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.
Just heard on the news, this illegal law suit has been dismissed. Parents say they will appeal, such a waste of money, their gonna lose. Remington made a legal product and is not responsible for damages. Firearms manufactures are protected by law against these unjust suits.
I also think it was correct to dismiss this case.
As you know, they did not indicate negligence in the product itself, but the sale to untrained civilians. They theory being that Remington's gun sale in this instance would have been legal if the user had some training certificate, like a car license (where the user goes through a training process/exam before using a potentially deadly vehicle).
However, the deaths did not result from a lack of training, so the suit itself didn't make sense. I guess you could argue that requiring some kind of advanced training/certificate would make it harder for lazy or incompetent people to own these weapons, which itself might limit these gun slaughters, but we will never put an end to gun violence or vehicular death. Best you can do is find legislative ways to limit the death while still vigorously defending the rights of legal/responsible gun owners. This is why Stop Signs as not seen as unfair government intrusions on freedom. The notion that there can't be any regulations surrounding the operation and use of potentially deadly instruments is crazy, but the gun lobby controls one of our two party's, so everyone knows that introducing even mild legislation is impossible, and will be conflated with the death of the 2nd Amendment.
How exactly are there no gun regulations......? You guys throw that line out there and just think that is all you have to say.......try explaining what you mean when you say
"The notion that there can't be any regulations....." considering all of the regulations around owning and using guns......
Fair.
Let me try to say it better.
There are regulations, but whenever regulations are proposed, those regulations are seen as a slippery slope to the death of the 2nd Amendment.
And whenever a politician proposes legislation, that politician is accused of having a secret agenda to destroy the 2nd Amendment.
This makes it hard to both maintain and improve upon the metaphorical equivalent of Stop Signs, Traffic Lights, Speed Limits, Licenses and the entire infrastructure of laws & regulations that help ensure safe driving while not limiting the rights of legal, responsible car owners. (Again, though, I agree that the lawsuit was frivolous. My mother's family is from a rural part of the US and are big hunters. They are extremely responsible gun owners. I am predisposed to the Right on this issue only, but I wish we could discuss regulations without such a toxic backdrop of miscommunication and slippery slope'ism)
Why NOT sell weapons of mass destruction, then? After all, the right wingers' "argument" is that NO US citizen should be deprived of owning anything that the military or law enforcement uses...
Congress has removed federal funding for firearms-related research.
Funding used to be set aside for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the impact of gun ownership — but that was taken away in the mid-90s.
The New York Times explains that as the CDC became "increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon," the National Rifle Association assailed its findings as politically skewed and lobbied to defund research.
One study commissioned by the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control found that the risks of keeping a gun in the home outweigh the benefits: "A gun kept in the home is far more likely to be involved in the death of a family member of the household than it is to be used to kill in self-defense," its authors wrote in 1993.
In 1996, an amendment proposed by then-Arkansas Republican Congressman Jay Dickey removed $2.6 million from the center's budget, the same amount earmarked for firearms research. When funding to CDC was later restored, legislation included the directive that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Critics charge that language had a chilling effect on CDC's support for gun-related research.
Five Federal Policies on Guns You’ve Never Heard Of
Yeah...didn't think it would fly.Just heard on the news, this illegal law suit has been dismissed. Parents say they will appeal, such a waste of money, their gonna lose. Remington made a legal product and is not responsible for damages. Firearms manufactures are protected by law against these unjust suits.
The gun industry is shielded from many lawsuits involving criminal misuse of guns.
In 2005, Congress enacted a law that immunizes gun dealers and manufacturers from liability for injuries resulting in the "criminal or unlawful misuse" of a firearm. The law authorized dismissal of any applicable pending lawsuits and prohibited future claims.
Five Federal Policies on Guns You’ve Never Heard Of
Just heard on the news, this illegal law suit has been dismissed. Parents say they will appeal, such a waste of money, their gonna lose. Remington made a legal product and is not responsible for damages. Firearms manufactures are protected by law against these unjust suits.
I also think it was correct to dismiss this case.
As you know, they did not indicate negligence in the product itself, but the sale to untrained civilians. They theory being that Remington's gun sale in this instance would have been legal if the user had some training certificate, like a car license (where the user goes through a training process/exam before using a potentially deadly vehicle).
However, the deaths did not result from a lack of training, so the suit itself didn't make sense. I guess you could argue that requiring some kind of advanced training/certificate would make it harder for lazy or incompetent people to own these weapons, which itself might limit these gun slaughters, but we will never put an end to gun violence or vehicular death. Best you can do is find legislative ways to limit the death while still vigorously defending the rights of legal/responsible gun owners.
Keeping with the car metaphor, this is why Stop Signs as not seen as unfair government intrusions on freedom. The notion that there can't be any regulations surrounding the operation and use of potentially deadly instruments is crazy, but the gun lobby controls one of our two party's, so everyone knows that introducing even mild legislation is impossible, and will be conflated with the death of the 2nd Amendment.
and how about specifying the "mild legislation" that you think can't be passed...and then explain how the "mild legislation" is actually useful and achieves what you say it would achieve...
You guys don't get to throw out B.S. lines like that and not get called on it......explain what you just said....show us what you mean ......
Just heard on the news, this illegal law suit has been dismissed. Parents say they will appeal, such a waste of money, their gonna lose. Remington made a legal product and is not responsible for damages. Firearms manufactures are protected by law against these unjust suits.
I also think it was correct to dismiss this case.
As you know, they did not indicate negligence in the product itself, but the sale to untrained civilians. They theory being that Remington's gun sale in this instance would have been legal if the user had some training certificate, like a car license (where the user goes through a training process/exam before using a potentially deadly vehicle).
However, the deaths did not result from a lack of training, so the suit itself didn't make sense. I guess you could argue that requiring some kind of advanced training/certificate would make it harder for lazy or incompetent people to own these weapons, which itself might limit these gun slaughters, but we will never put an end to gun violence or vehicular death. Best you can do is find legislative ways to limit the death while still vigorously defending the rights of legal/responsible gun owners.
Keeping with the car metaphor, this is why Stop Signs as not seen as unfair government intrusions on freedom. The notion that there can't be any regulations surrounding the operation and use of potentially deadly instruments is crazy, but the gun lobby controls one of our two party's, so everyone knows that introducing even mild legislation is impossible, and will be conflated with the death of the 2nd Amendment.
and how about specifying the "mild legislation" that you think can't be passed...and then explain how the "mild legislation" is actually useful and achieves what you say it would achieve...
You guys don't get to throw out B.S. lines like that and not get called on it......explain what you just said....show us what you mean ......
Obviously, any legislation would have to be evaluated, but my point wasn't about the legislation itself, it was about creating an environment where it is possible to discuss regulations without triggering a paranoid or defensive overreaction which conflates regulation with the death of the 2nd Amendment. This would the equivalent of someone saying that Stop Signs are part of a secret plot to end driving, so that only the government can drive.
I think the two dangers are:
1. The belief that guns should be banned.
2. The belief that any proposed regulation amounts to the death of the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.
Let me ask you.
Do you see any proposed regulation as an intrusion on your right to own a gun?
(FYI: Take the 14th Amendment, which protects a women's right to Abortion. In Texas the goal is to destroy this Constitutional Right through regulations which make it virtually impossible for abortions to happen in Texas. The folks looking to destroy a women's right to an abortion in TX have admitted that they are seeking to kill Roe through regulations. I disagree with this as a Constitutional remedy. I don't think Roe or the 2nd Amendment should be sneakily destroyed because shameless crooks lack the legislative power to do it legally. Part of honoring the Constitution is not merely honoring the parts you like. This puts individuals above the Constitution, and it is something the Right is prone to.)
A federal firearms trace database is off-limits to the public.
How often do federally licensed gun dealers sell guns that are then used in crimes? It's hard to know, because for nearly a decade such gun trace data has been hidden from the public. Even local law enforcement had been, until recently, barred from accessing the database for anything but narrow investigations.
Outside research tying seized guns to a small handful of dealers spurred the federal government to impose tougher sanctions and inspections on gun retailers and manufacturers.
But those sanctions sparked a backlash: Since 2003, the Tiahrt Amendments, so named after the former Kansas Republican congressman who introduced the measures, have concealed the database from the public. Prior to 2010, local police could access the database only to investigate an individual crime but not to look for signs of broader criminal activity.
Five Federal Policies on Guns You’ve Never Heard Of
The gun industry is shielded from many lawsuits involving criminal misuse of guns.
In 2005, Congress enacted a law that immunizes gun dealers and manufacturers from liability for injuries resulting in the "criminal or unlawful misuse" of a firearm. The law authorized dismissal of any applicable pending lawsuits and prohibited future claims.
Five Federal Policies on Guns You’ve Never Heard Of
gun makers do not sell to felons, or the dangerously mentally ill...twit.
"True", except when they do........You don't want to go that route there, fella......
You like being a pussy whipped bitch?again...try to think this time.... What I think of the difference in those numbers? I think that all guns should be destroyed. Each and every one is a weapon of murder. Shooting holes in cans serves no practical purpose. Knives can be used for cooking et al. (practical purposes) and cars can be used to get from point A to point B, also practical purposes.......
So, you tell us...which is actually deadlier?
What I think personally? I think that all guns should be destroyed. Each and every one is a weapon of murder. Shooting holes in cans serves no practical purpose. Knives can be used for cooking et al. (practical purposes) and cars can be used to get from point A to point B, also practical purposes.
But that's my line of thinking, perhaps not yours. Let's use yours instead. How about we use the favourite amongst gun lovers: "It's not the gun that kills .... it's the person using it." There is some obvious logic to that, we MUST agree, right? Well, if it's the person holding the gun that kills then I suggest that citizens ought to be allowed to own fire arms in every country in the Western World except for the US. I mean, just look at how many Americans are murdering one another with fire arms!
again...try to think this time....
Which is deadlier in this country...the rifle used in Sandy Hook, or the knife?
Rifles with magazines....162 dead over 34 years.
knives...1,500 dead every single year.
Another stat genius...according to the bill clinton Department of Justice Study on gun self defense....Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives, many times stopping mass public shootings like what happened at Sandy Hook.....
gun murder 2015.... 9,616
1,500,000 crimes stopped and lives saved.... v. 9,616 gun murders....90% of which are committed by people who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns.
Can you tell the difference in these numbers?
But that's my line of thinking, perhaps not yours. Let's use yours instead. How about we use the favourite amongst gun lovers: "It's not the gun that kills .... it's the person using it." There is some obvious logic to that, we MUST agree, right? Well, if it's the person holding the gun that kills then I suggest that citizens ought to be allowed to own fire arms in every country in the Western World except for the US. I mean, just look at how many Americans are murdering one another with fire arms!
BUT YOUR REAL QUESTION IS: "Which is deadlier in this country...the rifle used in Sandy Hook, or the knife?" The rifle is most definitely more deadly. One shot (by even a novice or accidentily) will often kill you.
Just heard on the news, this illegal law suit has been dismissed. Parents say they will appeal, such a waste of money, their gonna lose. Remington made a legal product and is not responsible for damages. Firearms manufactures are protected by law against these unjust suits.
I also think it was correct to dismiss this case.
As you know, they did not indicate negligence in the product itself, but the sale to untrained civilians. They theory being that Remington's gun sale in this instance would have been legal if the user had some training certificate, like a car license (where the user goes through a training process/exam before using a potentially deadly vehicle).
However, the deaths did not result from a lack of training, so the suit itself didn't make sense. I guess you could argue that requiring some kind of advanced training/certificate would make it harder for lazy or incompetent people to own these weapons, which itself might limit these gun slaughters, but we will never put an end to gun violence or vehicular death. Best you can do is find legislative ways to limit the death while still vigorously defending the rights of legal/responsible gun owners. This is why Stop Signs as not seen as unfair government intrusions on freedom. The notion that there can't be any regulations surrounding the operation and use of potentially deadly instruments is crazy, but the gun lobby controls one of our two party's, so everyone knows that introducing even mild legislation is impossible, and will be conflated with the death of the 2nd Amendment.
How exactly are there no gun regulations......? You guys throw that line out there and just think that is all you have to say.......try explaining what you mean when you say
"The notion that there can't be any regulations....." considering all of the regulations around owning and using guns......
Fair.
Let me try to say it better.
There are regulations, but whenever regulations are proposed, those regulations are seen as a slippery slope to the death of the 2nd Amendment.
And whenever a politician proposes legislation, that politician is accused of having a secret agenda to destroy the 2nd Amendment.
This makes it hard to both maintain and improve upon the metaphorical equivalent of Stop Signs, Traffic Lights, Speed Limits, Licenses and the entire infrastructure of laws & regulations that help ensure safe driving while not limiting the rights of legal, responsible car owners. (Again, though, I agree that the lawsuit was frivolous. My mother's family is from a rural part of the US and are big hunters. They are extremely responsible gun owners. I fully support their right to gun ownership, but I wish we could discuss gun regulations without such a toxic backdrop of miscommunication and slippery slope'ism)
There Is such a thing as personal responsibility… LOLYeah, a doctor that prescribes a patient 200 oxycotin a month can't be held responsible for that patient over-dosing, becoming addicted, or turning to heroin. The government can't make rules warning doctors of serious legal consequences of such actions, and limiting the amount of pain killers they prescribe. The doctor is just making a nice profit for himself and the drug company.
Pharmaceutical companies can't be held liable for deadly misuse of their products. Pills are just inanimate objects.
Yeahhh.
... when it comes to large sums of money the little guy is going to fucked every time.What if the Ford was wielded as a weapon of purpose .... taken aim and pulled accelerator.Suing Remington because someone shot somebody using a Remington gun, is no different from suing Ford because someone ran over somebody using one of their cars.
Well, there is one difference. The right to own and carry one of Remington's guns is constitutionally protected, no govt can make a law against it. The right to own and drive a Ford is not.
So?
Just heard on the news, this illegal law suit has been dismissed. Parents say they will appeal, such a waste of money, their gonna lose. Remington made a legal product and is not responsible for damages. Firearms manufactures are protected by law against these unjust suits.
I also think it was correct to dismiss this case.
As you know, they did not indicate negligence in the product itself, but the sale to untrained civilians. They theory being that Remington's gun sale in this instance would have been legal if the user had some training certificate, like a car license (where the user goes through a training process/exam before using a potentially deadly vehicle).
However, the deaths did not result from a lack of training, so the suit itself didn't make sense. I guess you could argue that requiring some kind of advanced training/certificate would make it harder for lazy or incompetent people to own these weapons, which itself might limit these gun slaughters, but we will never put an end to gun violence or vehicular death. Best you can do is find legislative ways to limit the death while still vigorously defending the rights of legal/responsible gun owners. This is why Stop Signs as not seen as unfair government intrusions on freedom. The notion that there can't be any regulations surrounding the operation and use of potentially deadly instruments is crazy, but the gun lobby controls one of our two party's, so everyone knows that introducing even mild legislation is impossible, and will be conflated with the death of the 2nd Amendment.
How exactly are there no gun regulations......? You guys throw that line out there and just think that is all you have to say.......try explaining what you mean when you say
"The notion that there can't be any regulations....." considering all of the regulations around owning and using guns......
Fair.
Let me try to say it better.
There are regulations, but whenever regulations are proposed, those regulations are seen as a slippery slope to the death of the 2nd Amendment.
And whenever a politician proposes legislation, that politician is accused of having a secret agenda to destroy the 2nd Amendment.
This makes it hard to both maintain and improve upon the metaphorical equivalent of Stop Signs, Traffic Lights, Speed Limits, Licenses and the entire infrastructure of laws & regulations that help ensure safe driving while not limiting the rights of legal, responsible car owners. (Again, though, I agree that the lawsuit was frivolous. My mother's family is from a rural part of the US and are big hunters. They are extremely responsible gun owners. I fully support their right to gun ownership, but I wish we could discuss gun regulations without such a toxic backdrop of miscommunication and slippery slope'ism)
It does matter.Doesn't matter ...
And Remington didn't manufacture their rifles for the purpose of unlawfully killing people either.Ford didn't manufacture it for the purpose of unlawfully killing people .......
The point remains; when it comes to large sums of money the little guy is going to fucked every time.
