General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How Bernie Sanders Helped Derail a Promising Legal Fight Against Gun Violence [View all]Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Suing a company for making a legal product and marketing it legally is all those things, regardless of what the end user does with the product. That is self-evident.
A charge of bribery requires an explicit quid pro quo. NRA campaign support of pro-gun candidates does not rise (or rather, sink) to that level. You could just as easily say that labor unions "bribe" Democratic candidates to vote for pro-labor bills. That wouldn't be accurate either.
"NRA talking points" is a phrase that is used to poison the well of any discussion by implying that any argument that has even been used by that organization is invalid and that anyone who invokes such an argument is a stooge of that organization.
Let's try an analogy. Let's say you are on the board of a large medical group that performs abortions. Let's say a right-wing politician presents you with a list of demands that would place restrictions on you far beyond what the law does, and threatens to sue you out of existence if you don't comply. Would you comply? Would you say "Bring it on -- we'll win these suits anyway." Or would you welcome legislation that would provide you with blanket immunity from those lawsuits?