Posted on 04/18/2016 12:05:43 PM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Buh-bye, principles. I'm losing!
Last week, we talked about Hillary’s ridiculous desire to let victims of gun crime sue the manufacturer of the weapon in question. Essentially, if some dirtbag shoots you with a Remington, Hillary wants to let you sue Remington Arms. It’s not about justice or recompense; it’s about enacting a de facto firearm ban by suing their makers out of existence.
It’s also a horrible precedent that could be applied to virtually any item in existence. If someone uses a car, knife, baseball bat, Furby, or frying pan to commit a violent act, the aggrieved party would be right in arguing that they should get to take a similar bite out of the company that made the implement used.
Blind squirrel loses his acorn.
car manufacturers and alcohol distilleries should take note!!!!
All of this nonsense about Bernie Sanders and guns is so surreal. Vermont has firearms laws that are in many instances that much more casual than even Texas or other similar places, yet has violent crime rates lower than that of Japan or Switzerland. The Democrat mindset really is that upside down.
It is not “victims of gun crime”. That takes their unwarranted and false assumption as true.
It is victims of criminals who use a gun.
A RAT is a RAT is a RAT.
Absolutely.
If you can sue gun manufacturers because someone uses their product in a criminal manner, then you can sue both car and alcohol manufacturers every time someone is injured by a DWI.
“The Democrat mindset really is that upside down.”
It is classic Orwell, right out of 1984.
A good party member always instintively knows which of two opposing views to hold a a particular time, or even simultaneously.
I believe Orwell called it “doublethink”.
Here's the question to ask--- under the Clinton/Sanders doctrine, what manufacturer would be immune from being held responsible for the misuse of a product they legally made and sold?
Anyone, anyone?
ANY manufacturer of ANYTHING should take note. After all, ANYTHING can be used in a crime.
So the next step is to sue car manufacturers when someone goes too fast and has an accident.
“It’s also a horrible precedent that could be applied to virtually any item in existence. If someone uses a car, knife, baseball bat, Furby, or frying pan to commit a violent act, the aggrieved party would be right in arguing that they should get to take a similar bite out of the company that made the implement used.”
Most gun controllers would deny that this is a precedent. They have argued that ‘cars, knives, bats, furby, or frying pans’ have social useful purposes while guns only exist to kill people.
Pull the Bernie doll string
corporate greed....blah blah blah.....millionaires and billionaires...blah,blah,blah....free college....blah,blah,blah.....free medicare for all....blah,blah,blah......don’t give a damn about your e mails....blah,blah,blah.....the Pope loves me....blah,blah.blah
Go for the deep pockets. Get someone to attack you with a Microsoft product.
Here’s the question to ask-— under the Clinton/Sanders doctrine, what manufacturer would be immune from being held responsible for the misuse of a product they legally made and sold?
Anything manufactured by a company owned by the Saudi’s
“while guns only exist to kill people.”
As in most of their assumptions about reality, they are wrong.
Colleges and universities could be considered a liberal-dominated “manufacturing industry”. I bet if someone graduates from an Ivy and embezzles a million or two, somehow it’s NOT the university’s fault!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.