Shame on you, @BernieSanders try living one hour of our lives. Love, the #SandyHook Principal's Daug

[pantsonfire]

Sandy Hook family member @EricaSmegs wants Bernie Sanders to apologize over gun stance.
https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/717786454668259330

Info about gun manufacturers immunity:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior

&quot Clinton's statement) doesn't appear to be completely accurate," said Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, in an email to NPR. "The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product."

Clinton is wrong that gun manufacturers have no liability for their products, but she's right that they have unique protections from lawsuits that most other businesses — and particularly consumer product-makers — do not.

[revbones]

1. Exploiting victims of a tragedy. Another fine tactic from Hillary & Co. nt

[BernieforPres2016]

5. It's a regular tactic for her; she toured the South with mothers of shooting victims as props nt

[revbones]

6. Yep

But she wasn't trying to use them as an attack until now right? It was just as a way to illegitimately bolster herself. Now it's that and an attack as she's trying to associate Bernie with the Sandy Hook tragedy itself.

[BernieforPres2016]

12. It was always a cheap political tactic, but this is taking it to a new level

As much as I have detested Hillary Clinton I did not expect something this sleazy. Bernie has passed on opportunities to pile on her about the FBI/email issue and now she pulls this. And it's a really stupid strategy that just reinforces who she is. Take a look at the responses under her tweet on this. She is getting killed.

[Press Virginia]

2. When GM has people suing it after being hit by a stolen Chevy Malibu

maybe we could pass a law to protect them from frivolous suits too.

[jberryhill]

7. When GM starts making cars that don't require a key, they would

Let's say a car manufacturer starts selling a car that doesn't have door locks or require an ignition key.

Would you say that someone who was hit by a stolen one would not have a claim that the car was designed poorly?

[Fumesucker]

10. Which gun manufacturer makes guns that require a key?

[Press Virginia]

16. He believes Remington et al should implement

unproven biometric technology so that the next time a kid kills his mother and takes her gun, which he already had access too and presumably would have been indexed, he won't take his stolen gun and kill people.

[Fumesucker]

18. That sounds like "none" to my ears

[jberryhill]

20. You are a very shitty mind reader

[Press Virginia]

11. lets say the owner left it unlocked with the key in the ignition, which is more likely

Would GM be liable?

[jberryhill]

32. GM sold it with anti-theft features which the owner didn't use

I did not realize that it was mandatory for guns to be sold only in combination with anti-theft devices.

[Press Virginia]

36. is that different from gun owners who don't lock up their guns?

[jberryhill]

38. Yes it is different

You can't buy a car that lacks anti-theft features.

There is no requirement that a gun owner even have them.

You are probably not old enough to remember when hospitals would let new parents leave without proving they had a safety seat in the car.

[Press Virginia]

40. You can't?

I see them all over EBay

[BernieforPres2016]

17. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't trolling

Bernie has made it clear on many occasions that the manufacturer of an improperly designed product, such as a gun with a safety lock that didn't work, should be sued. Another example would be a company that manufactured a gun in a way that they knew made it easy to retrofit into an automatic weapon in the aftermarket.

The distinction he's making is that if you make a legal product that is properly designed, it is sold through legal channels, and then somebody misuses it, then you should not be sued as the manufacturer. As he said in one of the debates, if you're going to allow somebody to be sued for making a legal product, then we should be having a different conversation - to make the product illegal.

[jberryhill]

19. People are sued over legal products every day

Do you think that every product that is the subject of a successful liability suit is pulled off of the market?

Do you actually think that only "illegal" products are the subject of product liability suits?

[Press Virginia]

23. When those products are defective.

You wouldn't sue GM if you were intentionally run over, by a properly functioning Malibu, driven by a car jacker

[jberryhill]

24. People steal cars for the purpose of running over pedestrians?

Is that why people steal cars?

[Press Virginia]

25. Does it matter WHY they ran you over in their stolen Malibu?

Surly GM must be responsible for the owner having his car stolen and your mangled body

[jberryhill]

27. Right

People steal guns to protect themselves from thieves.

Got it.

[Press Virginia]

30. Some steal guns to commit crimes

Some might even murder their mothers before stealing those guns to commit more murders

[DebDoo]

9. The dealership should be held accountable too

[Press Virginia]

13. No doubt

[revbones]

15. Firestone as well if the tires touched them. Any foundries that made the metal for the bumpers too.

[ibegurpard]

21. the intrinsic function of a vehicle is not to kill

Nor are vehicles explicitly protected with constitutional amendments. You've got some work to do to repeal it. Better get started.

[Press Virginia]

22. I'm speaking to GM's liability should their vehicle be used in a crime

[jberryhill]

26. Cars have anti-theft devices

In fact, it won't be long until it is common for law enforcement to have the ability to disable stolen vehicles. That feature of some cars has already been used.

And that type of evolution is a feature of the system.

Today, it would be unimaginable for a car not to have locks and a key.

[Press Virginia]

28. And owners still leave their doors unlocked with the keys in the ignition

Sometimes people takes cars by force

[jberryhill]

29. So?

So because it is possible to steal cars in other ways, they shouldn't have locks or ignition keys.

Got it.

[Press Virginia]

31. What is it with you and locks and keys?

[jberryhill]

35. Those devices are required for cars

They do not stop all car thefts, but they significantly reduce car thefts.

[Press Virginia]

39. Yeahhh...but is GM liable for the criminal acts of people who steal cars?

[jberryhill]

41. Now you've gone full circle

If GM sold a car that didn't have locks and ignition keys, then hell yes they'd be held liable.

[Press Virginia]

42. Do they sell cars without ignition keys and locks?

[jberryhill]

43. No they don't

Because the manufacture of products takes place in an environment where failing to stay reasonably current in the state of relevant safety measures can lead to significant liability.

It is why the design of many products changes over time.

[Press Virginia]

44. Door locks and ignition keys are current safety measures?

here I thought they were just old anti theft features

[jberryhill]

45. Which gets back to the point about why people steal them in the first place

So, let's recap - while the purpose of s car is to transport people, and they are principally not stolen for the purpose of harming others, they nonetheless come with anti-theft features built in. In order to operate one, a license is issued to persons who have passed a test of their understanding of the laws governing their use and have demonstrated their ability and fitness to operate one.

And you'd like to make some kind of analogy here?

[Press Virginia]

46. Nobody cares WHY. The question remains, is GM liable for the criminal misuse

of one of its manufactured vehicles should it be stolen from its rightful owner or even criminal misuse BY its rightful owner.

Car thief steals it, runs you down for the giggles. owner gets drunk, runs you down while his license is suspended because you look like someone who kicked his childhood dog

[BillZBubb]

3. Sanders was totally correct on this issue. Clinton, as usual, is wrong.

How can you hold a manufacturer liable for what someone else does with a legal product that the public has a right to purchase?

Sanders has the right approach, we need strong gun control laws. We need better screening of gun purchasers.

[Joob]

4. I agree with Bernie Sanders

[jfern]

8. Does anyone sue a car manufacturer when a drunk driver kills someone?

And that's a product that isn't intended to be used to kill.

[liberal_at_heart]

14. I can't imagine the pain and anger those parents must feel, but they would lose in court if they

sued the gun manufacturers. The fact that Hillary is using this literally a day after her staff said she would disqualify and destroy Bernie's campaign shows her true intentions.

[frylock]

33. Stay classy, Hillary.

[phleshdef]

34. Hillary Supporters are acting like Bernie himself might as well have murdered dozens of children.

Thats pretty fucked up guys. Knock it off.

[amborin]

37. relatives of Sandy Hook murdered children are bashing HRC for exploiting their deceased children

it is unspeakably cruel, callous, sociopathic to politically exploit this tragedy the way Hillary is doing. She has not the slightest bit of empathy or decency. What a brutally cold, indecent, horrible thing to do; she is making these poor parents suffer all the more, for her own selfish and sociopathic political gain

[pantsonfire]

47. Do you have any links? n/t

[amborin]

48. they were

Tweets

[pantsonfire]

49. Ok, it'd be good if someone put them all in an article, to show all of their opinions matter...n/t