Lawsuits against the companies that make assault rifles.

[JoeB131]

I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. I was overwhelmed by echoes of that mentally-deficient retard, Joycelyn Elders, from so long ago, rambling about “safer guns” and “safer bullets”.

Quite the contrary, you could create Tasers for the home market, we just refuse to do it practically, because there's more profit in selling lethal guns that kill far more family members than bad guys.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm fascinated by this. I'm not anti-guns. I'm not Kneejerk against all gun control proposals. I'm fascinated by the legal issue(s) here. This isn't really about the 2nd Amendment 'right'. The article is speaking to the responsibilities that come with freedom and commerce. This is a huge issue now regarding holding gun makers accountable.

I'm going to "

Listen to This Article​

Download New York Times Audio
Listen to this story in the New York Times Audio app on iOS.

Gun Makers and Mass Shootings

The Lawyer Trying to Hold Gunmakers Responsible for Mass Shootings

Josh Koskoff’s legal victory against Remington has raised the possibility of a new form of gun control: lawsuits against the companies that make assault rifles.

www.nytimes.com

A lawsuit against gun manufacturers is absolutely an attack on the 2d Amendment inasmuch as it seeks to make use of one BRANCH of government to limit access of the people to guns. (Bankrupting an arms manufacturer has that effect, of course.)

Just as I am not a First Amendment (speech) absolutist, so too I am not a 2d Amendment absolutist. But I am a strong proponent of the rights guaranteed by each.

My point is merely that we might as well recognize that the suits against gun manufacturers amount to exactly what the 2d Amendment prohibits. Let’s at least frame the question and the issue on the true premises.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I'm fascinated by this. I'm not anti-guns. I'm not Kneejerk against all gun control proposals. I'm fascinated by the legal issue(s) here. This isn't really about the 2nd Amendment 'right'. The article is speaking to the responsibilities that come with freedom and commerce. This is a huge issue now regarding holding gun makers accountable.

I'm going to "

Listen to This Article​

Download New York Times Audio
Listen to this story in the New York Times Audio app on iOS.

Gun Makers and Mass Shootings

The Lawyer Trying to Hold Gunmakers Responsible for Mass Shootings

Josh Koskoff’s legal victory against Remington has raised the possibility of a new form of gun control: lawsuits against the companies that make assault rifles.

www.nytimes.com

You're gonna get the raft of gun nuts screaming at you here.

Just like you, I'm not anti gun. I believe those that are suitable own and enjoy guns. I believe those that are suitable own and enjoy cars, ladders, air rifles, takeaways etc.. Just like everything in life, society just needs to help prevent the undesirables owning/using what suitable citizens use.

Take my kitchen worktop, double it, the skull of a gun nut is 15 times thicker than that, they make Neanderthals look intelligent.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A lawsuit against gun manufacturers is absolutely an attack on the 2d Amendment inasmuch as it seeks to make use of one BRANCH of government to limit access of the people to guns. (Bankrupting an arms manufacturer has that effect, of course.)

Just as I am not a First Amendment (speech) absolutist, so too I am not a 2d Amendment absolutist. But I am a strong proponent of the rights guaranteed by each.

My point is merely that we might as well recognize that the suits against gun manufacturers amount to exactly what the 2d Amendment prohibits. Let’s at least frame the question and the issue on the true premises.

The legal issues involved go to states rights, which some people always seem all over the place with. The lawsuits aren't trying to make the manufacturing of guns verboten. The nuances and full context of these lawsuits is extremely interesting, as they touch on many issues that transcend ideology and partisan political views. Myself, I'm still trying to digest it all, as I never followed it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You're gonna get the raft of gun nuts screaming at you here.

Just like you, I'm not anti gun. I believe those that are suitable own and enjoy guns. I believe those that are suitable own and enjoy cars, ladders, air rifles, takeaways etc.. Just like everything in life, society just needs to help prevent the undesirables owning/using what suitable citizens use.

Take my kitchen worktop, double it, the skull of a gun nut is 15 times thicker than that, they make Neanderthals look intelligent.

I believe many will stay away if they are not engaged with shit that would hijack this thread.


I'd ask everyone to read the OP and steer clear of engaging 2nd Amendment Trolls.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

paywall

Somebody posted on how to use

https://archive.is/

and a few other url's

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Quite the contrary, you could create Tasers for the home market, we just refuse to do it practically, because there's more profit in selling lethal guns that kill far more family members than bad guys.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

OP link is behind paywall; What a jerbroni.

Not even gonna bother. Next!

Somebody posted on how to use


https://archive.is/

and a few other url's

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Quite the contrary, you could create Tasers for the home market, we just refuse to do it practically, because there's more profit in selling lethal guns that kill far more family members than bad guys.

I believe many like Bob Blaylock will stay away if they are not engaged with shit that would hijack this thread.


I'd ask everyone to read the OP and steer clear of engaging 2nd Amendment Trolls.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I believe many will stay away if they are not engaged with shit that would hijack this thread.


I'd ask everyone to read the OP and steer clear of engaging 2nd Amendment Trolls.

Every cornerstone of life attracts common sense. It's common sense why food should be prepared in a hygienic way, why car drivers should be licenced, why health & safety legalisation is pushed on businesses etc.. But dare talk about common sense and guns, the gun nut moth frothers, ** Froth "2nd amendment", Froth, "Rights", Froth **.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Gun manufactures don’t sell guns to the public. They sell to licensed dealers. Just like Ford doesn’t sell cars to the public, it sells to dealers. The manufacturer of a legal product has no responsibility for anything done by someone two steps away.

I believe the lawyers on all aside and the Judge knew and know "Gun manufactures don’t sell guns to the public. They sell to licensed dealers."

You're conclusion (based on your personal observations and opinions), doesn't carry any legal weight in the cases here.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The legal issues involved go to states rights, which some people always seem all over the place with. The lawsuits aren't trying to make the manufacturing of guns verboten. The nuances and full context of these lawsuits is extremely interesting, as they touch on many issues that transcend ideology and partisan political views. Myself, I'm still trying to digest it all, as I never followed it.

The states have no more legitimate authority to violate the Constitutional rights of the people than the federal government has.

Up until the Fourteenth Amendment, there was some question on this, whether the Bill of Rights only constrained the federal government, and left the states free to infringe these rights with impunity, or whether the rights, belonging to the people, were to be protected against all violation by all levels of government. By incorporation of these rights under the Fourteenth, this question has been settled.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I smell desperation. They can sue as many gun companies as they want to, but there are more than enough manufacturers of gun parts to make enough guns for every man, woman, and child in this country. Plus all those foreign manufacturers too. Good luck suing them, they'll tell you to go fuck yourself.

And if it ever came to the worst case scenario, we'd just take the guns away from the police and military, and use them against them. No soldier I know of is absolutely bullet-proof.

It's not about all guns. Please do not try hijacking this thread.

 

[Auld Phart]

Somebody posted on how to use

https://archive.is/

and a few other url's

how long does that spin before opening a link?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Every cornerstone of life attracts common sense. It's common sense why food should be prepared in a hygienic way, why car drivers should be licenced, why health & safety legalisation is pushed on businesses etc.. But dare talk about common sense and guns, the gun nut moth frothers, ** Froth "2nd amendment", Froth, "Rights", Froth **.

You're baiting for a 2nd Amendment argument.

 

[Auld Phart]

It's not about all guns. Please do not try hijacking this thread.

which guns aren't included?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But dare talk about common sense and guns, the gun nut moth frothers, ** Froth "2nd amendment", Froth, "Rights", Froth **.

It is exactly because of us “gun nut moth frothers” that we Americans are not ruled over by you British filth. I say that that, in itself, is a better point in our favor than all the points combined that you can bring up to speak against us.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

paywall

https://archive.ph/rbarj

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

which guns aren't included?

read the OP

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm fascinated by this. I'm not anti-guns. I'm not Kneejerk against all gun control proposals. I'm fascinated by the legal issue(s) here. This isn't really about the 2nd Amendment 'right'. The article is speaking to the responsibilities that come with freedom and commerce. This is a huge issue now regarding holding gun makers accountable.

I'm going to "https://archive.ph/rbarj

Listen to This Article​

Download New York Times Audio
Listen to this story in the New York Times Audio app on iOS.

Gun Makers and Mass Shootings

The Lawyer Trying to Hold Gunmakers Responsible for Mass Shootings

Josh Koskoff’s legal victory against Remington has raised the possibility of a new form of gun control: lawsuits against the companies that make assault rifles.

www.nytimes.com