If someone misuses a vehicle in a malicious way to harm others, the vehicle manufacturer isn’t held liable, so why should a firearms manufacturer be held liable?
@9FF2Q9G9mos9MO
Car manufacturers don't just give the public the fanciest or dangerous cars, they are reserved. Gun manufacturers should not be creating assault grade weapons for the public.
@6WP5FSYRepublican 6mos6MO
“Gun manufacturers should not be creating assault grade weapons for the public.”
They don't make assault grade weapons for the public. No modern developed military is using a semi-automatic weapon.
@9GKKKN27mos7MO
as per the 2nd amendment, giving me the right to a well regulated militia in the case of fighting for free state, and the right to bear and keep arms, i am 100% entitled to owning a assault grade weapon. If i fall off of a ladder and break my back, i have no right to sue the ladder company. On the other side, if a gun goes off with no fault of the owner, then i can see a lawsuit. People like you are a cancer to our free society, you do no research and make irrational, emotional, and baseless claims. If you took 2 seconds and did a quick google search, you will find that said weapons make up… Read more
@9FF2HC3Libertarian9mos9MO
yes this is a great analogy to describe this issue. people can kill others with a car just as easily as they can with a gun.
@9MW8XLM1wk1W
Whether they are held liable or not would be up to a court to decide bc whether it's a firearm, a car, etc its literally in the 1st amendment that we have a constitutional right to "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now it's up to the courts and the lawyers and what not to decide if it's a legit case or not
The historical activity of users engaging with this disagreement.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...