Democrats Move to Make Gun-Makers Liable for Gun Crimes

[RetiredGySgt]

Do we hold car makers accountable for all vehicle deaths?
Do we go after distillers for the deaths caused by their beverages?
We also make big Pharma pay up for every prescription drug related death?

1) Not all but some yes.
2) No
3) Yes

1.Yes. ALL.
2Yes. ALL.
3.YES. ALL.

Car maker are only held liable IF the car was defective and caused the accident or death. Big Pharma is only held responsible if it can be proven the drug was defective and caused the problem. Democrats and gun grabbers want to sue every time a firearm is used and NEVER once claim the firearm was defective.

 

[Dr Grump]

The person who started this thread needs to read his own OP...they are not trying to sue all incidents where people are killed by guns. They are trying to revoke legislation paid for by the gun lobby that allows gun manufacturers not to be sued. Very UnAmerican to have such legislation in place in the first place.

 

[HappyJoy]

Do we hold car makers accountable for all vehicle deaths?
Do we go after distillers for the deaths caused by their beverages?
We also make big Pharma pay up for every prescription drug related death?

1) Not all but some yes.
2) No
3) Yes

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.

That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do we hold car makers accountable for all vehicle deaths?
Do we go after distillers for the deaths caused by their beverages?
We also make big Pharma pay up for every prescription drug related death?

1) Not all but some yes.
2) No
3) Yes

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.

That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

The claim was that tobacco companies hid the dangers of their product, because liberal courts assumed people who smoked cigarettes had no idea it was harmful.

Everybody knows what guns do.

 

[HappyJoy]

Do we hold car makers accountable for all vehicle deaths?
Do we go after distillers for the deaths caused by their beverages?
We also make big Pharma pay up for every prescription drug related death?

1) Not all but some yes.
2) No
3) Yes

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.

That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

The claim was that tobacco companies hid the dangers of their product, because liberal courts assumed people who smoked cigarettes had no idea it was harmful.

Everybody knows what guns do.

Does everyone? Also, by that time everyone knew what cigarettes did too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again for the slow and stupid, the protection was added because the left and gun grabbers sue every time there is a shooting and NEVER claim defect, so Congress stopped that bullshit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do we hold car makers accountable for all vehicle deaths?
Do we go after distillers for the deaths caused by their beverages?
We also make big Pharma pay up for every prescription drug related death?

1) Not all but some yes.
2) No
3) Yes

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.

That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

The claim was that tobacco companies hid the dangers of their product, because liberal courts assumed people who smoked cigarettes had no idea it was harmful.

Everybody knows what guns do.

Does everyone? Also, by that time everyone knew what cigarettes did too.

Cigarettes cause known diseases, firearms function perfectly with in the design they are made from, they do not cause anything by themselves and are PROTECTED by the Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The person who started this thread needs to read his own OP...they are not trying to sue all incidents where people are killed by guns. They are trying to revoke legislation paid for by the gun lobby that allows gun manufacturers not to be sued. Very UnAmerican to have such legislation in place in the first place.

Sanders also voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which provided some protections for licensed manufacturers, dealers, sellers of firearms or ammunition, and trade associations from civil lawsuits resulting from the misuse of firearms or ammunition. But gun makers and dealers did not receive a “total pass,” as Clinton claimed.

As the Congressional Research Service pointed out in a 2012 report, the legislation included six exceptions where civil suits could still be brought, including cases in which a firearm seller acted with negligence, cases involving the transfer of a firearm with the knowledge that it would be used to commit a crime, and cases in which manufacturers and sellers marketed or sold a firearm in violation of state or federal law.

FactChecking the Fourth Democratic Debate - FactCheck.org

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

If lawmakers move to make manufacturers liable for gun crimes, We The People MUST move to make those same lawmakers liable for every homeowner injured or killed in home invasions who weren't armed and every crime committed where the victim was unarmed due to being unable to afford or attain a gun or a permit to carry one.

Take names.

It goes BOTH ways. These lawmakers are moving to make people victims. They MUST be held liable also when people get killed or injured because of their actions.

 

[blackhawk]

This will be the next brillant idea by Congress.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do we hold car makers accountable for all vehicle deaths?
Do we go after distillers for the deaths caused by their beverages?
We also make big Pharma pay up for every prescription drug related death?

1) Not all but some yes.
2) No
3) Yes

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.

That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

The claim was that tobacco companies hid the dangers of their product, because liberal courts assumed people who smoked cigarettes had no idea it was harmful.

Everybody knows what guns do.

Does everyone? Also, by that time everyone knew what cigarettes did too.

Yes everybody knew. I started smoking as a child back in the early 70's. I was fully aware of it's addictive abilities and harmful physical effects.

You can't mean to tell me that people back then tried a cigarette, coughed their brains out, took a second puff with the same results, and said "This can't be bad for you!"

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.
That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

Show me the Amendment that guarantees your right to smoke cigarettes......waiting

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Do we hold car makers accountable for all vehicle deaths?
Do we go after distillers for the deaths caused by their beverages?
We also make big Pharma pay up for every prescription drug related death?

1) Not all but some yes.
2) No
3) Yes

1.Yes. ALL.
2Yes. ALL.
3.YES. ALL.

Car maker are only held liable IF the car was defective and caused the accident or death. Big Pharma is only held responsible if it can be proven the drug was defective and caused the problem. Democrats and gun grabbers want to sue every time a firearm is used and NEVER once claim the firearm was defective.

Not all gun owners use their guns to intentionally kill people,just like not all truck owners use their vehicle to intentionally run down crowds of people.

I fail to see the difference......Ban cars and trucks!!!!!!

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The person who started this thread needs to read his own OP...they are not trying to sue all incidents where people are killed by guns. They are trying to revoke legislation paid for by the gun lobby that allows gun manufacturers not to be sued. Very UnAmerican to have such legislation in place in the first place.

Yep, little by little....one chip at a time......

 

[HappyJoy]

Do we hold car makers accountable for all vehicle deaths?
Do we go after distillers for the deaths caused by their beverages?
We also make big Pharma pay up for every prescription drug related death?

1) Not all but some yes.
2) No
3) Yes

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.

That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

The claim was that tobacco companies hid the dangers of their product, because liberal courts assumed people who smoked cigarettes had no idea it was harmful.

Everybody knows what guns do.

Does everyone? Also, by that time everyone knew what cigarettes did too.

Yes everybody knew. I started smoking as a child back in the early 70's. I was fully aware of it's addictive abilities and harmful physical effects.

You can't mean to tell me that people back then tried a cigarette, coughed their brains out, took a second puff with the same results, and said "This can't be bad for you!"

I'm just saying a company was sued by their customers who used their product correctly. I'm not for this suing of gun manufactures but the argument that people shouldn't be able to sue because they know the basic purpose of a gun isn't really a good argument. It sounds like you agree with that unless you want to change your answer now.

 

[HappyJoy]

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.
That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

Show me the Amendment that guarantees your right to smoke cigarettes......waiting

Show me the amendment that guarantees you can own a gun under any condition.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This isn't chipping away at anything. It's just a dog and pony show. They won't mention much about gun confiscation during the general election. If they push the gun issue too far, it will end up at the Supreme Court AGAIN, and we can have more laughs at their expense.

You may be right Ray. But I see them making serious headway. They've "Infringed" so much already it's hard to keep track.
They seem to achieve a ton of small, local victories. left in place they become the foundation for larger actions.

Plus EVERY night I see the Lamestream media trying to scare the beejesus out of young people and making them afraid of guns. Those are tomorrow's voters.

And kinda sorta, you made my point.....you said "AGAIN"....like I said, they will never give up until the perfect storm comes around and they win.

Personally, I never underestimate the enemy.

ymmv

I wouldn't worry about it too much. There are bigger fish to fry at this point of the game. As for local gun laws, if those people are too stupid to vote out the legislators that inflicted their gun restrictions on the community, then they can live with them as far as I'm concerned, or appeal to the court system to get them removed.

On a national level though, guns have too much constitutional protections. But their rants also prove their Nazi approach, which is when they want to get around our laws or our rights, sue or tax entities into submission. It proves once again how anti-American Democrats really are.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Show me the amendment that guarantees you can own a gun under any condition.

Just because Communists "Interpret" the Constitution stupidly doesn't validate their stupidity.

Now, without more dodging, show me that Amendment that guarantees your right to smoke........

 

[HappyJoy]

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.
That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

Show me the Amendment that guarantees your right to smoke cigarettes......waiting

Show me the amendment that guarantees you can own a gun under any condition.

Well, let's see. An assault rifle ban has been deemed to be Constitutional, so have back ground checks and not letting certain individuals own them. How did that happen?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1) Not all but some yes.
2) No
3) Yes

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.

That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

The claim was that tobacco companies hid the dangers of their product, because liberal courts assumed people who smoked cigarettes had no idea it was harmful.

Everybody knows what guns do.

Does everyone? Also, by that time everyone knew what cigarettes did too.

Yes everybody knew. I started smoking as a child back in the early 70's. I was fully aware of it's addictive abilities and harmful physical effects.

You can't mean to tell me that people back then tried a cigarette, coughed their brains out, took a second puff with the same results, and said "This can't be bad for you!"

I'm just saying a company was sued by their customers who used their product correctly. I'm not for this suing of gun manufactures but the argument that people shouldn't be able to sue because they know the basic purpose of a gun isn't really a good argument. It sounds like you agree with that unless you want to change your answer now.

I was against the lawsuits in the tobacco case. It was brought forth by Al Gore. In fact, the lawyers in the case became overnight billionaires. They got a percentage of the claim. And let's not forget who trial lawyers contribute to come election time.