US Elections: When Murder isn't Murder

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I don't find the idea at all insane, I would call it reasonable.  This tweet is hardly "ban all guns!"  Any independent who's vote is primarily determined by protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits sounds like a Republican. 

It's a backdoor attempt to ban guns. If you allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufactures they will inevitably go out of business.

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

And why is the idea insane? It was sane enough to almost win in congress. We do this with products all across the board as a matter of fact. What would be insane about, say, requiring guns to have trigger locks or requiring guns to have built in child safety measures? 

That is what this is getting at - that we have laws saying that toy guns must be obviously toys or the manufacturer can be held liable. This isn't weird at all. 

Child safety measures and suing gun manufactures are totally different things. The parents and families of the Newtown shooting want to be able to sue gun manufactures. That would set a dangerous precedent. If someone driving a Toyota runs me over, do I then get to sue Toyota?

[Darzin]

Quote

You have to remember that the Rules committee is made up of delegates sent to the convention, IE Trump and Cruz delegates.  It strikes me as very very unlikely that they'll adopt rules that would allow be favorable to any other candidates.  As Rule 40(b) was last written, you need the written support of the majority of the delegates from eight states to be on the ballot.  By the third ballot, delegates would be free, and could unite under a new banner if they wanted to, but that is going to be difficult, and it is possible that Cruz + Trump people could work together to get Rule 40 (b) changed so that you need to have the support of the majority of delegates from eight states going into the convention (or if they prefer, they could say the majority of voters in a caucus/primary in eight states). 

As far as I understand it though the delegates are picked by the state party not the candidates. So depending on who the delegates are they might very well choose rules unfavorable to both Trump and Cruz.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's a backdoor attempt to ban guns. If you allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufactures they will inevitably go out of business.

Well, up front I should say that I would have no problem with forcing all gun manufacturers out of business. But I also don't think allowing victims of gun violence to sue manufacturers would achieve that- they weren't shielded from liability before the 2005 law Sanders supported shielded them, and obviously they were in business all the time before that. That's probably because even before they were shielded, you'd have to prove negligence in order to hold them liable (and to really put them out of business they'd have to be held negligent just for selling guns, which doesn't seem like a promising case to attempt). I don't see how that's unreasonable.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Clinton referred to Bobby Kennedy's assassination in 2008 as a reason for staying in the race, and everyone was lovey-dovey after the convention, so compared to that this is small potatoes.

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Clinton referred to Bobby Kennedy's assassination in 2008 as a reason for staying in the race, and everyone was lovey-dovey after the convention, so compared to that this is small potatoes.

Agree entirely. Not to mention that Sanders is almost certainly not going to want a cabinet post in a Clinton Administration anyway (unlike Clinton under Obama), and that all the media fireworks is on the Republican side.

This isn't small potatoes. This is microscopic potatoes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Well, up front I should say that I would have no problem with forcing all gun manufacturers out of business. But I also don't think allowing victims of gun violence to sue manufacturers would achieve that- they weren't shielded from liability before the 2005 law Sanders supported shielded them, and obviously they were in business all the time before that. That's probably because even before they were shielded, you'd have to prove negligence in order to hold them liable (and to really put them out of business they'd have to be held negligent just for selling guns, which doesn't seem like a promising case to attempt). I don't see how that's unreasonable.

If you're correct, then I don't see how anyone would every win such a lawsuit, so all you'd achieve is log jamming the courts with cases that won't go anywhere.

For me, this actually has nothing to do with guns, though I do oppose a flat out ban. I just think it's a terrible idea to allow people to sue the manufactures of a product because someone who legally bought it misused it. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

1 minute ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Agree entirely. Not to mention that Sanders is almost certainly not going to want a cabinet post in a Clinton Administration anyway (unlike Clinton under Obama), and that all the media fireworks is on the Republican side.

This isn't small potatoes. This is microscopic potatoes.

I am guessing people have forgot most of the 2008 campaign, but the whole 3AM phone call business was classic Clinton as a way of showing Obama was unqualified to be President.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you're correct, then I don't see how anyone would every win such a lawsuit, so all you'd achieve is log jamming the courts with cases that won't go anywhere.

For me, this actually has nothing to do with guns, though I do oppose a flat out ban. I just think it's a terrible idea to allow people to sue the manufactures of a product because someone who legally bought it misused it. 

It wouldn't be just because someone misused it though, they'd most likely have to make more of an argument than that- like the manufacturer was negligent in how they marketed the gun, or sold/supplied them in such a way that they fall into hands of criminals when the manufacturer should have known better. Why should this industry have a special protection against having these cases heard in court? Some of them might be successful (I think that would be a good thing), but they would probably not be so successful that any sale of a gun that is misused would put the manufacturer on the hook, effectively driving them out of business (although I admit I'd like that too).

19 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I am guessing people have forgot most of the 2008 campaign, but the whole 3AM phone call business was classic Clinton as a way of showing Obama was unqualified to be President.

There was also this remark:

“I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

She actually praised the presumptive Republican nominee at the time to go after Obama! Everybody got over it.

[Kalbear]

Sanders supporters in 2016 ain't Clinton supporters in 2008.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Well, up front I should say that I would have no problem with forcing all gun manufacturers out of business. But I also don't think allowing victims of gun violence to sue manufacturers would achieve that- they weren't shielded from liability before the 2005 law Sanders supported shielded them, and obviously they were in business all the time before that. That's probably because even before they were shielded, you'd have to prove negligence in order to hold them liable (and to really put them out of business they'd have to be held negligent just for selling guns, which doesn't seem like a promising case to attempt). I don't see how that's unreasonable.

Exactly. There's no reason gun manufacturers should not-so-randomly be exempt from the proud american tradition of bullshit lawsuits.

Except, of course, if you want to treat guns as a special industry.

 

If you're correct, then I don't see how anyone would every win such a lawsuit, so all you'd achieve is log jamming the courts with cases that won't go anywhere.

For me, this actually has nothing to do with guns, though I do oppose a flat out ban. I just think it's a terrible idea to allow people to sue the manufactures of a product because someone who legally bought it misused it. 

This has everything to do with guns. It's why it applies to guns and not anything else. It's why Sanders supported the measure as a way to pick up rural white votes. This has been his standard position for a long time now on the issue.

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Shryke said:

Exactly. There's no reason gun manufacturers should not-so-randomly be exempt from the proud american tradition of bullshit lawsuits.

Except, of course, if you want to treat guns as a special industry.

Every time a plane crashes, the airline, manufacturer, maker of any part, software developers, and tha irport and repair guys are all used.  Do most of these have any actual liability, no.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

It wouldn't be just because someone misused it though, they'd most likely have to make more of an argument than that- like the manufacturer was negligent in how they marketed the gun, or sold/supplied them in such a way that they fall into hands of criminals when the manufacturer should have known better. Why should this industry have a special protection against having these cases heard in court? Some of them might be successful (I think that would be a good thing), but they would probably not be so successful that any sale of a gun that is misused would put the manufacturer on the hook, effectively driving them out of business (although I admit I'd like that too).

I feel like your link actually helps my argument. I support closing the gun show loophole and holding sellers accountable. But suing the manufactures? That's a step too far, and could have many unintended consequences. In this specific case, the parents of the victims are wanting the ability to sue Remington for simply making the gun in question, which is a bad idea IMO. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health/sandy-hook-families-gun-lawsuit/

[Shryke]

8 minutes ago, GrapefruitPerrier said:

Every time a plane crashes, the airline, manufacturer, maker of any part, software developers, and tha irport and repair guys are all used.  Do most of these have any actual liability, no.

Do they have indemnity? Why not?

[Guest]

You cannot be indemnified for certain causes of action - like gross negligence so the lawyers just claim those.

[Shryke]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I feel like your link actually helps my argument. I support closing the gun show loophole and holding sellers accountable. But suing the manufactures? That's a step too far, and could have many unintended consequences. In this specific case, the parents of the victims are wanting the ability to sue Remington for simply making the gun in question, which is a bad idea IMO. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health/sandy-hook-families-gun-lawsuit/

No, they want to sue them for marketing the gun as having civilian applications despite them saying it doesn't. That's what they suit is. Stop lying.

Regardless of whether or not you think the suit has merit, why shouldn't they have their day in court for the judge, if nothing else, to simply throw it out. That's how it works elsewhere.

 

There's simply no defending this bullshit. It's a special exemption carved out for gun manufacturers by the NRA in order to let american politicians wank off american gun-crazy voters.

[IheartIheartTesla]

44 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sanders supporters in 2016 ain't Clinton supporters in 2008.

2008: In early June, 22 percent of Clinton supporters polled said they would not vote at all if Obama were the party's nominee, now close to a third say they will stay home.

2016: One out of every four Bernie Sanders supporters said they will not support Hillary Clinton in the general election if she is the Democratic Party's standard bearer, according to the results of a McClatchy-Marist poll out Wednesday.

Sounds to me they are exactly the same within the margin of error

[Shryke]

More to the point of this thread, of course, this is a non-starter position with Democrats and Sanders has been hit on it for quite some time now. Saying it's a bad attack in the general is downright dumb. Democrats like gun control and the NRA hates Democrats.

[Shryke]

5 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

2008: In early June, 22 percent of Clinton supporters polled said they would not vote at all if Obama were the party's nominee, now close to a third say they will stay home.

2016: One out of every four Bernie Sanders supporters said they will not support Hillary Clinton in the general election if she is the Democratic Party's standard bearer, according to the results of a McClatchy-Marist poll out Wednesday.

Sounds to me they are exactly the same within the margin of error

Not the argument he made.

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 minutes ago, Shryke said:

More to the point of this thread, of course, this is a non-starter position with Democrats and Sanders has been hit on it for quite some time now. Saying it's a bad attack in the general is downright dumb. Democrats like gun control and the NRA hates Democrats.

To be fair, the strong push for gun control among Democrats is a relatively recent thing - up until not so long ago, it wasn't uncommon for Democratic politicians (in certain states) to cite NRA support, especially before the NRA doubled down on the craziness. Sanders hasn't been quite as nimble in repositioning himself. 

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Agree entirely. Not to mention that Sanders is almost certainly not going to want a cabinet post in a Clinton Administration anyway (unlike Clinton under Obama), and that all the media fireworks is on the Republican side.

This isn't small potatoes. This is microscopic potatoes.

Not at all.

His "unqualitied" comments will be used in attack ads in the general more then likely, as Clinton's were in 2008. And just generally there's alot of people in the democratic party sphere calling these things out of line.

Given the campaign at this point I don't really feel like he's gonna get offered a position. Though frankly, I doubt he wants one and would prefer to go back to the senate.