Bernie Sanders Switches Sides on Gun Manufacturer Liability
104 replies, posted
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49503876]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].[/QUOTE]
No, that's what I'm saying: Clinton is just doing/saying whatever she needs to in order to get elected.
She wants to 'reduce gun violence' only because it's a platform she can use to get elected. She doesn't care about whether she fucks people over.
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
Well I'm glad there's something we can agree on.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49499193]How is the gun going to accidentally fire if the trigger isn't pulled?[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube_share;C9_YWNo1f-o]http://youtu.be/C9_YWNo1f-o?t=68[/video]
[QUOTE=butre;49497927]He's a little more sensible than Clinton or Feinstein (who both want them gone entirely, except from their personal guard of course) but he voted yes on the 1993 AWB and has voted to outright ban semiautomatic firearms
[editline]10th January 2016[/editline]
gun manufacturers can only sell to FFL holding distributors though. the ATF has to approve each and every person who wants to buy directly from a gun manufacturer.[/QUOTE]
That's not entirely true. Manufacturers can sell to whatever FFL dealer they like, whether its a small shop or a big box store. The big players mostly only go through distributor channels, because distributors can front $100k+ in the blink of an eye. The big players will let anyone buy from them, but you usually have to purchase at least $100k a year from them, which a lot of small shops cannot afford to do. As an example my shop works directly with one of the major manufacturers, and we buy at a distributor level in terms of how much we spend (and have to spend) in order to maintain direct sales.
[QUOTE=plunger435;49504107][video=youtube_share;C9_YWNo1f-o]http://youtu.be/C9_YWNo1f-o?t=68[/video][/QUOTE]
Taurus is why I don't buy Brazilian guns.
So that's like a missing or damaged spring or something and it's just allowing the hammer to swing around freely? That's scary.
I could easily see someone injuring themselves with it holstered in that condition.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49503770]Do you really think Hillary cares about reducing gun violence more than Bernie?[/QUOTE]
Well speaking I cannot stand that criminal, I could care less what she thinks. I find it sickening for the fact she's even allowed to run. As for Bernie, he is clueless. "I think we should take another look at that legislation and get rid of those provisions which allow gun manufacturers to act irresponsibly" is what he said. Manufacturers can't always control how their products end up being used. They have to sell to an FFL, or to gun shops, etc. We should not take another look at those provisions, and Bernie is clearly back tracking from past comments he made, quite possibly for extra votes. Meaning he either doesn't believe what he's saying, something I feel he is with a lot of things he preaches, or he's a bit of a flip flop. Nothing wrong with changing positions, but I feel with the timing, this is purely political.
Sorry then for assuming that you were criticizing his character in favor of Hillary, my mistake. I read into your post more than I should've.
Also no more posting between rounds of world of tanks for me I guess, my posting for the last couple hours has been awful, sorry.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49499120]No, the right tends to use effective methods (when passed successfully) to push selfish end goals.[/QUOTE]
lol no they don't, the right do the same that the far left do
kick and scream until someone hears them and tries to pass legislation with bullying tactics and guilt tripping
[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]
The whole premise is by gun manufacturers marketing and selling 'high capacity', 'military', and 'assault weapons' to the public they're somehow liable.
Basically this law was passed to prevent Vexatious litigation.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49504598]lol no they don't, the right do the same that the far left do
kick and scream until someone hears them and tries to pass legislation with bullying tactics and guilt tripping[/QUOTE]
why specify the far left? the left in general does it, as does the right and "far" right.
Regardless of any way this is supposed to reduce gun crime there are important ethical questions that must be asked. Should a gun manufacturer bear the guilt of an individual committing a crime with their product? How is the manufacturer liable for a crime that an [i]individual[/i] committed who was not in any way connected to that company? Do we or should we hold car manufacturers liable in the same way when individuals commit vehicular manslaughter? I would argue that the individual holds moral responsibility to avoid harming other human beings using the firearm. What can the manufacturer do to ensure that their firearms never harm an innocent person? What kind of divine magic can they summon to prevent crimes that have not yet happened?
This type of legislation creates a system in which gun manufacturers are inevitably doomed to financial failure. The manufacturer cannot prevent these crimes since law enforcement and gun control are not their responsibilities, so they will end up with a perpetual stream of fines and government sanctions that they cannot defend themselves against. It is impossible for gun manufacturers or the police to completely end gun crime, so these manufacturers are either going to be forced to massively hike up gun prices and only sell to a small elite of verified and trusted people or to government institutions such as LEOs and the military, or they are going to fail and close up shop. This is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at a "soft ban" on guns. The implications of only upper class citizens being capable of affording firearms should strike fear into those on the left as it is a form of inequality. If the poor do not have access to the same firepower as the rich then they might have difficulty defending themselves. Poverty is also not a significant factor in violent crime, so there is no valid rationale for restricting the right of the poor to bear arms.
[QUOTE=dragon1972;49508885]Regardless of any way this is supposed to reduce gun crime there are important ethical questions that must be asked. Should a gun manufacturer bear the guilt of an individual committing a crime with their product? How is the manufacturer liable for a crime that an [i]individual[/i] committed who was not in any way connected to that company? Do we or should we hold car manufacturers liable in the same way when individuals commit vehicular manslaughter? I would argue that the individual holds moral responsibility to avoid harming other human beings using the firearm. What can the manufacturer do to ensure that their firearms never harm an innocent person? What kind of divine magic can they summon to prevent crimes that have not yet happened?
This type of legislation creates a system in which gun manufacturers are inevitably doomed to financial failure. The manufacturer cannot prevent these crimes since law enforcement and gun control are not their responsibilities, so they will end up with a perpetual stream of fines and government sanctions that they cannot defend themselves against. It is impossible for gun manufacturers or the police to completely end gun crime, so these manufacturers are either going to be forced to massively hike up gun prices and only sell to a small elite of verified and trusted people or to government institutions such as LEOs and the military, or they are going to fail and close up shop. This is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at a "soft ban" on guns. The implications of only upper class citizens being capable of affording firearms should strike fear into those on the left as it is a form of inequality. If the poor do not have access to the same firepower as the rich then they might have difficulty defending themselves. Poverty is also not a significant factor in violent crime, so there is no valid rationale for restricting the right of the poor to bear arms.[/QUOTE]
you literally didn't read a single post in the thread. like, literally this entire thread has been a semantical argument about whether this legislation is redundant, i.e. 'changes literally nothing' or explaining how 'no this has nothing to do with holding manufacturers responsible for crimes committed with their products'.
i do however want to take a special moment to appreciate the absolutely most retarded thing i have ever read on facepunch, timecube, or on the internet in general.
[quote][B]Poverty is also not a significant factor in violent crime,[/B] so there is no valid rationale for restricting the right of the poor to bear arms.[/quote]
i honestly don't know what to say to this. like, my initial reaction is to just correct you, but like, i'm not sure that it would help. i think you need to read more and experience the world. like, i'm sorry if this comes across as rude or anything, but seriously?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.