Discussion for article #246974
No live blogging from Mr. Marshall tonight?
Thatâs one of my favorite things about TPM.
2 Likes
Word. A little disappointed. But I guess he needs some break now and then⌠he has lotta hard work days and nights ahead till November.
1 Like
Bernie was being completely disingenuous in this exchange. He knows that the lawsuit that was about to be launched was specifically targeting gun sellers for selling guns into areas that could no way support that many gunsâŚand that they were indeed being purchased to be shipped into other areas. That the gun manufacturers were also completely aware of this, yet continued to sell and even incent those same sellers to continue the game. The lawsuit was years in the making.
For Bernie to say he was against that, but voted for the law because he didnt want mom and popâs ammo for all to get sued is complete BS. Everyone knew precisely what this law was aimed to prevent, including Bernie. And it did. The law was passed on the eve of the case being filed and it ended there.
17 Likes
What Bernie lie!!! neverâŚ
1 Like
Iâm with Hillary, itâs the only dangerous product sold without a warning label or training requirement or licensing, of some sort.
10 Likes
I agree absolutely. Bernie framed the issue as a very narrow one: âIf they are selling a product and the person who buys it legally, what you are talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I donât agree with that.â
But the gun industry immunity shield protected the industry from accountability on a much much broader scale. When an industry knows how to make a product safer and refuses to do so, for example, through personalized technology that would save the lives of children and others who are killed by children who find an adultâs gun, that industry ought to be held accountable for negligence for its willful and wanton disregard of human life. When the industry ignores years of data that show its personalized technology would prevent gun thieves and strong arm thugs and traffickers and straw conveyors from putting operable guns in the hands of criminals and others who could not pass a background check, this industry ought to be subject to judgments that bankrupt them.
(Edit) When Bernie says the gunmaker shield law would block lawsuits in a narrow area with which most would agree but leaves out the broad range of lawsuits it blocks for outrageous gun industry conduct, he is disingenuously repeating NRA talking points. It is disingenuous to masquerade as a protector of the little guy from big corporations when he does NRA bidding to block the CDC from conducting gun violence research and works to render big gun corporations from accountability for their own despicable conduct for the benefit of shareholder profits.
If he supported only the narrow industry protections he seems to advocate now, he should have said so at the time and voted against the broad gun industry protections he in fact voted in favor of.
12 Likes
Bernie is being vague and talking in generalities when itâs the assault rifle specifically being targeted (no pun intended).
If Bernie doesnât want the claim of being against gun regulation and control then he needs to be âspecificâ about his plan, if there is one, and what he fully believes.
He skates on his rhetoric and only has himself to blame for being shallow.
His past is note worthy but what âexactlyâ is he going to do about guns, Obamacare, Wall Street, every government program, womenâs issues, etc., etc?
Where was Bernieâs legislation before the campaign? Sandy Hook was in his neck of the woods, he should be appalled and in action mode.
4 Likes
Bite your tongue! St. Bernie lie? The Bernie bros will not accept that!
1 Like
The hammer blow in the debate on this topic from Clinton though was not in this article though. That Sanders is all for going after corporations, except the gun manufacturing corporations and liability for the products they sell.
7 Likes
This gun issue is a major reason Sanders is more electable than Clinton. On this issue Clinton is all emotion and not pragmatic.
1 Like
I think the bill/language that Bernie didnât oppose was protecting all gun manufacture, even of guns that have no legitimate peacetime use, like AR-15 (used in Newtown) does not. Itâs usefulness is mass murder. If this is the distinction Hillary wants to make, I didnât see it in the reporting. So I partly agree with you there.
Oh, I have to be a bit uncivil and I regret this: Sanders is not âmore electable than Clintonâ. Sanders is 100% purely unelectable and Dems will lose 49 states with him as they did in 1972 and 1984 with candidates less problematic.
4 Likes
Sanders blew this one very badly for anyone who knows much about the topic.
The entire issue can be summed up in two words: strict liability. That is the name of a well-established legal doctrine. You can look it up in a legal dictionary [here][1], but the kernel of the nut is:
Absolute legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on the wrongdoer without proof of carelessness or fault⌠Injured plaintiffs have to prove the product caused the harm but do not have to prove exactly how the manufacturer was careless. Purchasers of the product, as well as injured guests, bystanders, and others with no direct relationship with the product, may sue for damages caused by the product.
[1]: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/strict+liability
3 Likes
I think that that is overstating it, which does no one any good. I do agree that Sanders would represent a substantial risk, for all the obvious reasons, but Iâm not so sure he is a guaranteed loser, much less in a 49-state wipeout. But it remains at bottom, Why take the risk? Neither candidate is really, in any substantive way, that different from the other. The alternative, an R victory, is too utterly monstrous to bear contemplation. So donât take the needless risk.
1 Like
âClinton said she supports holding gun manufacturers accountable when crimes are committed with their products.â
If only she could say the same thing about her Finance Industry friends . . . .
Hit 'em where they live, condew.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
Clinton will win with such low #s but Sanders canât?
As has been patiently explained here on many threads by many posters, Sandersâ numbers right now are meaningless. The Republicans have very carefully and deliberately been leaving him alone. Try to envision what his numbers would be after a massively financed enormous sludgedump on himâwhereas Clinton has already experienced that and is where she is now and only likely to go back up.
6 Likes
Just because a lot of people
[quote=âowlcroft, post:18, topic:34104â]
here on many threads by many posters
[/quote] are in the tank for Hillary Clinton doesnât mean that their views have any validity. Hillaryâs numbers are terrible and vast stretches of our country are sick of the Clintons and the rest of the political establishment. That leaves Sanders and Trump for people to go to.
Where do you want them to go, Sanders or Trump?
There is a small subset of gun nuts who disagree with any regulation of guns. Most people on the country are closer to Hillaryâs position. Bernie privileges the views of rural Americans over the devastation caused by guns on our cities. What do you think the effect on democratic turnout is apt to be for each candidate on this issue?
3 Likes