Hillary Clinton and Immunity for Gun Manufacturers

There is one thing that I have to agree with Hillary Clinton on: there should not have been a law passed to give immunity to manufacturers of firearms.

Where I disagree is that it is common sense that manufacturers of items should not be subject to lawsuits based on the illegal acts of a person.

This means that no law should have been required to get the protection against bogus lawsuits. The problem is that you have people with agendas who abuse the legal system by filing bogus lawsuit which are expensive to defend against. Their goal is to bankrupt the manufacturer in order to get a backdoor ban on firearms.

If you go with Hillary Clinton's view, that means we should be able to sue the manufacturers of vehicles and alcohol for all of the deaths and injuries from drunk drivers. Since under some warped view of "logic" the manufacturer is responsible. If you consider the business model, it is close to the same with firearms. The manufacturer makes a product, which is then sold to a distributor, which then is sold to a retail outlet where a consumer can buy the product. In the case of a vehicle, there might not be a distributor.

There is one BIG difference in the sale of a firearm vs. alcohol and vehicles which should bring in another responsible party under Hillary Clinton's view. The big difference with firearm sales is that each and every retail sale of a firearm is approved by the government as a background check is required (some states don't require a background if the person has a self defense permit (CCW)).

So does Hillary Clinton think that we should be able to sue the government when a person commits an illegal act with a firearm?