The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[westwall]

There are two sides to this argument, and they're both full of shit.

No "other manufacturers" are held liable when someone kills someone else with their product - but no "other manufacturers" seem to need specific laws giving them immunity, either.

The reason for that is self evident. The progressives have tried everything they can think of to ban them. So, they tried this. The law was passed so that they wouldn't waste more taxpayer dollars on ridiculous lawsuits.

 

[westwall]

There are two sides to this argument, and they're both full of shit.

No "other manufacturers" are held liable when someone kills someone else with their product - but no "other manufacturers" seem to need specific laws giving them immunity, either.

We both know why they need the protection: without it, well-funded people would simply bury them under an avalanche of baseless lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt them. Sure, the companies would win every lawsuit...but they'd go broke defending themselves.

That's fiction.

It's already gone all the way, and precedent has been set. The whole "avalanche of baseless lawsuits" thing doesn't hold up in reality.

Doesn't matter. Progressives will keep trying until they can get the precedent changed, which does happen, though rarely.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are two sides to this argument, and they're both full of shit.

No "other manufacturers" are held liable when someone kills someone else with their product - but no "other manufacturers" seem to need specific laws giving them immunity, either.

We both know why they need the protection: without it, well-funded people would simply bury them under an avalanche of baseless lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt them. Sure, the companies would win every lawsuit...but they'd go broke defending themselves.

That's fiction.

It's already gone all the way, and precedent has been set. The whole "avalanche of baseless lawsuits" thing doesn't hold up in reality.

I can understand the concern, though, given the tendency of juries and, especially, judges to take wild hairs across their asses and render decisions that try to make the law what they think it should be, rather than applying it as it is.

All it would take is one rogue court decision.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are two sides to this argument, and they're both full of shit.

No "other manufacturers" are held liable when someone kills someone else with their product - but no "other manufacturers" seem to need specific laws giving them immunity, either.

We both know why they need the protection: without it, well-funded people would simply bury them under an avalanche of baseless lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt them. Sure, the companies would win every lawsuit...but they'd go broke defending themselves.

That's fiction.

It's already gone all the way, and precedent has been set. The whole "avalanche of baseless lawsuits" thing doesn't hold up in reality.

Doesn't matter. Progressives will keep trying until they can get the precedent changed, which does happen, though rarely.

It's a sad thing when so many Americans no longer trust their justice system to abide by the laws.

 

[martybegan]

There are two sides to this argument, and they're both full of shit.

No "other manufacturers" are held liable when someone kills someone else with their product - but no "other manufacturers" seem to need specific laws giving them immunity, either.

No other industry is being sued (except the oil industry, and their margins are better) for the express purpose of putting them out of business to deny people their product. Even winning lawsuits costs $$, and being sued over and over again can make a company unprofitable.

 

[Lakhota]

Hillary is currently talking about this awful law.

 

[Clementine]

Hillary is currently talking about this awful law.

Awful Hillary says a lot of things.

Should it be illegal to sell cars to alcoholics or knives to people without a background check? More people are killed in accidents or murder by stabbing than getting shot. Many shootings are in self-defense. In fact, most law abiding citizens only use guns for hunting or self-defense. Those thugs who are behind the high murder rate in Chicago aren't likely NRA members.

It's funny how so many people support something just because it sounds good. Do you really think you are going to save innocent people by imposing strict gun control? Even liberals have admitted that none of the proposed restrictions would have stopped any of the mass shootings. It wouldn't have stopped the murders in Chicago, which are at a record high right now.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

What other manufacturers are held liable if their product is not defective but is simply misused by someone after the product is purchased? Who? Name them. You can't.

Using your fascist legal theory, if someone used a car to kill another person, which of course happens in our society, the victim's family could sue the car manufacturer even though the car was not defective.

Why should a gun maker be held accountable for something that is totally beyond his control? If a criminal uses a gun to harm someone, hold the criminal accountable, not the gun maker. The gun maker had no control over how the product was used, anymore than a car maker can control how people use cars after they're purchased.

The problem is that you want to end gun manufacturing.

 

[Claudette]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

What other manufacturers are held liable if their product is not defective but is simply misused by someone after the product is purchased? Who? Name them. You can't.

Using your fascist legal theory, if someone used a car to kill another person, which of course happens in our society, the victim's family could sue the car manufacturer even though the car was not defective.

Why should a gun maker be held accountable for something that is totally beyond his control? If a criminal uses a gun to harm someone, hold the criminal accountable, not the gun maker. The gun maker had no control over how the product was used, anymore than a car maker can control how people use cars after they're purchased.

The problem is that you want to end gun manufacturing.

I agree and she/he/it's an idiot to boot.

 

[Clementine]

There are two sides to this argument, and they're both full of shit.

No "other manufacturers" are held liable when someone kills someone else with their product - but no "other manufacturers" seem to need specific laws giving them immunity, either.

That's because the militant leftists aren't targeting most companies. Dictators don't want an armed population so guns get in the way of their end game. Just as controlling all energy sources is needed for their agenda.

They don't care that most murders are committed with knives. It's not about keeping people safe, it's about keeping government in total control of people. Knives are not a threat to a dictatorship. They probably like that knives are the weapon of choice because it helps with population control. Only an armed country can fight against tyranny.

 

[asaratis]

There are two sides to this argument, and they're both full of shit.

No "other manufacturers" are held liable when someone kills someone else with their product - but no "other manufacturers" seem to need specific laws giving them immunity, either.

That's because the militant leftists aren't targeting most companies. Dictators don't want an armed population so guns get in the way of their end game. Just as controlling all energy sources is needed for their agenda.

They don't care that most murders are committed with knives. It's not about keeping people safe, it's about keeping government in total control of people. Knives are not a threat to a dictatorship. They probably like that knives are the weapon of choice because it helps with population control. Only an armed country can fight against tyranny.

You are correct. However, the most significant thing that they do not care about is the undeniable FACT that:

CRIMINALS DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO GUN LAWS!





​

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hillary is currently talking about this awful law.

Awful Hillary says a lot of things.

Should it be illegal to sell cars to alcoholics or knives to people without a background check? More people are killed in accidents or murder by stabbing than getting shot. Many shootings are in self-defense. In fact, most law abiding citizens only use guns for hunting or self-defense. Those thugs who are behind the high murder rate in Chicago aren't likely NRA members.

It's funny how so many people support something just because it sounds good. Do you really think you are going to save innocent people by imposing strict gun control? Even liberals have admitted that none of the proposed restrictions would have stopped any of the mass shootings. It wouldn't have stopped the murders in Chicago, which are at a record high right now.

And why are bars allowed to have parking lots????

And why is ice cream sold to kids from trucks in the middle of the street!

And....of course, If guns kill people, I guess pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.

 

[Contumacious]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

HUH?

Liable for what?

Did the firearm malfunction?

The manufacturers should NOT be liable for someone misusing a firearm specially in the present political climate where gun grabbers would use the law to prevent the sale of firearms.

Fuck you, motherfuckers.

.

 

[Ernie S.]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

HUH?

Liable for what?

Did the firearm malfunction?

The manufacturers should NOT be liable for someone misusing a firearm specially in the present political climate where gun grabbers would use the law to prevent the sale of firearms.

Fuck you, motherfuckers.

.

Exactly! If I ever need to shoot some dumb sumbitch, my damned gun better go bang, else I'll be suing Taurus, if I survive.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Unless the gun backfires and injured the shooter, the manufacturer isn't liable for anything.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hillary is currently talking about this awful law.

More mindless nonsense... from both you and Hillary.

 

[Lakhota]

This law must be repealed.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

This law must be repealed.

It's sad that we even need this law.

 

[Ernie S.]

This law must be repealed.

You must be institutionalized.

 

[TooTall]

This law must be repealed.

You are wrong, as usual. Try this on for size.

New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name.

New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name