I wish that Trump could actually debate. There's no better platform for debunking the "can't sue gun manufacturers" bull**** than a national presidential debate.
They're trying to conflate (yes, I mean that in the proper sense of the word) liability for product defects with liability for how people use a product, to say that there's no liability at all. And that's just nonsense. There's a case now where the Sandy Hook families are suing Remington for wrongful death, claiming that Remington markets their scary rifles to people who want to kill people. Yes, that wording is intentionally hyperbolic. But it illustrates that the law that protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits is very narrow in what it protects. It doesn't protect gun manufactures from liability for product defects, or "marketing".
As noted, a Toyota is not liable for the terrorist who drove his Toyota on a busy boardwalk, unless it could legitimately be construed that Toyota marketed the car for that purpose. I think that should be a very high bar to reach. But, if it could be proven that Remington marketed their firearms irresponsibility (which should be narrowly defined in itself).
It would be awesome if there were a president on the national debate stage that could powerfully debunk that bull****. I don't think Trump can do that. First, no one would take him seriously. Second, he doesn't have it in him. He can troll the **** out of them though. So there's that. But he can't use the platform to eviscerate the straw men superficially constructed by Biden and his ilk. Yes Biden fans. Biden is a founding member of the ilk; an ilk, through and through.
They're trying to conflate (yes, I mean that in the proper sense of the word) liability for product defects with liability for how people use a product, to say that there's no liability at all. And that's just nonsense. There's a case now where the Sandy Hook families are suing Remington for wrongful death, claiming that Remington markets their scary rifles to people who want to kill people. Yes, that wording is intentionally hyperbolic. But it illustrates that the law that protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits is very narrow in what it protects. It doesn't protect gun manufactures from liability for product defects, or "marketing".
As noted, a Toyota is not liable for the terrorist who drove his Toyota on a busy boardwalk, unless it could legitimately be construed that Toyota marketed the car for that purpose. I think that should be a very high bar to reach. But, if it could be proven that Remington marketed their firearms irresponsibility (which should be narrowly defined in itself).
It would be awesome if there were a president on the national debate stage that could powerfully debunk that bull****. I don't think Trump can do that. First, no one would take him seriously. Second, he doesn't have it in him. He can troll the **** out of them though. So there's that. But he can't use the platform to eviscerate the straw men superficially constructed by Biden and his ilk. Yes Biden fans. Biden is a founding member of the ilk; an ilk, through and through.
