Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would like to see a valid poll that said that Americans want to be required to get permission from the filthy government in order to enjoy the rights proscribed in the Bill of Rights. If they do they are idiots.
I would like to see a valid poll that said that Americans want to be required to get permission from the filthy government in order to enjoy the rights proscribed in the Bill of Rights. If they do they are idiots.
Poll 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks TheHill
Ninety-two percent of voters, including 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans, support background checks prior to all gun sales, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University.
You just called 92% of your fellow gun owners idiots.
It's Zeke, misiformed dumbfuck of USMB.You do understand that an assault weapons ban is "taking guns away" don't you?
I understand that you are an asshole. I understand that you suffer from irrational fear.
And I understand that the 14 guns in my house are in no danger from being taken away by anybody in government.
I understand that NO ONE who had a legal right to own a gun had their guns taken away from them since Obama was elected. I understand that Ronnie St Reagan himself was opposed to having assault weapons on the streets of America.
What I don't understand is why you gun nutters are so fucking whacked out claiming repeatedly that your guns are being taken away.from you. When you know that is a lie.
No one said anything about exempting the firearms industry from any suits. Your toggle switch way of thinking came up with that. Guns were misused if they were used to murder. In no way is that similar to neglect.Back that up. And don't use settlements outside of court as "evidence".Partisan laws like that will be tested for constitutionality. The precedent for manufacturer liability has been proven in the courts on countless occasions. Trying to exempt a single industry will fail because it must either apply to all or none.
Was BP held directly liable? How about Exxon?
How about drug manufacturers?
Alabama Supreme Court Holds Again That Plaintiffs Who Use Generic Drugs Can Recover From Brand-Name Manufacturers
Interesting case because the original brand manufacturer is being held held for a misrepresentation of what ended up in a generic drug.
The courts hold car manufacturers liable for defective products even if they didn't actually make the part that failed.
No industry is exempt except for the firearms. There are no legal grounds for exempting an entire industry from litigation.
When you look at this from the SCOTUS viewpoint they have to decide if Congress has the power to exclude an industry from the law. The 3rd branch of government takes a very dim view of any infringement on it's own powers. In my opinion the SCOTUS will rule this law unconstitutional since Congress does not have the power to exempt industries from being subject to the law of the land.
BZZZT Wrong, Job_bezerk raised it as a defense against the lawsuit and then you unwittingly stumbled into the quagmire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html
Congress Passes New Legal Shield for Gun Industry
Published: October 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - The Republican-controlled Congress delivered a long-sought victory to the gun industry on Thursday when the House voted to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits. The bill now goes to President Bush, who has promised to sign it.
The gun liability bill has for years been the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association, which has lobbied lawmakers intensely for it. Its final passage, by a vote of 283 to 144, with considerable Democratic support, reflected the changing politics of gun control, an issue many Democrats began shying away from after Al Gore, who promoted it, was defeated in the 2000 presidential race.
"It's a historic piece of legislation," said Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, who said the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20, the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."
The bill, which is identical to one approved in July by the Senate, is aimed at ending a spate of lawsuits by individuals and municipalities, including New York City, seeking to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for negligence when their weapons are used in crimes.
While it bars such suits, the measure contains an exception allowing certain cases involving defective weapons or criminal behavior by a gun maker or dealer, such as knowingly selling a weapon to someone who has failed a criminal background check.
President Bush said in a statement that he looked forward to signing the bill,
Congress passed this bill exempting the firearms industry from legal liability. That is what will have to pass the test of Constitutionality and it is unlikely to do so in my opinion.
Bzzzzt, wrong. You inadvertently failed to read what you posted.No one said anything about exempting the firearms industry from any suits. Your toggle switch way of thinking came up with that. Guns were misused if they were used to murder. In no way is that similar to neglect.Back that up. And don't use settlements outside of court as "evidence".Partisan laws like that will be tested for constitutionality. The precedent for manufacturer liability has been proven in the courts on countless occasions. Trying to exempt a single industry will fail because it must either apply to all or none.
Was BP held directly liable? How about Exxon?
How about drug manufacturers?
Alabama Supreme Court Holds Again That Plaintiffs Who Use Generic Drugs Can Recover From Brand-Name Manufacturers
Interesting case because the original brand manufacturer is being held held for a misrepresentation of what ended up in a generic drug.
The courts hold car manufacturers liable for defective products even if they didn't actually make the part that failed.
No industry is exempt except for the firearms. There are no legal grounds for exempting an entire industry from litigation.
When you look at this from the SCOTUS viewpoint they have to decide if Congress has the power to exclude an industry from the law. The 3rd branch of government takes a very dim view of any infringement on it's own powers. In my opinion the SCOTUS will rule this law unconstitutional since Congress does not have the power to exempt industries from being subject to the law of the land.
BZZZT Wrong, Job_bezerk raised it as a defense against the lawsuit and then you unwittingly stumbled into the quagmire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html
Congress Passes New Legal Shield for Gun Industry
Published: October 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - The Republican-controlled Congress delivered a long-sought victory to the gun industry on Thursday when the House voted to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits. The bill now goes to President Bush, who has promised to sign it.
The gun liability bill has for years been the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association, which has lobbied lawmakers intensely for it. Its final passage, by a vote of 283 to 144, with considerable Democratic support, reflected the changing politics of gun control, an issue many Democrats began shying away from after Al Gore, who promoted it, was defeated in the 2000 presidential race.
"It's a historic piece of legislation," said Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, who said the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20, the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."
The bill, which is identical to one approved in July by the Senate, is aimed at ending a spate of lawsuits by individuals and municipalities, including New York City, seeking to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for negligence when their weapons are used in crimes.
While it bars such suits, the measure contains an exception allowing certain cases involving defective weapons or criminal behavior by a gun maker or dealer, such as knowingly selling a weapon to someone who has failed a criminal background check.
President Bush said in a statement that he looked forward to signing the bill,
Congress passed this bill exempting the firearms industry from legal liability. That is what will have to pass the test of Constitutionality and it is unlikely to do so in my opinion.
I would like to see a valid poll that said that Americans want to be required to get permission from the filthy government in order to enjoy the rights proscribed in the Bill of Rights. If they do they are idiots.
Poll 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks TheHill
Ninety-two percent of voters, including 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans, support background checks prior to all gun sales, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University.
You just called 92% of your fellow gun owners idiots.
That is not the question I specified.
No one said anything about exempting the firearms industry from any suits. Your toggle switch way of thinking came up with that. Guns were misused if they were used to murder. In no way is that similar to neglect.Back that up. And don't use settlements outside of court as "evidence".Partisan laws like that will be tested for constitutionality. The precedent for manufacturer liability has been proven in the courts on countless occasions. Trying to exempt a single industry will fail because it must either apply to all or none.
Was BP held directly liable? How about Exxon?
How about drug manufacturers?
Alabama Supreme Court Holds Again That Plaintiffs Who Use Generic Drugs Can Recover From Brand-Name Manufacturers
Interesting case because the original brand manufacturer is being held held for a misrepresentation of what ended up in a generic drug.
The courts hold car manufacturers liable for defective products even if they didn't actually make the part that failed.
No industry is exempt except for the firearms. There are no legal grounds for exempting an entire industry from litigation.
When you look at this from the SCOTUS viewpoint they have to decide if Congress has the power to exclude an industry from the law. The 3rd branch of government takes a very dim view of any infringement on it's own powers. In my opinion the SCOTUS will rule this law unconstitutional since Congress does not have the power to exempt industries from being subject to the law of the land.
BZZZT Wrong, Job_bezerk raised it as a defense against the lawsuit and then you unwittingly stumbled into the quagmire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html
Congress Passes New Legal Shield for Gun Industry
Published: October 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - The Republican-controlled Congress delivered a long-sought victory to the gun industry on Thursday when the House voted to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits. The bill now goes to President Bush, who has promised to sign it.
The gun liability bill has for years been the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association, which has lobbied lawmakers intensely for it. Its final passage, by a vote of 283 to 144, with considerable Democratic support, reflected the changing politics of gun control, an issue many Democrats began shying away from after Al Gore, who promoted it, was defeated in the 2000 presidential race.
"It's a historic piece of legislation," said Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, who said the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20, the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."
The bill, which is identical to one approved in July by the Senate, is aimed at ending a spate of lawsuits by individuals and municipalities, including New York City, seeking to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for negligence when their weapons are used in crimes.
While it bars such suits, the measure contains an exception allowing certain cases involving defective weapons or criminal behavior by a gun maker or dealer, such as knowingly selling a weapon to someone who has failed a criminal background check.
President Bush said in a statement that he looked forward to signing the bill,
Congress passed this bill exempting the firearms industry from legal liability. That is what will have to pass the test of Constitutionality and it is unlikely to do so in my opinion.Bzzzzt, wrong. You inadvertently failed to read what you posted.No one said anything about exempting the firearms industry from any suits. Your toggle switch way of thinking came up with that. Guns were misused if they were used to murder. In no way is that similar to neglect.Back that up. And don't use settlements outside of court as "evidence".Partisan laws like that will be tested for constitutionality. The precedent for manufacturer liability has been proven in the courts on countless occasions. Trying to exempt a single industry will fail because it must either apply to all or none.
Was BP held directly liable? How about Exxon?
How about drug manufacturers?
Alabama Supreme Court Holds Again That Plaintiffs Who Use Generic Drugs Can Recover From Brand-Name Manufacturers
Interesting case because the original brand manufacturer is being held held for a misrepresentation of what ended up in a generic drug.
The courts hold car manufacturers liable for defective products even if they didn't actually make the part that failed.
No industry is exempt except for the firearms. There are no legal grounds for exempting an entire industry from litigation.
When you look at this from the SCOTUS viewpoint they have to decide if Congress has the power to exclude an industry from the law. The 3rd branch of government takes a very dim view of any infringement on it's own powers. In my opinion the SCOTUS will rule this law unconstitutional since Congress does not have the power to exempt industries from being subject to the law of the land.
BZZZT Wrong, Job_bezerk raised it as a defense against the lawsuit and then you unwittingly stumbled into the quagmire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html
Congress Passes New Legal Shield for Gun Industry
Published: October 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - The Republican-controlled Congress delivered a long-sought victory to the gun industry on Thursday when the House voted to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits. The bill now goes to President Bush, who has promised to sign it.
The gun liability bill has for years been the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association, which has lobbied lawmakers intensely for it. Its final passage, by a vote of 283 to 144, with considerable Democratic support, reflected the changing politics of gun control, an issue many Democrats began shying away from after Al Gore, who promoted it, was defeated in the 2000 presidential race.
"It's a historic piece of legislation," said Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, who said the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20, the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."
The bill, which is identical to one approved in July by the Senate, is aimed at ending a spate of lawsuits by individuals and municipalities, including New York City, seeking to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for negligence when their weapons are used in crimes.
While it bars such suits, the measure contains an exception allowing certain cases involving defective weapons or criminal behavior by a gun maker or dealer, such as knowingly selling a weapon to someone who has failed a criminal background check.
President Bush said in a statement that he looked forward to signing the bill,
Congress passed this bill exempting the firearms industry from legal liability. That is what will have to pass the test of Constitutionality and it is unlikely to do so in my opinion.
"The bill, which is identical to one approved in July by the Senate, is aimed at ending a spate of lawsuits by individuals and municipalities, including New York City, seeking to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for negligence when their weapons are used in crimes."
That's got nothing to do with manufactures being held liable for defects or faults like any other manufacturer.
It says:I would like to see a valid poll that said that Americans want to be required to get permission from the filthy government in order to enjoy the rights proscribed in the Bill of Rights. If they do they are idiots.
Poll 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks TheHill
Ninety-two percent of voters, including 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans, support background checks prior to all gun sales, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University.
You just called 92% of your fellow gun owners idiots.
His argument is typically idiotic.The 1911 was designed for the battlefield too so using your warped sense of logic any 1911 manufacturer can be taken to the cleaners by some greedy lawyer.That weapon was designed for the battlefield and not for hunting. Therefore it was designed to cause injury.
The fact that it was used by the DC sniper will count against them and so will the magazine size.
But hunting rifles were designed to cause injury and many came from military designs. Probably all guns benefited from military designs.
My Bushmaster has killed no one. No guns were designed for murder. Misusing a tool doesn't make it the tool maker's fault.
I said defects and faults. You are acting like a lawyer and playing word games. Manufacturing the gun to do what guns are supposed to do isn't negligence. How else could they be made? It's impossible for the gun to make decisions. That's what the bill addressed, not defects or faults in the design.Negligence and defects fall under the same category of lawsuits as far as manufacturers are concerned.
..and bows and arrows. I guess they should be held liable when someone gets murdered. The scary thing is their arguments seem to make sense to them.His argument is typically idiotic.
Virtually every bolt action rifle on the market is patterened after the Mauser k98, the main German battle rifle of WWII.
The 1911 is as you say. The Glock was designed for Austrian military so by extension every derivative is also designed to kill. That's virtually every semi auto handgun on the market. The Smith revolver starte as the "Military and Police" so virtually every revolver is also "designed to kill."
The Ruger Mini 14 is patterned after the military's M14 rifle.
The AR after the M16.
About the only series that wasnt military inspired was Remington's Woodmaster series. The one Jame Earl Ray used to kill ML King.
As you point out, so what? Knives are designed to kill too but most people use them in the kitchen and dining room.
Well it's typical emotional in its appeal...and bows and arrows. I guess they should be held liable when someone gets murdered. The scary thing is their arguments seem to make sense to them.His argument is typically idiotic.
Virtually every bolt action rifle on the market is patterened after the Mauser k98, the main German battle rifle of WWII.
The 1911 is as you say. The Glock was designed for Austrian military so by extension every derivative is also designed to kill. That's virtually every semi auto handgun on the market. The Smith revolver starte as the "Military and Police" so virtually every revolver is also "designed to kill."
The Ruger Mini 14 is patterned after the military's M14 rifle.
The AR after the M16.
About the only series that wasnt military inspired was Remington's Woodmaster series. The one Jame Earl Ray used to kill ML King.
As you point out, so what? Knives are designed to kill too but most people use them in the kitchen and dining room.
Yeah producing a gun that functions as it was designed to, and marketing and selling it according to federal and state laws, doesn't sound like any issue of defect or negligence I ever heard of.I said defects and faults. You are acting like a lawyer and playing word games. Manufacturing the gun to do what guns are supposed to do isn't negligence. How else could they be made? It's impossible for the gun to make decisions. That's what the bill addressed, not defects or faults in the design.Negligence and defects fall under the same category of lawsuits as far as manufacturers are concerned.
Agreed, but the NRA is responsible for Bushmaster being in this predicament. 90% of the American people, including gun owners and Republicans support background checks. The NRA has obstructed all attempts at even the most reasonable of provisions that would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
The NRA should have backed down after Sandy Hook. It was a stupid move on their part and now Bushmaster is going to lose millions when it settles this lawsuit.
Bushmaster is not an "innocent party" unless you want to say that it is the victim of the NRA.
Excellent points all. Let me phrase the question and I can get any response you want.Agreed, but the NRA is responsible for Bushmaster being in this predicament. 90% of the American people, including gun owners and Republicans support background checks. The NRA has obstructed all attempts at even the most reasonable of provisions that would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
90% of those polled have no idea what "back ground checks" actually mean.....
Do you think they asked this question....Do you support background checks even though they do not stop one violent crime or mass shooting and simply add one more step, and more cost to a law abiding citizen buying a gun which is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment of the Constitution?
Do you think they answered a question like that?
And how exactly would a background check have saved those kids at Sandy Hook....oh...that's right....the mother aquired her guns....and had background checks done...the son....murdered her, and took her background checked guns....
Oh....and the Santa Barbara shooter....went thru 3 separate background checks for the 3 guns he used to shoot innocent people.....
Knowing that...do you think the respondents to that question would agree with background checks?
Well it's typical emotional in its appeal...and bows and arrows. I guess they should be held liable when someone gets murdered. The scary thing is their arguments seem to make sense to them.His argument is typically idiotic.
Virtually every bolt action rifle on the market is patterened after the Mauser k98, the main German battle rifle of WWII.
The 1911 is as you say. The Glock was designed for Austrian military so by extension every derivative is also designed to kill. That's virtually every semi auto handgun on the market. The Smith revolver starte as the "Military and Police" so virtually every revolver is also "designed to kill."
The Ruger Mini 14 is patterned after the military's M14 rifle.
The AR after the M16.
About the only series that wasnt military inspired was Remington's Woodmaster series. The one Jame Earl Ray used to kill ML King.
As you point out, so what? Knives are designed to kill too but most people use them in the kitchen and dining room.
"My Gawd! That gun is DESIGNED TO KILL!! How can we allow people to own them???? Do you want just anyone owning something DESIGNED TO KILL???"
It is devoid of logic or facts. IOW, a liberal argument.
And who themselves own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and defend the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.If only some of the gun-nuts here knew how many 'liberals' support firearms ownership
Did you notice that the poll was conducted by PBS? Did you know that their audience is 90% Liberal?So the NRA had trusted members like you all (how many times did the OP complete the poll) take this poll over and over and over to skew the results and make you all proud to be Americans. LMAO.
32k out of 34k Americans all agreeing on this issue eh.
You all do know that there is no monitoring of how many times someone answers the question. Right?
Typically those assholes run something like this:And who themselves own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and defend the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.If only some of the gun-nuts here knew how many 'liberals' support firearms ownership
