MrDollarBills wrote:
First of all, i'm not a blind Sanders follower, I said more than once that I believed that some tenets of his platform are waaaaaaay too idealistic (like free college, for instance) and his policies would increase my personal tax burden (which I was and still am willing to endure if it means for the better good of this country overall). Let's not get into that kind of rhetoric when you've been up in here pulling that blind Clintonite act to perfection. You have your reasons for liking Clinton, I have mine for liking Sanders, doesn't mean I'm a blind follower of the man. Save that kind of stuff for the nutjob Trump cultists who can no longer establish fact from fiction, because we're on the same side tbh.
Regarding suing gun makers, the whole premise of holding them liable for the actions of an individual is ridiculous. If a gun backfires and kills a person, yes you should be able to sue the manufacturer for a defective product being sold, I personally don't believe that they should be exempt from liability in that case. That is a different story from someone taking a gun and shooting up a mall. Are you going to sue a knife manufacturer or a baseball bat maker if someone decides to murder their wife or husband after an argument? No, so why would you sue a gun maker for someone misusing their product? Are you going to sue the makers of Jack Daniels if someone takes a bottle, bashes it over another person's head and cracks their skull open? It's ridiculous.
Sanders being against certain parts of the gun rights debate (suing manufacturers, 5 day waiting period), and being for others (assault rifle and magazine ban) is consistent with a moderate approach to 2nd amendment rights. It is one of the reasons why people in the flyover states listened to him.
Obama called Hillary "Annie Oakley" back in 2008 because she was pandering hard to rural area democrats and independents by painting herself as some pro 2nd amendment vanguard. Then all of a sudden 8 years later she's attacking Sanders for his moderate stance on the issue. Obama clowned her for it. Wasn't the first of her dramatic flip flops either. She tried to paint herself as a friend to white working class America and was dog whistling her ass off back in the 08 primaries. She went from "anti elitist" liberal to elitist liberal who stays with a bottle of hot sauce in her purse in 8 years time, if anyone is a fraud it's definitely her and not Sanders. I'll take a person with Sanders' voting record any day of the week, flaws and all. Says to me that he's on the side of the overall populace.
Ok well I'm glad you're willing to be objective then. And no I haven't been pulling the blind Clintonite act to perfection. I've admitted that Hillary has changed her views on certain issues.
But so has Sanders. That's the whole point.
Second of all, you're not understanding what the legislation was about. The gun industry has a special privilege that nobody else has.
Why should gun manufacturers have immunity from law suits when no other industry does? Couldn't there conceivably be a situation in when the design of a product can be blamed for something?
Beyond the basic injustice of depriving victims of gun-industry harm access to courtrooms—access that is available to victims of negligent acts by other industries—civil litigation is also important to incentivize industry actors to act responsibly; take steps to prevent negligent and criminal use of their products; and improve product safety. Prior to the enactment of PLCAA, civil lawsuits were used successfully against the gun industry to secure the adoption of new safety measures and other best practices
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2016/01/15/128949/immunizing-the-gun-industry-the-harmful-effect-of-the-protection-of-lawful-commerce-in-arms-act/Nobody is arguing that anyone should be able to sue gun manufacturers for others using a gun. The point is the gun industry could conceivably be held to responsibility if their products are unsafe or defective. This law shields them from any type of liability in a way that no other industry is.
If you're going to continue to defend this are you in favor of giving legal immunity to every industry? Or just the gun lobby?
Giving complete immunity to the gun industry is nothing but pandering to the NRA. Sanders even admitted that he voted for this because he lives in a state where most people own guns.
Sanders voted against federal background checks. This is an extreme anti-gun control stance. The vast majority of Americans are for federal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. Sanders changed his tune on this completely.
Can you at least acknowledge that he did this?
I don't remember Hillary ever going against the Brady Bill, being against background checks, or voting to immunize the gun industry.
Clinton and Obama may have had some debates over defending the 2nd Amendment, but I didn't see her change her stance on any specific laws or issues the way Sanders CLEARLY did.
Again all politicians change their views. Pretending that Hillary is the only one to do is just stupid.
I don't understand what the problem is in adjusting your views to what people want is anyway. In fact, I think it's a good thing. Every time Hillary ran for President she conducted a listening tour so she could hear about the concerns of people before she ran.
I think politicians should be applauded when they come around on issues that are important to people.
