Posted on 04/26/2016 9:55:00 AM PDT by rktman
The issue of nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers has moved well beyond the courtroom drama playing out with the Sandy Hook families. Bernie Sanders has managed to drive Hillary Clinton further to the left as she seeks lines of attack against the Vermont Senator, coaxing her into calling for the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in recent campaign stops. That may serve her purposes in the primary, but how well does such a position play nationally as we look forward to the general election in November?
A new survey conducted by Harper Polling indicates that Clinton isnt just in the minority on this issue
its not even close. Nearly three quarters of the country would prefer to see criminals who use guns illegally held accountable for their crimes rather than shifting the blame to the manufacturers and retailers who produce and distribute properly operating firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
And why offend a “minority” that big ?
LOL
I’m shocked that 28% would.........................
LOL! I know where that was headed.
/s
“Im shocked that 28% would.........................”
Not me. There are a large number of people who feel that rich manufacturers should make their ill gotten riches available to anyone that gets hurt with their product. 28% seems about right.
I am actually a bit shocked about the low level of support for making manufactures liable for the lawful use of their products. The level of support for the 2A has really gone through the roof. 20 years ago it would be something like 52-45.
Charlton Heston and Obama have really changed the landscape.
Perhaps Hillary would be kind enough to explain what other guaranteed rights as an American citizen will be tossed away.
seriously, for those who would disagree, what would be the difference?
What about the transportation company whose semi delivered the product to the distributer? They need to be put out of business too.
No. that computer is in a toilet in the Rocky Mountains..
What difference at this point does it make?
Those lawsuits are PROHIBITED by federal law (notwithstanding the logical contortions of a certain judicial activist in Connecticut).
The problem is, that it still takes an enormous amount of cash to get the case dismissed. It will always cost the defendant money! Laws need to be changed to prevent the filing of frivolous lawsuits, so that the defendant does not pay a dime!
They didn’t specify who specifically was polled but I wouldn’t doubt if it was a college campus.
“What about the transportation company whose semi delivered the product to the distributer? They need to be put out of business too.”
Better still, simply make certain that from the mfr to the retail sales outlet, the government will make sure you have no banking access. That’s what they are doing at the moment. Domesting firearms mfrs. should simply tell the government that they are no longer going to supply the military with small arms until they put a end to all of this nonsense.
If someone if grossly overweight (FAT), the company that made the fork and spoon should be sued !!!
Fall off a ladder, sue the ladder company.
Became obese, sue Hagen Daz
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” - Robert A. Heinlein ................
Get acne. Sue Hersheys...................
There is ALREADY a law against the suit in question.
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.