• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Howling Hypocrisy By The NRA

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SMOGZINN said:
That is not true. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is what we are talking about. That law made it so that the Gun Industry does not have to defend itself against general negligence lawsuits of the same type that caused car manufacturers to adopt safety measures.



Yes you could. You might lose, but you could sue and make your case on why you feel the van's manufacturer is liable for that act. You will not even be given a chance to make your claim against the gun industry because it has been preemptively shielded from such claims. It is most certainly a protection that no other industry in the United States enjoys.
Click to expand...


I'll have a look into this in the next couple days. It seems strange that Hillary would claim that changing the laws would bring justice when according to you it would be only if the gun malfunctioned or at least that's what you appear to be saying.
 
Kneedragger said:
So sorry Im at work and don't have time to play childish troll games. I don't get to sit in front of a computer and complain about Trump like everyone else in this forum..
I'll try next week taking screenshots of everyone's post and categorize them so I can use them.
Click to expand...
The real victim.

btw, i work 50+ hours a week. it's nice you live life by assumption.
 
Last edited:
Hayabusa Rider said:
I'll have a look into this in the next couple days. It seems strange that Hillary would claim that changing the laws would bring justice when according to you it would be only if the gun malfunctioned or at least that's what you appear to be saying.
Click to expand...

The law does not shield them from being liable for a known flaw in their product that caused a malfunction, it shields them from anything else that would cause them to be liable. For example if they advertised that their gun was non-lethal when in fact it is, or advertised 'best gun for getting kids off your lawn!' (actually, that might or might not be protected either, there is an exemption for promoting illegal activities; a court would have to rule if that directly encourages murder or if it references the legal defense of property) or something else so incredible stupid that an average person would decide that they held some liability for harm caused by the product. This is the standard every other product in the US must pass. This is why car commercials have the 'Professional driver on closed course' language, it makes it so that an average person should know that they shouldn't do that on their commute to work. But the NRA managed to lobby congress to make them immune to such lawsuits.
 
ch33zw1z said:
it's nice you live life by assumption.
Click to expand...
Say what?😛
assumption-is.jpg
 
I have to disagree with the 9 a.m. topic as Jesus said to turn the other cheek. An AR-15 is not capable of doing that so they definitely must have been talking about a fully automatic 12 gauge or a mark 19.😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top