A regular in the comment section recently said the following with regard to voting for Darrell Castle:
When asked “Should victims of gun violence be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers?” Castle responded, “Yes, no corporation should be immune from the possibility that their product after being introduced into public commerce was defective, etc. and caused harm.” This answer places his much further to the left of this issue than even socialist Bernie Sanders, who gained the scorn of some Democrats for refusing to support prosecution of such vendors.
In another issue aligning him with Donald Trump, Castle supports the use of eminent domain. Asked “Should the government be allowed to seize private property, with reasonable compensation, for public or civic use?” Castle responded “Yes, as permitted by the Constitution when the seizure is necessary for public use and when fair market value is paid to the property owner.”
These comments are a blatant misrepresentation of Castle’s answers as shown by the very comments themselves.
1) Manufacturers should absolutely be held liable for defects that cause harm. This position is the free market, pro-gun position. The question regards law suits for damage performed by functioning as intended and conflating these to de-legitimize Darrell Castle’s position in favor of a Trump vote will not be silently tolerated. You should know better.
2) Eminent Domain is authorized by the Constitution. Darrell Castle supports the Constitution and uses authorized by the same. Donald Trump supports forcing you to sell him your property so he can make a parking garage or casino out of it. What if he wanted to open a
for profit baby-parts mill Planned Parenthood? You okay with that too?
I support 100% – without equivocation or compunction – any position that starts with “as authorized by the Constitution”. If you don’t like the Constitution, I’ll tell you the same as I tell the progressives: get 2/3 of the states to agree with you and change it, otherwise, piss off.