It comes off as a piece that is trying to rally liberals against Bernie Sanders for voting for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act (PLCAA) which limits liability of gun manufacturers for acts of crime committed with their products. The author, Mark Joseph Stern, does this by invoking one of the gun grabbers greatest hits of flawed logic:
...But the act’s primary purpose is as simple as it is cold-blooded. Every state imposes liability on manufacturers who are negligent in their production and sale of products. If I crash my Prius because its accelerator malfunctions, I can sue Toyota for negligently manufacturing a faulty pedal. If my child dismembers himself with a blender at Sears, I can sue Sears for negligently leaving that blender within a child’s reach. If I get stabbed by a teenager with a switchblade, I might be able to sue the pawn shop owner who illegally sold a knife to a minor.
Now we all cringe when we see this gun grabber argument because we know it only holds water if Toyota was to be held responsibile for someone who intentionally ran a victim down as opposed to an accident due to malfunction. And cringe pro gun advocates did - in the editorial's comment section. I noticed many comments from readers that point out the authors failing logic while indirectly (and sometimes even directly) coming to the defense of Bernie Sanders.
So is Stern, who seems to be a respected writer for a popular website really a complete idiot who doesnt understand basic logic? or did he just pull a really impressive flip kick superman 720 reach-around on people who would never support or defend Bernie Sanders in a million years...until now?