Gun Industry Immunity Explained to “Hillary Fanatics”

In the most recent debate, Hillary invoked her supposedly strongest talking point against Bernie when she referred to his votes on gun industry immunity. And yes, Bernie did in fact vote against gun manufacturer immunity, but it was based on a cogent argument. Remember, Sanders has a D- record with the NRA – trust me, he is not receiving support from them in this election cycle – because he has supported universal background checks and banning assault weapons. But Hillary, and her cunning campaign heads, are trying to paint Bernie as a Second Amendment obsessed gun-nut.

Hillary has even gone so far as to say, in a Tweet, that Sanders’ votes contributed to the deaths at crazy-hillarySandy Hook. Disgusting, I know. One shouldn’t be surprised however; this is how the Clintons play
ball. As the campaigns heads toward the Convention, the Hillary Camp is becoming more desperate and it’s apparent with her latest low blow tactics. It’s simple really: paint the elderly, surly, democratic socialist man from the rural state of Vermont as a demented, aloof gun lover. With polls showing an incredibly competitive contest nationally, and given the fact that Bernie is attracting crowds near 30,000, Hillary is clearly not comfortable with the unpredictable success of the Sanders campaign. Meanwhile, Hillary is begging her rich and corporate followers at $300,000 a plate dinners for campaign cash. But according to her, she won’t be influenced. Come on Hillary, do you really think that we’re that dumb?

It’s apparent that Hillary does believe that the typical American voter is susceptible to hyperbolic arguments – especially ones devoid of logic. And even if the average voter is in fact uninformed, holding gun manufacturers liable for legal firearms sales is nonsensical. Here’s the scenario where Hillary wants a manufacturer to be held liable: let’s say a gun is sold to a consumer who passes a background check. Let’s also say that his person decides to shoot up a bank and kills people. Should the gun manufacturer be held liable in this instance? The answer is no. The reason being: the gun wasn’t used in a intended manner. One could even say that the gun was used in the intended manner as its fundamental functionality is to kill, whether it be animals or humans. Whichever point you contend is correct, the gun manufacture should not be legally culpable.

hillary_chipoltle12_zpscnswmaguNow, contrast this with the weak car analogy. A Hillary supporter will say: “but if we hold car manufacturers liable for cars killing people, why can’t be sue gun manufacturers?” The key difference is that lawsuits are brought in car wreck cases – in the event of an individual committing a crime with the vehicle – if the product is itself defective. If, let’s say, a person was driving recklessly and purposely endangering human life; and in this same instance, the accelerator pedal was to get struck and the reckless driver ended up killing another driver, this would be a case where a lawsuit could be brought against a car manufacturer. Both the driver and the gun manufacturer would presumably become defendants.

Furthermore, the car was not being used in the manner intended by its own functionality. Cars aren’t manufactured to kill. And while cars may be inadvertent killing machines as a product, they are not analogous to firearms. When cases are brought against gun manufacturers, it’s a product defect issue. Holding guns to a different standard just doesn’t make sense as gun manufacturers aren’t selling the guns to be used in a criminal fashion. Setting a precedent of holding gun manufacturers liable for the illegal actions of consumers could present major issues for other industries, such as bat or knife manufacturers. Of course, there may be instances of egregious distribution of firearms and ammunition, whereby the gun seller – the middle man – chooses to sell an unreasonable amount of a potentially dangerous product. The middle man would be held liable in this hypothetical. Moreover, gun manufacturers can be held liable if a child lock or finger print technology doesn’t function correctly as it’s a product defect scenario.

In the end, attempting to hold Bernie Sanders liable for Sandy Hook is ludicrous. Hillary will stop at nothing to have her grand coronation, even if it means misleading followers. Sorry Hillary, the grand coronation crown is still collecting dust in your basement, along with your private email servers. BERN!!!



Jason Newell

Jason is 28-years-old, a dual citizen (of both the U.S. and Peru), and he currently resides in Costa Mesa, CA. He received his B.A. from the University of Oregon, where he majored in Political Science. (At Oregon, he was a member of Pi Sigma Alpha, the National Political Science Honor Society.) After graduating, Jason completed one year of law school at Whittier and then successfully transferred into Lewis & Clark Law School. (At Whittier, he received a CALI Award [Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction] in Legal Writing [i.e. top of the class] and finished on the dean’s list and honor roll.) However, his interests changed and he transferred to George Washington University in order to receive a graduate degree in political management. Recently, Jason opened an educational company with a good friend from college. His company creates course curriculum, tutors students, and will eventually provide a global marketplace where students can bid on educational assistance.

Leave a Reply