But I know, and now you know (again) that her claim of absolute immunity is false. Maybe in the 5 months time between when NPR corrected her and this debate she also forgot the acronym she was talking about. Would that be better than her being a liar?
Ok, let’s parse this then. You agree that the gun industry has unique immunity protection, right? You agree that PLCAA stops lawsuits designed to make the gun industry responsible for proper and legal distribution of their products, right? I don’t see what is misleading about her website claims.
Was immunity given to gunmakers and sellers in 2005? Sure. Full immunity? No. But that wasn’t Clinton’s claim. And she explicitly referenced the key motive of the law which was, “To try to give sellers more accountability for selling guns when they shouldn’t have.” The word immunity is pretty clearly a shorthand for what the 2005 law entails.
The fact is gun manufacturers receive special protections in the US. You may agree with that policy. But just because somebody has a different view of US policy than you do doesn’t make them a liar. Guns receive a special carve-out from product liability insofar as they are not regulated by the Consumer Protections Agency. And the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms won’t prohibit manufacture of unsafe weapons either: manufacturers could make pistol grips out of plastic explosives and that would be ok until somebody actually suffers harm from them. That might be wise policy. But you are in denial if you don’t recognize that it’s different from the treatment of virtually every other sort of consumer product.
This is false also. Plastic explosives and explosive devices are not permitted sold in this fashion. In your rush to deny reality you continue to exaggerate the fact pattern.
Clinton said “absolute immunity”. Her claim of absolute immunity is false. You acknowledged this and intimated this was a “muffed” response. You asked if she repeated her error. When shown to be her actual and repeated response…what, shall we not look behind the curtain? She was wrong in Oct 2015 as you linked. She was wrong again in the Mar 2016 debate. She should know better since she keeps touting her vote on the matter. So she’s either lying about absolute immunity or she is … chronically stupid? I don’t think she’s stupid.
Ok, now we are back to the 2014 thread. Help me out. Are you saying that the BATF conducts tests on guns and regulates their safety? Because the Consumer Protection Agency sure doesn’t.
I contest that claim about the Mar 2016 and furthermore allege that -speaking generally- accusations of dishonesty based upon statements taken out of context are dishonorable. But hey, Clinton has received worse. Let’s look at the full statement that you helpfully linked to: [INDENT][INDENT] SANDERS: Well, this is what I say, if I understand it — and correct me if I’m wrong. If you go to a gun store and you legally purchase a gun, and then, three days later, if you go out and start killing people, is the point of this lawsuit to hold the gun shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable?
If that is the point, I have to tell you I disagree. I disagree because you hold people — in terms of this liability thing, where you hold manufacturers’ liability is if they understand that they’re selling guns into an area that — it’s getting into the hands of criminals, of course they should be held liable.
But if they are selling a product to a person who buys it legally, what you’re really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don’t agree with that.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton?
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Well, that — that is not — that is not what happened, and I think it’s important for people to understand.
Because of the proliferation of guns, because of the epidemic of gun violence in our country, there were a group of cities, states, and other concerned people who, in the late 90s and in the early 2000s, were working on legal theories that they thought would force gun makers to do more to make guns safer and force sellers to be much more responsible.
The NRA saw this happening, and they said, “we’ve got to stop it. Last thing in the world we want is to have guns that you can only shoot with your fingerprint, or to have guns with such strong safety locks on them that they may not be sellable.”
So the NRA went to the Congress, and the head of the NRA has said this was the most important NRA legislation in more than 20 years…
COOPER: Secretary…
CLINTON: … and they basically went to the Congress — I was there.
COOPER: … Secretary…
CLINTON: I was in the Senate. And they said, “give us absolute immunity.” No other industry in America has absolute immunity…
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: …and they sell products all the time that cause harm… [/INDENT][/INDENT] Well the part about sellers being forced to be more responsible was accurate and the law was certainly geared towards that end. Another lawsuit alleged that some of these guns were so crappy and inaccurate that they wouldn’t be used for any legitimate use (presumably target shooting) but only criminal activity. That’s the sort of thing the NRA wanted to put an end to. I don’t think Clinton’s characterization of the NRA’s position was especially inaccurate. After all, Bill Clinton’s administration had come to an explicit agreement with Smith and Wesson to track and regulate the sale of their weaponry and add safety features. (The NRA even boycotted S&W for this.)
The NRA did want absolute immunity from the sort of lawsuits Clinton described, oh, 4 seconds earlier. Now you may disagree with Clinton’s position on junk guns - you may find this sort of regulation inappropriate. You might dislike Smith and Wesson’s attempts to sell their wares only to responsible firearm dealers. But I find your characterization of the accuracy of Clinton’s claims to be misleading.
I’m sure you do. And I wouldn’t be surprised if you brought up the false claim that manufacturers are immune if they sell firearms that explode in people’s hands. Readers can judge for themselves. Clinton has repeatedly used the term “absolute immunity”. Do you think the PLCAA grants absolute immunity?
I meant to add: Clinton has repeatedly used the phrase “absolute immunity” - it wasn’t a muffed response. She does that to convince people that a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand. Of course this is false, but some people fall for it. Right? Maybe it’s those complicated acronyms.
How could a person get that false impression? Maybe it’s statements like these: Dec-2015
One example could be a muff. Two or more examples are not. I have noticed that Bone has refused to clarify or acknowledge the inability of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to test weapons for safety. US gun manufacturers receive a carve out in terms of routine regulation of consumer purchases.
All that said I hope we can agree that it is dishonorable to take another’s remarks out of context, then accuse them of dishonesty.
In December 2015 Clinton said, “I would hope, Sen. Sanders, that you would join the Democrats who are trying to close the Charleston loophole, that you would sponsor or co-sponsor legislation to remove the absolute immunity.” The Charleston loophole refered to the distribution issues that allowed Dylann roof to purchase the guns used to kill nine people in an historically black South Carolinian Church. That is exactly the sort of thing -responsibility for distribution of your products- that the 2005 law was suppose to take out of the manufacturers hands. In context there’s nothing wrong with Clinton’s statement - once you read her full sentence.
The January 2016 statement seems similar to me.
I concede that if you take 2 words out of context from Hillary’s sentences that you can twist them anyway you like. I disagree whether such behavior is worthy of this message board.
As Senator Clinton noted, you have to look at the big picture. Bill Clinton cut a deal with Smith and Wesson to improve the safety of the product and self-regulate their distribution channels. The NRA freaked out and organized a boycott of Smith and Wesson. Senator Clinton wanted to maintain leverage to cut similar deals. Congressional majorities felt otherwise and extended special protections to the gun industry.
Now frankly, I’m not sure how much I care. I do believe however that the history shouldn’t be swept under the carpet. Nor should the special protections extended to the gun industry be sugar coated. If you think they are proper, just say so. Don’t take your opponent’s words out of context, then accuse them of dishonesty.
Oh touche! Other things I haven’t responded to are topics relating to my brilliant strategy at Connect Four. Both of these things aren’t related to the topic I’ve been discussing but feel free to continue to try and distract. To satiate your curiosity, I will say that I acknowledge that the BATFE (look - acronym!) does not and cannot regulate firearms for safety.
True again! They are also the only product that are specifically envisioned in an enumerated fundamental constitutional right, so you would expect different treatment.
I don’t care about your honor, and your aspersions about my own are worthless. But let’s address the out of context accusation - I quote the portion I am referring to and link the remainder of the source so the reader can review the source material. If that is what you consider out of context then good luck with that! I find it to be the most effective way to convey linked information.
Do you know what Clinton is referring to when she says “the Charleston loophole”? Your comments make me believe you don’t. Explain how the PLCAA is related to the so called “Charelston loophole” because that’s laughably misinformed. Remember when you said you don’t follow the issues so acronyms are mysteries to you (I admit, that’s a loose paraphrase)? This is one of those times you are spectacularly wrong. I’ll explain later why you’re so wrong but I’d love to see you try and make sense out of this commentary.
Here’s where you didn’t answer my question. Do you think that the PLCAA gives absolute immunity? Clinton seems to.
Oh I’m on record as strongly supporting the PLCAA. Trying to sue manufacturers for the criminal misuse of their products by others is incredibly stupid. It was the result of gun control efforts overreaching and of local governments attempting to sue gun manufacturers out of business. Of course none of that is related to the thread so I typically don’t try to bring up superfluous topics. What is the topic at hand is Clinton’s repeated use of the false claim that manufacturers enjoy absolute immunity - you know, her lies.
Rhetoric aside, I appreciate the response to this central consideration. The extent to which gun manufacturers are held responsible for faulty firearms is a core issue when evaluating the accuracy of Clinton’s remarks. So thank you.
Sure. But I find it puzzling that gun enthusiasts don’t seem to concerned about weapons exploding in their hands. For any other product, there would be investigations. Car enthusiasts don’t have this problem after all. (I’m guessing exploding firearms aren’t a statistically large problem though you can google glock explode in hand for examples).
When you accuse another of dishonesty, it is insufficient to quote two words out of context. To be clear about the behavior we are discussing.
Pretty vague idea actually. Do you really think it’s helpful for me to go back and try to parse that? I mean I will if you want, but I am having difficulty with seeing the purpose.
This is where the context matters. If you state it like that, without preface, the answer in plain speech is no. But if you state exactly what the PLCAA does, then say “I disagree with giving them that absolute immunity”, it doesn’t really mislead. Right?
I can extend this point. Absolute Immunity happens to be a legal term of art. But the phrase refers to something that… is not absolute. Government officials enjoying absolute immunity for example can still be prosecuted for things they were doing outside of their official duties. Now that seems obvious as a practical matter, but it also shows that the adjective “Absolute” is commonly understood to imply a certain restricted scope.
I don’t know whether that will help. So far it is uncontested that Clinton prefaced her term by explaining exactly what she meant.
That characterization is unworthy of this message board for reasons stated above.
It’s a good thing I didn’t simply quote two words then. I gave four separate examples with full sentences - paragraphs even, and links to the source material. Your claim that my quote was out of context is transparently false.
Parse your own statement? Yeah I do if you expect to be understood. As it stands you’re writing gibberish.
Your paraphrase would be inaccurate. Certain government officials enjoy absolute immunities in their official duties. That’s accurate. But good effort at trying to dodge. That’s not at all what Clinton has repeatedly said. You know, when she lies about the PLCAA.
See - here’s where your brilliant reasoning is being employed again. Absolute = restricted! I notice you still didn’t answer the question. Are you avoiding it on purpose? And are you not going to try and explain your nonsense comment about the so called “Charleston Loophole” and how it relates to the PLCAA?
And this part, this part is wrong too. The extent is irrelevant because Clinton stated “absolute immunity”. If the extent is greater than zero then her claim is false. That she repeated it knowing it was false makes it a lie.
I see you tried to answer, but couldn’t bring yourself to be clear. You know or should know what the text of the PLCAA does and does not do. Do you think Clinton’s statements about absolute immunity are accurate? Fact checkers do not - not even the one you linked to. There are several more that share the same impression - her statements about absolute immunity were false. This isn’t a gotcha because you already answered it here:
(my bold)
Of course we know now that her statements weren’t a “muff” or even improvised since she used the same language several times. That’s your link btw - the one that is saying her statements weren’t accurate. Did Winkler take the comments out of context too?
Here is an analogy to demonstrate why your explanation is nonsense, imagine the following:
Person 1: “We should repeal the ACA because I don’t agree that every single person in this country should be forced to buy government provided healthcare insurance!” Person 2: “The ACA doesn’t force people to buy government provided healthcare insurance” Person 1: “The ACA mandates certain health insurance coverage minimums for most people and imposes a penalty if you meet requirements for coverage and do not obtain it. I do not agree that every single person in this country should be forced to buy government provided healthcare insurance” Person 2: “You’re lying about what the ACA does - it doesn’t force people to buy government provided healthcare insurance.”
The first statement by Person 1 is inaccurate. The second statement from Person 1 starts off accurate, then repeats the inaccurate claim. That’s what Clinton is doing when she says the PLCAA gives absolute immunity. It’s a lie.
To be clear, I’m saying that the October remarks were misleading, and a muff if they occurred once. Here’s the October statement from the NPR link: [INDENT] "So far as I know, the gun industry and gun sellers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior. Nobody else is given that immunity. And that just illustrates the extremism that has taken over this debate.[/INDENT] That’s false. They have liability.
But the other links didn’t say that. They used the phrase “Absolute Immunity” but it was used immediately after she basically defined what it meant. Put this another way. Diplomats are said to enjoy absolute immunity- in fact, it’s a legal term. But that doesn’t mean they can grab a hand grenade and throw it into a crowd without punishment. Because that would have nothing to do with their official responsibilities.
If this was a news report explaining the above, everyone would just nod. It’s only in the gun context where people say the analogue to, “Buh, wuh: that’s not absolute immunity then! The diplomat can’t really do anything he wants!” No he can’t. And when somebody says the following, it really isn’t false. Spin maybe. Not false [INDENT] CLINTON: Well, that — that is not — that is not what happened, and I think it’s important for people to understand.
Because of the proliferation of guns, because of the epidemic of gun violence in our country, there were a group of cities, states, and other concerned people who, in the late 90s and in the early 2000s, were working on legal theories that they thought would force gun makers to do more to make guns safer and force sellers to be much more responsible.
The NRA saw this happening, and they said, “we’ve got to stop it. Last thing in the world we want is to have guns that you can only shoot with your fingerprint, or to have guns with such strong safety locks on them that they may not be sellable.”
So the NRA went to the Congress, and the head of the NRA has said this was the most important NRA legislation in more than 20 years…
…
CLINTON: I was in the Senate. And they said, “give us absolute immunity.” No other industry in America has absolute immunity… [/INDENT] During the 1990s it was discovered that a small number of gun dealers were responsible for a disproportionate number of guns involved in illegal activity. The Clinton administration successfully applied pressure on Smith and Wesson not to distribute their wares to those selling to crooks. The NRA totally freaked, boycotted Smith and Wesson, and successfully made that sort of amicable arrangement impossible via the 2005 law. It would be wrong to just sweep all of that under the carpet. Factually speaking, gun manufacturers have absolute immunity from being sued for faulty distribution channels. They are not, “totally free of liability for their behavior” though, contrary to what Clinton said in October 2015.
Contrast to Trump where falsehoods and absurdities are pretty much a daily event.
The OP gives a list of his stances on various issues and then finds all the candidates are contrary to one thing or another. Well, of course they are. If you want a candidate that has your same stance on every single issue, run for president yourself.
Otherwise, think what issues are most important to you and vote on that basis.
When it comes to the election itself you can bet both candidates will move to the center and temper some of their more extreme plans.
There’s no way Hillary is going to take your guns, for example, so I’d say she’s the best overall fit for you. Of course I don’t think you’ll see it that way, as the OP implied a lot of hatred against Clinton the person rather than a sober analysis of her policy views.
Asked and answered; see #52. Further evidence: consider the topic of the last three dozen posts in this thread.
You’re not from around here either, are you? :rolleyes: A politician could come out for bombing France, abolishing the State Department or nationalizing Microsoft and these issues would dwindle into insignificance if she reported that she had a dream that a hundred years from now, Americans would have the gumption to impose a 30-round limit on magazine capacity.
(OK … maybe I’m exaggerating a little. But I’m continually awestruck by the huge connection between guns and politics for many Americans. What it says about American cognition or American “values” is only fit for the Pit.)
Your defense of Clinton’s lies is that she’s using English words in non-standard ways? She’s the Person 1 in this exchange:
Your contention is that when Clinton says “absolute immunity” she really means limited immunity of firearm manufacturers and dealers against actions resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm by a third party,as contemplated by the PLCAA? I think it’s clear she’s trying to give the false impression that firearm manufacturers and dealers enjoy absolute immunity, so unsuspecting people would think that a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand. I know at least one person who held that belief.
How has anything been swept under the carpet? The history is readily available. And what you call “totally freak[ed]” I call a great use of market pressure to persuade a company to change behavior. This is a good segue to dispel the notion that repeal of the PLCAA is not an effort to hurt gun manufacturers. The driver for Smith & Wesson to accept the deal from the Clinton Administration was to fend off lawsuits from governments.
The novel and stupid idea was that selling guns was akin to pollution. That’s what the PLCAA killed, and rightfully so. There was never “absolute immunity” as Clinton has lied about.
(my bold)
And here is where you take another familiar trip to fantasy land. The above bolded part is false. I would think that you’d be weary of stating such a blanket claim given how obvious Clinton’s lies are from doing the same. From thetext of the PLCAA:
(my bold)
In other words gun manufacturers and dealers do not have absolute immunity from being sued for so called “faulty distribution channels”. Though there is no actual definition of what you mean by that, the provisions of the PLCAA define when a firearm dealer or manufacturer can be held liable in their distribution - namely if there is negligent entrustment. There are other avenues but this is the one that is most applicable. Hardly absolute immunity.
The idea that there is absolute immunity even with your ridiculous qualifiers is defeated with the verdict against Badger Guns.
In other words, a firearm dealer was held liable for how they sold their products - not quite “absolute immunity”.
And to circle back on the accusations of taking things out of context:
(my bold)
Above you criticize the quote I used, then state that there is nothing wrong with Clinton’s statement if you take it in context. Do you realize the part you quoted (bolded above) is the exact same part I quoted? This one:
So when I produced a direct quote that responds to what you asked for in post #60, to wit, whether or not Clinton continued to make similar statements, was it your first reaction to accuse me of pulling her remark out of context even though the source material was linked? If your quote was in context, but mine was out of context, even though they were the exact same thing, then I think I’ve located a flaw in how you process information.
And it seems you’ve declined to clarify your comments about the Charleston Loophole - I mentioned I’d get back to this but wanted to give you a chance to explain. So let’s look at what has been called “the Charleston loophole”. The name itself seems designed to evoke some kind of fear, just at the “gun show loophole” or some other “loophole”. Both of these names are misnomers however. The latter referring to private party sales, not simply non-dealer sales at gun shows. The former is referring to provisions in the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993 (You may know this as the Brady Bill). This is the one that mandated NICS. Notice the year? 1993. Remember that.
This so called loophole that Clinton is referring to is the fact that an FFL may transfer a firearm to a purchaser if they have not received a denial on the NICS check after 3 days. In other words, if a person is submitted for a background check and not been denied, there is a time limit on how long the sale must be delayed. That time limit is 3 days. This isn’t a loophole however - it was debated quite a bit when the law was passed and the time limit was intentional to prevent undue delay. Just because you don’t like the result does not make a provision of a law a “loophole”.
When Clinton refers erroneously to “absolute immunity”, she is talking about the PLCAA passed in 2005. Notice the time difference? 12 years. These two things are not related. Going further, the 3 day time limit applies to dealers and is federal law. Violating the prescribed time limit carries severe penalties. Dealers are not responsible for performing the background check, but they must submit purchasers to one through the NICS system. By doing so that is exactly the level of scrutiny as envisioned by the Brady Bill. The PLCAA was intended to prevent civil litigation against firearm manufacturers and dealers based on crimes committed with their products by others - not dealers who follow the law. There’s no need to protect them since there would be no basis to sue dealers for following provisions of the Brady Bill.
But this is wrong. The 3 day limit wasn’t what allowed Roof to purchase a firearm through a dealer. The person conducting the background check relied on erroneous data and therefore would not have discovered disqualifying facts in Roof’s background regardless of the number of days that passed. Roof purchased his firearm in April-2015 and the shooting occurred in June-2015.
More detail at the link so as to head off accusations of taking things out of context. Comey made detailed statements as to the timeline of events.
In short, the 2005 PLCAA is not related to the so-called “Charleston Loophole” that stems from the 1993 Brady Bill. Your attempt to conflate them is laughably absurd.
So, **do you think that the PLCAA gives absolute immunity? ** Have you bothered to read it yet?
Ok Bone. You are way more invested in this issue that I am. I guess I haven’t been clear though. I’m saying that Clinton is using the phrase in entirely standard ways. Diplomats are said to have absolute immunity from prosecution. It’s also the case that they can’t do anything they want without legal consequence. Absolute immunity is strictly limited to what they are doing as part of their official duties. That’s the standard use of that term.
We have a failure to communicate here and I’m getting a little tired of the conversation. I do want to hit the core points though I’m not quite sure where they are:
That’s your opinion. You haven’t showed that convincingly. We have seen that Clinton’s positioning from October 2015 was dialed back somewhat. That’s not the behavior of a liar.
Hillary Clinton has been subjected to all manner of bullshit attacks during her entire career. This is one of them. You are basically criticizing her for using a legal term in a standard manner. To be clear I’m saying I agree that “Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy”, in the words of Jill Abramson who has followed and reported on the Clintons for decades.
Moving on to your discussion of curbing faulty distribution channels, I can’t see how my claim has been falsified. Can sellers be sued for selling to criminals? Sure. Can manufacturers be sued for selling to criminals? Sure. Can manufacturers be sued for selling to those who consistently sell to criminals? Well that’s the core issue isn’t it? And I don’t see a carve-out for that in your quoted remarks. Which makes sense. The law was a gimme for gun manufacturers, not Mom and Pop stores.
So, yeah. Absolute immunity. Just like diplomats have. Standard. English.
Charleston. The one extra day claim made by Clinton is apparently false. There’s a strong case to be made for permitting longer waiting periods where the underlying records show a flag. As stated by FBI Director James Comey, “The Columbia police arrested Dylann Roof on drug charges, in the small piece of the city of Columbia that lies within Lexington County. Importantly, as part of that arrest, the report by the Columbia police reflected that Roof admitted he was in possession of drugs. If a NICS examiner saw that, Roof would be denied permission to buy a gun. But the examiner never saw that.”
Loopholes. Holey crap, you are whining about that term as well? Wikipedia, “A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.” I think the ability of criminal to pack his pockets with pistols at a gun show or other private party sale counts as an “inadequacy in the system”. Loophole - Wikipedia
Ordinary English. There’s no need for butthurt.
I started reading it, noted its length, then stopped. Your request for me to read it in detail is somewhat sillier than asking folks to view a 30 minute You-tube video. I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be. I do think I have a sense for what sort of investigations require specialist knowledge though. This is one of them.
That said, the PLCAA clearly provides absolute immunity regarding some sorts of lawsuits, but not others. In the same way that the law extends absolute immunity to some behaviors by diplomats, but not other behaviors. Don’t get me wrong. That’s not the phrase they use to my knowledge. And as I noted upthread, gun manufacturers can be sued for faulty products according to the NPR article. They just can’t be investigated by any federal agency like BATFE or the CPA if I understand things properly. Nor can the Feds do product testing. The 2nd amendment theorizing that says that such a hands off policy follows from the well regulated militia clause is indeed mysterious.
Side point, just to clear something up. My 2014 misunderstanding about the lack of liability faced by gun manufacturers wasn’t really based upon the PLCAA. It was grounded on an old Economist article written during the 1990s - one which emphasized the BATFE and CPA side and neglected the possibility of civil lawsuits. Which indeed occurred later.
Whew. We are way outside of the OP now. ISTM that the key question is what are the worst risks that the gun enthusiast faces if Hillary is elected President. For the responsible hunter I’d say nothing at all. For those wishing to defend themselves, I’d say nothing at all. Plinkers face a below 50% possibility: it’s conceivable that cartridge sizes might be limited to 7 or 8 bullets. Gun collectors also face the possibility of having some models with certain aesthetics denied to them. I’d say that’s less than 50%. Those wanting to do private person-to-person gun sales without waiting periods or oversight by a gun dealer or clearinghouse also face the possibility that the gunshow loophole will be closed. Overall, gun collectors might face some challenges, but that’s by no means certain. Nobody will be surprised if no major federal gun legislation is passed in the next 4 years. In fact, I’d say that’s probable.
Your contention is that when Clinton says "absolute immunity - she really means something different than absolute immunity, like for diplomats? That rhetorical tapdancing must be tiring. None of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to this novel idea. Washington Post:
Though, this may be a repeat of the Washington Post one, though the authors are credited as Chicago Tribune.
No mention of your fanciful ‘conditional absolute immunity’ or references to diplomatic absolute but not really immunity. When people who understand what Clinton is talking about assess this claim, they know it’s false. That she has repeated a knowing falsehood multiple times makes her a liar.
You yourself believed that a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand. How did you acquire this false belief? You say it was from a 14 year old Economist article that didn’t even state this as being true - and the last time you trotted out this mistake you were corrected and yet you make the same claim in this thread. My claim that one person held this false belief is not an opinion - that’s a fact. That Clinton is trying to give the impression that gun dealers and manufacturers enjoy absolute immunity is not an opinion - that’s a fact. She says it in her words. The only thing that is an opinion is how you believe she is using the term. Based on nothing and inconsistent with how every other outlet that has examined her claims, you think when she says “absolute immunity”, it really means something else. You struggle with common acronyms related to the subject matter, yet believe somehow Clinton is using this term to mean something different than her audience understands.
No, my criticism is the same as the Washington Post, PBS, NPR, the Chicago Tribune, Politifact, etc. Her claim is false.
That’s wonderful for you - in the same way I don’t care. Her overall trustworthiness is irrelevant when we’re talking about a specific claim that has been demonstrated to be false. That you brought up another issue with the “Charleston Loophole” and that yielded yet another false claim - see a trend? Maybe she’s the paragon of truthiness when it comes to other matters like dodging sniper fire, but when it comes to claims about firearms, specifically the two noted in this thread - she’s a liar.
First off, what is a “faulty distribution channel”? That’s not a legal term and given your history I want to make sure I understand how you are defining that term.
Second - your claim that firearm manufacturers and dealers have absolute immunity for faulty distribution channels (pending your elaboration of your newly coined term) has been falsified because >0 number of dealers have been held liable for their distribution methods. Doesn’t get more falsified than that.
And yet, everyone who looks at this disagrees with you. Are you using the word “standard” differently? Maybe when you say “standard” you’re really saying “secret code”? That would make sense. As it stands, not so much.
So with this, you acknowledge that both of the Clinton statements in question were wrong. And yet you still argue.
If you are only opposed to private party sales without background checks at gun shows, but think that the same transaction at a Wal Mart parking lot is just fine, then that would make sense. If you are opposed to both, then calling it a “gun show loophole” is nonsense. The fact that the Brady Act specifies dealers and the law defines who is a dealer, the idea that background checks are not required for private party sales is not a loophole, does not avoid the intent, or create an inadequacy. It was the intended result by design. You don’t like it. Wonderful and all, but that’s not a loophole. Otherwise you would have no objection to me characterizing the fact that I can’t acquire full auto weapons to be the “NFA loophole”? The law says what it says and it’s not an accident. Calling it a loophole is nonsense - and you talk about being butthurt.
The idea that NICS check has a 3 day period for delay responses is also not a loophole. It’s specified in the law, was debated during the law’s passing, and was intended to prevent indefinite delays. Whether Clinton would want 5000 days to check I don’t know - I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what she wanted.
Not quite - if a presidential candidate made an issue and talking point of a 30 minute youtube video, and was brought up multiple times during debates and speeches, then it would be reasonable for people talking about those claims to view the video. Otherwise, the comparison is not on point.
The PLCAA is the underlying law that Clinton keeps lying about. It’s been a campaign topic for several months. If you want to have a meaningful discussion about a specific law that’s a few pages long, it’s pretty standard to actually read what it says. Or you can continue reading new meaning into common phrases. That’s entertaining. But yes, as I suspected, you haven’t read it. It shows. Conveniently - the people who have read it, understand it, and evaluate Clinton’s claims come to the same conclusion - her claims are false. You - who hasn’t read it, come to a different conclusion. Remarkable!
The biggest real threat is judicial nominees. If Clinton is elected, I expect her nominees to be pretty disagreeable with respect to the 2nd amendment. If guns is your #1 issue, anyone but Hillary is a better choice. Sanders is a better choice. Cruz is a better choice. Trump is a better choice. A vacant presidency is a better choice. Because Clinton is an enemy of the 2nd amendment.
You should vote for Clinton. She’s not going to go after your guns any more than Obama did. They’ll say a lot, but we don’t have the votes in Congress to do it. Everything else she does is similar to what you want. Plus, she won’t start WW3
