy here. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #16
I'm not arguing that guns are good. Scootaloo Dec 2015 #17
So you admit Sanders' vote in favor of the PLCAA was bad? SunSeeker Dec 2015 #18
Actually, I don't regard it either way Scootaloo Dec 2015 #21
You are wrong. Those lawsuits were gaining taction. That is why the PLCAA was an NRA priority. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #22
Those SLAPP suits most certainly were NOT gaining traction, GGJohn Dec 2015 #24
GGJohn, I am QUOTING the PLCAA. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #31
The question is whether a manufacturer is liable for criminal use of their product Scootaloo Dec 2015 #25
I'm not "gyrating" a "special exception." I'm QUOTING the PLCAA.. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #29
Show me the quote. Scootaloo Dec 2015 #30
See post 19. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #32
That doesn't say anything that I haven't already covered. Scootaloo Dec 2015 #35
A car manufacturer would still be liable for defects even if driven criminally. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #38
See post 37. nt d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #40
Post 37 appears to admit I quoted the PLCAA correctly. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #41
Post 37 states the opposite of what you said d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #42
No, post 37 does not say I misquoted the PLCAA. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #43
You should google more d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #44
WTF? Neither of the NY labor law cases you cite involve statutory product liability immunity. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #47
You asked for it d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #48
No, read again. I asked for consumer product manufacturers that were bestowed the same immunity. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #49
I did say the Monsanto Protection Act d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #55
No, you only cited two irrelevant cases. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #57
Read section 735 of the act d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #67
I did. It does not affect nor even mention consumer product liability for any manufacturer. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #69
Now you're nit picking d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #71
No, I am giving words their actual meaning. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #76
Nonsense. beevul Dec 2015 #72
There is no legitimate consumer use for an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #78
Thats your opinion. beevul Dec 2015 #81
It's a shame, too, because that totally would've prevented these mass shootings. arcane1 Dec 2015 #33
You mean defending the US constitution? Guilty! n/t Old Union Guy Dec 2015 #50
No, he's defending gun manufacturers who sell shit that should not be in the hands of civilians. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #51
If they "shouldn't be in the hands of citizens," get a law passed to that effect. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #53
The courts are there for when the government fails to do its job. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #54
That's not remotely how the checks and balances are supposed to work. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #56
No, it's not. Courts are how we protect our environment and civil rights. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #58
The right to sue over actual product defects remains intact. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #59
False. Victims can't sue for military weapons sold irresponsibly to nuts. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #61
Um...I quite specifically said DEFECTIVE products. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #62
That IS a defective product: an unreasonably dangerous design and irresponsibly marketed. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #63
There are no " military weapons sold" to anyone in the civilian market... beevul Dec 2015 #73
An AR-15 with a 100 round magazine is a military weapon. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #75
The ar-15 regardless of magazine is no military weapon. beevul Dec 2015 #79
Agree with some of it, disagree on a couple of points madville Dec 2015 #5
France has some very restrictive christx30 Dec 2015 #36
Straw man laws TexasBushwhacker Dec 2015 #39
Sometimes the straw purchaser is a victim, too. JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2015 #52
I didn't that of that TexasBushwhacker Dec 2015 #60
Yup. Criminals will use any means necessary to get what they want. pablo_marmol Dec 2015 #64
This is why Bernie Sanders will be the next President of the United States. Major Hogwash Dec 2015 #14
I tend to like Sanders, but I'm not sure that will help him win PersonNumber503602 Dec 2015 #46
That sounds a lot like what the GOP says MaggieD Dec 2015 #23
Yep! leftofcool Dec 2015 #26
Sanders knows we have a long ways to go, not in his lifetime likely, before the randys1 Dec 2015 #27
Because terrorists might also hunt ... LannyDeVaney Dec 2015 #34

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
2. I think mental health INSTEAD of sensible gun regulation is a right-wing talking point, but plenty
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 03:21 PM
Dec 2015

of Democrats agree that many of these mass shootings reflect both a breakdown of our mental health system as well as out full-of-holes gun regulations.

 

lancer78

(1,495 posts)
20. No proposed gun laws
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 07:38 PM
Dec 2015

currently being suggested by Bernie would have stopped Sandy Hook or the one last week.

Mopar151

(9,965 posts)
28. Stopped - probably not. Reduce death toll significantly - absolutely.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 09:03 PM
Dec 2015

AND - AND
That's not what Bernie said. Analyitically, It's almost the opposite. High capacity magazines should be illegal in any sort of public place, and should be be put in the same federal class as full-auto tactical weapons.

 

Taitertots

(7,745 posts)
68. "Reduce"... Only based on your preconceived notions
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:17 PM
Dec 2015

If they didn't have guns they would have just used more bombs. A situation that could easily get orders of magnitude worse.

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
4. No it is not.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 03:28 PM
Dec 2015

Mental health services are abysmal in this country. We don't properly fund them. We put Masters level counselors alone in them with very poor supervision for the tougher cases or we just have MD's give out meds like candy with poor follow up and controls. Insurance plans cover minimal services. And worst of all, we still stigmatize mental illness at the same time that we label ourselves constantly with various disorders.

Mental health is a continuum. It is not as black and white as say a disease like MS, which you either have or don't have. Put even the healthiest person under constant stress from finances, abuse, etc. and dysfunctional responses will develop.

I very much agree with Sanders that we need to do much more with regards to mental health services in this country.

zalinda

(5,621 posts)
7. No, the mental health angle is the correct angle
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 03:41 PM
Dec 2015

People who either shoot themselves or others have mental health issues. There are only a few cases where using a gun is justified, and that is when the individual is in danger, and they should probably get counseling after the incident.

A totally sane person will sometimes think about killing someone, but would not even consider doing it in real life. It is why so many of our soldiers come back with PTSD. It is the mind numbing violence that gets to them.

The majority of gun owners have never pointed a gun at someone or fired on at someone. I think that owning a gun should be like owning a car, you need to be licensed and be tested to prove that you can handle the thing safely. Every few years you should need to re-register the firearm and maybe even bringing it in to be inspected. And, I think that if those rules aren't followed, a heavy fine should be levied.

Z

PersonNumber503602

(1,134 posts)
45. There isn't just a single cause, and mental health does play a role.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:24 PM
Dec 2015

Saying that doesn't take away from the fact that guns are a major part of the issue.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
6. So you believe that Kitchenaid should be sued for stabbing deaths?
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 03:38 PM
Dec 2015

Or car manufacturers should be sued for car deaths? Should Lego be sued for choking hazards? Strange world you live in.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
9. Blenders weren't designed to kill mass amounts of people.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 03:50 PM
Dec 2015

Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 07:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Car manufacturers ARE sued for car deaths caused, at least in part, by defective design. Same thing with toy manufacturers.



Look, the PLCAA has been debated numerous times on this board. It is disheartening to see otherwise progressive posters try to defend that piece of trash just because their glorious candidate voted for it and Hillary voted against it.

If you really want to talk about it, here are some links to OPs specifically on that topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629325

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251639825

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
15. Neither were guns
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 06:23 PM
Dec 2015

Guns don't kill people. Non-existent regulation that allows people to buy guns and commit crimes with them kill people. That's not the manufacturers fault. Suing a gun manufacturer cuz the weapon blows up in your hand is a manufacturer defect. Someone going on a shooting spree is not. So again

The PLCAA doesn't protect gun manufacturers from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible.

The only thing those threads discussed is how Sanders is pro-gun lobby (which is not true).

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
19. Yes, they were. Especially AR-15s with 100 round magazines.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 07:31 PM
Dec 2015

Any manufacturer who markets such a wildly inappropriate, dangerous consumer product should be sued, just like the manufacturers of lawn darts were sued.

The PLCAA, under "exception" no. 5, has a sneaky insert that bars victims from suing for a malfunction or design defect "where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage." That is some evil gotcha legalese. Mass shootings are always crimes. So that means we can never sue a gun manufacturer over a mass shooting. That, my dear d_legendary1, is why the PLCAA was passed after the assault weapons ban expired. The gun manufacturers knew they would flood the market with these ridiculous military style rifles and wanted immunity from liability for doing so.

And Bernie was fine with that. Voted for it. You have to judge people by their actions, and that is a pretty pro-gun lobby action.

Those threads are absolutely true, and it is obvious you did not even bother to read them, nor do you understand what is actually in the PLCAA.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
37. They're selling a weapon to the public that is allowed by LAW
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 09:50 PM
Dec 2015

Don't like it? Call your Congressman or elect people who will ban all rifles. BTW Lawn Darts were marketed as a game, whereas guns are not.

Exception no. 5 in plain English states that if someone uses a gun for criminal activity then the manufacturer can't be sued. If you run a catering business and someone steals your company vehicle to commit a crime, should you be sued for being an accessory? Obviously not! That's not legalese. That's common sense.

The argument that they can flood the market with military weapons with PLCAA is absurd. In Hamilton vs. Beretta the Court of Appeals held that gun manufacturers do not owe shooting victims a duty to exercise reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of the guns they manufacture. Again, its blaming the manufacturer for their products not being used in a lawful manner.

And that is why Bernie is fine with it. Not because he's some gun humping lunatic or whatever you're trying to paint him as. Those threads want gun bans and you know very well that ain't gonna happen.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
70. No ar-15 comes with a 100 round magazine.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:00 PM
Dec 2015
Yes, they were. Especially AR-15s with 100 round magazines.


No ar-15 comes with a 100 round magazine. Those are aftermarket.

The gun manufacturers knew they would flood the market with these ridiculous military style rifles and wanted immunity from liability for doing so.


Your understanding of history is...well...not very accurate. The PLCAA was passed in 2005, yet the guns you refer to were available for decades beforehand.

thucythucy

(7,986 posts)
65. Under this legislation, can someone sue
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 11:26 AM
Dec 2015

a gun store for selling to someone they know or suspect might commit a criminal act?

I know there have been successful lawsuits brought against bars that continued to serve alcohol to people who were obviously drunk, who later killed or maimed in a drunk driving accident.

Under the law protecting the gun industry, can I sue a gun store if I've been disabled in a gun crime, and know the gun was purchased at that store (or from an individual) where people knew or should have known the person to whom they were selling was contemplating a crime?

This is a serious question--one I haven't yet seen addressed in these discussions.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
66. They can still be sued for selling guns to people who commit crimes
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:38 PM
Dec 2015

For example a Milwaukee gun store was found negligent after it was found to have sold a gun to a man who shot two police officers. The buyer committed a "straw buy" and the gun store didn't verify that the purchaser was the sole owner of the gun. A month later the crime was committed using the purchased gun.

Though the story states that it is the second case brought to trial after PLCAA, this case shows that manufacturers and sellers can still be held accountable for being directly responsible for selling weapons to criminals.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
13. I'm calling out your hypocrisy
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 04:22 PM
Dec 2015

Guns and bombs are both weapons, aren't they/ Guns and bombs both kill a lot of people that htye shouldn't, right? One could even say that they're both designed for exactly that function (though bombs, having a blast radius, are better at it.)

Sanders voted against holding gun manufacturers liable for criminal use of their products.

Clinton voted against holding cluster bomb manufacturers liable for use of their products against civilians.

Now. I want you to tell me why the first is bad, and the second is good.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
16. Seems to me you are the one displaying hypocrisy here.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 06:54 PM
Dec 2015

Since you raised the isdue of bombs, why don't you tell me why bombs are bad but guns are good?


SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
18. So you admit Sanders' vote in favor of the PLCAA was bad?
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 07:28 PM
Dec 2015

We may have a breakthrough here, but I doubt it.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
21. Actually, I don't regard it either way
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 07:38 PM
Dec 2015

Manufacturers should not be liable for criminal use of their products. Nikon doesn't get lawsuits because some freakshow uses their camera to take pictures of kiddy porn. Toyota is not liable if someone plots a pickup through a Christmas parade. Dran-O isn't liable if someone uses their lye in an "honor-burning."

That said, there didn't exactly need to be a law preventing it, either, since such claims are pretty universally thrown out of court.

Either way Sanders voted is functionally meaningless. No manufacturer would be held liable anyway. No lives would be saved or lost beyond what's already the case.

Which is not something that can be said about Clinton's cluster bomb vote. Restrictign hteir use in civilian areas woudl spare a lot of lives and suffering. Refusing to trade them to other nations with lax standards would mean there would be a lot more yemenis and Lebanese people with intact limbs and families.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
22. You are wrong. Those lawsuits were gaining taction. That is why the PLCAA was an NRA priority.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 07:56 PM
Dec 2015

Think about it. All of the products you list have common, legitimate uses and are not unreasonably dangerous. What legitimate use would a consumer have for an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine, like what was marketed and sold to the mentally unhinged like the Aurora shooter? The AR-15 designed to kill lots of people at close range, and made for army use; that is why it is the weapon of choice of the mass shooter. Who do you think Bushmaster, the manufacturer of assault weapons like the one used by the Aurora shooter, was aiming for with this irresponsible ad:




Being able to sue manufacturers who market such abominations as an AR-15 with a 100 round clip to civilians would mean there would have been a lot less of them sold, and a lot more 6 years olds in Sandy Hook with their limbs and heads intact.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
24. Those SLAPP suits most certainly were NOT gaining traction,
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 08:25 PM
Dec 2015

up to the passage of the PLCAA, almost every on of those SLAPP suits were dismissed, after huge amounts of money were spent defending those SLAPP.

You're interpretation of the PLCAA is, at best, mistaken, at worst, outright misinformation.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
31. GGJohn, I am QUOTING the PLCAA.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 09:18 PM
Dec 2015

That is why I put that passage in post 19 in quotes. Please tell me how I misquoted it.

And sure, a lot of the law suits failed. But just enough got through to make the NRA shit its camo shorts.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
25. The question is whether a manufacturer is liable for criminal use of their product
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 08:41 PM
Dec 2015

You obviously understand that no, a manufacturer is not liable for what some asshole does with their product. You're going through some gyrations to make a special exception, and you're only doing so because you think it'll score points against Sanders, by trying to cast him as being responsible for Sandy Hook somehow.

This is made clear through my comparison against Clinton's cluster bomb vote. It fits all your criteria, right down to a protectionist vote from a Democratic Senator. The big difference is that said vote, had it gone the other way, actually would have very directly protect a whole hell of a lot of people from death and dismemberment.

But you very pointedly have absolutely no fucks to give about that vote.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
35. That doesn't say anything that I haven't already covered.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 09:23 PM
Dec 2015

"That means gun manufacturers can't be sued for mass shootings!" Well, no shit, manufacturers are not responsible for criminal use of their products.

Again I think that you understand this. And you are trying to make soem case why this ought to be a special exception to that. And you are soing so solely to attack the person running against your preferred candidate, and accuse him of beign responsible for Sandy Hook.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
38. A car manufacturer would still be liable for defects even if driven criminally.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 09:52 PM
Dec 2015

It is basic tort law. If a product manufacturer's negligent design was even partially at fault, let's say the jury found them 5% at fault, they would still be liable for 5% of the damages caused when, say, a criminal drove too fast to get away from cops and crashed into someone in part because the breaks were defective.

That exception 5 in the PLCAA says the criminal is deemed the "sole" cause--no matter what. No matter if they made the gun specially for that shooter and put his name on it with the address to the nearest elementary. No such immunity provision is available to ANY other consumer product manufacturer. That is a big gift for gun manufacturers. Even if the jury determined that the manufacturer was only 1% at fault, that could still add up to a lot of money in a mass killing. How much do you think manufacturers would have been hit for, even if only 1% at fault for the Aurora shooting, for making and marketing to civilians an AR-15 and a 100 round magazine that is specifically designed for mass killings? Or a bullet manufacturer selling 5,000 bullets at a time, no questions asked, over the internet?

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
41. Post 37 appears to admit I quoted the PLCAA correctly.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 10:04 PM
Dec 2015

It just disagrees that this immunity is that big a deal. It is a big deal, as I explain in post 38. The NRA must think it is a big deal too, since it fought hard for that provision.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
42. Post 37 states the opposite of what you said
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 10:16 PM
Dec 2015

And post 38 neglects contributory negligence (the car being stolen), which negates any awards. But keep patting yourself on the back on being wrong.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
43. No, post 37 does not say I misquoted the PLCAA.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 10:42 PM
Dec 2015

Again, how did I misquote the PLCAA? Are you saying that quoted language is not in the PLCAA? It is:

(5)Qualified civil liability action

(A)In general. The term “qualified civil liability action” means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include—
...
(v)

an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; ...


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7903

Please cite one other consumer product manufacturer that is bestowed the same "sole proximate cause" immunity putting 100% liability on a third party, precluding the case from even going to a jury to find the actual apportionment of fault.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
44. You should google more
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:09 PM
Dec 2015
Cahill vs. Triborough Bridge AND Tunnel Authority

Montgomery vs. Federal Express Corportation

And Post #37 wasn't arguing the language on the document (red herring btw). It was arguing the stupidity of suing manufacturers for third parties that use their products in a manner that violates the law.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
47. WTF? Neither of the NY labor law cases you cite involve statutory product liability immunity.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 02:04 AM
Dec 2015

Why in the world did you have me waste my time reading those two irrelevant cases? They were just two instances--and not even consumer product liability cases---where only one party was found to be the sole proximate cause. It was not because of a statutory immunity but because of the facts of the case.

The PLCAA would not let a gun case even go to a trier of fact. It would just deem the shooter the sole proximate cause, no matter how culpable the manufacturer was. Now THAT is stupid. And evil.

There is no other consumer product manufacturer that has that same special immunity.



d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
48. You asked for it
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 03:17 PM
Dec 2015

Your quote:

Please cite one other consumer product manufacturer that is bestowed the same "sole proximate cause" immunity putting 100% liability on a third party, precluding the case from even going to a jury to find the actual apportionment of fault.


I delivered. Now you want statutory product liability immunity? Way to move the goal post.

Have you heard of the Monsanto Protection Act?

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
49. No, read again. I asked for consumer product manufacturers that were bestowed the same immunity.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 03:57 PM
Dec 2015

It's right there, five words into what you quote. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Neither of those cases involve a consumer product manufacturer, let alone one bestowed the same immunity as the PLCAA bestows on gun manufacturers. I have not moved the goal posts, you are just ignoring them.

You delivered nothing, but an unsuccessful attempt to defend gun manufacturers.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
55. I did say the Monsanto Protection Act
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:51 PM
Dec 2015

The bestows immunity to GMOs. Arguably they're just as dangerous as guns since their effects on their cancer causing properties hasn't really been studied. But as long as its not metal and fire bullets that won't be good enough for you, will it?

You ask for stuff, it gets delivered, and then you set it aside claiming something else you never asked for. Whatever dude(te).

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
57. No, you only cited two irrelevant cases.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:35 PM
Dec 2015

Please quote, and cite the US Code section number, for the "Monsanto Protection Act" provision you are talking about that you contend gives Monsanto the same consumer product liability immunity as the PLCAA gives gun manufacturers. I am only aware of a provision that releases farmers from regulatory requirements related to planting GMO seeds. I am not aware of any provision that prevents a consumers from recovering damages for personal injuries caused by a defective GMO product, and certainly not one that declares a third party the "sole proximate cause" of such injuries.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
67. Read section 735 of the act
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:12 PM
Dec 2015

You'll find it here. There's more than one way to say "consumer product liability immunity".

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
69. I did. It does not affect nor even mention consumer product liability for any manufacturer.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 04:36 PM
Dec 2015

This temporary legislation authorized certain cultivations, including those involving GMOs, by farmers:

Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary's evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision

It does not immunize farmers from liability for harm caused by GMOs, nor limit the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to block sale of seeds proven to be harmful.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
71. Now you're nit picking
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:04 PM
Dec 2015

1) PLCAA Doesn't protect manufacturers from negligence

2) Manufacturers are still liable for defective products

3) ITS THE MONSANTO PROTECTION ACT, NOT THE FARMER'S PROTECTION ACT! At this point you're trolling.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
76. No, I am giving words their actual meaning.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 07:13 PM
Dec 2015

1) & 2): You totally do not understand the PLCAA. It absolutely does protect manufacturers from negligence and defective products so long as the shooter discharged the weapon "volitionally" and that shooting constituted a criminal act. Duh, all mass shootings are criminal acts. So, gun manufacturers are immune from producing dangerously designed consumer products that have no business in civilian hands and that are so irresponsibly marketed that they easily fall into the hands of people who should own no guns, let alone military style mass killing machines.

3) I was merely citing the actual name of the act so it was clear what we were talking about. Accusing me of "trolling" for accurately citing a law is rude and ridiculous, and a sign you have so lost this point that you have desperately resorted to personal insults. Your post is shameful.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
72. Nonsense.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:13 PM
Dec 2015
What legitimate use would a consumer have for an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine, like what was marketed and sold to the mentally unhinged like the Aurora shooter?


Your premise is false. The rifle and the magazine originate from two different companies.

IIRC the ar pattern rifles usually come with 20 or a 30 rounders at retail.

The AR-15 designed to kill lots of people at close range...


That's an OPINION, not a fact.

and made for army use


That's just plain incorrect. The modern ar-15 is made SPECIFICALLY for the civilian market, and uses a completely different internal mechanisms than the full auto m-16s or the burst capable military rifles.

A true modern military rifle of these sort, is illegal to own, and the modern civilian legal ar-pattern rifles are not, I repeat NOT capable enough to qualify for military use.

Those are facts and they matter.

that is why it is the weapon of choice of the mass shooter.


Again, this is an opinion.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
78. There is no legitimate consumer use for an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 07:21 PM
Dec 2015

You acknowledge as much by refusing to answer the question.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
81. Thats your opinion.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 07:57 PM
Dec 2015
There is no legitimate consumer use for an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine.


Thats your opinion. I don't own one, nor do I have a desire to, but if I did, whatever I decided to do with it, within the law, would be legitimate.
 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
53. If they "shouldn't be in the hands of citizens," get a law passed to that effect.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:40 PM
Dec 2015

That's how democracy works. Using the tort system as a way to dodge the democratic process is fucked up. Bernie's vote was spot-on.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
54. The courts are there for when the government fails to do its job.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:49 PM
Dec 2015

That is why courts are provided for in our Constitution, as a system of checks and balances. That's how our democracy works. Bernie's vote was a shameful gift to gun manufacturers.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
56. That's not remotely how the checks and balances are supposed to work.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:55 PM
Dec 2015

"Legislation via tort" is a slap in the face of genuine democracy.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
58. No, it's not. Courts are how we protect our environment and civil rights.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:45 PM
Dec 2015

Certainly the right wing hates such private lawsuits. But the American system actually encourages such litigation. Thurgood Marshall came to our Supreme Court as a great civil rights lawyer. Consumer products liability suits are in that same tradition, stopping everything from unsafe cars to unsafe pharmaceuticals from being marketed to consumers. No branch of government is perfect, that is why we have three branches of government, the legislative, executive and Judiciary branches, each provided a system of checks and balances on the other, per our Constitution.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
59. The right to sue over actual product defects remains intact.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 06:24 PM
Dec 2015

Filing suits to subvert the democratic process is another matter entirely from suing to redress demonstrable harm from a defective product.

The check on the other two branches that the Judicial branch wields is supposed in the form of determining constitutionality of the other branches' actions. It is not intended to be in the form of legislating from the bench.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
61. False. Victims can't sue for military weapons sold irresponsibly to nuts.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:36 AM
Dec 2015

The NRA is who is subverting the democratic process, buying politicians to vote against the will of the people.

It is the 5 conservative members of SCOTUS who are legislating from the bench, disregarding and erasing precedent and the plain meaning of the 2A.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
62. Um...I quite specifically said DEFECTIVE products.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:40 AM
Dec 2015

Thus my statement isn't remotely false, as that right absolutely remains.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
73. There are no " military weapons sold" to anyone in the civilian market...
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:20 PM
Dec 2015

There are no " military weapons sold" to anyone in the civilian market, outside a few scoped rifle models, because modern military weapons are generally illegal to own, but you knew that.

You're just proving what most of us already know when you do that:


Anti-gun folks are not to be trusted.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
75. An AR-15 with a 100 round magazine is a military weapon.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 07:03 PM
Dec 2015

The fact that the national assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and these abominations have been sold to civilians does not make them any less military weapons. They were originally designed FOR THE MILITARY and made to inflict maximum damage on large numbers of enemy soldiers at close range. But you knew that. They are not made to disable a house burgler. They were designed for mass killing and have no business in civilian hands. ALL Democratic presidential candidates agree with this position. You are out of step with your party.

The fact that you insist these are not military weapons shows that pro-gun folks are not to be trusted.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
79. The ar-15 regardless of magazine is no military weapon.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 07:55 PM
Dec 2015
The fact that the national assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and these abominations have been sold to civilians does not make them any less military weapons.


They've been sold to civilians for over 50 years. Once again you don't seem to have much of a grasp on history.

They were originally designed FOR THE MILITARY and made to inflict maximum damage on large numbers of enemy soldiers at close range. But you knew that.


Another misleading screed by you.

Reality says:

The AR-15 was first built in 1959 by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the design to Colt. After some modifications, the redesigned rifle was adopted as the M16 rifle. In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the rifle for civilians as the Colt AR-15. Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are made, modified, and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

No military in the world issues its troops an ar-15. Not a single one. Its a semi-automatic version of a military weapon, not a military weapon in itself. Argue all you like but that's a fact and no amount of spin doctoring or bluster is going to make it go away.

They were designed for mass killing and have no business in civilian hands.


That's your less than unbiased opinion.

ALL Democratic presidential candidates agree with this position. You are out of step with your party.


I have a greater loyalty and duty to truth, fact, and reality, than I have to any political party.

The fact that you insist these are not military weapons shows that pro-gun folks are not to be trusted.


No. The fact that you insist that they're military weapons is refuted by the fact that no military in the history of the world has or ever will issue its troops at large ar-15s.


madville

(7,397 posts)
5. Agree with some of it, disagree on a couple of points
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 03:35 PM
Dec 2015

Agree:
- Expanded background checks should be readily available for private sales (what many call the "gunshow loophole&quot at the same minimal cost dealers charge, around $5. Currently if one wants to have a background check conducted for a private sale they must transfer the firearm through a dealer and pay anywhere from $20-75 usually to the dealer for a "transfer fee" that the dealer can set at any price.

- "preventing people from legally buying guns and passing them onto criminals". I agree that should be a priority. It's a good thing that it is already illegal. Straw purchases (buying a gun for someone else) is already a felony. Maybe increase penalties if it is used in a crime? How about if someone commits a straw purchase they are charged with the same crime as the person that they buy the gun for?

- More mental health services should be available.

Disagree:
- The no-fly list is a no-go to me. Taking away a Constitutional right without due process just isn't right. I'll side with the ACLU on that one and say I don't agree with the list at all.

- Banning assault weapons. Depends what the legislation is, "assault weapons bans" as we know them are pretty useless. California has an assault weapons ban, CT had one before Newtown, we see what weapons were bought under those "bans" and used in those incidents. Banning cosmetic features and how guns look it a waste of time.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
36. France has some very restrictive
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 09:28 PM
Dec 2015

gun laws. All of the weapons used in the Paris attacks were illegal. I don't know what more laws could be made that would really help anything.

TexasBushwhacker

(20,044 posts)
39. Straw man laws
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 09:53 PM
Dec 2015

"preventing people from legally buying guns and passing them onto criminals". I agree that should be a priority. It's a good thing that it is already illegal. Straw purchases (buying a gun for someone else) is already a felony. Maybe increase penalties if it is used in a crime? How about if someone commits a straw purchase they are charged with the same crime as the person that they buy the gun for?"

That would make sense to me. It kind of follows that if you're the getaway driver for armed robbers who kill someone, you get prosecuted for murder too.

HOWEVER, I can see quickly devolving into "I didn't sell it. It was stolen." Are there laws requiring that you report stolen weapons to the police? I don't know.

I also don't think there is anything in the 2nd amendment that says you must be able to buy firearms QUICKLY. The way it works now, when a background check is done, they have to wait 3 days. If they don't get an answer within that time, the default answer is YES. They can buy the weapon. IMHO, the default answer should be NO until the feds say YES. If it takes more than 3 days, so be it.

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,283 posts)
52. Sometimes the straw purchaser is a victim, too.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:30 PM
Dec 2015

"You got some nice looking kids, TexasBushwacker, be a shame something bad happens to them. Here's a thousand dollars, why don't you buy that AR-15 in the store window. Keep the change"

Anyone has buttons that can be pushed.

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)
64. Yup. Criminals will use any means necessary to get what they want.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:52 AM
Dec 2015

It's not like their morals would allow for violence, but not extortion.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
14. This is why Bernie Sanders will be the next President of the United States.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 04:31 PM
Dec 2015

Bernie has thought this through to its logical conclusion, after spending more than 20 years in Congress, he knows what the political realities are in this country and does NOT display a knee-jerk reaction to the recent violence in this country.

PersonNumber503602

(1,134 posts)
46. I tend to like Sanders, but I'm not sure that will help him win
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:32 PM
Dec 2015

It seems like most of the population doesn't much care about reasoned and nuanced reactions and responses. I'm not sure whether it's because they simply are not capable of thinking like that, or if it's because they don't want to because it's easier to have shallow irrelevant arguments. This isn't a bash on any group, as I see it on all sides and from every group. People are just silly, and it's very frustrating at times.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
27. Sanders knows we have a long ways to go, not in his lifetime likely, before the
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 08:46 PM
Dec 2015

public will be ready to do away with the current interpretation of the 2nd.

He will do what he he has to do, as he has in the past, to get elected.

I doubt Hillary will go too far on this either, nor should they at this time.

Losing the WH would be devastating.

Now if we had a House or Senate that would go after guns aggressively, they I would say go for it, but we dont.

 

LannyDeVaney

(1,033 posts)
34. Because terrorists might also hunt ...
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 09:22 PM
Dec 2015

that seems to be his reasoning, right?

Actually, a giant negative on why I won't vote for him in the primary. His type of reasoning on gun control is why thousands are dieing.

So, keep hunting in Vermont! The HUMAN blood is on your hands.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Sanders: Gun control no &...