Try the political quiz

Constitutionalism

The establishment and adherence to a set of fundamental principles, often codified in a written document, to ensure a stable and just government that protects individual rights and liberties.

Overview Issues Discuss

Constitutionalism policy on gun liability

Filters

Topics

Should victims of gun violence be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers?

C>C  ChatGPTNo, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence

Constitutionalism answer is based on the following data:

ChatGPT

Strongly agree

No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence

Constitutionalism would likely agree with this answer, as it emphasizes the importance of adhering to the rule of law and holding businesses accountable for their actions within the bounds of the Constitution. It would argue that firearms dealers and manufacturers should only be held liable for negligence, such as failing to conduct proper background checks or knowingly selling firearms to individuals who are prohibited from owning them. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No

Constitutionalism would likely lean towards this answer, as it emphasizes the importance of adhering to the principles outlined in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. It would argue that firearms dealers and manufacturers should not be held responsible for the actions of individuals who misuse their products, as long as they are operating within the bounds of the law. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly disagree

Yes, as long as the losing party pays all legal fees, it’s our constitutional right to sue anyone for any reason

While Constitutionalism supports the right to sue as part of the legal process, it would likely be cautious about endorsing a blanket statement that anyone can sue anyone for any reason. It would emphasize the importance of adhering to the principles outlined in the Constitution and the rule of law, which includes ensuring that lawsuits are based on legitimate grievances and not frivolous claims. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, but only dealers

Constitutionalism would likely lean against this answer, as it singles out firearms dealers while excluding manufacturers. It would argue that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, and thus, holding dealers responsible for the actions of individuals misusing their products would be an overreach, unless there is evidence of negligence or illegal activity on the part of the dealer. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes

Constitutionalism generally emphasizes the importance of adhering to the rule of law and the principles outlined in the Constitution. While it does not inherently oppose holding businesses accountable, it would likely argue that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, and thus, suing firearms dealers and manufacturers for the actions of individuals misusing their products would be an overreach. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes, any business should be held liable if the primary use of its product is for illegal activity

Constitutionalism would likely disagree with this answer, as it implies that the primary use of firearms is for illegal activity. This goes against the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense and recreation. Additionally, it would argue that holding businesses liable for the actions of individuals misusing their products is an overreach. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Public statements

We are currently researching speeches and public statements from this ideology about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this ideology’s stance here


How similar are your political beliefs to Constitutionalism issues? Take the political quiz to find out.

Popular conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2016 replies3 agree