No industry in this country should be shielded from liability when their products are made in such a way that innocent people get injured or killed...unless it's by the willful actions of a third party.
See, if a car suddenly explodes, the manufacturer deserves to be sued. If they make a car that explodes when it's in an accident, same thing.
Yet suing a car maker because of a drunk driver is ridiculous. They know that drunk driving is a thing and I suppose they could put breathalyzers on all the cars so you can't start it if you've been drinking--we know the technology exists because courts mandate it for some who have been arrested for drunk driving--but they don't and no one says a thing and no one tries to sue them.
Nor should they.
Which brings me to MSNBC.
If the gun rights lobby has its way, last week’s tragic school shooting in Georgia will be reduced to yet another statistic, dressed up in empty thoughts and prayers. And if Donald Trump returns to office in November, the Republican Party's unholy alliance with the corporate gun lobby could be cemented into federal law.
Both Project 2025 and Trump’s official policy platform, Agenda 47, aim to shield the gun industry with layers of legal protection. While Trump has been trying to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation’s far-right manifesto for some months now, the proposals in Agenda 47 mirror Project 2025’s dangerous objectives — and in many cases, go even further.
I'd like to call this stupidity, but I think this misrepresentation isn't because they don't understand things. I think it's because they hope you don't.
The rest of this screed isn't any better. It's mostly just echoing talking points that have long been debunked.
Yet I'm mostly hung up on the whole "shield the gun industry with layers of legal protection" thing.
See, the issue here is that he invokes the events of Apalachee High School, then laments the protections in place by law for the gun industry.
I'm old enough to remember when lawsuits against gun makers were relatively common and based on nothing more than a product they built was used in a shooting. It happened over and over and was nothing more than an attempt to bog them down in numerous legal actions, depleting any monetary reserves and to try and force them into making concessions to the anti-gun groups driving the lawsuits.
It was extortion, plain and simple.
As a result, Congress stepped in and put an end to it. If they hadn't, we likely wouldn't have any gun manufacturers left that would sell to the civilian population.
While Ali Velshi laments these protections, he also fails to demonstrate in any way how the gun industry is actually liable for literally any ills we're experiencing in our society. Yes, guns are used in mass murder and more pedestrian homicides, but just how is that the fault of an industry that can't even really sell directly to consumers? After all, if you go on a manufacturer's website and buy a gun, it ain't coming to your house unless you're a licensed dealer. It has to be sent to an FFL holder, who you would need to visit to go through the paperwork and background check.
So how are these manufacturers responsible for anything?
And don't tell me their marketing. First, there's no evidence any mass killer has seen the marketing in question. Second, in the context of Apalachee High, the killer didn't even buy his firearm. His father did that for him.
Yet this is the initial framing Velshi presents, only to then go on and lament Project 2025 and all that. However, all that we're talking about with relation to the gun industry is maintaining the status quo. That's hardly radical, nor is it dangerous.
Honestly, it's getting harder to take anyone associated with MSNBC seriously.
Not that I bother to try.
