Support NeoGAF

[ampere]

Clearly tied for second as best thing in Ohio with Adam..

Spoiler

Only behind the greatness that is Greg Ciao

Ohio is a sad place

 

[User 406]

Wonder how many takes Bachmann had to do to get the swipe on the first try.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

Ohio is a sad place

It can't be sad if it has Greg, Adam, BG, and Manky!

 

[Hindl]

It can't be sad if it has Greg, Adam, BG, and Manky!

BG takes too many L's to not be the epitome of sad. Poor guy, I hope RG3 works out for his sake

 

[FloydtheFathead]

BG takes too many L's to not be the epitome of sad. Poor guy, I hope RG3 works out for his sake

BG, the Don Quixote of our time with Kave as his Sancho Panza.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Wonder how many takes Bachmann had to do to get the swipe on the first try.

A tourist from Minnesota using the NYC subway? I'm going to go with many takes.

 

[Boney]

Sanders was asked by the Daily News directly about the lawsuit being levied by Sandy Hook families against gun manufacturers and his response to their litigation was, "No, I don't believe gun manufacturer's should be held responsible."

He literally said he doesn't support their court case.

No he didn't. That's how they spun the issue.

And I guess I'll drop the topic with this. If you don't agree that what Clinton did was wrong then I guess you're 100% behind her no matter what so whatever.

 

[Macho Madness]

oh jesus christ usuncut articles

if you don't understand why no one takes you seriously

 

[HK-47]

How many of you are proud Democrats? There's a fairly common trope regarding the disinterested millennial with no party loyalty and I'm wondering how many here don't fit that description.

I'm a staunch not-Republican

 

[SheSaidNo]

Saw this about the Wisconsin supreme court and the Bernie Sanders thing

For example, in 2008, Wisconsin had a similar spring election: Both Republicans and Democrats had contested primaries and the ticket included a hotly contested state Supreme Court race between conservative Michael Gableman and liberal incumbent Justice Louis Butler. In that race, then-Senator Obama also beat then-Senator Clinton by a nearly identical margin as Sanders beat Clinton—with Sanders having a similarly large base of support among younger voters.

In that the election, the “roll-off rate”—the number of voters who voted for Obama or Clinton and didn’t vote for Butler in the Supreme Court race—was a whopping 64 percent. Butler got only 402,798 of the 1,113,285 votes cast in the Democratic primary and ended up narrowly losing by about 20,000 votes. In other words, in 2008 nearly two out of every three voters that participated in the Democratic primary didn’t vote in Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

In 2016, the roll-off rate from Dem primary voters to the liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate was absurdly low—only 8 percent.

Young voters—those between 18 and 34—had the highest roll-off rate for both Clinton (16 percent) and Sanders (24 percent) supporters. But, historically speaking, both campaigns did a great job of educating their voters about this important down ticket race. Roll-offs were much lower than previous years.

Using cocktail napkin math, if Obama won Wisconsin with 58 percent of the vote, similar proportions of high roll off rate voter demographics as Sanders 57 percent win, then it’s reasonable to compare 2008’s 64 percent roll-off rate to 2016’s 8 percent and safely estimate that Sanders’ voters did exponentially better than Obama's voters.

Yet I don’t remember a media narrative of Obama only being about Obama and not helping down-ticket candidates.

- See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/201...e-despite-what-media-say#sthash.RMtdRU0d.dpuf

 

[Slayven]

Slayven. Been meaning to ask. How is the new black panther? I haven't bought a comic in forever but been thinking about picking it up for the civil war hype (#teamcap tho) and TNC.

It's great, the first issue is all about setup, and the setup is good. When it goes down, it is going to apocalyptic.

 

[Mercury Fred]

No he didn't. That's how they spun the issue.

And I guess I'll drop the topic with this. If you don't agree that what Clinton did was wrong then I guess you're 100% behind her no matter what so whatever.

What kind of thinking is this? Really, who are you to say what people believe or don't because of some made up parameters that you decide to lay out?

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Yuengling is the best shit-tier beer that you can get at shit-tier prices tho

Nah. Name Tag at Trader Joe's is the best shit-tier beer at shit-tier prices.

I'd frankly rather drink Rainier or even PBR.

 

[NeoXChaos]

What kind of thinking is this? Really, who are you to say what people believe or don't because of some made up parameters that you decide to lay out?

well its not the first time on GAF:

Yes, i went there. If a person is going to throw their sword down to support someone like Hillary over the facts, who is the very nature of the beast called money in politics, i will say that principles are not something that person has.

 

[hawk2025]

The PLCAA is a shitty piece of shit and a clear, direct result of monied interests from the gun lobby.

It's been fun to see the awkward bending to defend it this cycle from parts of the left.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's great, the first issue is all about setup, and the setup is good. When it goes down, it is going to apocalyptic.

How long is the run? Don't know if I should get the comics as they come out or wait

 

[Retromelon]

I would have responded sooner but literally as I was moving my mouse to hit submit my computer shut down to spend the next thirty minutes automatically updating. Typing on mobile now. Ugh windows 10

The President of the United State is always going to have some blood on his hands. That's the price of global hegemony, because if we do nothing, the blood is on our hands and the world falls to the leadership of kleptocrats and authoritarians (because the EU sure ain't as hell stepping in) and if we do something, the blood is on our hands. If you want a nation where there won't be any blood on your hands, move to Denmark or something where nothing ever happens.

This is how I felt before my socratic post was made to discern the opinions of others. I do not think it contradicts the bolded to be opposed to a program that kills hundreds of innocent civilians and to feel that it is a major failure of the obama administration.

First, I don't believe in God, heaven or any of it. Not that that's here nor there.

Second, I'm going to say two things on the drone program and they're going to entangle at odd angles, but it's how I see the situation. On one hand, I think the drone program is absolutely unacceptable in its current form and easily the most reprehensible thing to happen under Obama's administration. We can and should put parameters on drone kills that more completely result in a hard positive of a target before they are killed and take greater precautions to ensure collateral is minimized if not completely eliminated.

That said, I also recognize that POTUS is a job that will involve whomever happens to be sitting in the big chair at some point effectively signing some death warrants, whether they believe that to be the case at the time they Ok whatever military action or not. So long as America remains the watchdog of the west, every president will have the blood of hundreds on their hands. It will happen in bombing runs or it will happen in ground troop action or it will happen with drones. You would probably have to go back over a century to find a president that didn't. Now, we can certainly discuss if we should remain in such a position, but that is a deeply complicated and separate discussion from how I appraise Obama, given the climate of the world as it stands.

As for surveillance...a lot of what came out of 9/11 was panic driven paranoia. We all lost our minds after 9/11 and certain institutions benefited from that insanity considerably. I would prefer it if the things the Patriot Act did were repealed. I also recognize that the emergency powers Abraham Lincoln seized for the presidency have never been put back in their box either. I think Obama is mistaken in his position on surveillance. I've heard members of his administration describe him as nearly Vulcan-like in his rationality and I think perhaps his calculations in this case may simply be too cold. But thinking he's mistaken on this is very different from me thinking that Obama as a president is a mistake.

Especially when weighing down my Pro's and Con's list on the Pro's column is "literally everything else".

Ultimately, I don't think history bending toward justice means in all areas constantly. I think there will be missteps and failures. There have been in every administration since the country began. As long as human beings make up the system, there always will be. But Democrats care about (or at the very least, are forced to pay lip service to) strides toward our country becoming a more just and decent place. That progress is slow and it is painful, but it exists. I've seen it over the last eight years and maybe it is just a sad sign of how cynical I'd become but even the awkward baby steps we've taken since have renewed my vigor in my personal battle to become a better person and my faith in other people.

I agree with most of what you said and would like to congratulate you on a detailed, thoughtful post. I also appreciate that you did not feel the need to mischaracterize me as a hysterical moralist in order to make your points unlike manky

 

[Mercury Fred]

well its not the first time on GAF:

Gross.

C'mon Boney.

Although it sadly may not be uncommon overall. I've been called a "conservative" and "not a progressive" on social media over my support of Clinton-- despite two decades of activism including anti-war, LGBT, environmental, anti-racist and pro-choice demonstrating and other work.

 

[Ophelion]

The PLCAA is a shitty piece of shit and a clear, direct result of monied interests from the gun lobby.

It's been fun to see the awkward bending to defend it this cycle from parts of the left.

By "fun" I trust you mean "infuriating and depressing"?

 

[vainglorious]

well its not the first time on GAF:

That type of thinking is so dangerous and myopic.

 

[hawk2025]

By "fun" I trust you mean "infuriating and depressing"?

That.

That kind of fun.

 

[kmag]

No he didn't. That's how they spun the issue.

And I guess I'll drop the topic with this. If you don't agree that what Clinton did was wrong then I guess you're 100% behind her no matter what so whatever.

He voted for the law which will invalidate their cases regardless of it's merits. Their case doesn't meet any of the 6 exemptions. That's the definition of not supporting their case. And during his Daily News interview he doesn't even make the attempt to couch his position in any language offering any support to the Sandy Hook families attempting to bring the suit, instead immediately switching it to generalities about the law. He was asked a direct question relating to the Sandy Hook families lawsuit and said nothing about Sandy Hook

Daily News: There's a case currently waiting to be ruled on in Connecticut. The victims of the Sandy Hook massacre are looking to have the right to sue for damages the manufacturers of the weapons. Do you think that that is something that should be expanded?

Sanders: Do I think the victims of a crime with a gun should be able to sue the manufacturer, is that your question?

Daily News: Correct.

Sanders: No, I don't.

Daily News: Let me ask you. I know we're short on time. Two quick questions. Your website talks about...

Sanders: No, let me just...I'm sorry. In the same sense that if you're a gun dealer and you sell me a gun and I go out and I kill him [gestures to someone in room]…. Do I think that that gun dealer should be sued for selling me a legal product that he misused? [Shakes head no.] But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people. So if somebody walks in and says, "I'd like 10,000 rounds of ammunition," you know, well, you might be suspicious about that. So I think there are grounds for those suits, but not if you sell me a legal product. But you're really saying...

Bertie asked a direct question about Sandy Hook, fails to mention Sandy Hook, that's not support.

Only gun manufacturers have blanket immunity. A type of immunity by the way which if applied to auto mobile manufacturers would have prevented Larsen v General Motors (the case that lead to widespread incorporation of airbags) that successful case would not have gotten past the screening given that that decision stated

an automobile manufacturer is under no duty to design an accident-proof or fool-proof vehicle . . . but such manufacturer is under a duty to use reasonable care in the design of its vehicle to avoid subjecting the user to an unreasonable risk of injury in the event of a collision.”

Is that any different to the trigger guards and safety feature lawsuits that PLCAA was designed to stop? Larsen wasn't just arguing against defective design he was arguing against neglect by omission of design features. In fact essentially the history of automobile safety in the US is due to litigation (http://www.robertabelllaw.com/libra...itigation_Spurred_Auto_Safety_Innovations.pdf), normally of the type which does meet the criteria set in PLCAA.

But then Bertie has a list of votes for things he subsequently doesn't believe in as long as your arm. Lost in the noise about Bill Clinton's remarks to BLM about his crime bill is the fact that Sanders voted for it.

 

[Holmes]

Yet I don’t remember a media narrative of Obama only being about Obama and not helping down-ticket candidates.

Because he did fundraise and campaign for them. Stupid.

 

[Fenderputty]

According to my principles anyone with a tag is a heathen. The entire lot of you.

 

[Suikoguy]

According to my principles anyone with a tag is a heathen. The entire lot of you.

Take my tag then.

 

[Fenderputty]

Take my tag then.

Offering your status as a member of the tag establishment might work on some members. This one has principles though.

 

[Holmes]

Gross.

C'mon Boney.

Although it sadly may not be uncommon overall. I've been called a "conservative" and "not a progressive" on social media over my support of Clinton-- despite two decades of activism including anti-war, LGBT, environmental, anti-racist and pro-choice demonstrating and other work.

Me too. In Canada, the NDP (whom I support) is considering replacing their qualified leader with someone else because he lost the election last October to the Liberals. I was talking to my closest New Democrat friend about it and I said we shouldn't replace him, and he said that I would say that because I'm a more pragmatic centrist because I support Clinton and it stands to reason that I would want someone who's like a Liberal, and he said he wanted someone like Sanders or Corbyn.

 

[noshten]

Saw this about the Wisconsin supreme court and the Bernie Sanders thing

Why are people always deflecting, but Obama/Hillary is not a valid defense
We are vetting Bernie and his supporters who are slightly more in-tune with down-ticket races than Obama/Hills voters 8 years ago.

 

[Ophelion]

I agree with most of what you said and would like to congratulate you on a detailed, thoughtful post. I also appreciate that you did not feel the need to mischaracterize me as a hysterical moralist in order to make your points unlike manky

Of course, my friend. I believe one of the most critical things to retain in any discussion of large or painful subjects is a sense of respect for the person you're debating with. These things engender an emotional response in people and that is normal and valid. Dismissing you would be a mistake and unworthy of the people and principles I'm attempting to champion.

The way I see it, bringing justice to the world has to start with me.

 

[Slayven]

How long is the run? Don't know if I should get the comics as they come out or wait

12 issues, and he has signed on for another 12 issue season 2

Because he did fundraise and campaign for them. Stupid.

Democrats ran from Obama, Obama didn't run from them . I will never forget all those "Fuck Obama, I don't even know him" ads

 

[dramatis]

Saw this about the Wisconsin supreme court and the Bernie Sanders thing

On top of what Holmes said, Obama wasn't selling political revolution, whereas Bernie Sanders is. That's why Bernie gets hammered in that respect, because he's certainly talking about such a revolution quite often, but can't put it into practice.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Me too. In Canada, the NDP (whom I support) is considering replacing their qualified leader with someone else because he lost the election last October to the Liberals. I was talking to my closest New Democrat friend about it and I said we shouldn't replace him, and he said that I would say that because I'm a more pragmatic centrist because I support Clinton and it stands to reason that I would want someone who's like a Liberal, and he said he wanted someone like Sanders or Corbyn.

Eh, even if you put aside the issues of ideology, from what I saw, Mulcair didn't seem like a good leader when it came to the politics of the thing. I mean, pretty much every NDP leader for the next generation will be in the shadow of Layton, but such a drastic change was always going to lead to blowback.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Bruce Springsteen is the Boss.

Canceled his NC show over the anti-lgbt bill

 

[studyguy]

Saw this about the Wisconsin supreme court and the Bernie Sanders thing

At the same time Obama wasn't pushing a new revolution of voters stemming specifically from the same block of largest roll-off voters. The bottom line is young voters are unreliable in anything but generals. The message has been nothing but a primary/general victory with literally everything falling by the wayside that's required setup for an actual revolution discussed. The democratic movement isn't just Hillary, it's the entire foundation from the local level up that needs support.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Saw this about the Wisconsin supreme court and the Bernie Sanders thing

Wow, that's an incredibly dishonest article. The 2008 Wisconsin presidential primary was in February. The Supreme Court election was in April. They were literally two different elections. You had to make a special effort to vote in the second one (which you better believe I did). This time the Supreme Court election was literally on the same ballot. Everyone who voted in the presidential primary was already at the voting booth. Literally all that had to do was move the marker down the page and complete the arrow next to "JoAnne Kloppenburg." There is absolutely no excuse for Jud Lounsbury to leave out that bit of context.

Don't get me wrong, it's still shameful that so many people went to vote in a presidential primary and not a state Supreme Court race, especially since Gableman is a doofus who ran a horribly dishonest campaign (he literally had to defend one of his TV ads by claiming that every sentence when taken in isolation is true and any inferences viewers took beyond that was on them) but Lounsbury is still comparing apples and oranges here. I think Sanders absolutely deserves criticism for his lack of commitment to helping downballot, which goes far beyond a single Supreme Court race. I also think it's worth questioning a political revolution that has trouble motivating people to vote for anything other than president (Clinton voters did a significantly better job of voting in that race).

I do want to clarify that I have no issues with you for posting that article, but I have major issues with Lounsbury for writing such a dishonest piece.

EDIT: I probably shouldn't have said the article is "dishonest," in as much as it's not clear the author knew that they were two separate elections. That would still be inexcusable sloppiness though.

 

[thepotatoman]

How many of you are proud Democrats? There's a fairly common trope regarding the disinterested millennial with no party loyalty and I'm wondering how many here don't fit that description.

I'm not a "proud democrat" and don't give a crap about party loyalty, but republicans have failed me on every level of government so I have no choice but vote democrat down the line. Even so called non-partisan positions like Attourney General and Secretary of State have lead to voter suppression, ridiculous lawsuits, and poor police oversight.

 

[SheSaidNo]

Wow, that's an incredibly dishonest article. The 2008 Wisconsin presidential primary was in February. The Supreme Court election was in April. They were literally two different elections. You had to make a special effort to vote in the second one (which you better believe I did). This time the Supreme Court election was literally on the same ballot. Everyone who voted in the presidential primary was already at the voting booth. Literally all that had to do was move the marker down the page and complete the arrow next to "JoAnne Kloppenburg." There is absolutely no excuse for Jud Lounsbury to leave out that bit of context.

Don't get me wrong, it's still shameful that so many people went to vote in a presidential primary and not a state Supreme Court race, especially since Gableman is a doofus who ran a horribly dishonest campaign (he literally had to defend one of his TV ads by claiming that every sentence when taken in isolation is true and any inferences viewers took beyond that was on them) but Lounsbury is still comparing apples and oranges here. I think Sanders absolutely deserves criticism for his lack of commitment to helping downballot, which goes far beyond a single Supreme Court race. I also think it's worth questioning a political revolution that has trouble motivating people to vote for anything other than president (Clinton voters did a significantly better job of voting in that race).

I do want to clarify that I have no issues with you for posting that article, but I have major issues with Lounsbury for writing such a dishonest piece.

Huh, interesting, thanks for the context, I thought the number was super high at 64%

 

[NeoXChaos]

How many of you are proud Democrats? There's a fairly common trope regarding the disinterested millennial with no party loyalty and I'm wondering how many here don't fit that description.

Due to our Jungle Primary here I vote Republican and Democrat on the state and local level. Never have and probably never will on a Presidential level.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I don't understand the logic behind holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed using their guns. It seems very reactionary...

 

[Suikoguy]

I don't understand the logic behind holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed using their guns. It seems very reactionary...

That's not possible under standard law. You have to prove their negligence contributed towards a death. Some avenues for that might be gun marketing towards people who should not have guns, a faulty gun, lack of due diligence when selling the gun.

I don't see the argument Gun Manufactures need special protection.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Huh, interesting, thanks for the context, I thought the number was super high at 64%

The article really makes it sound like they were on the same ballot so, yeah, there's no way I can blame someone for reading it and getting that impression. The only reason it set off alarm bells in my head was that I was living in Wisconsin in 2008 and I remembered them being two separate elections.

I do think it's unfair to blame Bernie for the Supreme Court election since the problem of getting people to vote downballot is hardly new and of course even if 100% of his voters had also voted in the Supreme Court election, there still weren't enough votes to make up the difference. But I think it's fair to discuss his commitment to helping other candidates relative to Hillary's.

 

[Fenderputty]

I don't understand the logic behind holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed using their guns. It seems very reactionary...

I don't know if it's justifiable since I'm not sure we do this with any other product sold, but the logic is sound. Manufacturers would be more likely to implement their own safety features and get on board with laws that restrict use based on certain criteria.

 

[Macho Madness]

I don't know if it's justifiable since I'm not sure we do this with any other product sold, but the logic is sound. Manufacturers would be more likely to implement their own safety features and get on board with laws that restrict use based on certain criteria.

Yeah it's more pushing them to be more responsible on their own because passing gun legislation is extremely difficult in this country. The bill Bernie voted for took that away.

 

[kmag]

Yeah it's more pushing them to be more responsible on their own because passing gun legislation is extremely difficult in this country. The bill Bernie voted for took that away.

Which is exactly how the auto industry got moved into compliance.

 

[Fenderputty]

Which is exactly how the auto industry got moved into compliance.

Can you expand on that?

 

[hawk2025]

If you don't believe corporations should be liable for crimes committed using their products (which is an interesting position to take, by the way, when considering the possibility of prosecuting large parts of the financial sector: Should financial institutions be liable for packaging mortgages and products in extremely obtuse and misleading ways, if it was the ratings agencies that fucked up how to sell and qualify the product itself?), then that is certainly a position I can understand.

But it means we should push for a law that make this the case for all of them, and not just guns.

That guns should deserve special protection by the very nature of the product being an explicit killing machine is frankly a preposterous notion.

I'd like to see one person resolve the dissonance between having this position for guns but not banks.

 

[metalslimer]

If you don't believe corporations should be liable for crimes committed using their products, then that is certainly a position I can understand.

But it means we should push for a law that make this the case for all of them, and not just guns.

That guns deserve special protection by the very nature of the product being an explicit killing machine is frankly preposterous.

I can agree with this. There is no incentive for the gun industry to improve the safety of their products. Between gun legislation being DoA and them being almost impervious to litigation, why would they do anything?

 

[Daniel B·]

Good to see Kyle, the forthright, young host of the Secular Talk YT channel (308K subs, 158M video views), is knocking down Hillary camp's BS talking points, with gusto:



Hillary Invokes The Sandy Hook Mass Shooting To Attack Bernie

As Kyle was saying, if your stance is that you should be able to sue gun manufacturers and dealers, for selling a legal product, what you are effectively doing is arguing for an outright ban on gun sales in America, which is a perfectly reasonable position, even if totally "pie in the sky" (outlaw hunting, home protection, in the U.S of A? Good luck with that!), and it should be stated as such, and not used indirectly as squalid line of attack, involving the grieving victims of Sandy Hook, against Bernie's perfectly reasonable position on the issue.

Here's what I had to say on the subject; an unused section of my un-published flyer (in hind-site, the flyer would have been over doing it, and our volunteer office was already doing enough to win our town / county, in Virginia):

Coming from the rural state of Vermont, where gun ownership is part of everyday daily life, Bernie believes in your Second Amendment rights, and together with the overwhelming majority of law abiding gun owners, he also believes in common sense gun regulations, and applauds the 2014 Supreme Court ruling that upholds the ban on "straw purchases", or one person buying a gun for another. He would also close the gun show loophole, as this also allows one to avoid the crucial background check. He stands by your right, to securely transport your guns and ammunition, under lock and key, as checked-in baggage on Amtrak trains, just as you can on an airplane. He also believes that gun manufacturers and dealers, who fully comply with the laws of the land, should be immune from prosecution, where a gun is used in an illegal act, just as it would be ridiculous to prosecute a kitchen knife manufacturer, for inappropriate use of their knives. Perhaps, most importantly, he believes a gun owner who is experiencing mental health issues, should be able to seek the help they need, without having to worry about the cost, as there is every chance this would prevent some of the tragic gun related deaths we witness, almost on daily basis.

Hillary Clinton Has A New Anti-Bernie Attack Ad

Yeah, running an ad that defends the big banks is a great move. The Hillary camp must know when their BS has exceeded capacity, when even the New York Times comes out in Bernie's defense, and it turns out Bernie even introduced a bill on the very subject: Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks

 

[kmag]

Can you expand on that?

http://www.robertabelllaw.com/libra...itigation_Spurred_Auto_Safety_Innovations.pdf does a good job of clearly breaking down the safety features which where sued into common usage.

Up until the 1960s, car manufacturers were only held liable for defects in construction that resulted in accidents and had largely avoided responsibility for defects in design.
Even when a design defect caused a car to burst into fl ames, manufacturers
succeeded in persuading courts that “no duty exists to make an automobile fireproof.”
Manufacturers had a large body of knowledge proving that car design – particularly in regard to steering columns, dashboards, windshields and passenger restraints – was extremely unsafe to car occupants, but did nothing about it. Style was valued over safety. The cost of largely unnecessary styling changes amounted to, at the time, $700 per car, yet the average safety expenditure amounted to just 23 cents.4 For instance, many manufacturers used chrome enamel dashboards for their aesthetic value, despite evidence that the dashboards commonly reflected sunlight into drivers’ eyes and blinded them.
In the 1960s, court cases began highlighting the dangers of car design and the willful negligence of manufacturers in designing cars that they knew to be unsafe.5 The Larsen case became a landmark decision. General Motors claimed they had no duty to design an automobile that would protect the occupant if an accident occurred. The court disagreed and thus sent a message that car manufacturers had to change their ways.6

An example of a case which PLCAA stopped was Adames v. Sheehan where an 11 year old boy shot his 9 year old cousin with a Beretta which had the magazine removed (the boy thinking it was safe didn't realise there was a chambered round). Now taking aside the notion of letting an 11 year old playing with a gun, is there any reason good reason that a non military, non law enforcement gun should be able fire with the magazine removed? It would seem to be common sense safety feature to prevent accidental discharge just as airbags or anti roll chassis are a common sense precaution in a car. Car manufacturers were sued into adopting those sort of features, gun manufacturers won't be.

Adames v. Sheehan, 909 N.E.2d 742 (Ill. 2009): The Illinois Supreme Court found that the PLCAA preempted a claim for design defects, failure to warn, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability against firearms manufacturers. One young boy was playing with his father’s gun and accidentally shot his friend.
The decedent’s family brought claims against the gun manufacturer for design defects and a failure to warn. They alleged that the gun was inherently dangerous and defective because 1) it did not incorporate safety features, including technology that would have prevented children from firing the gun, and 2) it did not include adequate warnings concerning the foreseeable use of the gun by children.
The Illinois Supreme Court found those claims pre-empted by the PLCAA. The plaintiffs asserted that the fifth exception to the PLCAA – permitting certain design defect claims – was applicable, but the court found it was not because the child’s death was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, and therefore was preempted.

PLCAA offers 6 exemptions allowing gun manufacturers to be sued.

1) an action brought against someone convicted of “knowingly transfer[ing] a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence” by someone directly harmed by such unlawful conduct;
(2) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(3) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;
(4) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
(6) an action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.4

Even a direct design defect can not meet this criteria if the result can be reasonably forseen.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I don't know if it's justifiable since I'm not sure we do this with any other product sold, but the logic is sound. Manufacturers would be more likely to implement their own safety features and get on board with laws that restrict use based on certain criteria.

What safety features are guns lacking? They have safeties built into them and already have limits on their functionality. I'm just wondering what holding the manufacturers liable for illegal activity committed accomplishes other than in a very roundabout way slowly shutting them down--or at least trying to. If someone drives their Chevy Silvarado at 100mph into a playground we don't talk about holding Chevy accountable.