That made me *happy *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, April 17th, 2016 3:28pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

Adding video to channels (Happy) - requested by eric3579.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, April 17th, 2016 3:47pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

I'm a liberal in many things but allowing gun manufacturers to be held responsible for the actions of some gun owners is simply absurd. If it was allowed to happen then we'd be opening a legal Pandora's box in our litigation happy nation that would damage or kill all kinds of businesses big and small, and not just the gun industry as the proponents of this plan hope it would.
Bernie explains this well enough but the woman on the show but it's clear that her anti logic field is working perfectly.

I think the main reason gun manufacturers don't make the biometric locks (as Obama and many other politicians call for) is fear of litigation when that lock fails.

To see safer guns (from children finding and using them) I would support a bill with some form of legal immunity from these types of lawsuits.

The reason many in the NRA are so against smart guns is because some places (New Jersey is one I think) have it written into law that when smart guns become technically and commercially viable then all arms dealers must switch to selling only smart guns within something like 3 years. Essentially making the sale of all other guns illegal I guess.
And the gun manufacturers pretty much already have immunity from being sued for how someone uses their products. There is no reasonable way that the makers of a firearm could possibly insure that someone they sell a gun to will not use it in either a criminal or just recklessly.
Personally I think smart guns are a great idea but I think lawmakers didn't consider how their own laws might wind up hindering the adoption of smart guns.
Here's the story I heard on NPR about it a week or two back.
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473416699/how-an-idea-to-develop-a-safer-smart-gun-backfired

Is holding arms makers accountant for crimes they didn't commit even a thing? Wouldn't this just get laughed out of the courts if they tried to implement it?

Won't we soon see? I thought some parents from the Sandy Hook school shooting WERE suing the manufacturers, aren't they? Time will tell if it goes anywhere.

It's still working it's way through the courts, Remington claims that they're protected under the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act. But some say there are exceptions for things like negligent entrustment, as the families are claiming that military style weapons should never have been sold to the public in the first place and therefore qualifies as negligence.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467688334/ar-15-gun-maker-seeks-to-dismiss-lawsuit-filed-by-sandy-hook-parents