• Bernie Sanders Switches Sides on Gun Manufacturer Liability
    104 replies, posted
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49499626]No all I saw you doing was assuming that bullets were magic that would self-combust if a screw was loose. And since when would anyone in the U.S. be okay with gun manufacturers in the U.S. illegally exporting goods to terrorist groups? You're literally trying to tell us that we need to punish gun manufacturers for doing things that they aren't doing. Also he said he specifically wouldn't hold the gun shop owner responsible, he said nothing about the manufacturer in that quote, which is what this is about.[/QUOTE] The implication is pretty clear that he doesn't think people (gun dealers or manufacturers) should be held responsible for things their customers do that they couldn't possibly know about in advance, why are you being so stubborn about absolutely everything? Do you believe that anyone who thinks differently from you is so unreasonable that you can't offer even a shred of benefit of the doubt? I'm just providing scenarios where gun manufacturers could be doing things that are illegal and should be prosecuted. Where in my post did I say we should prosecute all gun manufacturers for selling guns to ISIS when they aren't selling guns to ISIS. That doesn't make any sense at all, nor does it logically follow that you should come to that conclusion based on what I wrote. Why did you ignore the whole bit about serial numbers, which actually had an example behind it? You're cherrypicking my arguments in an attempt to prove I'm somehow wrong by some reducto ab absurdism russian tyranical style bullshit. I'm not making any of the points you seem to think I'm making and you're putting words in my mouth to boot. There's a difference between genuinely not understanding a post and willfully misinterpreting it in order to shut down an argument without actually refuting it. I'm beginning to think this is more of the later than the former. Essentially, you're picking bits and pieces of my post that are inconsequential and ignoring the meat and guts of the argument. You're not just taking things Bernie said and twisting it around to mean whatever you want it to mean, but you're also doing the same thing to me now.
Your arguments have no guts, your just saying that already illegal activity should be somehow more illegal, and another poster already [url=http://bearingarms.com/stag-arms-raided-atf-stupidity-criminal-enterprise/]refuted the serial number post[/URL], on top of which there were legal repercussions for. You're literally just fear mongering.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49499703]Your arguments have no guts, your just saying that already illegal activity should be somehow more illegal[/QUOTE] Except that's not what I'm arguing or what the legislation is about. See here: [QUOTE=Elspin;49497984]I'd counter by saying yeah no shit it's illegal but it's still happening, hell illegally obtained drivers licenses were a huge problem in the city where I grew up, just making something illegal is different from pursuing direct action to properly enforce those laws. That shouldn't worry responsible gun owners[/QUOTE] And: [QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49498000][B]If strengthening existing laws about illegal sales is what Bernie meant by this then I don't think he'll find a single detractor.[/B][/QUOTE] Finally, let's address this: [QUOTE]That's not the legislation that's in question. It would allow manufacturers to be held accountable for crimes committed with their weapons.[/QUOTE] Here's the section of the OP article that discusses this: [QUOTE]On the program, Sanders, who was a member of the House of Representatives in 2005, called it “a complicated vote.” “If you are a gun shop owner in Vermont and you sell somebody a gun and that person flips out and then kills somebody, I don’t think it’s really fair to hold that person responsible, the gun shop owner,” Sanders said. He said he considered it a different situation when “gun manufacturers do know that they’re selling a whole lot of guns in an area that really should not be buying that many guns, that many of those guns are going to other areas, probably for criminal purposes.” In an interview Saturday night, Sanders’s campaign manager Jeff Weaver said that Sanders had voted for the 2005 bill “in an attempt to protect mom-and-pop hunting stores, particularly in Vermont.” Weaver said that Sanders would support changes to the law that if protections are still provided to “actors who are following the law and doing what they’re supposed to do. We don’t want to subject them to liability.”[/QUOTE] Basically what it says here is that Sanders' version of the legislation would still provide (already existing) protections to gun manufacturing and store operators who followed the law. The only exception is if you willfully know that the guns are being used for nefarious purposes, i.e. you're being willfully negligent. If we're talking about Clinton's version then it's a whole different story but that's not what we're talking about here. Bernie admits it's a very complicated issue and he wants to make sure that gun manufactures aren't punished for y'know, manufacturing guns. Now here's what butre posted in response in their first post after the OP (and that I assume you agree with): [QUOTE=butre;49497853]what is a gun manufacturer acting irresponsibly? Is it just building guns? because that's all any gun manufacturer does. this isn't even trying to disguise that he wants to legislate gun manufacturers out of existence without actually doing so[/QUOTE] Now butre explicitly states that Bernie wants to make it so that gun manufacturers get punished for manufacturing guns. Which was specifically addressed in the actual article by Bernie stating that he doesn't want to do that. So this statement, right off the bat, is provably false unless Bernie is lying which we'll assume he isn't for now. Assuming this is all the case, and all of the arguments made by each constituent poster (and Bernie Sanders) is correct, and you agree with them, then there is no reason for the assertion that Bernie Sanders wants to outlaw gun manufacturing. All in all, this goes back to my original point: he's not suggesting what you think he's suggesting. As for the serial number thing, I'll concede that point because I didn't originally see the post refuting it on the 1st page. However, I want to reciprocate that my whole argument up until this point has just been trying to convince you that Bernie said what he actually said in the article and not what people in this thread have assumed that he said. I don't know enough about the specifics of the situation to get a good read on what exact measures should/would be taken, mainly because it doesn't specify that in the article itself. Anyway, Doctor Zedacon brought this up way earlier: [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;49497870]No, no it isn't at all. What a moronic thing to say. He has been incredibly lax about gun control issues and towards manufacturers, how has he done anything to legislate them out of existence?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=butre;49497853]what is a gun manufacturer acting irresponsibly? Is it just building guns? because that's all any gun manufacturer does.[/QUOTE] I though it would be something like using poorly-made parts that cause the gun to break and cause unintended harm, like a dodgy spring in the firing pin or a badly-moulded safety switch or an ejection port that flings the casings towards the user? If a gun manufacturer made guns that had problems like that, they should certainly be held accountable.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49499784]words[/QUOTE] You know what happens when you restrict gun sales in areas bordered by places where it's legal to buy guns? People travel the extra 20 minutes. Nothing that restricts sales in one area but allows it in other areas works because all you do is make it difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain guns, whilst empowering black markets for illegal trade. This kind of legislation is inherently unhelpful because once again all it does is target people who are already obeying the law. It's fucking pointless. As other people have already stated the whole thing is a political concession made to appeal to dumb anti-gun voters.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49499848]You know what happens when you restrict gun sales in areas bordered by places where it's legal to buy guns? People travel the extra 20 minutes. Nothing that restricts sales in one area but allows it in other areas works because all you do is make it difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain guns, whilst empowering black markets for illegal trade. This kind of legislation is inherently unhelpful because once again all it does is target people who are already obeying the law. It's fucking pointless. As other people have already stated the whole thing is a political concession made to appeal to dumb anti-gun voters.[/QUOTE] It's not restricting gun sales, it's restricting gun manufacturers (hopefully for good reason). It says so in the article.
What does "restricting gun manufacturers" mean to you, exactly?
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49499879]What does "restricting gun manufacturers" mean to you, exactly?[/QUOTE] It explains this in the article, but do you really want me to go through the entire 5 paragraph explanation again? Let's try something else, here's my brief synopsis of the thread so far: [QUOTE] Bernie: "Ima gonna do... [something... something...] ...gun manufacturing... [something...something...]" Butre: "Ahah! That means he wants to ban all guns forever because he's an evil liberal who hates guns!" Doctor Zedacon: "What the fuck, he didn't say that at all, you're reading it wrong." Other People: "HueHue, sue ford because your retard cousin ran over someone with a car (because that's what Bernie said)." Trebgarta: "Maybe in a situation where problems in manufacturing cause accidental discharges, the manufacturer should be held liable if it results in serious injury or death (like every other manufacturer or every other product in existence)" Butre: "There's no such thing as accidental discharges, any problem with the manufacturing is entirely the customers fault." Zyler: "Bernie didn't say that, also accidental discharges do happen, see (provides examples)." Butre and Soulharvester: "Those accidental discharges don't count as accidental discharges because people who are stupid enough to cause an accidental discharge are entirely at fault for being stupid" Zyler: "Okay, what about situations where people dropped the gun accidentally and it fired (or some specific scenario where something happened accidentally and caused the gun to fire), not to mention that whole point where the manufacturers of every product in existence should recall products anyway if they're defective which makes this entire argument moot to begin with? Also remember how you completely misinterpreted Bernie's point in the first place? Guys, guys?" Soulmaster: "Oh my god this guy is so stupid and doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, he doesn't realize that we all agree that gun manufacturers should be held accountable for defective products like every other manufacturer in existence (even thought it completely invalidates the argument that had gone on through the entire previous page). Zyler: "Okay let's go through this step by step and try to untangle this." Soulmaster: "Okay let's cherrypick individual points you make and avoid addressing any arguments because you [B]obviously, extremely and very literally[/B] think that every gun manufacturer in america is secretly selling munitions to ISIS."[/QUOTE] Does that help? Essentially, and putting it very simply, the article states that Bernie supports persecuting gun manufacturers who willfully and self-knowledgeably “act irresponsibly” (i.e. willful negligence: actually aware they are doing nefarious shit and selling stuff to people they shouldn't be) but also stresses that “actors who are following the law and doing what they’re supposed to do. We don’t want to subject them to liability.” I.E. people who are following the law should not be held liable, whether they are gun manufacturers, gun dealers or customers. You can disagree with that, and that's fine. But please, don't misrepresent the arguments being made and call people stupid for correcting you.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49499913]It explains this in the article, but do you really want me to go through the entire 5 paragraph explanation again? Let's try something else, here's my brief synopsis of the thread so far: Does that help? Essentially, and putting it very simply, the article states that Bernie supports persecuting gun manufacturers who willfully and self-knowledgeably “act irresponsibly” (i.e. willful negligence: actually aware they are doing nefarious shit and selling stuff to people they shouldn't be) but also stresses that “actors who are following the law and doing what they’re supposed to do. We don’t want to subject them to liability.” I.E. people who are following the law should not be held liable, whether they are gun manufacturers, gun dealers or customers. You can disagree with that, and that's fine. But please, don't misrepresent the arguments being made and call people stupid for correcting you.[/QUOTE] So then why introduce new legislation that could serve no purpose but being abused by victims to sue manufacturers? All of those things are already illegal. Selling to ISIS, selling to felons, selling unserialized guns, it's all already illegal. Why is another law needed? The only thing making some kind of law that mentioned "liability" in it could do is allow people to push abusive lawsuits against gun shops, owners, and manufacturers, because all the things you just mentioned that the law should cover are ALREADY ILLEGAL.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49500092]So then why introduce new legislation that could serve no purpose but being abused by victims to sue manufacturers? All of those things are already illegal. Selling to ISIS, selling to felons, selling unserialized guns, it's all already illegal. Why is another law needed? The only thing making some kind of law that mentioned "liability" in it could do is allow people to push abusive lawsuits against gun shops, owners, and manufacturers, because all the things you just mentioned that the law should cover are ALREADY ILLEGAL.[/QUOTE] From my very limited understanding of American Law, it could allow people who feel rightfully wronged to sue gun manufacturers for negligence if they believed that the manufacturer had willfully caused suffering, injury or death or allowed it to occur through inaction. This is supposedly a good thing because they are (currently) exempt from any accusation of wrong-doing in the criminal or civil courts. Frivolous accusations would hopefully be thrown out of court, on top of this Bernie said he wants to be cautious about this and make sure people aren't punished for just doing their job. This has a multitude of different effects. The first major effect is that now that the manufacturers do not longer have exemptions to being sued, it's possible for the results of higher court cases to establish legislature at a state or federal level (the same way Gay Marriage was legalized). This legislature could give more protections to gun manufacturers or have other effects on the way guns are manufactured at a state or federal level, depending on how law is interpreted. This should be a good thing because it allows more versatility in the way the law is represented. The second major effect is that cases can now be taken to the civil court system instead of just being handled by police (and the criminal court). If you remember OJ Simpson way back when was found innocent of killing his wife in the criminal court but found guilty in the civil court. The standards of evidence in the civil court are lower, but as a result the punishment for losing a court case is much less severe (usually it just costs the defendant money, which they pay to the claimant). What this essentially boils down to is that Gun Manufacturers are treated the same way every other manufacturer is treated, as opposed to being exempt and held as a separate and holy untouchable entity. In the beginning, there would probably be a lot of frivolous law suits, which would be thrown out and wouldn't bother gun manufacturers anyway because they have really deep pockets. Then there might be one or two really big cases where there's actually evidence of wrongdoing and/or foul play on the part of the manufacturer and where they might otherwise have been able to avoid going awry of the criminal court, they could still be nailed down in the civil court. It basically gives normal people a way to fight back against nominally Goliath and untouchable super-corporations that are at the moment completely above (a bit) of the law. That said, it needs to be handled correctly or it'll get up shit creek real fast.
ffs bernie stop saying stupid shit I win £200 if he is the damn nominee instead of clinton.
@CaptainUpside-Down I said you had no idea what you were talking about referring to the physics and design of firearms, which you've shown a distinct lack of understanding about. Regarding the legislation in question you've provided nothing new and done nothing but restate what others have said as if I lack basic reading comprehension and constantly shifted the topics as they became uncomfortable for you. Again, what exactly does "restricting gun manufacturers" mean to you? In what way does this actually target criminal activities in a way that isn't currently in practice? Edit: stop saying that this makes them equivalent to other product manufacturers, other manufacturers are responsible only for defects in their products, just the same as gun manufacturers. What you want is for them to be liable for misuse of their products, which is inherently retarded. The gun is designed to put bullets at a fast velocity down the barrel, that's their design, it's not a defect if someone is hit with that bullet, it's misuse of the firearm. Again, the equivalent would be someone being hit by a car, suing the car manufacturers for unintended misuse of their vehicles, it's nonsense.
Depends on what he means. If he's saying we should be able to prosecute them when a gun they made is used in a crime, then he's flip flopping Romney style. If he means defects mace during production, most manufacturer's QA are at the least much more actively helping their buyers then most other industries, I don't see wrist on the QC side of things can be construed as acting irresponsible. Honestly, it seems like a political move more than anything, a way to score some points with the leftists I would guess.
From wiki [QUOTE]The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.[/QUOTE] Literally the only thing the bill does is protect manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. They can be held liable for literally everything else. If you observed it's weird how only one industry in the US has such a bill favoring them, as Clinton did, then blame [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act#Background"]Democrats[/URL].
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;49499547]gun manufacturer's have gotten away with not being universally hated, unlike big tobacco what accountability legislation sounds like to me is similar to the kind of legislation that gets put on tobacco products[/QUOTE] the biggest difference is that a gun being properly and legally operated will never kill/harm anyone (with the exception of self defensive situations) whereas a cigarette being properly and legally operated can easily do damage to your body [editline]10th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;49500450]From wiki Literally the only thing the bill does is protect manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. They can be held liable for literally everything else. If you observed it's weird how only one industry in the US has such a bill favoring them, as Clinton did, then blame [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act#Background"]Democrats[/URL].[/QUOTE] so if i got beat over the head with a louisville slugger i could sue the manufacturers? or if i got sprayed in the face with bear mace and robbed? or stabbed with a kitchen knife? honestly seems like protection that should be for all industries, to me at least.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49500595]the biggest difference is that a gun being properly and legally operated will never kill/harm anyone (with the exception of self defensive situations) whereas a cigarette being properly and legally operated can easily do damage to your body [editline]10th January 2016[/editline] so if i got beat over the head with a louisville slugger i could sue the manufacturers? or if i got sprayed in the face with bear mace and robbed? or stabbed with a kitchen knife? honestly seems like protection that should be for all industries, to me at least.[/QUOTE] Cue "but a baseball bat/bear mace/knife wasn't designed to kill people" argument
I'm guessing they're talking about the distribution side. I.e: if the dealer or manufacturer skips on the legal channels for selling its guns, and those guns end up in the hands of criminals, they should be held liable
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49500595]so if i got beat over the head with a louisville slugger i could sue the manufacturers? or if i got sprayed in the face with bear mace and robbed? or stabbed with a kitchen knife? honestly seems like protection that should be for all industries, to me at least.[/QUOTE] You can sue them, but you'd be laughed out of court and left with tons of fees to pay. The difference here is that the democrats were organizing mass law-suits against gun manufacturers and pressured them into the deals in which they voluntarily agreed to sell only to (what are now) FFL dealers and be exempt from lawsuits from victims of crimes committed with their products, or else get sued into bankruptcy. The whole point was to separate manufacturers from end user sales, and to make sure manufacturers only sold guns to dealers who agreed to check every person they sold a gun to with the government before finalizing the sale. It was a method of giving the government control over who could buy guns and keeping gun manufacturers on a leash. Edit: @Pro, I'm pretty sure they would already be liable and also breaking current laws/agreements if they didn't go through proper channels. The Stag Arms case earlier had massive repercussions because they transferred unserialized receivers to another one of their properties and the ATF viewed that as a breech of law requiring them to serialize before transfer, even though they were simply transferring them from one of their own facilities to another.
[QUOTE=butre;49497876]ford doesn't get sued when some drunkard in an F150 sideswipes a car, snap on doesn't get sued if someone gets stabbed with a screwdriver, etc., so why should a firearms manufacturer get the shaft on this?[/QUOTE] I'm sure that hes implying that if manufacturers are selling to people they know cannot own a firearm (or failure to check).
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49500595] so if i got beat over the head with a louisville slugger i could sue the manufacturers? or if i got sprayed in the face with bear mace and robbed? or stabbed with a kitchen knife? honestly seems like protection that should be for all industries, to me at least.[/QUOTE] It's already assumed that you can't criminalize industries when when individuals use their products to harm others. The only reason this law came up was to pre-empt Democratic legislatures in individual state governments from forcing gun manufacturers and dealers to adopt gun control measures. [editline]10th January 2016[/editline] Basically, that protection [I]is [/I]for all industries. [editline]10th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Code3Response;49500740]I'm sure that hes implying that if manufacturers are selling to people they know cannot own a firearm (or failure to check).[/QUOTE] This was illegal before and after the PLCAA.
So how does this bill actually define 'acting irresponsibly,' this thread seems to be a whole lot of people making assumptions about what the bill is talking about.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49500722]I'm guessing they're talking about the distribution side. I.e: if the dealer or manufacturer skips on the legal channels for selling its guns, and those guns end up in the hands of criminals, they should be held liable[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that's already illegal
[QUOTE=ironman17;49499802]I though it would be something like using poorly-made parts that cause the gun to break and cause unintended harm, like a dodgy spring in the firing pin or a badly-moulded safety switch or an ejection port that flings the casings towards the user? If a gun manufacturer made guns that had problems like that, they should certainly be held accountable.[/QUOTE] none of that happens though. if you're right (probably not) it's a total non-issue and shouldn't even be a discussion point [editline]10th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;49500722]I'm guessing they're talking about the distribution side. I.e: if the dealer or manufacturer skips on the legal channels for selling its guns, and those guns end up in the hands of criminals, they should be held liable[/QUOTE] that's been illegal and punishable by a minimum 10 years in prison and a half a million dollar fine since 1938 [editline]10th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Code3Response;49500740]I'm sure that hes implying that if manufacturers are selling to people they know cannot own a firearm (or failure to check).[/QUOTE] that's been illegal for decades though. it's not an issue and not a talking point. [editline]10th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49500877]So how does this bill actually define 'acting irresponsibly,' this thread seems to be a whole lot of people making assumptions about what the bill is talking about.[/QUOTE] it doesn't, that's the problem
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49500450]From wiki Literally the only thing the bill does is protect manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. They can be held liable for literally everything else. If you observed it's weird how only one industry in the US has such a bill favoring them, as Clinton did, then blame [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act#Background"]Democrats[/URL].[/QUOTE] Basically, it's bad that the act puts puts certain manufacturers above the law but it's also bad that the court system could by abused by the Democrats in the way that it was, ideally there should be some middle-ground between the two that would allow individual people to pursue legal action without the court system being used for a kind of political gerrymandering by politicians. If the court system can be abused by political parties in order to push forward an agenda, then we're treating the symptom but not the cause by putting some industries above the law and not others. You can't solve problems by creating an unbalanced situation where certain companies are held higher than others. This makes me think of the hobby lobby issue, which is a very similiar case of political gerrymandering using the court system. Also, this isn't a bill, it's just various political candidates talking about what they want to do when they get into office.
the only time i see this being viable is if they're actually liable, eg a malfunctioning safety, random discharging not caused by the wielder, gun exploding, etc etc.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49502646] Also, this isn't a bill, it's just various political candidates talking about what they want to do when they get into office.[/QUOTE] Yeah the only reason this is being talked about is because Clinton tried to get on the left of Sanders and brought this up regarding gun control so now Sanders has to make a statement saying he is against it. I don't think it would ever be mentioned again in a Sanders presidency.
Figured he would, he only wants more votes.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;49503690]Figured he would, he only wants more votes.[/QUOTE] Do you really think Hillary cares about reducing gun violence more than Bernie?
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49503770]Do you really think Hillary cares about reducing gun violence more than Bernie?[/QUOTE] Bernie wants to make sure innocent people aren't punished for simply doing their job, Clinton doesn't really care if she fucks people over to get elected. They both want to reduce gun violence, the difference is the means they are willing to use and their reasons for doing so.
If you think Clinton actually gives a shit about anyone who aren't elites I think you're [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4]very mistaken[/url].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.