What does Hilary Clinton's stance on making gun makers liable for murder mean?

2016-03-07T12:23:49-05:00

OK Lets find out who has any idea of what HRC's stand to hold gun makers and sellers liable for murders would do to those industries in America and IF you still support her.

Response by LTJG Robert M. made Mar 7 at 2016 12:30 PM

2016-03-07T12:30:29-05:00

Don't support Monica Lewinski's ex-boyfriends wife, never will.

It would in my mind open any manufacturing sector to litigation for wrongful death. Kill someone with a hammer, hammer manufactur is liable, drunk diving, going after liquor manufacturers, distributors and sellers. Dangerous slippery slope.

Response by CPO Frank Coluccio made Mar 7 at 2016 12:44 PM

2016-03-07T12:44:45-05:00

She holds the typical libtard mentality of ALWAYS blaming others for a persons actions. They tend to make up excuses in order to avoid holding people responsible for their actions. To them "personal responsibility" is a punchline!

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Mar 7 at 2016 12:52 PM

2016-03-07T12:52:37-05:00

PO2 Mark Saffell Are they going to make auto makers, breweries and any other manufacturer liable if their product is used and some dies? I laughed at her statement when she said that the gun industry is only concerned with making as much of a profit as possible. No shit. What manufacturer doesn't want to do that.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Mar 7 at 2016 12:54 PM

2016-03-07T12:54:57-05:00

PO2 Mark Saffell Just more pandering to the Kool-Aid drinkers. Gun makers cannot be liable for deaths caused by their product unless it was directly caused by a manufacturing defect or something, just like Ford or GM can't be held liable for vehicle deaths by their cars without proof of a defect that caused it.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Mar 7 at 2016 12:56 PM

2016-03-07T12:56:48-05:00

Personally, I see this in the same sort of light as what came first...the chicken or the egg.

After every violent act where a weapon is used, people jump up saying it is the weapon's fault. Yet, the weapon could not have been used without some human interaction. The gun maker, the bullet marker and the candle stick maker did not make their goods with the intention to be used in a certain act. Yes, guns in their nature are dangerous. But so are a lot of things. The difference will always be the person(s) using them.

As far as HRC and her platform on this topic, I'm not all to sure we as the general public even fully understand exactly where each candidate sits on this topic along with every other topic. To me, the elections will continue to be more about who can raise the most money to throw the most mud in the other person's face.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Mar 7 at 2016 1:49 PM

2016-03-07T13:49:38-05:00

As soon as the gun makers send HRC a big check, she will change her tune. Or at least be silent about the matter. The good thing about her is that she can be easily bought. One advantage of having no morals.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2016 1:49 PM

2016-03-07T13:49:42-05:00

To me it means the FBI needs to kick their investigations of this Trollop into Warp Factor 3!!!

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Mar 7 at 2016 1:51 PM

2016-03-07T13:51:33-05:00

I don't see this as getting anywhere near it's way through congress, but if it does it would be a boon for the insurance industry just like medical insurance for Doctors. Of course this will also double or triple the cost of a firearm...

Response by SGT Richard H. made Mar 7 at 2016 2:04 PM

2016-03-07T14:04:52-05:00

It means that she's trying to achieve gun control through attrition.

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Mar 7 at 2016 2:14 PM

2016-03-07T14:14:33-05:00

She's saying what she needs to get the democratic nomination, which I feel she will. Should she get elected, then she will embark on a journey of revenge killing. She will travel back to 1993 and start politically eliminating those who gave her crap about her double-barrelled name (Rodham-Clinton). Next will be those that embarrassed and ridiculed her publicly over "hilarycare". Like LBJ (who caused Stalin and Hitler to turn in their graves) she will have to stop the party killings every now and then to take people's minds off the streets flowing with blood. "Take guns, give benefits, feed the poor!," she'll yell. Then it'll be back to the killings. Interestingly, the dem party has not had it's "Tea Party" yet.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Mar 7 at 2016 2:17 PM

2016-03-07T14:17:43-05:00

PO2 Mark Saffell With all respect, if her stance on gun control is the only thing one has against HRC, then they are not paying close attention, and this is not likely to sway them against her. She is an empty suit. She truly stands for nothing. I really think that this election cycle both parties gave a collective "Fuck it, who can we recycle." There is no GOOD candidate amongst the RNC or DNC pool of candidates. I am currently registered independent, and thinking about registering as a D so I can go vote against her coronation in the primary.

When it comes to gun control holding manufacturers responsible is in the same vein as holding tobacco companies responsible for the smoker's lung cancer. It is not an exact comparison, but it is in the same vein. The caveat to that is that the government then has to take equal responsibility. As a background check is required, and we all know that there is no way to get a gun without a background check, that makes the government equally liable. See how fast a law suit against the government changes their tune about gun control.

I just love how politicians can say that our rights are not our rights because that is not what our forefathers meant. The right to keep and bear arms was seen as one of the ways that the people would keep the government from seizing absolute power. Liberty has to be protected. Through petitioning congress for a redress of grievances as provided in amendment one, but through force if the government refuses to listen to the rule of law. We are a republic, not a democracy. A republic based on the rule of law. That rule of law comes from first and foremost the Constitution of the United States. Her personal feelings about gun control don't count in the constitution. The law protects us from this type of grab.

Sorry, I will yield the soapbox to the next person.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2016 2:35 PM

2016-03-07T14:35:20-05:00

It is just another way to try to make someone other than the criminal responsible for the crime.

In our society it has been habit to blame someone or something other than the doer for any bad circumstance. e.g. The alcohol was responsible, icy roads caused, the perpetrator had a bad childhood, etc etc

Response by SGT William Howell made Mar 7 at 2016 2:55 PM

2016-03-07T14:55:29-05:00

NOTHING! She can spout off all she wants. There is plenty of case law that says she is full of shit.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Mar 7 at 2016 3:00 PM

2016-03-07T15:00:34-05:00

Archie Bunker put it best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFWRPiNXOI

Archie Bunker: Guns vs Pushed out of Windows

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2016 4:43 PM

2016-03-07T16:43:25-05:00

I agree with comments surmising this is just 'vote fishing' among the ill-informed.

That said, it could also be seen as a "back door" means to "ban" certain types of weapons...Let's face it, no one's going to sell something that can lead to a charge for something they didn't do.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Mar 7 at 2016 4:43 PM

2016-03-07T16:43:47-05:00

Jim Beam is liable for the drunk driver, Marlboro is liable for the lung cancer, I guess Ruger et al will be liable for that trigger being pulled. Nobody poured that beam down the gullet, nobody made that individual light that cigarette, and dang sure no one forced killers to pull the trigger. There is a conscious thought in there somewhere and personal responsibility has to come into play sometime...of course that's not where HRC and the rest of this country's liberals want that to go.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Mar 7 at 2016 4:45 PM

2016-03-07T16:45:55-05:00

I believe it means that all the THC from the Dope she smoked in the 60's has finally started leaching out of the fatty tissue in her head:)

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Mar 7 at 2016 5:37 PM

2016-03-07T17:37:43-05:00

She is full of crap. I think Obama tried to pull this. Under there logic. Car manufacturers would be liable for all traffic fatalities and if you get cut or stabed with a knife there are a plethora you could sue.

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Mar 7 at 2016 6:35 PM

2016-03-07T18:35:03-05:00

I don't support her or this concept.

The basic tenet of product liability law is that for the manufacturer to be liable, the product must be sold in "a defective condition unreasonably dangerous." The guns we are talking about work exactly as designed (thus not in a defective condition), and they, themselves, are not inherently dangerous.

Subjecting firearm manufacturers to the endless chain of lawsuits would cost enough to raise the price of guns beyond the reach of the average citizen - which is exactly the goal of the liberal "ban guns" crowd.

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2016 7:22 PM

2016-03-07T19:22:03-05:00

She is out of her flippin mind.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 7 at 2016 7:51 PM

2016-03-07T19:51:32-05:00

There are no bad people, just bad guns.

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 7 at 2016 8:33 PM

2016-03-07T20:33:00-05:00

Simple. Extend the same precedent to any product that operates as intended, resulting in death or injury.

The problem with political hyperbole is that it is rarely, actually possible. Then we say they lied to us. We get mad. So we want an even angrier, more passionate candidate; who will make even more outlandish promises. It is like a drug addict who must use ever increasing doses to get high and to save himself from withdrawal. Eventually, we overdose and kill ourselves or bottom out.

This is why I am a small government guy. It is like I know I have a genetic pre-disposition to let government take care of all my problems. So I do not indulge the habit, for fear of what it will do to me.

The plain and simple fact is that if elected President, Mrs. Clinton will not make law. What she is declaring she will do, must be done by the legislature. The wisdom of the founding fathers shines through over 200 years of poor leadership.

THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW!!! No, not really. What if every law Congress passed had a shelf life. At the end of 10 years, it must be voted on again. Only laws that went through the same process as a Constitutional Amendment would be permanent. Would that limit the problems Congress could cause?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2016 9:00 PM

2016-03-07T21:00:06-05:00

It's typical left wing tripe. The only thing responsible for gun violence is the trigger actuator, i. e., the people pulling the trigger.

Response by SGT Beau Thomas made Mar 7 at 2016 11:28 PM

2016-03-07T23:28:15-05:00

If her logic stands, I have a chance of winning if I sue my parents for making such an ugly kid.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2016 12:00 AM

2016-03-08T00:00:48-05:00

I am praying... No. Not praying... I am begging God to not let her win and begging the FBI finally lock her up. She treats top secret material like its something off Pinterest. I had a clearance and took it seriously.. If I didn't I can assure you no one would have hesitated to put me in jail. Why is it acceptable for her to do it?? How can anyone take her seriously!?!?!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2016 10:34 AM

2016-03-08T10:34:34-05:00

It is always somebody else's fault.
And a back door attack on the second amendment. I don't see anyone threatening knife makers...
A gun is a tool, and like any tool can be used for good or for ill.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Mar 8 at 2016 12:09 PM

2016-03-08T12:09:23-05:00

Pretty much that she is taking the standard liberal viewpoint of placing the blame elsewhere instead of on the individuals that commit the acts themselves......