Holding Gun Manufacturers accountable?

I believe State governors as commanders in chief of what is declared necessary to the security of a free State, are more responsible.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

In most cases where a manufacturer is held liable for a product is is because of fraudulent claims, deceptive practices, or defects in the product. If a gun explodes or otherwise injures because of faulty manufacturing that might be one thing, however one function of firearm and ammunition design is to kill as effectively, reliably and quickly as possible. The Holy Grail is the weapon and ammo that does everything perfectly every time. To allow manufacturers to be sued for doing what exacltly what their products are designed to do open a door that would have serious consequences far beyond firearms. If it hits the SCOTUS, it will likely fail on a number of grounds. She knows this...it is political rhetoric to get here elected not unlike Trump's suggestions for building the wall or denying visas to Muslims...it's not in their power even if elected.

What Hillary and many others are attempting is to subvert the 2A by any means necessary other than a direct challenge to the 2A because they understand they will never likely manage a repeal of the 2A. So, like California, NY, etc., laws are being enacted that will likely fail the strict scrutiny test again the 2A and they know it, many laws are designed to continue putting roadblocks in the way of the excersize of 2A rights, knowing how long it takes for issues to rise through the courts.

 

Her proposal is clearly one of the many attempts to ban all manufacture of firearms in one fell swoop. It can't work. Don't worry. Her grand jury is already selected.

 

And what does that has to do with the topic at hand?

 

State governors have original jurisdiction.

 

gun banners support that idiocy. They support any scheme that gets them closer to a ban. They want to get rid of the NRA and the NRA supporting conservative candidates.

 

People like Hillary Clinton try to eliminate personal responsibility by gadget & widget control, not self control, so according to her logic or the lack of it, smart guns are the answer, or integrated gun locks, anything that gets the focus off societies true core and fundamental problems.

Sure it is easy to blame society as a whole, to blame the evil that was slavery, to wag the finger at bigotry, however, these are not something that has an easy fix.

The firearms industry is no more to blame for the crimes commited using firearms than can wars be blamed on Military arms manufacturers, these are simplistic unrealistic non solutions that do not even begin to address the real issues plaguing humanity.

 

Maybe....maybe proposals like this are aimed at finding out how educated the electorate is, or not. We know that the D's are dependent on voters who are dependent on D policies. An electorate who tolerates this proposal is more interested in remaining dependent than they are in remaining free. This tells the D's how far they have succeeded in that effort.

 

Look at folks such as inner city residents, the non hunters, non recreational shooters, people that live in NYC, even self defense is an alien concept to them, the very idea of obtaining a gun for CCW is about as practical as walking to the moon for lunch !

All they know about guns are snippets They hear from anti gun sources, mostly false information and lies and propaganda, not education.

 

To suggest that manufacturers should be liable for the actions of owners of their products amounts to saying, if you drive drunk in a Ford and kill someone Ford is somehow responsible.

 

The logic behind it is that it would push sellers and manufacturers to go out of their way to prevent people from using guns in crimes. That being said, I think it's unfair. It's like people suing home depot when someone buys lumber and builds a deck that ends up collapsing. It makes much more sense to legislate building codes and hold the owner/builder responsible than the supplier of lumber.

 

People like Hillary Clinton want to push all the responsibility onto businesses, and saddle them with additional burdens. Because when you refuse to recognize individual personal responsibility... well, the responsibility has to fall somewhere, and you inevitably start looking for someone else to blame.
It's really not that surprising that she would blame the big evil business.

Kind of off-topic, but I was just listening to one story on the radio about a woman who is suing a big hotel chain for $75 million all because a creepy stalker rented the room next to hers and captured nude video footage of her through the key hole in the door.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cretly-filmed-naked-stalker-staying-door.html

So apparently it's somehow the fault of the big business.
With the type of attitude prevalent now about not laying the blame on the individual (in this case the creepy stalker), I wouldn't be all that surprised if the grand jury ends up awarding her the money.

 

They cannot deny any rights listed in the bill of rights.

 

It is like wanting breath analysis devices in all cars to prevent drunk driving, if people really want to circumvent any device, there is always a way around anything.

I could never easily start a car with one of those devices, have you ever tried starting a car with one ?

It places burdens on innocent people that only the guilty should suffer.

 

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law: The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

So you don't believe individuals who are not attached to military, militia, or law enforcement has the right to keep and bear arms. We are not discussing that, we are discussing whether gun manufacturers are liable for crimes committed with guns. Stay on topic.

 

Ignorance of the law, and the Militia have nothing to do with product liability as it applies to gun manufacture.

 

Clinton claims that gun manufacturers cannot be sued, trying to imply they have some special rights that other manufacturers don't have, which is a total lie for the useful idiots. Gun manufacturers can still be sued like any mfg for a faulty product that injures someone.

The current law that is in question was put forth by Congress to stop the gun banners from suing all the gun manufacturers out of business saying they should know if a gun is sold to someone that will commit a crime with it, which of course, is impossible but the idea was to sue them out of business with these kind of suits which the mfgs have to spend money to defend against, even though the lawsuit would have no merit. The idea was to keep them in court indefinitely with numerous lawsuits and the likes of Clinton would like that to happen again.

 

OP...the goal of the Dems is to only have smartguns on the market. They tried to float the trial balloon on NJ for smartguns, just like they did with Obamacare on Mass with Romneycare. But it was not the right time to push it through. Smartguns will be licensed and turned off remotely like a cell phone. If the gun companies don't go with the program then Hillary will bankrupt them.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

Once smartguns are the only guns produced, the gun confiscation will take the trad guns out of circulation. Smart guns will circumvent the 2A issue for the Dems. SCOTUS will back up Hillary with class actions against the gun companies.

I don't have crystal ball, but prospects look dim for gun manufacturers.

 

there is no product liability; but a lack of well regulated militia.