democrats are coming for your guns...

[The emperor has no clothes]

I would agree there will be cases come before the courts. After a time
there will be settled law on the issues.

Only if people are foolish enough to vote for politicians who advertise
their intentions get around their inability to have the 2nd amendment
repealed by running firearm manufacturers out of business and
causing all guns to be very expensive. If those politicians don't get
the votes, they don't get to throw their monkey wrench into
the works... "Hold gun manufacturers accountable"... for what?
for making guns? What are the issues? People can get guns,
that's their only issue.

-Mike

I don't know how much being exempt from lawsuits has decreased the price of guns. Maybe an economist could figure it out, but that ain't me. I do know the price of guns have went up dramatically with scared people thinking Obama was going to take away their guns. Should we punish the fearmongering ?

supply and demand != overt partisan maneuvering to restrict gun ownership

-Mike

supply and demand ? I assume you mean an increase in price due to legal fees will result in less demand ? Should we restrict doctors and hospitals from being sued ? Surely that would decrease their costs. Should we restrict Media from being sued ? Surely having to defend against libel has its costs ?


The courts have remedies for frivolous lawsuits.

[Pappy!]

Meathead..............Are you really this naive?

Allowing gun manufacturers to be sued is the fastest way around the 2A! Driving up the costs of ammunition or including ammo manufacturers to be sued will help their cause as well.

Democrats in Washington have sold out this country for whatever reasons including personal gain. Yes...Republicans are in Washington for the personal gains but are willing to leave the 2A alone.

na·ive
/nīˈēv/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
(of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.
"the rather naive young man had been totally misled"

[The emperor has no clothes]

Meathead..............Are you really this naive?

Allowing gun manufacturers to be sued is the fastest way around the 2A! Driving up the costs of ammunition or including ammo manufacturers to be sued will help their cause as well.

Democrats in Washington have sold out this country for whatever reasons including personal gain. Yes...Republicans are in Washington for the personal gains but are willing to leave the 2A alone.

na·ive
/nīˈēv/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
(of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.
"the rather naive young man had been totally misled"

Pappy, thanks for the vote of confidence. I will ask no questions of your naivety. If such were the case as you describe, why have not other companies and industries gone bust from litigation ?

[Jess from VA]

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products, through no fault of their own whatsoever.  Any attempt to roll back this law is nothing but a solid admission that the left would happily allow all firearm manufacturers be subject to thousands of frivolous lawsuits to simply drive them out of business, even if none of those suits ever prevailed on the merits.  Mikey Bloomburg himself could fund thousands of those lawsuits.  Even existing Fed and state laws allowing Plaintiffs to be ordered to pay all costs of defending frivolous litigation (which has always been hit and miss in actual practice, and not all states even have such laws) was not enough protection from this calculated attack (on individual liberty).  

Insurance companies settle frivolous suits 1000 times every day for nuisance values that are far cheaper than defending them to certain victory in actual litigation.  Soon, no insurer would cover any firearm manufacturer or dealer and that would also be the end of the industry.  

Except of course for G contracts because no G (or military) can ever exist without firearms.  Any leftist G would never tolerate being short of firearms to enforce it's will on an unarmed population.  Read some history.

This law in no way limits manufacturers or dealers from liability in legitimate cases of products liability or actual negligence.

Name one other industry that has ever been subject to an overt attempt to drive it out of business completely and forever only by way of frivolous litigation.  There isn't one.

Tobacco, asbestos, baby powder, DDT, roundup, ad nauseum hurt those industries, but none was put under.  (and arguably, none of those was frivolous)  

And the firearm companies are not giant conglomerates or corporations with huge net worths and bank accounts.  Look at how many times the Colts, Remingtons and others have been in receivership and reorganizations just to survive, without frivolous lawsuits.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I take Mike at his word. I thought his question was genuine and not rhetorical.

[old2soon]

          Rob you sell your Valkyrie to johnny come lately. He pays it off completely and j c l now owns it free and clear. NO longer your responsibility. You'd think. You'd be wrong. He has an accident and kills some body. The family suffering the death comes after-ta da-YOU Rob. Surprise surprise. Why'd the come after me you ask? Cuz You sold him the M/C! I can't make it any plainer then that. BUT that's EXACTLY what the deez propose. RIDE SAFE.

[The emperor has no clothes]

          Rob you sell your Valkyrie to johnny come lately. He pays it off completely and j c l now owns it free and clear. NO longer your responsibility. You'd think. You'd be wrong. He has an accident and kills some body. The family suffering the death comes after-ta da-YOU Rob. Surprise surprise. Why'd the come after me you ask? Cuz You sold him the M/C! I can't make it any plainer then that. BUT that's EXACTLY what the deez propose. RIDE SAFE.

Anybody can sue almost anybody. Doesn't mean it's going to work.

[Gavin_Sons]

In every election cycle, the right starts bitching about those Liberals are coming for our gun's. Well I can't remember ever seeing so many guns in my life. Hell it is now legal to walk around in public with a damn AR16 over your shoulder , and the right still isn't happy. I remember when they started crying about O Bama buying up all the ammo, and there wasn't any left. It was because all the gun guy's were so scared about losing their ammo, they were buying it all by the case, and there wasn't enough to go around. Things will never change.
John

AR16? No such thing genius
It has been legal for a long time to walk around with a rifle or shotgun in public. Educate yourself before you come here making yourself look ignorant. That is exactly what you just did. Cheerleading for the scum of the earth and in turn they made you look ignorant.

[Alien]

Democrats are not inherently anti-gun.  We own guns too.  Republicans spent 8 years under Clinton and 8 years under Obama saying "They're coming for our guns!"  What happenned?  Nothing. 

[_Sheffjs_]

Democrats are not inherently anti-gun.  We own guns too.  Republicans spent 8 years under Clinton and 8 years under Obama saying "They're coming for our guns!"  What happenned?  Nothing. 

Again! It was the hard resistance that kept it that way.  Quite simple, it is a fight. 

[Alien]

Democrats are not inherently anti-gun.  We own guns too.  Republicans spent 8 years under Clinton and 8 years under Obama saying "They're coming for our guns!"  What happenned?  Nothing. 

Again! It was the hard resistance that kept it that way.  Quite simple, it is a fight. 

Agreed but I don't think that people are split along party lines on this one.  Plenty of Democrats own guns, belong to the NRA, etc. 

[MAD6Gun]

In every election cycle, the right starts bitching about those Liberals are coming for our gun's. Well I can't remember ever seeing so many guns in my life. Hell it is now legal to walk around in public with a damn AR16 over your shoulder , and the right still isn't happy. I remember when they started crying about O Bama buying up all the ammo, and there wasn't any left. It was because all the gun guy's were so scared about losing their ammo, they were buying it all by the case, and there wasn't enough to go around. Things will never change.
John

 AR16? Really. Before you make such a ignorant statement you need to do some research. It's AR15 not AR16 or AR14 like your boy Biden said. Are you referring to the M16?  In that case that's the full auto version of the AR15. We can't buy those without first going through a thorough FBI background check and pay a fee. Oh and by the way the AR does not stand for "Assault Rifle". It stands for "Armalite Rifle" reference to the manufacturer that originally made the rifle. Also the AR15 was first. The automatic military M16 came later. The AR15 was NOT a military rifle first. Here ends the leason...

 P.S. I thought you were leaving the board?

[MAD6Gun]

Democrats are not inherently anti-gun.  We own guns too.  Republicans spent 8 years under Clinton and 8 years under Obama saying "They're coming for our guns!"  What happenned?  Nothing. 

 The fact that they keep trying tells me all I need to know about them. What do you call Clinton's 94 Assault weapons ban? They banned certain "assault " style guns. Thus taking away our rights to buy certain guns. BTW the ban did little to nothing to stop crime. Less then 1% of gun violence was committed with so called assault rifles.

 Your are probably right. Some democrats have guns (you know like Joe Biden"s shotgun that he likes to fire in the air off of his balcony) but he wants to take our "sporting" rifles away and wants to use Beto to do it. Don't deny it, he said it. The only reason it hasn't happened is the NRA and other pro-guns groups keeping the pressure on. Without the NRA we would have lost our rights years ago.

[Robert]

The stupidity and ignorance of some of the US population is amazing.

They are already taking your guns one piece at a time and if they cannot physically take your guns then they are taking your rights to use them away and putting a huge public shame, and price on displaying or using them.

Making a public spectacle of anyone using a gun and therefore discouraging the use and purchase of a firearm. Slowly but determinedly removing any reason to have them then jump in and confiscate what you cannot use or just impose a law on something that you cannot use.

That is how smoking was done and so many other issues.


McCloskeys Indicted, Grand Jury Adds Charges Of Tampering With Evidence
https://www.kmov.com/news/mccloskeys-indicted-grand-jury-adds-charges-of-tampering-with-evidence/article_892b9ba4-0807-11eb-8750-b3b2937f7e0b.html

Use it and we will come after you with any and all means at our disposal.

Start with programing, then shaming then arrests, then confiscate.

[Serk]

It's funny, our friends on the left are evidently claiming their candidates are bald-faced liars. I'm just taking them at their own word:

https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Joe_Biden_Gun_Control.htm

https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Kamala_Harris_Gun_Control.htm

[f6john]

It's funny, our friends on the left are evidently claiming their candidates are bald-faced liars. I'm just taking them at their own word:

https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Joe_Biden_Gun_Control.htm

https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Kamala_Harris_Gun_Control.htm

And Meathead and alien will explain this away in 5, 4, 3, .......

[Robert]

President Trump gave us more gun rights and the ones that prosecute those that use them are the dem attorney generals and the ones Soros contributed to not the republicans.

Watch what they do not what they say.

[98valk]

          Rob you sell your Valkyrie to johnny come lately. He pays it off completely and j c l now owns it free and clear. NO longer your responsibility. You'd think. You'd be wrong. He has an accident and kills some body. The family suffering the death comes after-ta da-YOU Rob. Surprise surprise. Why'd the come after me you ask? Cuz You sold him the M/C! I can't make it any plainer then that. BUT that's EXACTLY what the deez propose. RIDE SAFE.

Anybody can sue almost anybody. Doesn't mean it's going to work.

the govt has unlimited funds and lawyers, the companies do not, so eventually the gun and or ammo company has to close it's doors.

Do u understand?  Can u handle the truth about the UN democrat party?

Proverbs 18:6-7 “A fool’s words bring strife, and his mouth invites fighting. A fool’s mouth is his unraveling, and his lips entrap himself.”

[Alien]

          Rob you sell your Valkyrie to johnny come lately. He pays it off completely and j c l now owns it free and clear. NO longer your responsibility. You'd think. You'd be wrong. He has an accident and kills some body. The family suffering the death comes after-ta da-YOU Rob. Surprise surprise. Why'd the come after me you ask? Cuz You sold him the M/C! I can't make it any plainer then that. BUT that's EXACTLY what the deez propose. RIDE SAFE.

Anybody can sue almost anybody. Doesn't mean it's going to work.

the govt has unlimited funds and lawyers, the companies do not, so eventually the gun and or ammo company has to close it's doors.

Do u understand?  Can u handle the truth about the UN democrat party?

Proverbs 18:6-7 “A fool’s words bring strife, and his mouth invites fighting. A fool’s mouth is his unraveling, and his lips entrap himself.”

Ok 98Valk.  I'm calling you out.  Regardless of the topic, you always make a vague refefrence to the UN.  Please explain, once and for all, what you are talking about.

[98valk]

          Rob you sell your Valkyrie to johnny come lately. He pays it off completely and j c l now owns it free and clear. NO longer your responsibility. You'd think. You'd be wrong. He has an accident and kills some body. The family suffering the death comes after-ta da-YOU Rob. Surprise surprise. Why'd the come after me you ask? Cuz You sold him the M/C! I can't make it any plainer then that. BUT that's EXACTLY what the deez propose. RIDE SAFE.

Anybody can sue almost anybody. Doesn't mean it's going to work.

the govt has unlimited funds and lawyers, the companies do not, so eventually the gun and or ammo company has to close it's doors.

Do u understand?  Can u handle the truth about the UN democrat party?

Proverbs 18:6-7 “A fool’s words bring strife, and his mouth invites fighting. A fool’s mouth is his unraveling, and his lips entrap himself.”

Ok 98Valk.  I'm calling you out.  Regardless of the topic, you always make a vague refefrence to the UN.  Please explain, once and for all, what you are talking about.

as I suggested to u before read and study UN 21 and 2030 agendas for starters.  if u analytically look at the big picture u will see the democrat agenda is those and other UN agendas. this has been going on for decades. I started studying it in the 1980s.  Remember bush sr,  saying New World Order?

The UN has morphed from being an organization for greater world cooperation to a body strategizing for world governance. And shockingly, too many Americans are unwittingly embracing those strategies. There is a fifth column in our country that is committed to subverting our sovereignty.  However, President Donald Trump came out foursquare in defense of American sovereignty when he withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords.

Sovereignty draws our minds back to the aftermath of WWI when Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations was rejected because the League was seen as an actual and potential infringement on American sovereignty. Whether we are exceptional or not (and I believe we are), our political sovereignty is a jewel that must not be diluted by global initiatives.

Recently, our President has also withdrawn the U.S. signature on the UN Arms Trade Treaty, and he has sent a letter to the U.S. Senate recommending that this pact not be considered for a vote by the Senate.  Again, the premise for formal withdrawal is the threat perceived by the President to U.S. sovereignty.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/us_sovereignty_and_the_uns_pathetic_agenda_2030.html

[old2soon]

     Rob-My question is-how many times would you be able to defend yourself with a lawyer you pay outa yer pocket Before you throw in the towel and declare bankruptcy? THAT right there IS the point we are trying to make. RIDE SAFE.

[The emperor has no clothes]

     Rob-My question is-how many times would you be able to defend yourself with a lawyer you pay outa yer pocket Before you throw in the towel and declare bankruptcy? THAT right there IS the point we are trying to make. RIDE SAFE.

I don’t know. I’ve never been sued. The point I’m trying to make is that gun companies have the protections of the 2nd amendment. Tobacco companies, oil companies, etc. don’t have any such protections yet they are not driven to bankruptcy.

[_Sheffjs_]

Democrats are not inherently anti-gun.  We own guns too.  Republicans spent 8 years under Clinton and 8 years under Obama saying "They're coming for our guns!"  What happenned?  Nothing. 

Again! It was the hard resistance that kept it that way.  Quite simple, it is a fight. 

Agreed but I don't think that people are split along party lines on this one.  Plenty of Democrats own guns, belong to the NRA, etc. 

Does not help if left nozzleheads are in charge. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Democrats are not inherently anti-gun.  We own guns too.  Republicans spent 8 years under Clinton and 8 years under Obama saying "They're coming for our guns!"  What happenned?  Nothing. 

Again! It was the hard resistance that kept it that way.  Quite simple, it is a fight. 

Agreed but I don't think that people are split along party lines on this one.  Plenty of Democrats own guns, belong to the NRA, etc. 

Does not help if left nozzleheads are in charge. 

nozzleheads ? Don’t go badmouthing Skin’s and my kinfolk. 

[_Sheffjs_]

          Rob you sell your Valkyrie to johnny come lately. He pays it off completely and j c l now owns it free and clear. NO longer your responsibility. You'd think. You'd be wrong. He has an accident and kills some body. The family suffering the death comes after-ta da-YOU Rob. Surprise surprise. Why'd the come after me you ask? Cuz You sold him the M/C! I can't make it any plainer then that. BUT that's EXACTLY what the deez propose. RIDE SAFE.

Anybody can sue almost anybody. Doesn't mean it's going to work.

the govt has unlimited funds and lawyers, the companies do not, so eventually the gun and or ammo company has to close it's doors.

Do u understand?  Can u handle the truth about the UN democrat party?

Proverbs 18:6-7 “A fool’s words bring strife, and his mouth invites fighting. A fool’s mouth is his unraveling, and his lips entrap himself.”

Ok 98Valk.  I'm calling you out.  Regardless of the topic, you always make a vague refefrence to the UN.  Please explain, once and for all, what you are talking about.

You need to do some open minded research.   I reference them as United Notions.

[Skinhead]

I assume you mean an increase in price due to legal fees will result in less demand ? Should we restrict doctors and hospitals from being sued ? Surely that would decrease their costs. Should we restrict Media from being sued ? Surely having to defend against libel has its costs ?


The courts have remedies for frivolous lawsuits.

One of the dumber analogies you've come up with.  Doctors and hospitals are sued because they screwed up and hurt/killed people as a result.  The doctor is directly responsible for his actions/decisions.  The hospital is complicit for hiring/employing an incompetent person.  

A valid analogy to the gun manufacturer suits would be if the family of the victims of malpractice sued the scalpel manufacturers when a patient died due to doctor malpractice.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I assume you mean an increase in price due to legal fees will result in less demand ? Should we restrict doctors and hospitals from being sued ? Surely that would decrease their costs. Should we restrict Media from being sued ? Surely having to defend against libel has its costs ?


The courts have remedies for frivolous lawsuits.

One of the dumber analogies you've come up with.  Doctors and hospitals are sued because they screwed up and hurt/killed people as a result.  The doctor is directly responsible for his actions/decisions.  The hospital is complicit for hiring/employing an incompetent person.  

A valid analogy to the gun manufacturer suits would be if the family of the victims of malpractice sued the scalpel manufacturers when a patient died due to doctor malpractice.

Maybe. But my response was to hubcap’s supply and demand example. If a scalpel manufacturer were sued due to a doctor’s malpractice, don’t you think it would be thrown out pretty quick ? Maybe a better analogy would be ; if a gundealer knowingly sold a defective firearm, or a gun manufacturer cut corners on an item making them unsafe, shouldn’t they be held liable ?

[michaelyoung254]

To those of you falsly claiming that the Democrats aren't coming after the guns, Biden himself said he would put Beto O'Rourke in charge of his gun control agenda.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden-promises-to-put-beto-orourke-in-charge-of-gun-control/


Then, there's that issue of Robert Francis O'Rourke stating "Hell yeah, we're going to take away your AR-15's, your AK-47's!"

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/13/beto-orourke-abc-news-democratic-debate-guns-ar15-orig-js.cnn/video/playlists/2020-democratic-debate-abc/


Only a blind fool would actually believe that they would stop there.

[Skinhead]

Maybe a better analogy would be ; if a gundealer knowingly sold a defective firearm, or a gun manufacturer cut corners on an item making them unsafe, shouldn’t they be held liable ?

If a gun dealer KNOWINGLY sold a defective fire arm, they are libel.  If they unwittingly sold a defective fire arm, no, but the manufacturer would be libel for producing a defective product.  The law in question is to protect a gun manufacturer who produces a product from being held libel for criminal acts committed by a second party using their product.  If a person is bludgeoned to death with a hammer. or stabbed with a butcher's  knife, should the hammer or knife manufacturer be sued?

[hubcapsc]

Maybe a better analogy would be ; if a gundealer knowingly sold a defective firearm, or a gun manufacturer cut corners on an item making them unsafe, shouldn’t they be held liable ?

If a gun dealer KNOWINGLY sold a defective fire arm, they are libel.  If they unwittingly sold a defective fire arm, no, but the manufacturer would be libel for producing a defective product.  The law in question is to protect a gun manufacturer who produces a product from being held libel for criminal acts committed by a second party using their product.  If a person is bludgeoned to death with a hammer. or stabbed with a butcher's  knife, should the hammer or knife manufacturer be sued?

Sinkhead is right and Meathead needs (I wish anyhow, it is not
for me to say what he needs to do) to let it sink in.

Gun manufacturers are already liable for defects. Making them,
and the hammer makers, liable for what criminals do is wrong.
Don't vote for the "Hold gun manufacturers accountable" people.
Vote for the "Hold criminals accountable" people.

-Mike

[Jess from VA]

Don't vote for the "Hold gun manufacturers accountable" people.
Vote for the "Hold criminals accountable" people.


What a breath of fresh air (and common sense). 

[Dave Ritsema]

If you hold the second amendment sacred, there is no way you can vote for Biden. If you do and vote for him anyway you will deserve what will surely come.

[Skinhead]

Maybe a better analogy would be ; if a gundealer knowingly sold a defective firearm, or a gun manufacturer cut corners on an item making them unsafe, shouldn’t they be held liable ?

If a gun dealer KNOWINGLY sold a defective fire arm, they are libel.  If they unwittingly sold a defective fire arm, no, but the manufacturer would be libel for producing a defective product.  The law in question is to protect a gun manufacturer who produces a product from being held libel for criminal acts committed by a second party using their product.  If a person is bludgeoned to death with a hammer. or stabbed with a butcher's  knife, should the hammer or knife manufacturer be sued?

Sinkhead is right and Meathead needs (I wish anyhow, it is not
for me to say what he needs to do) to let it sink in.

Gun manufacturers are already liable for defects. Making them,
and the hammer makers, liable for what criminals do is wrong.
Don't vote for the "Hold gun manufacturers accountable" people.
Vote for the "Hold criminals accountable" people.

-Mike

What Mike said.

[Stanley Steamer]

Maybe a better analogy would be ; if a gundealer knowingly sold a defective firearm, or a gun manufacturer cut corners on an item making them unsafe, shouldn’t they be held liable ?

If a gun dealer KNOWINGLY sold a defective fire arm, they are libel.  If they unwittingly sold a defective fire arm, no, but the manufacturer would be libel for producing a defective product.  The law in question is to protect a gun manufacturer who produces a product from being held libel for criminal acts committed by a second party using their product.  If a person is bludgeoned to death with a hammer. or stabbed with a butcher's  knife, should the hammer or knife manufacturer be sued?

Sinkhead is right and Meathead needs (I wish anyhow, it is not
for me to say what he needs to do) to let it sink in.

Gun manufacturers are already liable for defects. Making them,
and the hammer makers, liable for what criminals do is wrong.
Don't vote for the "Hold gun manufacturers accountable" people.
Vote for the "Hold criminals accountable" people.

-Mike

Exactly.....it's such a simple concept, that even a kid should be able to figure it out....it's a shame you even HAVE to explain it....

[MAD6Gun]

I assume you mean an increase in price due to legal fees will result in less demand ? Should we restrict doctors and hospitals from being sued ? Surely that would decrease their costs. Should we restrict Media from being sued ? Surely having to defend against libel has its costs ?


The courts have remedies for frivolous lawsuits.

One of the dumber analogies you've come up with.  Doctors and hospitals are sued because they screwed up and hurt/killed people as a result.  The doctor is directly responsible for his actions/decisions.  The hospital is complicit for hiring/employing an incompetent person.  

A valid analogy to the gun manufacturer suits would be if the family of the victims of malpractice sued the scalpel manufacturers when a patient died due to doctor malpractice.

Maybe. But my response was to hubcap’s supply and demand example. If a scalpel manufacturer were sued due to a doctor’s malpractice, don’t you think it would be thrown out pretty quick ? Maybe a better analogy would be ; if a gundealer knowingly sold a defective firearm, or a gun manufacturer cut corners on an item making them unsafe, shouldn’t they be held liable ?

 And you obviously missed my comment on page one of this thread. Remington was sued for making defective 700 rifles. As I understand it they would fire when the bolt was closed or even if the trigger wasn't pulled. They also made a defective handgun the R51 series 1 (it was rushed to market before it was tested property). These are two examples of defective firearms and should be opened to lawsuit and have been.

 Gun manufacturers that make a quality product should be exempt from lawsuit. For example. The families of the Sandy Hook tragedy sued Bushmaster for Adam Lanza using one of their rifles to commit that heinous act. That gun unfortunately did what it was designed to do. The pure evil piece of crap behind it was responsible killing those children NOT bushmaster. Oh and his mother for allowing the devil access to her gun. This would be just like holding GM or Ford responsible for drunk driving accidents.


 Now do you get it?

[Jess from VA]

If you hold the second amendment sacred, there is no way you can vote for Biden. If you do and vote for him anyway you will deserve what will surely come.

Maybe the 2d A as paramount, but really I find very little love for all the Constitution in Democrats generally.  

They like to say they love it publicly and of course in their oaths of office, but they only mean it with their twisted, tortured, wishful-thinking versions of the Constitution.

Wanting to pack the Court (with their card-carrying brethren) certainly confirms my belief.  

[Jess from VA]

Gun manufacturers that make a quality product should be exempt from lawsuit. For example. The families of the Sandy Hook tragedy sued Bushmaster for Adam Lanza using one of their rifles to commit that heinous act. That gun unfortunately did what it was designed to do. The pure evil piece of poop behind it was responsible killing those children NOT bushmaster. Oh and his mother for allowing the devil access to her gun. This would be just like holding GM or Ford responsible for drunk driving accidents.

Now do you get it?

I do get it.  

Think about this.  If a firearm presents a products liability problem, it's a legitimate public safety issue.

But when the gun is fully reliable and works as advertised (however horribly the result), then it's time for frivolous litigation to put them all out of business.

Kind of a dammed either way deal.  Which is lunacy.  

And here's another irony.  Big plaintiff's liability lawyers love to go after deep pockets (and are generally entirely uninterested in empty pockets defendants).  They live to siphon off huge judgements/settlements from deep pocket business.  But if you put all the gun manufacturers all out of business, that hurts their business too.  The idea it to hit them big, but don't put them under.  That way you can came back later and hit them again.  Putting any (lawful) business permanently under is poor capitalism, even for shysters.  

Finally, every attorney's oath of bar membership and the Code of Professional Responsibility absolutely forbids bringing entirely frivolous litigation.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Maybe a better analogy would be ; if a gundealer knowingly sold a defective firearm, or a gun manufacturer cut corners on an item making them unsafe, shouldn’t they be held liable ?

If a gun dealer KNOWINGLY sold a defective fire arm, they are libel.  If they unwittingly sold a defective fire arm, no, but the manufacturer would be libel for producing a defective product.  The law in question is to protect a gun manufacturer who produces a product from being held libel for criminal acts committed by a second party using their product.  If a person is bludgeoned to death with a hammer. or stabbed with a butcher's  knife, should the hammer or knife manufacturer be sued?

Sinkhead is right and Meathead needs (I wish anyhow, it is not
for me to say what he needs to do) to let it sink in.

Gun manufacturers are already liable for defects. Making them,
and the hammer makers, liable for what criminals do is wrong.
Don't vote for the "Hold gun manufacturers accountable" people.
Vote for the "Hold criminals accountable" people.

-Mike

You can say what you think I need, or need to do. I have no problem with you having an opinion of me. After thinking it over and letting it sink in (for a couple hours anyway) I think you see it as a black and white issue. The Democrats are coming to take your guns, as you say. Or that people don't want to hold criminals accountable. I guess to put it simply, I see it more in shades.
  If the gun manufacturers do have an added cost of litigation and have to pass this on to the consumers, how much do you think it would take to "take away your guns" ? An extra $5 ? 20 ? 100 ?
  I think there is a lot of hyperbole going on right now. Sifting thru it all can be difficult at times. I think you should vote your conscience. If that be Trump, so be it. I know I'm going to vote mine.

[Robert]

One of America’s Oldest Gun Makers Files for Bankruptcy for 2nd Time

The move by the 204-year-old Remington Arms Company came after years of litigation and declining sales.

Yup Meat knows.

[The emperor has no clothes]

One of America’s Oldest Gun Makers Files for Bankruptcy for 2nd Time

The move by the 204-year-old Remington Arms Company came after years of litigation and declining sales.

Yup Meat knows.

I know a little bit. I know Remington has been in trouble financially due to its own missteps. When Investment Bankers or Venture Capitalists take over a company and piles on mountains of debt, it never ends well except for the venture capitalists.

"Remington shot itself in the foot"
By Natalie Sherman, BBC News, New York
It's tempting to read Remington's bankruptcy, occurring in the midst of anti-gun protests and after the bankruptcy of rival Colt in 2015, as a sign that America's gun culture might not be as impregnable as it seemed.
But some caution is warranted.
For one, Remington has had plenty of problems of its own making, including errors in financial statements and faulty products.
It is reliant on chains like Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods, which are fighting for customers in every category as shopping habits shift online.
Then there is the company's frequent losses and more than $1bn (£700m) in debt, piled on under owner Cerberus Capital Management during a decade of acquisitions.
Remington's sales did fall markedly last year, tumbling to $603m - about half what the firm netted in 2013. But most analysts think that's because buyers are less worried about the possibility of new gun restrictions since US President Donald Trump took office.
The restructuring plan the firm announced is set to wipe out much of the company's debt burden - and meanwhile the firm, under new owners, is to continue operating. Remington's Chapter 11 filing is unlikely to be the end of the story.