NRA Praises Sanders' Comments On Gun Manufacturer Liability

[comradebillyboy]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nra-praises-sanders-gun-manufacturer-liability
'The National Rifle Associated tweeted Monday that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was "spot-on" when he said that gun manufacturers should not be liable for crimes committed with their products.'

[Iliyah]

1. UGH

[yallerdawg]

2. An NRA leap in logic.

"If I understand it and correct me if I'm wrong, if you go to a gun store and you legally purchase a gun, and three days later you go out and start killing people, is the point to hold the gun shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable? If that is the point, I disagree," Sanders said. "If they are selling a product and the person who buys it legally, what you are talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don't agree with that."

[SunSeeker]

12. Yup. Sanders made an idiotic statement. It shows he still supports the PLCAA.

The PLCAA was enacted in 2005. Product liability laws did not put gun manufacturers out of business before there was any PLCAA - not even close. The reason gun manufacturers wanted that law was because the NRA got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire in 2004, so they were gearing up to sell lots of military style weapons designed for rapid mass killing on the battlefield -- and would be marketing them to unhinged civilians. They wanted to escape liability for this obviously negligent behavior and Sanders was happy to help them out.

So, thanks to Sanders vote, gun manufacturers flooded the country with ridiculously dangerous military style weapons, using irresponsible ads like this:

[Her Sister]

3. I love when friends give you away!

[Rose Siding]

4. I'd like to see his response

I'm sure he'll condemn that corporatist entity.

[shenmue]

5. His friends will twist it to say it's okay

[Tep64]

6. Logic

In following the "logic" of holding the gun manufacturer's and gun shops liable for the illegal use of their products, should not the pharmaceutical manufacturers, and people who have their narcotics stolen by friends/family who are addicts be liable for the heroin epidemic?

[Stand and Fight]

7. I agree with you, but I don't think your post is welcome here. n/t

[yallerdawg]

15. And there you have...

another incredible leap in logic.

[SunSeeker]

8. Of course they'd praise it. Those are NRA talking points.

[Stand and Fight]

9. I know this won't be popular here...

I know this won't be popular here, but I agree with Senator Sanders on this one. I just think his approach to answering it was round about and clumsy.

[Satch59]

16. I kind of agree also:

Don't think gun manufacturers or gun stores can be held libel if a gun was purchased legally BUT he could have danced around it by saying he wasn't sure if those parents could win a lawsuit but they have every right to sue and bring attention to the horror of assault weapons.

He showed no empathy for those poor parents...it was dry and didn't come off well at all...

It was not a good debate from Bernie overall: the yelling, finger pointing, ghetto comment...and he can back pedal on the auto industry vote: but truth is he didn't vote for it. AND I thought he contridictated himself when saying the crime bill had some good things and some bad but he voted for it...wasn't the bailout the same?

[Stand and Fight]

17. I agree with you. You stated it far better than I did. Thank you for that. n/t

[kjones]

18. I'm conflicted

It's such a strange question, really, and it's in such a strange legal area.
I don't know...
but it's always been his other gun votes that bugged me more anyway.

[mcar]

10. Ouch!

[George II]

11. That's a great endorsement..........................for Hillary Clinton.

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. !!!

[spooky3]

14. it seems to me that the gun industry is to Bernie what "Wall Street" is to Hillary.

When both were Senators, part of their job was to represent the interests of their constituents in addition to taking into account their own judgment about what is right - in Bernie's case, Vermont gun owners, and in Hillary's case, New York City finance employees. So, she had more of an obligation to think about "Wall Street's Interests" than did the typical senator. This point almost never seems to be mentioned.

[wysi]

19. And that...

... in a nutshell, is all you need to know.