JUST IN: Sanders changes stance on suing gun manufacturers https://t.co/nUV6GHzeVV pic.twitter.com/X0q9NhpbZ7
— The Hill (@thehill) April 17, 2016
I’m genuinely glad he’s stopped defending the ammosexual’s favorite corporations, and sincerely hope it won’t be a problem when he runs for re-election in 2018. From the article:
Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders on Sunday said Sandy Hook victims should be able to sue gun manufacturers for the 2012 elementary school shooting that killed 20 students and six adults, backtracking on previous comments.
“Of course they have a right to sue, anyone has a right to sue,” the Vermont senator said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Sanders in an interview with the New York Daily News last week initially said the Sandy Hook family members should not have the right to sue gun manufacturers for damages…
He said he opposes the sales of assault-style weapons in the U.S., such as the one used at Sandy Hook.
“That’s the kind of weapon that caused the horrible tragedy in Sandy Hook,” Sanders said. “Those weapons should not be made in the United States of America. So in that sense, I agree with the Sandy Hook parents.”…
***********
Apart from applauding progress towards sensible gun regulation, what’s on the agenda for the evening?
Iowa Old Lady
Good for Sanders.
tastytone
Good on him!
PhoenixRising
But the suit that was stopped by a liability shield that he voted for, in 2005, similar facts. What’s changed is the spotlight on his views.
So, full credit for changing his mind, but I’d still like to see a bit of contrition for the fact that, given the opportunity to block such a suit and perhaps prevent Sandy Hook…he made the wrong choice.
Again, judgment. He lacks it, and the pointing finger leaves 3 more to account for.
redshirt
Waiting for Bob and NR to show up.
jl
I don’t see this as a real change for Sanders. He just stated the obvious, that the victims’ families have a right to sue in US courts. I’d bet some Baud! 2016! campaign swag that Sanders is still opposed to changing law to expand liability for small gun stores that follow all the laws and regs in good faith.
I say this as a Sanders mega-donor. I’m also a Baud! 2016! mega-donor, but that campaign uses really cheap vodka so it doesn’t amount to much.
I also think that the gun control debate in the Democratic primary has been a bunch of posturing over not much of interest in terms of what can actually be passed during next presidential administration.
Edit: I forgot to add the ‘I am not a lawyer’ proviso. I hope one of the BJ blog legal flying wedge will correct me if I’m wrong about some legal nuance of his statement.
PsiFighter37
Doesn’t a fish flip-flop when it’s taken out of water?
Perhaps that’s cruel and harsh, but given the extremely transparent cynicism and hypocrisy that the Sanders campaign has been operating under recently, I don’t think this is anything but a last-ditch ploy to try and win some votes in NY.
No matter what happens on Tuesday night, Tad Devine’s bank account will be the real winner on Wednesday morning.
ruemara
I’m sure this an evolution on the topic. Which is surprising, because I thought he was infallible since he marched with MLK, after teaching him how to organize.
I do wonder if this means if a vote is held on removing immunity, we can all count on his unqualified yes.
Bobby Thomson
His internals must be terrible.
redshirt
@ruemara: As if a vote like that could even come up in today’s congress.
Poopyman
@Bobby Thomson: Could be, at his age. But we won’t know for sure until his doctor releases his medical records.
Miss Bianca
I just got back from the Democratic Party State Delegation this afternoon. I am a little shaky in more ways than one, both from the heavy spring snowstorm and the convention/assembly itself. The following is what I observed to someone else:
The rabid Sanders followers in Colorado, I have to say it, appear to have Dear-Leaderism to an alarming degree. Even some of our elected officials seem to be infected with it. They wasted a lot of time during the platform committee report with “minority reports” aimed at passing resolutions to manipulate the superdelegate vote. This after the platform had adopted a resolution calling for super delegates to be abolished, so the two things basically cancel each other out. Which is all so much grandstanding and waste of time, anyway, and annoying to see not only these brand-new Democrats in the peanut galleries, who can’t be bothered with understanding the rules or the protocols – this is a fucking PLATFORM report, people, you need to be talking to the RULES COMMITTEE, but whatever, right? – but watching elected representatives who presumably know better – or ought to – indulging in this shit. They are freaking OBSESSED with this super delegate issue. The amount of time the peanut gallery spent screaming “Change your vote” at Sen. Bennett – I was utterly confused, thinking it was all about fracking or something, till I realized what they were talking about – well, I’m not the biggest Bennett fan, but I was furious for him. They heckled Ken Salazar, they booed people who said anything positive about HRC, they shouted down a woman who got up to point out – rightly – that this meeting wasn’t the right time or place to determine the superdelegate thing – it was ugly. Ugly. To call them boorish almost seems an insult to boors.
I asked our county chairman, who’s been to these things for years, if he’d ever seen anything like this, and he said no. I find myself dreading what might happen at the national convention. This kind of shit on parade for the whole country – the whole world – to be watching – well, I can only hope that the Republican one will be worse. But you’ll never go broke underestimating the capacity of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class
@efgoldman:
It has been interesting to see the amount of vitriol that Sanders earns from people who regarded him as a benign figure earlier in the calendar year. I guess we’re getting to know him in the primary, and REALLY are starting to dislike what we see.
JerryN
@efgoldman: As opposed to all of the charitable Hillary supporters who comment here.
Poopyman
@efgoldman: I’m beginning to think you’re intentionally baiting them. Do we really need another 300+ thread?
redshirt
@Miss Bianca: These kind of reports are starting to make me feel uneasy – as in, Sanders and followers will actively try and cause Clinton to lose in November.
I don’t recall reading anything like this in 2008.
tastytone
Agreed–taken together with the naked “pope pandering” for Latinos, and “I’m down with The Brown” pandering throughout, it’s all about him trying to make a dent in NY. But I’m happy for ANY lip service on the NRA/gun problem at all at this point. If there’s a lefty issue I’d love to see them try and out-do each other on–it’s this one.
redshirt
It’s like RONPAULISM has somehow infected a significant percentage of democratic voters.
Or maybe they always had RONPAULISM.
Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class
Q: How many True Progressives does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. They’d rather stand in the dark while blaming Hillary for it…
PhoenixRising
@Miss Bianca: I had a similarly bad experience in a county party meeting here in NM last month. There are some nutty, nutty people with CDS running around trying to revolutionize the Democratic Party.
Poopyman
@redshirt: My money’s on ratfuckers paid for by Karl Rove, with some clueless Berniebots following their lead.
Miss Bianca
@PhoenixRising: @redshirt: It’s just…almost scary. I really, really tried to find it somehow inspirational, as my Bernie Sanders friends – and I had a *hell* of a lot of them at the convention, it turned out – but I just found it nauseating. Infuriating. Frightening – it made my inner Hamilton start beating up my internal Jefferson*
*OHR, or Obligatory Hamilton Reference.
Poopyman
@efgoldman: Ahhhh! I see! I hope Cole is kicking back a little something for your efforts.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
He’s already flip-flopped on this 3 times.
He maintained his opposition to suing gun makers until right before Iowa, then he flip flopped to supporting law suits.
Then before the Michigan primary (a gun state) he flip-flopped back to his original position opposing law suits.
Now on the eve of the NY primary he flip flops again.
The clown is a fraud.
Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class
@Miss Bianca:
Bernie and his followers are like characters from an Allen Drury novel, and his novels suck because the characters are so cartoonish.
Iowa Old Lady
@Miss Bianca: That sounds stressful. It’s hard to stay rational when the other side is caught up in their own passion. At the door they should have issued T-shirts that say “Talk less, smile more.”
redshirt
@Miss Bianca: So after all the purity yelling, what were the results?
Miss Bianca
@efgoldman: No, the problem was that they were *all* reliable Democrats, or were – the one who got up making a ranting speech comparing BS to FDR< MLK, JFK,RFK, KKK – oh, sorry, did I say that? – or was it the Clinton(s) (plural, always plural, with them!) who were to be compared to the KKK and others who fucked up the Democratic brand? – him, I think we've lost.
ThresherK
@jl: “small gun stores that follow all the laws and regs in good faith”
Slight tangent: I would like to have this delved into by some journo. I guess my first question is, will Store X’s “good faith” stop anything, or is it like putting one band aid on a colander. And my second: What does good faith look like in a state such as Texas?
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
HOLLYWOOD — (Variety) Hillary Clinton to star in remake of “West Side Story” (video – scroll down).
The Thin Black Duke
To be fair, I have to wonder how many of these alleged Bernie Sanders “supporters” are sock puppets of the Koch brothers.
lamh36
Weekly #HouseHunters rant….couple BARELY look over 30 yrs old and they have a 1.5 Million budget for a home!!!!
Yes, I’m jealous…ugh.
ETA: THEY HAVE 3 KIDS…WHAT DA HELL DO THEY DO????
(In Orange County)
Cacti
Whatever his reasons, I’m glad he has changed his mind, provided that this change stays with him after the primary is over.
Miss Bianca
@redshirt: they won the plurality of delegates, for God’s sake! But no – they wanted more. They want to try to force the CO super delegates to “change their votes” – to Sanders. That’s their idea of democracy – “change the rules to benefit my side! And change YOUR vote to reflect MINE!” We’re not quite to a la lanterne territory yet, with anyone who disagrees with them or doesn’t support their agenda – but for the first time I could imagine what a shit-show an actual Bernie Revolution might unfold if they were able to pull it off.
smith
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class:
Y’know, this plus the speculation earlier about Republican ratfucking makes me wonder if we’re not seeing one big piece of performance art. It’s like someone is putting on a play based on a cartoon of a middle American’s worst fears about wild-eyed radicals. Could be very helpful in the GE for the R nominee to point to this kind of stuff and yell about how extreeeeme the Democratic Party is. Especially if we see more of the same on national TV at the convention. Given that the Dem line is going to be about how extreme the Rs have become, it is positively Rovian.
Major Major Major Major
What is it with all this pro-Sanders/anti-Hillary crap on the first page? I get that this is a BernieBlog but could you at least get a front-pager to post something positive about Hillary
patroclus
@redshirt: What about Harriet Christian? And the 9-hour wank-fest on Michigan/Florida? And the firebagger/PUMA’s right around convention time?
To me, this is sort of Sanders’ last gasp – right before the NY primary. But there is a clear difference – Clinton’s supporters in 2008 were much more establishment-types than Sanders’ supporters this year. Once beaten, they (largely) accepted the results and moved on. This year, it seems far less likely that they will do the same,so I expect Rules challenges, Platform challenges and much more turmoil at our convention than desired. Kind of like Jerry Brown in 1992, but about 4 times larger. They’ll probably have way more than enough delegates for at least some Floor challenges, so it seems likely that, barring some major effort by Bernie himself to tamp them down post 6/5, they’ll continue at least until the convention and probably beyond. It’ll still be tamer than the Republicans, but it’ll be plenty for a “both sides do it” analysis. I’m sure Ron Fournier will be in high dudgeon about anything like it by the Dems.
And on the gun issue itself, color me skeptical of this latest convergence by Sanders. Sure, anybody can sue is not quite the same thing as an actual statute empowering such suits.
J R in WV
This revelation to Senator Sanders that has led him to try to disconnect from the gun lobby he has been so close to for so long, was it borne on a golden pillow by angels, or carried on a bolt of lightning to his cell phone, or what?
Or from a pollster viewing the results of data gathering in states yet to vote in the primary season?
Go for it Bernie, grab all you can get hold of!
So transparent. Sad, kinda. Spent all those years convincing everyone he was sure of his principles, now that’s all shot to hell.
Technocrat
@Cacti:
Ditto. This.
Credit where it’s due.
Cacti
@redshirt:
I’ve never thought the most vociferous Bernfeelers were Democrats.
Greens, left libertarians, etc. People who view liberals as the real obstacle to the people’s revolution, because liberals believe in working within the existing system.
Litlebritdifrnt
@lamh36: I just tweeted that if you had “perfect for entertaining” in the drinking game you would be hitting alcoholic poisoning right now.
Aqualad08
@Bobby Thomson:
First thing my cynical mind thought, too….
It’s a welcome change, but I’d like to welcome Bernie to the “Politicians Who Will Say Anything to Win Club”….
Technocrat
@Iowa Old Lady:
They should just hand each attendee a nice bowl of Kush. This is Colorado.
Snack fights might replace floor fights though.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@patroclus: what kind of “floor challenges” could they possibly have?
Gin & Tonic
@efgoldman: Non-snarky question here. HRC, IIRC, has stated that her vote on the AUMF was a mistake and she regrets it. Has Sanders publicly admitted to making a political mistake, ever? I’d honestly like to know, since I am not up to speed on his history or all of his political statements.
Roger Moore
@Iowa Old Lady:
They’re definitely not going to go for the “don’t let them know what you’re against and what you’re for” part.
Baud
I hope they can find someone to unify the party after what will be a nasty convention battle fought to a stalemate. ;-)
patroclus
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: The same kind as there were in Colorado today: (1) eliminate superdelegates; (2) bind superdelegates to vote the way the state did; (3) a platform provision to eliminate SuperPac’s; (4) a requirement that all candidates must release transcripts of all speeches; (5) a platform position supporting Palestinian rights; (6) a platform position to ban Dem candidates from accepting PAC money; (7) changing the order of state primaries so that Southern states can’t go when they want. Man, if you give me time, I could come up with dozens of these!
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@J R in WV: It was probably from the lobster they were surviving on his private Boeing wide-bodied jet.
He sure does make sacrifices for his po’ starvn people.
eemom
Put me down on the side of those who suspect that the above-referenced statement — while, of course, welcome from the perspective of any sane person — was motivated by something OTHER than Sanders actually giving a shit about those dead kids. YMMV.
lamh36
I don’t know how it happened, but I’m watching Anthony Bourdain’s show on CNN.
He’s in Ethiopia, joined by Celeb chef Marcus Samuelsson and his wife Maya, apparently he was born in Ethiopia when he was young the TB Epidiemic hit his village, his mother took him and his sister and walked 75miles with him on her back and his sister at her side to the Swedish hospital. Marcus and his sister made it through the TB infection, but their mom did not…and they were eventually adopted by a Swedish family…
Wow…
PsiFighter37
@Miss Bianca: That’s because Bernie is NOT A DEMOCRAT, and the vast majority of his asshole followers aren’t either – and have no intention of being Democrats either.
It’s a huge mistake to allow someone who has actively shat on the party for decades (calling it the ‘lesser of two evils’) to do their darndest to burn the house down from the inside. Make no mistake – that is what Bernie is trying to do.
That said, if he tries a Naderite run – and Trump is the GOP nominee – I think he’ll end up stealing votes from both Hillary and the Donald. Loyal Democrats definitely wouldn’t vote for Bernie, and I think there is a non-zero chance that you see a 1992-style wipeout on the EV front, even if Hillary ends up getting something like 40% of the popular vote. I’m not super-certain, but there’s no way Bernie retains anywhere near the amount of support he has now if he goes third party.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@patroclus: yeah, but none of that shit gets him a win. if they eliminate SDs he loses. if they mandate SDs to follow state results he loses. if they rewrite the rules so delegates are apportioned on a winner-take-all basis, instead of proportional, he still loses.
Technocrat
@Baud:
This is it…the opening for Baud! the Uniter. it’s like destiny.
Iowa Old Lady
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: All of which goes to show that math is apparently hard.
Gin & Tonic
@lamh36: Samuelsson is a fascinating person.
Gin & Tonic
@PsiFighter37: He won’t go third-party, and neither will Trump. It’s too hard, and the filing deadlines come up too soon.
lamh36
I can’t remember where I first had Ethiopian food, but I’m sure it was Dallas and I wasn’t a fan of the Injera bread, too spongy. Also too, I just not a fan of eating an entire meal with my hands, I mean, I’ll eat finger food, but an entire meal with my hands…I just wasn’t ready.
Gin & Tonic
@efgoldman: Thanks, but that question wasn’t really directed at you, but rather at the assembled multitudes.
patroclus
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Indeed, but winning at that stage wouldn’t really be the point (as it really hasn’t been since Super Tuesday – Ohio/Illinois). Kennedy knew he wasn’t going to win in 1980, but he kept at it (with the unbinding of delegates floor fight). Hart tried to convert the supers in 1984; Jerry Brown some “old fashioned protests” in 1992. Continuing to the convention despite not really having a chance to win is a LONG Democratic tradition. Just because it hasn’t happened for 24 years doesn’t mean that Sanders supporters won’t do the same thing. In 2008, Obama was the insurgent campaign and wasn’t losing, but usually the insurgent Democrat (like Sanders) doesn’t win, so we get the protests. Sanders’ math will be bad, but his supporters seem likely to continue fighting despite it. Unless, like Hillary in 2008, he tamps it down.
dmsilev
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: No, you’re not following events fully. The Sanders campaign has argued, apparently seriously, that superdelegates in states that Sanders won should be bound to vote for Sanders, but that superdelegates in states Hillary won should be free to vote their consciences (i.e. vote for Sanders). Though it hasn’t come up, I’m sure a similar line of argument would apply to winner-take-all vs proportional delegate allocations.
redshirt
@PsiFighter37: He might get 27% but that’s certainly enough to throw the election to whatever crazeball the Republicans puke up. They’re gonna get 43-44 minimum by default. If there’s a 3rd party Sanders the election easily goes Republican.
schrodinger's cat
OT: I am in a market for a new laptop. Any suggestions for a windows laptop? What about the 2-in-1 machines?
Baud
@schrodinger’s cat: Don’t get an Asus.
jl
@lamh36: I hope you have reformed yourself on Ethiopian food. I think it is great, and there are many cuisines where you eat with your hands, it is just that, unlike South Asian or West African restaurants I have been too, more Ethiopian places stay old school and don’t hand out implements unless they are requested.
My main problem with Ethiopian food is Injera. I love it and want to eat it all the time. But the fermentation can take up to three days, and people who know say the long fermentation doesn’t work well with small amounts. And from my experiments, they seem to be right. So, I have to wait well over a day, and seem to have to make a shitload for it to turn out well.
redshirt
@efgoldman: Your fingers to FSM’s noodly ears. It would be the absolute best result, maybe bringing back both the House and the Senate in the process.
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: They won’t go to the national convention. The estimated cost of attendance for delegates at the national convention in Philadelphia is between $3,800 and about $6,000. Do you get the impression that these folks have the money to drop on that? That they’re employed in a way that will let them take a week off to do so even if they have the resources?
PhoenixRising
@dmsilev:
But how many elected Dems are there in Utah, Idaho and…Jesus these people. Math is hard, isn’t it?
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@dmsilev: yes. by definition, it’s had to keep up with Calvinball
I imagine Sanders will next propose
BlackSouthern delegates only counting as 3/5 of a vote.Cat48
@Miss Bianca:
The states delegates met & certified the delegate count & both candidates sent representatives to oversee it b4 the convention n 2008. The winner was certified that day. Hopefully it will b a repeat n 2016. It was televised so it should give everyone time to adjust b4 Convention time.? ?
jl
@PsiFighter37: Sanders has repeatedly promised not to go third party, and said he respects ‘the process’ and will do everything he can to defeat GOP no matter who is the nominee.
I don’t know why some commenters have gone so far down the rabbit hole on the Democratic primary that they obsess over counterfactual fever dreams. We have to worry about the loser of the Dem debate being a passive aggressive asshole and not following through on their promise to ‘do everything’, and I think Clintons are just as suspect on that score as Sanders, but I think no chance there will be a third party run from Sanders.
jeffreyw
@schrodinger’s cat: The Dell XPS line is getting lots of plaudits.
jl
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
” I imagine Sanders will next propose Black Southern delegates only counting as 3/5 of a vote. ”
Let’s talk about the awful things BernieBros says online…
Technocrat
@Adam L Silverman:
That’s only six motorcades worth of cash, Adam. No biggie.
qwerty42
@patroclus: … (7) changing the order of state primaries so that Southern states can’t go when they want. …
uh … what? Maybe they should … oh, I don’t know … have a test POC must pass to vote? Count their votes 3/5? Ban them altogether? I have been in favor of the race between Hillary and Bernie, but this is repellent. I don’t believe Sen Sanders would do or authorize this, but there is something wrong with the ones who did. Maybe they should be considering just who or what they are really for.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@Baud: uh-oh. what went wrong. I got a asus desktop. 2 years in and so far so good. what should i keep my eyes on.
Adam L Silverman
@ThresherK: There are some specific examples. About a month ago a gun store owner refused to sell to a customer because the guy set him on edge even though the customer had cleared the required background checks. The store owner also contacted law enforcement who were, fortunately, able to intervene because the guy had been planning a mass shooting.
http://wtvr.com/2016/03/28/gun-store-owner-refuses-to-sell-weapon-to-man-suspected-of-planning-mass-shooting-at-university/
It does happen. I have no idea how frequently. That said, given the penalties for actually not being responsible, I can’t imagine why one would want to risk it, even though some do.
Miss Bianca
@Adam L Silverman: Damn it Doctor, are you talking me down off the ledge? ; )
ETA: In all seriousness, you did not see the number of people on the ballot to be at-large delegates, many campaigning who were very young, and a good number who were older like my ranting friend, who have some means. Does that mean they would be capable of kicking up shit? I dunno. Possibly.
lamh36
@jl: I have not…I do recall that I enjoyed the meal, but I did ask for utensils and I didn’t eat much of the bread.
But since my visit to India, I’ve gotten a better appreciation for African and Pan-Asian cuisine.
I’m not even sure where I’d get Ethiopian food here in NOLA, but I’ll be going to DFW at the end of the month, so maybe its time I give it another try
Adam L Silverman
@lamh36: Regular unprotected sexual relations based on the number of kids. Or was your question in regards to something else?
Luthe
A few minor points:
The CT primary is on the 26th. I know y’all think this is a pander to NY voters, but it is equally a pander to their neighbors (who live in the state where the suit is proceeding).
@PhoenixRising: The judge has allowed the suit to proceed because while gun-makers are shielded from liability in most cases, the families are arguing the manufacturer knew they were putting a military-grade weapon into civilian hands, and therefore were marketing to people they knew were unfit to handle those weapons. The shield doesn’t extend to knowingly providing weapons to people who couldn’t and shouldn’t have them. It’s a narrow line to walk, but thus far the court is going for it.
(I live a mile from the Newtown border. The lawsuit is front-page news in my local paper. I am acquainted with one of the Sandy Hook first responders. I might just have a few opinions on the topic.)
Elie
@Miss Bianca:
I am steeling myself for the County convention (Whatcom Co. WA) May 1st.. Not sure how you prepare, but you have given me a word to the wise….
Roger Moore
@lamh36:
Does that mean you eat pizza or a burger and fries with utensils? And if that’s your feeling, you should definitely avoid going to an Indian banana leaf restaurant.
Adam L Silverman
@Major Major Major Major: She looked very nice in that jacket at the last debate. How’s that?
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@jl: I am not the one saying winning South Carolina is like winning Guam or I’m winning if you don’t count the south, as if all voters aren’t equal.
I am not throwing dollar bills at her as if she was a stripper. Or saying she’s unqualified or calling her a whore.
Doug R
@J R in WV: Hmmm, both New York and California have the largest populations AND they both have tight gun laws….
Baud
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: I have a 2-in-1. It freezes up when it’s been in sleep mode for a while.
Bob In Portland
Look, if the US allows manufacturers to be sued if their products are connected to any crime it will be interesting times. Sort of like suing GM if someone runs over you in a Buick.
I’m pretty sure that all those folks who have been funneling money into Hillary’s various PACs and charities won’t want anything like that to stand. Maybe there’s a way to segregate guns from anything else manufactured, but I don’t see how. If I manufacture a rifle, ship it to Cabela’s, someone comes in and buys it, then six months later his cousin borrows it and shoots up a black church, how am I responsible? You could say that because guns kill people we should ban the manufacture of guns, but I don’t think that will get far either, and just imagine all the guns smuggled across the borders.
I think it was a red herring to start with, and will probably be thrown out long before it reaches the Supreme Court, but consequences of this case standing up would be awesome.
Can anyone here explain why this suit will succeed?
Luthe
@efgoldman: I’m sorry that happened to you, ve says from ver five-year old workhorse of an ASUS laptop.
? Martin
@dmsilev: Yeah, the more reports I hear about Sanders supporters at conventions (which is a particular minority of Sanders supporters) the more I wonder where all of Ron Pauls supporters ran off to. My sense of Pauls supporters is that they were pretty much fixated on anti-war/pro-pot. That’s a pretty short journey over to Sanders if that’s all you care about.
The strategy and tactics employed by the supporters are nearly identical. I’m less worried about Sanders wanting to throw support to Clinton should she become inevitable (I’m confident he will), and more worried about whether his supporters will follow along.
lamh36
Hope folks saw it…really enjoyed it. I suspect the big bucks are because the movie was primairly on 3D screens which is more expensive.
PsiFighter37
@jl: I say it because Sanders’ campaign has veered quite off-track from what he originally said it would be, and the blather from his supporters, Weaver, Devine, and the candidate himself have become further removed from reality.
Just to reiterate something I have said plenty of times before: Bernie is much further behind than Hillary ever was in 2008, and she never caught Obama. Why the hell do Bernie supporters think that math is going to work differently this time?
redshirt
@efgoldman: If I lived in New Zealand I’d come out as a Jedi. And proud and not afraid.
jl
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: I heard a clip of Sanders himself talk about his lack of success in the South, and I didn’t hear him say that either. Please produce a clip where you think that he talks like that and I will listen to it and see whether I agree.
Adam L Silverman
@Technocrat: Its per delegate. Not for all of them.
dr. bloor
@lamh36: At least they have kids. My spontaneous combustion trigger is for the 20-30’s childless couple with a Pekingese who need 4000 square feet and four bedrooms.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@efgoldman: @Baud: Thanks. now I know what to avoid.
dmsilev
@PsiFighter37:
Because a bird landed on his podium one time.
dr. bloor
@PsiFighter37:
Math? MATH? We don’t need no stinking math.
Bob In Portland
@J R in WV:
I think Sanders’ original position was from his knowledge of American law. It’s not like he’s for gun crimes. With the instant case being allowed to proceed he must have figured WTF. But why should he argue against your unicorn? The courts will undoubtedly squash this. That is, unless we all keep clapping…
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: Some will be able to make it. Some won’t be able to afford it. But the party is going to decide. And while Will Rogers’ statement about disorganization is always both in play and good for a giggle vis a vis the Democratic Party, I fully expect the party to exert control. On both Senator Sanders and on his top campaign officials. If Devine and Weaver blow everything up their careers will be over.
Peale
Went to see the Jungle Book and Sing Street this weekend, on the former, I’ll say see it and spring for the 3d on the big screen if you can. It will not translate well to your home monitor. Sher Khan is the villain of the year, if villains could have awards.
As for sing street…I’m still humming the songs a day later. It’s said that 80s nostalgia has run its course, so it will have trouble finding an audience. Its an eighties teen movie in spirit, so if you are bored with the idea of the underdog winning the girl, you probably are too far gone into adulthood to enjoy the movie. Otherwise, you might want to have a date night with it.
Roger Moore
@jl:
Hillary proved her good faith on that in 2008, so it’s hard to see a reason to doubt her in 2016.
The Lodger
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Keep your disk backed up. Mine went south after 16 months and I wasn’t able to recover everything on it.
Renie
What’s the backstory on how Sanders was able to run as a Democrat in the primary? Who made this decision?
Doug R
@Bob In Portland: See upthread. They marketed a military weapon to civilians deliberately.
Bailey
He hasn’t changed his mind and this isn’t a flip-flop. Everyone does have a right to sue. He’s never denied that. (And who would?) The real question is whether gun manufacturers actually have liability in a shooting such as this. Sanders argument has always been that they don’t.
And frankly, as someone who loathes guns, has actually been shot, and would vote for the strictest gun control measures brought to the table, I agree. Unless the weapon actually malfunctioned and killed someone because of faulty design or manufacturing and becomes an actual products liability case. The idea that one industry should be singled out for liability in a way that other industries are not does not make for good law or policy.
Bob In Portland
@dr. bloor: Why do Clinton supporters want to end the primary season before everyone gets to vote?
Doug R
@Bailey: Remington marketed it irresponsibly.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@jl:
how does a “southern” vote distort reality over non “southern” votes? What is it about them that is distorting.
See, if we dont count those distorting “southern” voters, he’d be ahead.
lolz whatevez
lamh36
@Adam L Silverman: ha…it was yes…I just didnt’ even notice the kids until they mentioned that they had on less room so the male kids had to share..
Schlemazel (parmesan rancor)
@jl:
We have a place about 10 minutes from us where we can buy injera fresh so I don’t even try to make it any more. I also have a recipe (hollar if you want me to dig it out) for something very close. It is made with buckwheat pancake mix and soda water. It is not as spongy but it has a little vinegar so you get that tang.
bmoak
@lamh36:
Yeah, Samuelson’s backstory is pretty well-known. He’s known for cooking African/African-American, but got his start in NYC at Aquavit, a straight-up Swedish restaurant.
Miss Bianca
@Adam L Silverman: Adam, what do you think will happen to this movement that appears to have spring up in the wake of Bernie Sanders? He seems like a hell of a loose cannon to try to contain. Even if they do muzzle him or make him bark a more establishment tune, aren’t we going to have a lot of purity ponies galloping around going, ‘Nay, neigh, foul!”? Or with the head gone/co-opted, will this movement’s energy peter out, like the Occupy Movement’s did?
Bailey
@Doug R:
As I understand, Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S which is a semi-automatic weapon. While it has a military functionality (or if sold to the military), the semi-automatic conforms with the current National Firearms Act.
Is there any indication that it did not?
Adam L Silverman
@Bob In Portland: It mostly likely won’t. If I had to guess, largely because I haven’t seen any of the briefs submitted – so this is a SWAG, I’d reckon that the families’ attorneys are going to/are arguing that since the military has significant number of M4s and M16s that only have the options of three round burst and one round fired per trigger pull, as opposed to full automatic, that the difference between and M4/M16 and an AR15 is very thin to functionally non-existent. As a result of that, they should be covered under the National Firearms Act as having no purpose other than military. Of course, even if they can get this admitted as fact and upheld on appeal, they then run afoul of Heller, which used as part of its reasoning that weapons appropriate for the militia are appropriate for civilian purpose in regard to the (now) explicit right to keep and bear arms for self defense. Since the weapons appropriate for a militia force in 2016 would certainly include an M4 and M16, then a formal legal acknowledgment that an AR15 is functionally and practically not different from them, may be a pyrrhic victory. All of this should be taken with the caveat that I’m not a lawyer and if Omnes or LAO or Bella or SteveATL or burnsesq (or anyone I missed) think I’ve gacked this explanation up, I’m interested in seeing their take/takes.
Elie
@The Thin Black Duke:
Yes — that has occurred to me. He has been getting a lot of “foreign” contributions that they can’t/wont track… I don’t want to get too weird, but you could see how this might work and be untraceable.. The money for that big charter to the Vatican, the whole ongoing melodrama — maybe as jl says, he will fall in line. I hope so….
lamh36
@Roger Moore: I do eat but I’m a bit OCD when it comes to having things in my nails, so I have to have like 20 million napkins and handiwipes and such available.
So when I eat pizza say from Pizza Hut or something, then I do eat a slice with my hands, but I admit, I have also used a a knife to cut them up slices and them eaten them….I have my moments basically
Adam L Silverman
@efgoldman: Not just that, no matter his not taking a position now, the President doesn’t want his legacy to be “everything undone between January and February 2017 because of a GOP controlled Congress and a Republican President”. So I’m sure word has gone down to the appropriate party officials that a circular firing squad is not acceptable, nor is it an option.
Bob In Portland
@Doug R: Hmm. It’s an interesting theory, but can you argue that that gun cannot be used to defend your house or your property? That would be like you can’t sue the manufacturer over the Buick that runs over you but you can sue if you’re run over by a Humvee.
It is an interesting legal theory, but I don’t see it going all the way through to be established law. Not that I would mind seeing these guns off the streets, but I’m sure that the manufacturer will point to Congress not reauthorizing the weapons ban from a decade or so back. Either a semi-automatic weapon has a legal use not in combat or Congress authorized by default the sale of semi-automatics for the citizens of this country.
I don’t see this case prevailing, but I’m all for this case going forward, and I’m sure Sanders is too.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@Bailey:
???
He voted to grant them immunity from law suits, which denies people the right to sue.
other industries aren’t creating products designed to massacre people. Who the fuck needs a mac-9 with a suppressor?
what is wrong with you people?
Adam L Silverman
@lamh36: The law equally prohibits both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges.
? Martin
@Bailey:
So you have the right to sue, but not the right to have the court consider your case.
That’s a pretty fine line being walked. It’s curious how the court system can be trusted to determine liability in every product category except for one.
lamh36
@Peale: my bae Idris was awesome wasn’t he.
Bob In Portland
@Adam L Silverman: Thanks for your explanation.
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: If I had to guess, I’d say a couple of things will happen. There will be an official attempt to co-opt him. He’ll be promised a very specific couple of committee chairs to choose from if the Democrats retake the Senate. He’ll also be assured that he can speak at the Convention. And I would expect that there will be assurances that some of his key advisors, or people he deems sufficiently correct on the issues that he cares about, will get important positions in the administration should the Democrats prevail. In other words he’ll be given chances to showcase the issues he clearly cares a ton about and to place some of his people in places to move the ball forward on those issues.
? Martin
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
No. No, no, no.
They can sue, but the suit will be tossed out immediately without consideration of the claims. It’s like voting in North Korea. Not only do they have democratic votes, but they mandate voting. It just, well, there are fewer people on their ballot than ours, but otherwise its exactly like the US. Maybe Australia.
Bailey
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
Then change the law to make those types of weapons illegal.
Bob In Portland
@? Martin: No, you have the right to sue. If the judge allows the case to proceed you have the right to sue the manufacturer and get a decision in court. According to the law, you very probably won’t win.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@The Lodger: thanks.
Cacti
@Bob In Portland:
So it was shallow and poorly informed then?
Gin & Tonic
I, for one, find it interesting to see the number of pro-Sanders commenters here also coming out as pro-gun. That’s a Venn diagram I didn’t expect.
Adam L Silverman
@Bob In Portland: You’re welcome. Also, in case I was a bit muddled: the military still issues, when appropriate, fully automatic fire M16s and M4s and other long guns. There is a recognition, however, that full auto shooting, especially in an adrenaline dump into your system combat situation is just going to wind up in spraying, praying, and wasting ammunition. Hence even when issued a gun that has options for full automatic, three round burst, and single shot the standard operating procedure is for three round burst. At least from my experience. Please remember I’m just a silly civilian, but this was how I was trained for my deployment.
Adam L Silverman
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Cartel member that doesn’t want hearing damage if I had to guess.
patroclus
@Gin & Tonic: I’m not surprised at all. Sanders’ constituency is not in the large cities – it is mostly in rural areas or suburbs that are far more pro-gun than urban Dems. Moreover, he started his career back in the 70’s as complete 2nd Amendment purist (I read a really interesting article in Reason about that) and has only gradually become more aware of the horrific results of gun violence. He’s moved, to be sure, but he is very much more pro-gun than the Democratic party generally. It’s not surprising that those that are pro-gun are supporting him more than they do Clinton. On most issues, he’s left-leaning; on guns, he isn’t (or, at best, has only recently been so).
gwangung
@Adam L Silverman: None of this bothers me…it’s something he’s earned and all quite proper for a candidate who received lesser, but still significant numbers of votes.
Luthe
@Adam L Silverman: Well, here’s the judge’s ruling on whether the case could proceed, if any of the lawyer types would like to analyze it.
Bailey
@Gin & Tonic:
I personally am not pro-gun at all. But I am pro-law. So not sure how that fits into your Venn diagram.
Adam L Silverman
@gwangung: This is how things are supposed to work. Its not always an appetizing process, but if its done correctly, the outcome is palatable.
Miss Bianca
@Adam L Silverman: Color me comforted at the thought, but a little dubious, still. I may just be superstitious, but I got spooked. I’d really like to think that all the brou-ha-ha is just smoke and noise. I’d *like* to think that – it gives me pleasure. But sometimes I wonder if the man has, as my mother used to say, more nerve than sense, and that he will try wring things out longer than they should go for real party unity.
I worry.
Adam L Silverman
@Luthe: Thanking you!
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: He may not play this out in a savvy fashion. His advisors, who clearly have their own agendas – that overlap with his for the most part (but I’m not sure completely) and certainly don’t seem to overlap with the Democratic Party’s very much, may back him into a position he can’t get out of. If this happens I expect the party will lower the boom on him.
? Martin
@Bailey:
So a law banning dildos is okay in your book because it’s a law? Abortion? Black people voting? Not all laws are deserving of defense. Does that make me anti-law?
gwangung
@Adam L Silverman: I think Sanders himself would deal; it’s some of his supporters that I think would be disillusioned (they don’t have any reason to be, but there are enough of them who think Clinton somehow “cheated” that makes me uneasy).
ETA: Yeah….”savvy” is not a description I’d apply to his campaign.
Adam L Silverman
@efgoldman: Without a doubt. And running an actual Democrat against him in his 2018 Senate reelection campaign. While I prefer Senator Durbin to Senator Schumer, I have little doubt that Senator Schumer has sharp knives and a willingness to use them if he feels the need.
magurakurin
@redshirt:
fuck em. Let them try. After we get her over the goal line, they will be sent to the sidelines forever. Losing isn’t an option. The job will have to get done with or without them. They will have to make a choice, same as everyone else. Help or hinder. No one is responsible for anyone else’s vote or actions.
Bailey
@? Martin:
The answer here is very simple: change the underlying law.
In the real world, that isn’t so politically simple, obviously, but an industry that is conforming to the law will not be held liable in a products liability case unless their product had actually malfunctioned. There’s not record of that.
The better argument is why that industry is allowed to unduly influence the actual writing of the laws but if I’ve learned anything from this blog in the last couple of days, it is that big money is non-corrupting and cannot possibly influence a lawmaker. At least certainly not HRC. Or something like that.
Miss Bianca
@efgoldman: @Adam L Silverman: So, in other words, presuming that HRC wins the nomination, wins the election, “lowering the boom” translates into “it’s back to the back benches with you, Bernie?”
Bob In Portland
@Adam L Silverman: The last time I fired a gun was an M-16, in 1974 at Fort Devens for my yearly qualification. So my personal knowledge of various weapons is long ago and far away.
Adam L Silverman
@Bob In Portland: Tracking.
patroclus
@? Martin: Good point. What about, say, laws that make big banks legal, or don’t make them illegal? Or laws that don’t make speculative derivatives trading illegal? Just because these laws are the way they are, does that make criticism of them illegitimate? I could say that I’m not pro-big bank or pro-speculative derivatives trading, but I am pro-law. What would that mean exactly? Am I objectively pro-big bank and pro-speculative derivatives trading? Or merely in favor of the rule of law?
There are several industries where strict liability is “the law.” That is, they are automatically liable, but their aggregate liability is then limited to specified maximum amounts. Why isn’t that the case with gun manufacturers?
Ruckus
@Gin & Tonic:
Leads you to wonder who some of his supporters really are, doesn’t it.
Funny thing is I understand the gun thing a bit. I used to hunt and shoot and owned guns. I reloaded my own ammo. Two of the friends I hung out with most became cops and as stated here before I carried a loaded gun on while on duty in the navy. But all of this was 45-50 yrs ago. Life has changed dramatically over that long a time. Also none of my hunting friends open carried or even concealed carried. Crime was up, while the population has grown rather greatly here in the land of fruits and nuts and crime is down. Anyway guns were part of life, but they were tools. They were not a big deal for most people and they still aren’t. We used them to gather food and we ate what we killed. Except the tin cans in the dump. And most of the people that I knew that were “gun” people 45-50 yrs ago were/are democrats. And people have been (mis)informed that politicians are trying to take away all those guns. Which of course will not happen in my life time. Maybe in the lifetime of some on this blog, but not mine. Should they? I think that over time fewer and fewer will see guns as a necessary thing and of course this is already happening. At some time there will be a tipping point, many of us thought Sandy Hook was that point but we aren’t ready for that yet. We should be ready and many of us are well past ready but there is a not small enough portion of this country still that believes that the need for guns is even more necessary now. That group needs to get smaller for the tipping point to be reached.
Glidwrith
@Bob In Portland: Also not a lawyer, but I can think of an industry targeted because of their product: tobacco. They deliberately targeted children in advertising campaigns in an effort to addict each new generation. There is plenty of advertising on the part of the arms dealers to feed as much paranoia to the nut balls as possible and every effort to sabotage the means to keep guns out of their hands.
Miss Bianca
@efgoldman: Understood.
Bob In Portland
@? Martin:
It suggests that you are not following the argument. The dildo thing was another case, too. If you want to sue someone you have to be able to explain the legal chain of liability up to the manufacturer. You can sue a car manufacturer if the car is defective and the defect causes a loss. But if the car is used improperly, say to run over a bunch of people walking down the street, then how do you connect the improper use of that product to the manufacturer? Understand yet?
Adam L Silverman
@Ruckus: I got your final response in last night’s thread when I got up this morning and it was then a dead thread. As I indicated: if you decide you want to try it, email me and I’ll talk you through getting started so to speak. Also, you were expecting them to advertise a fitness product with people that don’t look, in advertising terms, as in shape?
Bailey
@Glidwrith:
They were also lying about the addictive quality of their product and the knowledge of associated health risks.
Is anything about the gun industry marketing suggesting that guns will make people less dead?
Is there any indication that the gun industry is marketing the Bushmaster to children?
Having said that, it may make more tactical sense to target lawsuits against third party companies that produce violent weapons as toys marketed to children. In a game of inches earned and all that.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bob In Portland: An argument can be made that the strict liability should apply.
Bob In Portland
@Glidwrith: It’s an interesting theory, but I’m not sure that the parallel follows. By the definition, the proper use of a gun is to hunt or defend oneself, not shoot up a campus or a grammar school. Cigarettes are prohibited from certain types of advertising and is illegal to sell to minors. I’d look at the long legal slog through the courts to fight cigarettes and not give much chance for success in this case.
JerryN
@efgoldman: I know this may be heresy to say here, but Sanders is an experienced and fairly successful politician. I think he knows how the end game is played. He also has a couple of things to offer that the Clinton campaign would do well to leverage – his appeal to some demographics that Clinton has not connected with and an organization that has been wildly successful at getting small-dollar donations. Absent someone high up in one of the 2 campaigns actively screwing the pooch, I’m pretty sure that both sides will come to terms well in advance of the convention.
Bailey
@Omnes Omnibus:
Virtually all products liability is strict liability. Would still need to demonstrate either a design or manufacturing defect.
By design, this weapon conforms to present law. There’s been no showing of a manufacturing defect.
Glidwrith
@Bailey:
Um, the industry is always claiming guns don’t kill people, people kill people. They also make damned sure the government can’t conduct any research through the CDC concerning gun-related deaths or even let doctors ask if there is a gun in the house.
As far as marketing to children, they most certainly do – http://www.crickett.com/ – my first rifle AGES 4 to 10.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bailey: Failure to warn. Not saying it isn’t a stretch. Just saying the argument can be made.
patroclus
@Omnes Omnibus: Indeed. If, say, we were to apply the law currently applicable to nuclear power plants – they are strictly liable for damages but those damages, in the aggregate are capped – to gun manufacturers, we would have a completely different paradigm in which they would be pressured by the law to pay much closer attention to safety and marketing etc… But that would take either a statute (now blocked by the NRA) or a landmark court ruling; neither of which are likely. So, we’re stuck with the current paradigm, which leads to multiple Sandy Hooks on a much more frequent timeframe. It’s too bad, the gun lobby is even better at being for “the law” than the big banks are for the “law.”
Bob In Portland
Well, good luck for the plaintiffs.
Bailey
@Glidwrith:
Sure, and the argument is easily going to be: Adam Lanza picked up that weapon and shot up a grade school. The gun did not leap up and do it by itself. It’s a stupid slogan for sure, but the fact remains that Adam Lanza used a legally acquired weapon to do what weapons do.
The weapon isn’t marketed to suggest that bullets WON’T be fired from it. It isn’t marketed to suggest that it has 12 stages of safety features on it. If it were, then you’d have some pretty solid grounds to base a lawsuit on.
Agreed. Change the damned law. Get big money out of politics. I know that’s an impolite thing to say on these boards since Balloon Juice is now HQ for supporting big money in politics but if you want to change this kind of legislation, that’s what it will take.
In the meantime, Sanders points his fingers a lot and has an unappealing vocal timber. Oh, and his voters are so obnoxious.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bailey:
Bullshit.
patroclus
@Bailey: So, do you favor changing the laws to make gun manufacturers more likely to be liable or not? And, how would getting “big money out of politics” affect the liability of gun manufacturers?
Cacti
@patroclus:
Guns are the picture of an inherently dangerous/ultra-hazardous product, as they kill when functioning as designed. If they were anything other than guns, owners and manufacturers would likely be subject to a strict liability standard for the damages they cause, much less a negligence standard.
Bailey
@Omnes Omnibus:
Failure to warn would apply if manufacture failed to warn of non-obvious risks.
There’s really nothing about picking up a gun and shooting it that is a non-obvious use of the weapon and/or it’s results.
A non-obvious risk might be that it kicks back and pumps out purple fumes that momentarily blind the shooter, but I don’t think that’s at play here.
If you say so. I’ve seen some incredible back-bending and acrobatics on display when it comes to defending HRC’s relationship with Wall Street banks and their obvious inability to influence her.
Glidwrith
@Bob In Portland: I don’t give the case much chase of success either, but you asked for an example of an industry held accountable for their product.
As far as proper gun use is concerned, the industry is also making sure the safe use of guns for hunting or home protection is not part of the equation. Witness the campaign for no-permit carry, elimination of any certification or training on how to handle a gun. Hell, how many guns are needed to protect a home? Hand guns are notorious for poor aim and bullets go right through the walls and into the neighbors’ homes. Why does the industry market so heavily for military-style weapons when I understand a long gun is considered the better one for home protection?
There is no mistaking this case is a heavy lift. Fighting the arms dealers always is, but I will take the tiny meager victories where I can get them, congratulate the lawmakers that try to stop them………..and continue watching the bodies pile up.
I’m done. Good night all.
Bailey
@patroclus:
How do you think the legislation is being written? And under what influence?
The law about CDC being restricted from studying the effects of gun violence enrages me. Why do we have such a law?
Major Major Major Major
Hi usual suspects! Everybody having a lovely evening?
Bob In Portland
@Gin & Tonic:
Not me, not Bailey. Who are you talking about? I haven’t touched a gun since I was legally obligated to, in the army. That was over forty years ago.
And I certainly am not standing in solidarity with gun manufacturers.
I just think that as long as guns are legal in the US that suing the manufacturers of guns is a not very rewarding way to stop gun violence. If a gun seller can be proven to have sold to someone for the express purpose of committing a crime, then you’ve got a case. I’m guessing that most people who buy guns don’t announce their intention of committing a crime with them at the time of purchase. But you’re still a few steps away from suing a manufacturer.
patroclus
@Cacti: Agreed. Which is why treating guns more like nuclear power plants in the “law” makes some logical sense. But the pro-gun people like the way the “law” works for them now and don’t want it changed. Because they aren’t being held liable now; certainly not on a strict liability basis. And the big banks don’t want their laws changed either; they like the “law” as it is now. Perhaps saying that one is “pro-law” really means that one is “pro-law” as it exists right now.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bailey:
Defending someone for effectively functioning within the current system does not equal defending the system.
patroclus
@Bailey: So, do you favor changing the law to make gun manufacturers more likely to be liable, or not? And how would getting “big money out of politics” affect the liability of gun manufacturers? I agree with you on the CDC, but you didn’t address either question.
Major Major Major Major
@Omnes Omnibus: I believe Hillary herself has said the same. As has Warren Buffett.
J R in WV
@<a hr@schrodinger’s cat:
I have had great luck with Acer Aspire laptops, although I do wipe the hard drives and install Linux on them. But mechanically and electronically they are very reliable. I can’t speak as to the Microsoft portion of the devices.
I found MS software failure-prone when I worked with it professionally. That was 8 years ago, though. I have heard that the latest versions are more reliable. But the design philosophy shows – if you have a Windows 8 machine, MS is willing to install Windows 10 right over top of your OS without your permission. I may have those numerical digits wrong, but the MS philosophy remains the same. They are in charge, not you.
Amaranthine RBG
@Adam L Silverman: I’m not an expert re the applicable law, but my understanding is that the plaintiffs in this suit argue that the sale amounted to a “negligent entrustment” which is an exception to immunity allowed by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
It is interesting that there have been scores of lawsuits against firearm manufacturers tossed since 2005 because of the PLCAA, both at the trial level and on appeal. (Even in the 9th Circuit.) I suppose the Judge _could_ be making a dispassionate ruling here that she believes comports with the law despite the interpretation of dozens of judges before her. Or it could be that she is going to allow the suit to proceed through discovery to give plaintiffs every opportunity to gather evidence supporting their “negligent entrustment” theory. Or it could be that judges in Connecticut are elected and the judge is thinking, “No way I am tossing this – let the Appellate Court deal with it.” Just speculating here, obviously.
A Ghost To Most
Miss Bianca,I want to thank you for enduring what sounds like a crazy day, along with the weather. I hope you are comfortable with whatever might improve your day. We are not worthy!
Shoveling snow doesn’t seem so bad now.
Bob In Portland
@patroclus:
Show me the law, show me how it’s going to get passed, and I’m right there with you. But if you could write a law strictly applying to gun manufacturers, how would that bump up against the Second Amendment as currently interpreted?
patroclus
@Omnes Omnibus: Well, it sort of does and sort of doesn’t. That’s why I asked Bailey whether he supports changing the law to make gun manufacturers more likely to be liable. If he agrees with Sanders (today’s position), then he isn’t just defending the gun manufacturers for effectively functioning in the system, he’s for changing the system. But if he doesn’t support Sanders’ current position, he is more likely just defending the system.
J R in WV
@jeffreyw:
Hardware techs I respect tell me that Dell uses many non-standard parts in their machines, which makes it impossible/difficult to work on them yourself. Or have any local shop with experience work on them either.
That said, the only Dell I ever bought would probably boot up right now, but it has been dormant for a couple of years now.
redshirt
@J R in WV: As opposed to MacOS?
Adam L Silverman
@Amaranthine RBG: It is going to be interesting to watch it play out.
redshirt
@Bob In Portland: So you’re pro-reality in some regards, unicorns for everything else?
Mnemosyne
@Bob In Portland:
The usual problem is straw purchasers — basically, a person who is banned from purchasing weapons (usually because of a felony conviction) has someone else purchase weapons on their behalf. Many of the gun sellers in those instances would have to be stupid not to know that if the person picking out the weapon then hands it to the other person to purchase it, that probably means that the first person is not legally allowed to buy a weapon. I’m not sure if there are any federal regulations about straw purchasing right now.
Bob In Portland
@Amaranthine RBG: I’m not sure that the plaintiffs can create a legal argument whereby a gun manufacturer sells a weapon to a gun dealer, who sells it to an adult who locks it up in a safe, whose son figures out how to get out the gun from the safe and then commits an irrational crime.
patroclus
@Bob In Portland: Well, the law in question was the one Sanders voted against. Now that he may have changed his position, do you agree with his new position? A new law would be something like I described – strict liability for gun manufacturers coupled with an overall cap on aggregate damages. Would you favor that?
Under Heller, virtually nothing would be held constitutional. But, if we can get Garland or another Justice appointed by Hillary or Bernie on the USSC, the line-up will change and it’ll likely be 5-4 the other way. Right now, it’s 4-4, so it’d revert back to the Court of Appeals and would vary per Circuit.
The question is – are Sanders’ supporters going to move with him or are they going to stay with his previous position? You sound like you’re either already there or would move. Bailey seems like he’s staying where he is.
Adam L Silverman
@Mnemosyne: The problem is getting the prosecutors to actually prosecute the straw purchases. It was this failure in Arizona – a disconnect between the ATF special task force that were making those cases and the US Attorney folks who wouldn’t prosecute them that contributed to what would be come Fast and Furious:
http://fortune.com/2012/06/27/the-truth-about-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/
Bob In Portland
@Mnemosyne: Straw purchasing wouldn’t apply in the instant case, if I recall correctly. The mother bought the gun legally.
SarahT
@lamh36: There’s Cafe Abyssinia and the Nile Cafe. Both are on Magazine, if I recall correctly.
Peale
@Bob In Portland: name one mass shooting where a safe was involved.
Gin & Tonic
@Bob In Portland:
How about if you could write a law strictly applying to campaign finance, how would that bump up against the First Amendment as currently interpreted?
burnspbesq
@Miss Bianca:
I wonder how many of them will ever actually become party activists, as opposed to Cult-of-Bernie members. 0.5 percent would be my guess.
Mnemosyne
@Bob In Portland:
I’m honestly not sure if she purchased them in her name on her own behalf or if she did make straw purchases. It’s kind of a moot point even if they were straw purchases because the mother was the first one to die, but the best they could do in that situation would be to sue the seller. That would probably be almost impossible now anyway since both people involved are now dead and there would be no way to prove it one way or the other. But IANAL, so I don’t actually know.
Mnemosyne
@Peale:
He’s talking about Sandy Hook, where the evidence does seem to indicate that Adam Lanza killed his mother and then raided her gun safe for the guns he used at the school.
Bobby Thomson
@Gin & Tonic:
For realz? That’s one of his primary constituencies and the reason he is so popular in the Mountain West, etc.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@schrodinger’s cat: I usually pick a computer based on my budget. Answer these questions (to yourself): How much am I willing to spend? How long will I keep the machine?
I would be suspicious of a detachable screen laptop, myself. I would worry about contact issues developing over time, especially if you plan on breaking and making the connection multiple times a week. But I have no data on that worry.
I’ve had laptops from IBM, Lenovo, Dell, Fujitsu, and Toshiba. And we’ve had several MacBooks and MacBook Pros. They’ve all been fine, but none have been perfect for 3+ years. Some develop keyboard issues (usually seemingly related to crap that gets under the keys). Some develop cranky video issues (e.g. there were some bad video chips many years ago). Some develop USB issues (apparently due to bad soldering somewhere). Some aren’t expandable (can’t add more RAM) or use funky hard drive sizes (my Fujitsu has a 1.8″ HD).
I’ve had good luck with refurbished machines. If you know exactly what you want, and get lucky, you can save quite a bit with a refurbished machine from the manufacturer.
I’m a big fan of getting a fast CPU and the ability to expand to 8-16 GB of RAM, but installing my own SSD. It takes time, but it’s much, much cheaper and you have more control over the SSD quality and speed.
I’m a big fan of decent screens. It used to be one had to spend a fortune to get anything more than 1024×768 on a laptop. If you’re going to be staring at the screen for years, and it’s not going to be hooked up to an external monitor, then spending more for more pixels might make sense.
HTH a little. Good luck!
Cheers,
Scott.
burnspbesq
@patroclus:
The unanswered question after Heller is what’s the standard of review. If the standard of review is rational basis, and if it’s applied in an intellectually honest manner, you can do a lot; even the New York licensing rules would probably survive. If it’s compelling state interest, fuhgedaboudit.
Bob In Portland
@patroclus:
I’d have to read the exact law. Which law is it? Link? I’d also be interested in hearing Sanders’ logic against the law at the time spelled out. If the law passed, it hasn’t been very successful, and if the law didn’t pass then it’s not the law in question.
I’ll admit that from my limited knowledge of gun laws that I thought Sanders opposed it because on its face it appeared to be unconstitutional.
redshirt
@Mnemosyne: A sweet NRA family.
Newtown is my nightmare and it happened and we as a nation shrugged it off. I was/am shocked.
J R in WV
@redshirt:
No, as opposed to many versions of Linus.
I run Ubuntu 14.04 LTS right now, have used many other versions. IBM OS/360, Vax VMS, some others. Hell, I worked in a MS environment for – well from Windows 3 to Windows XP or so. But we had a technical staff that controlled MS desktop updates totally. Except for the updates my team propagated. And the Oracle DB updates.
I have the least experience with Apple systems, but from what I understand about their design philosophy it’s much like MS, only for the software AND the hardware too.
patroclus
@Gin & Tonic: It’s ironic that the very same question can be asked regarding “getting big money out of politics” as can be for “making gun manufacturers more likely to be liable” for gun violence. Under the Scalia Court, neither would pass muster. In our Brave New World of a possible Garland or other Dem-appointed Justice on the USSC, suddenly Heller and Citizen’s United may not be insurmountable bars to progress. That’s why this election is so important.
burnspbesq
@Bob In Portland:
Sure they can’ it’s a plain-vanilla version of the classic argument for strict liability. You put an inherently dangerous product into the stream of commerce, you pay for the consequences of its use (including foreseeable misuse). You can jack up the price to cover the cost of insurance.
J R in WV
@Bob In Portland:
My unicorn is not seeing a supposed socialist with principles change his position on one of his biggest positions 3 days before a big election where his new position might win him a few more votes.
Sell Out for votes, can you spell it?
So sad.
Bailey
@patroclus:
I think you still need to stick within the framework of strict liability / products liability. You’re not going to get anywhere by legislating that an industry isn’t afforded that same protection. Assuming, of course, that you’ve already decided that the industry in question is legal, which gun manufacturing and ownership is.
But as much as I hate it, because I hate guns, I think there is some validity in shielding some industries from frivolous liability suits. For obvious reasons, the vaccine industry is similarly shielded against liability for harm that one singular user may suffer. We also don’t hold ISP providers liable for users that infringe copyright. I think the gun industry is probably a bit unique in the breadth of the liability (versus various products within a larger industry) so if there is legislation that limit that breadth I’d be all for it.
Good luck getting that passed.
This is a no-brainer answer. The broad limited liability legislation was undoubtedly influenced by NRA lobbying and money.
Bailey
@J R in WV:
What’s his new position? He’s always allowed that plaintiffs have the right to sue. Has he changed his mind on the liability of the gun manufacturing industry? I didn’t get that from the report.
Bob In Portland
@Peale: Aren’t we talking about the Sandy Hook massacre? The guns in the house were purchased by the mother, who kept her weapons in a gun safe, as I recollect.
burnspbesq
@Bailey:
Yeah, they can file a complaint that will be instantly removed to Federal court and dismissed for failure to state a claim. Great.
Bailey
@burnspbesq:
I could be wrong but since the standard of review wasn’t explicitly spelled out in Heller, the closest approximation based on various analysis within the decision was that the court used strict scrutiny.
redshirt
@Bob In Portland: Are you pro Sandy Hook Massacre, Bob?
patroclus
@Bob In Portland: Here’s the wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act. And thanks for making me look it up, because I got it wrong. Sanders voted for it and Clinton wants to repeal it. It insulated manufacturers from liability, except for defective products, breach of contract or criminal misconduct (like Bailey said). The article says that there have been two significant jury trial cases since; one holding for the gun manufacturer; one against. Prior to enactment, gun manufacturers could be held liable for simple negligence.
So, I guess my question is, would you support repeal; thereby returning liability to the mere negligence standard, or would you favor keeping it, with the higher liability standard. I think I favor repeal.
J R in WV
@efgoldman:
Or telling him to think about caucasing with the Repugs in future.
How would that work out for him? Maybe OK if he’s really thinking about stabbing Hillary Clinton in the back in the near future.
Bailey
@burnspbesq:
Okay, but the fact remains that hey hasn’t actually flip-flopped on his position and the entire thrust of this thread, beginning with the frontpage post, is incorrect.
Bob In Portland
@J R in WV: I’m not sure what your point is? Did you think that Sanders was pro-massacre?
Do you think that people should be able to sue all manufacturers who create a product that kills someone somehow? What specifically in his position did he change?
Bob In Portland
@patroclus: I’d favor repeal too.
Bob In Portland
@redshirt:
Bob In Portland
@Bailey:
Yes, but aside from that…
Davebo
@Bailey:
As I’m sure has been pointed out and I’m not wading through all these comments the right to sue is useless if any suit against a manufacturer is doomed to fail.
Going at the seller is obviously difficult and they don’t tend to have deep pockets. But even if you look at sellers Sanders’ record of voting against mandatory 7 day waiting periods, then against reducing it to 5 day waiting periods, then voted for an amendment requiring instant background checks (that was never going to happen in 1993) showing he really, really didn’t feel he could support background checks of any kind for whatever reason.
patroclus
@Bailey: So then, you’re with Clinton (and now Sanders) as well. By limiting the breadth of the liability shield, you would make it possible for mere negligence to once more be the standard rather than the higher standard as enacted in that statute.
So, we’re really not arguing over anything because we all seem to agree. Both you and Bob are open to making the liability shield a little less broad. As am I. I suspect that Sanders and Clinton are with us as well.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bob In Portland: We really don’t have time this evening to cover all of product liability law for you.
patroclus
@Bob In Portland: Then we agree! As does Bailey!
I think everyone should lay off Bob and Bailey because, on the actual issue, they agree with everyone else here. We’re arguing about nothing!
Bailey
@Davebo:
The suit wouldn’t fail if the plaintiff could demonstrate a manufacturing or design defect. Presumably a manufacturing defect happens from time to time? However, that’s not being claimed in the present case.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bailey: Technology is out there for weapons to be keyed to biometric data. Okay with this? On a legit sale, the weapon gets re-keyed?
ETA: Not putting that tech on a weapon could easily be characterized as a design defect.
Bob In Portland
@Omnes Omnibus: I didn’t ask you. Or maybe you’re JR’s spokesperson now? How about instead of you being an asshole, how about we all agree that we don’t like guns, we don’t like massacres, we don’t like gun manufacturers, but it’s going to be damned hard to complete a successful tort claim against a gun manufacturer?
Bailey
@patroclus:
I’m not sure we’re saying the exact same thing here.
From what I can read of the statue (and reporting) is that the shield applies broadly to the industry at large which is what makes it unique whereas in other industries only certain products are protected such as vaccines, ISPs, etc. So while I am certainly fine with limiting the shield so that it just covers particular products, as long as the gun industry is a legal one, I’m not in favor of them being open to just negligence liability. In short, I would agree that the gun manufacturing industry should be held no more or no less liable than the automobile industry which operates on a product liability standard.
Note: there is really nothing in the Heller decision that suggests there aren’t further restrictions that could be put on the gun manufacturers themselves, i.e. limiting magazine clip sizes or any other prescription which makes it less easy to spray bullets anywhere. Heller really just says that you can’t limit the sale of the weapons, not that they can’t have other limiting factors on them.
To my mind, that’s a more fruitful avenue to pursue — actually making the weapons more technically challenging, etc. But again, I doubt the NRA influence will really allow that to happen even though, currently, legally, there’s nothing to stop it except politics.
Davebo
@Bailey:
But without the restrictions a suit could prevail if the plaintiff showed a manufacturer had, for instance, a history of obvious straw sale activity or if a dealer of the manufacturers products had violated the waiting period requirement that Bernie obviously tried, several times, to kill.
Bailey
@Omnes Omnibus:
Read my reply below. Frankly, I think this is absolutely the avenue that should be pursued and nothing in Heller suggests it can’t be done. Only politics stands in the way.
Luthe
@Amaranthine RBG: Well, if you would like to check my comment at 146, you can see for yourself! Also, CT judges are appointed.
Amaranthine RBG
@Bob In Portland: I agree. The judge’s ruling seems contrary to the intent of the law as well as the dozens of previous cases.
patroclus
@Bailey: Aw man! Everyone gang up on Bailey! (just kidding). We aren’t that far apart, though. And at least I broke Bob off. In any event, passage of a bill changing the liability standard ain’t gonna happen in the current environment, so this is really just in theory, for now. But once Bernie gets his revolution through, the sky’s the limit!
Bob In Portland
@Omnes Omnibus:
Considering the 300 million or so guns floating out there in America without such biometric data devices, it would be hard to make not having such a safety device a defect in the current case. And the NRA has already opposed the biometric safety locks, so the chances of some law requiring such a safety feature isn’t likely any time soon.
Luthe
@Bob In Portland: The legal argument is that the gun should not have been available for purchase by the general public at all and the manufacturers knew it. Whether it was in a safe or not is moot; whether it should have been marketed to the civilian who put it in the safe is not.
different-church-lady
@Gin & Tonic: I, for one, find it interesting to see that for pro-Sanders commenters, all other issues are crystal clear in their rightness/wrongness, but just this one issue has subtleties.
Bailey
@Luthe:
This isn’t a valid legal argument at all because current law allows this type of weapon to be sold to the public.
Amaranthine RBG
@Luthe: Thank you for that. I looked for it but couldn’t find it.
So suit was _actually_ filed in early 2015, was removed, then remanded and operative amended complaint wasn’t filed until October of last year. So lawsuit is, in fact, just getting underway and judge’s ruling seems primary to decide jurisdiction, not merits. Makes more sense now.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bob In Portland: i know that. None of my guns (two shotguns and rifle) fit. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t apply to guns made since the tech was available. Do what one can.
Omnes Omnibus
@different-church-lady: Golly gee.
patroclus
Well, after reading up on the statute, I’m with Bob and Bailey and agree that Sanders hasn’t really changed his position. So, the whole premise of this thread is inaccurate. Not that it really matters. Carry on! I’m done for the night!
Bailey
@patroclus:
Good night, it’s been nice chatting with you.
different-church-lady
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
“Almost all of the Baltimore Oriole’s runs came in innings where we didn’t try to throw pitches they couldn’t hit.”
Adam L Silverman
@Bob In Portland: But the reason for that opposition, is, supposedly, the New Jersey state statute that sets a five year grandfather clause on the sale of non biometric enabled/smart guns. The NRA’s position is that if that wasn’t in place, which would infringe on the rights of gun owners, they would have no problem with the market providing a product and people choosing to purchase – not be required to purchase it. My guess is that if NJ were to pass legislation overturning this requirement, a new objection would be created.
Cacti
@Bailey:
There’s one fundamental difference between automobiles and guns. Automobiles are a dangerous product, but designed for the purpose of transportation, and its utility for the for the latter is generally regarded as greater than the risk of the former. Guns are a dangerous product designed, marketed, and sold for the purpose of being dangerous to the life and body of third persons. To place cars in a similar realm of risk of harm, GM would need to be making a car called The Squasher, and marketing its usefulness for running down potential assailants.
Along those lines, dynamite is held to a higher standard of manufacturer liability than automobiles, because when it functions as designed, it explodes. That’s why it’s regarded as an inherently dangerous or ultra-hazardous product.
Adam L Silverman
@patroclus: In the spirit of the upcoming Passover holiday: “ma neeshtanah halaylah hazeh?” Or: “why should this night be different from all other nights?”
Omnes Omnibus
@Cacti:
Yep.
Amaranthine RBG
@Cacti:
That is an odd assertion. There are some three hundred million firearms in this country and tens if not hundreds of millions of rounds fired every year but only about 10 or 12 thousand people murdered each year.
Omnes Omnibus
@Amaranthine RBG: How many by guns? Let’s get all the stats out there.
different-church-lady
@Amaranthine RBG:
Only.
Amaranthine RBG
@Omnes Omnibus: That’s what I was referring to.
There are about 10 or 12 thousand homicides by guns each year.
A vanishingly small percentage of guns is employed for “the the purpose of being dangerous to the life and body of third persons.”
Ella inNew Mexico
The guns used in the Sandy Hook massacre were not only legal, but legally purchased by the murderer’s mother who also taught him how to shoot as a form of “therapy” for his now evident mental disorder. Which was also completely underestimated by her and the mental health professionals.
You all DO know that THOSE were the reasons those babies were slaughtered, right? That completely irresponsible, deluded mother. The fact that we have laws that allow those types of guns to be legally sold, and that no one has to prove that they will be responsible gun owners who don’t allow mentally deranged people access to,their guns. The fact that we don’t shove back HARD against the crazy conspiracy theories that spew from the NRA and the firearms industry which convince the simple minded that they are entitled to arm themselves like they’re charging into battle against their government one day
Not a law that says that if a business owner sells a legal product and someone does something bad with it, that it’s not automatically the business owner’s fault cuz now we’re all in agony about the crime that was committed.
Change the fucking laws about gun ownership. plain and simple.
Adam L Silverman
@Amaranthine RBG: @Omnes Omnibus: @Cacti: I think the issue here is that guns are devices in a long line of tools that are designed to damage and/or destroy something from a distance. While I can do both destructive and non-destructive things with a knife or a hammer or an axe (unless you’re a tree, then its still damaging/destructive…), projectile weapons were create to allow me to extend my reach in inflicting harm. Whether its a spear, an atlotl, a ballista, a crossbow, a bow and arrow, a trebuchet, a rocket, or a handgun the point is to be able to project damaging/deadly force across a distance. Yes, it is true that doing so can be beneficial – as in hunting to provide meat to sustain oneself and one’s family. And it is also true that their usage can be enjoyable as in shooting sports such as skeet and trap shooting, 3 gun, run and gun, cowboy action, and other such competitive shooting and forms of marksmanship. But these are adaptations of the original purpose: to project damaging and deadly force over an extended distance.
Miss Bianca
@A Ghost To Most: No thanks necessary, but thanks. I think I’m down off the ledge, but i’m tired out. I find drama on a mass scale to be draining – hard for me to distance myself from it.
Omnes Omnibus
@Amaranthine RBG: You missed my point.
Omnes Omnibus
@Miss Bianca: You missed my Pogues link?
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: Did you get the pizza from Boulder to reward yourself for your harrowing adventures? The Mountain Pie?
Mike D.
@Miss Bianca:
WTF do you think politics Is?
Bailey
@Cacti:
All of products liability is treated with strict liability. What this means is that the manufacturer has the duty to make the product safe, even if in the wrong hands it can be wildly dangerous. Adam Lanza’s gun…just sitting there, was absolutely safe as a gun can be and conformed to all legal requirements. Adam Lanza’s gun, aimed at a firing range hitting paper targets was absolutely safe and conformed to all legal requirements. Adam Lanza’s gun, aimed at grade school students wasn’t any less safe even though Adam Lanza clearly was in using it that way.
The Squasher analogy doesn’t quite hold because presumably it still contains all the features of an automobile that conforms to current legislation regarding the safety features, etc. It’s still a car, no matter what it’s name.
Although I suspect the marketing and advertising of the vehicle would likely be curtailed by the FTC if it were truly advertising something it was not. Or advertising something for an illegal purpose which running down people is.
Note that the gun industry doesn’t actually market their consumer weapons as killing devices. They’re marketed as defensive tools. Big difference.
Dynamite is held to a strict liability standard but plaintiff would still have to prove a manufacturing or design defect in it to be successful or that there was, indeed, a failure to warn about it for non-obvious uses. (i.e .blowing crap up.) Everyone knows that dynamite is for. Everyone knows what guns are for. Assuming both the dynamite and the gun were designed to be as safe as they could be, a plaintiff probably wouldn’t be successful.
Miss Bianca
@Omnes Omnibus: No, I saw it and I wondered… Thanks : )
@Adam L Silverman: Nope. We were having a challenging enough time just getting home.
Miss Bianca
@Mike D.: And what the fuck is that obliging comment supposed to signify?
Omnes Omnibus
@Miss Bianca: I am going with condescension.
Miss Bianca
@Omnes Omnibus: I do believe you’re right. If only someone could be counted on to throw in a “hor, hor, little lady!” – it would make it so much easier for a bear of little brain to comprehend.
Amaranthine RBG
@Omnes Omnibus: Well good luck making yourself more clear next time.
Omnes Omnibus
@Amaranthine RBG: Steve, you are tiresome.
Omnes Omnibus
@Miss Bianca: Move up a couple of threads.
Miss Bianca
@Omnes Omnibus: ?
ETA Methinks you take some delight in crypticism. For a lawyer, you are remarkably terse on occasion. : )
Amaranthine RBG
@Omnes Omnibus:It isn’t my fault that there is a disconnect between what you mean to say and what you actually say.
Any reasonable person who reads our exchange would see that you are just being a twat right now.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Amaranthine RBG: I don’t think statistical arguments hold much sway in discussing guns, myself. As Snopes points out in discussing Switzerland and Honduras taking ratios of guns to people, and the like, doesn’t explain much.
Guns are deadly weapons, by design. In the vast majority of cases, they are not used to protect families from home invaders, or from tyrannical governments, or to fend off rapists. They’re used for hunting or target practice or general messing around. Or for suicide. Or to act out in a fit of rage. Or in a robbery. Or for playing around. The marketing doesn’t match reality.
Heller points out that guns can be regulated even if they are (at present) an “individual right”. I’m confident that eventually there will be far fewer guns readily available in the US, and I expect that eventually Heller will be re-decided. It may take an even more horrific massacre first, though. :-(
We won’t be any less “free” after Heller is fixed than we were after the Explosives Act of 1917 and the like, IMHO. Times change, and ways of thinking about society and common rights (like the right not to be killed by one’s disturbed neighbor) change too.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
AnotherBruce
@Bailey: Bernie Sanders is also getting big money. But of course, he can’t possibly be corrupted because small donations. I’m sure all those donations are puppy innocent and as pure as Bernie. BTW, did he pay for that chartered 767 to the Vatican out of his own pocket?
Bailey
@AnotherBruce:
How do you imagine Sanders will distinguish between his millions of small donors in order to be unduly influenced by them?
Do you know something different or do you have some evidence that Sanders mishandled campaign contributions? For that matter, do you have any information on how much a charter like that would even cost?
cleek
@Bailey:
he’ll group them by employer, the same way Sanders supporters assume Clinton will do when she’s looking to be influenced:
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000528
cleek
@Bailey:
estimates i’ve seen are between $14K and $17K per hour.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-air-lines-skymiles/1759750-cost-delta-private-charter-bernie-sanders.html
and Lobster sliders can’t be cheap.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/26499306-post37.html
Bailey
@cleek:
That message board is certainly some rock solid confirmed information!
cleek
@Bailey:
the Daily Mail estimates that trip used 33,193 gallons of jet fuel. at $5.21/gal today (corporate cost), that’s $172K in fuel alone.
of course we don’t know what Delta pays for fuel or if the DM’s estimate is correct.
Ella in New Mexico
@Miss Bianca: @Miss Bianca:
First of all, thank you for the work you did yesterday, particularly given your April Show Shower dump. I think I would have curled up under the covers and Netflixed all weekend if I lived in CO and had to go anywhere!
Second, you–and too many others here at BJ–really need to put something into perspective: the vast majority of people out there rooting for Bernie Sanders are completely sane, decent people who care too much about America to not vote in the fall for Clinton if she’s the nominee. And most of us truly believe she will be.
What you saw at your convention was a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the general “population called Sanders supporters”. They were the most invested, most active and most motivated Sanders supporters in your state, or they wouldn’t have been attending. That, by definition, makes them extreme and out of the mainstream.
They are not me. They are not my kids or friends or family members. They are not the people I know who want to see Bernie stay in till the end, even if they know he is not likely to win. Most of us out here, even the more informed or interested parties, don’t have the time or even the personality to get involved in Party politics. But it doesn’t mean we don’t care: we just want our votes and our voices to help influence things rather than having to get involved in the “inside club” that is local politics.
We want changes, improvements in the structure of our electoral system and the corruption we all see in campaign finance. We want to protect our environment, and yes, it might be at the short-term expense of some multi-national giant corporation’s profits. We want to see us move towards cost savings and better coverage in healthcare and less expensive higher education and student loan debt reform. We want the US to keep being the sane, sensible foreign policy and military influence around the world that it is, always fighting for ultimately peace and human rights. We want a government that gets pulled back to the middle from this current “Golden Age II” of big corporations, banks and the wealthy taking the wealth and monopolizing business and holding too much control of government over the rest of us.
Those changes cannot come unless we tell our candidates that they are incredibly important, and we get people to run for office who are willing to make them the center of their campaigns. They have to talk about them more and more, pull the people to the Democratic party who think it’s just the “pro-gay” version of the Republican party in it’s values.
I have to say that Hilary Clinton is a different, better, more inclusive candidate today than she would be had Bernie Sanders not come this far. I for one like what I hear her say when she responds to these issues. Even more, I like that the Party itself will hear that we need to push for MORE progressivism, not less in order to win elections.
The irony is, even some Republicans I know like what Sanders says because it’s actually just pragmatic, money saving and good for them. They hate Trump. One I know calls Cruz “the Anti-Christ” regularly on Facebook. They’re sick of a Party that wants to take their birth control and hates their gay children and has burdened them with $40K in student loan debt. I am betting good money they’ll at the very least not vote for President in the fall, but if we can keep them on board, who’s to say they might not take a chance on our ticket?
So I guess what I’m saying is I really wish a lot of the pro-Clinton brigade would just CTFD about Sanders and how he dares to keep running. He’s running! Let him act like a candidate! So far his stuff against her has been weak, meek and insider’s baseball. He’s not going to hurt her in the General if she’s the candidate. Stop turning him into the terrible monstrous version of Trump or Cruz, and start worrying about THEM. THEY”RE the enemy. Not Sanders, or his supporters.
BernieBros>HillaryBots
LOL, I think you mean 2020, you fucking Clintonista
sunny raines
why is it all the Sanders fanborgs lose whatever intelligence they have when it comes to Sanders? He didn’t say he supported holding gun manufacturers responsible for anything. All he said is an obscure abstract notion that anybody has a right to sue – typical meaningless pol-speak. How you can conflate that into supporting the Sandy Hook families is remarkable.