It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: markosity1973
That's the point. She hasn't lost her mind.
I don't like her. At all. But I'll never make the mistake of thinking her crazy, or unintelligent. She's neither. Which makes it very scary if she does, indeed, think this.
Personally, I think it's being misrepresented, as I've only found one source. The one the OP used. Everything else uses suing auto makers as a logical follow on to the ability to sue firearms manufacturers.
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton really is making that argument.
She’s just targeting a different industry, and Bernie Sanders is cravenly following her lead.
More realistically though, as cars get better at driving themselves it may become a reality that people begin endorsing such a way to hold manufacturers accountable for accidents caused by the vehicle
originally posted by: markosity1973
Off topic, but autonomous cars freak me out. How easy will it be for terrorists to send in car bombs then ??
Engage Armament announced it would start carrying the iP1 on May 1st. It backpedaled less than 24 hours later, after gun-rights advocates lashed out on Facebook and called the store, threatening to shoot Raymond, his girlfriend, and his dog.
However, there is immense pressure not to be the first to sell them. That’s because of a New Jersey law passed in 2002 known as the Childproof Handgun Law, which says that all guns sold in New Jersey must be state-approved smart guns within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. The goal was to make smart guns mandatory as soon as the technology existed. Officially, no smart gun has been sold in the US yet — meaning if Raymond had sold one, it would have triggered the clause in New Jersey.
originally posted by: butcherguy
I thought this couldn't possibly be true when I saw the title.
originally posted by: xuenchen
Hillary is pouring on the old "Let's sue the bastards" theme.
Lately it's been about suing gun manufacturers.
Now it's about suing car makers when the car is used as a "weapon of choice" even if it's accidental !!!!
When will these lawyers give it up?
I imagine something like this would cause millions of lawsuits one after another.
Clinton Campaigns To Allow Hit-And-Run Victims To Sue Car Makers
Campaigning in South Carolina today, Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton argued that accident victims and people who were intentionally run down in hit-and-run attacks with vehicles should be able to sue the automotive industry for damages incurred.
Clinton pointed out that almost every vehicle sold in the United States is capable of exceeding the speed limit and may be obtained by criminals second-hand, and often times illegally, to justify her position.
“So far as I know, the car industry and car dealers 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.”
SUE 'em ALL !!!
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: xuenchen
It is almost as if Hilary wants her party and her platform to look as stupid as possible. If I facepalm hard enough to encompass my feelings about this, my hand will go clear through my skull.