Lawsuits against the companies that make assault rifles.

[The Duke]

Nope. It was a mod. thank you

Rather it was the Admin, el Chorizo

Link, fag?

 

[Captain Caveman]

If the design purpose of guns is to kill people, then how is it that the overwhelming vast majority of guns are never used for any such purpose? The engineers who design guns must be doing an extraordinarily poor job of it, if any of your logic is at all sound.

The point is that it is unjustifiable to hold the manufacturer of a legitimate product, sold and used for legit9imate purposes; for the results of someone abusing that product.

I'll repeat from past debates as you have nothing between your lugs to stop information flying between your lugs.

You follow regulations. You follow food hygiene regulations to reduce food poisoning, you follow car licencing regulations to be suitable trained to use car, you follow Health & Safety regulations so you are safe on a building site etc... In the likes of the UK, you follow the regulations in using and owning a gun. To past this test, it's simply within your control; have a clean police record (minor infractions are ignored), no dangerous instances on your driving record, nothing of concern on your medical record, and you are shooting in fields on your farm or you're part of a shoot and/gun club etc.. or in essence you have a validate reason as saying, "To protect me and my family, I will shot anyone walking onto my land.

The only food, access equipment, and gun regulations makes sure the type and features are safe. So for example, you can't buy raw milk from a farm in Scotland, you must wash your hands handling raw meat before swapping to the pie counter to pick a pie up. You can have a handgun in the UK but it has to be over a certain length, a shotgun can't be pump action etc..

You guys keep bleating on about gun bans. Thick as fuck despite what westwall believes.

And I can guarantee it Bob, straight through your lugs and you'll be back with the same shit.

 

[westwall]

I'll repeat from past debates as you have nothing between your lugs to stop information flying between your lugs.

You follow regulations. You follow food hygiene regulations to reduce food poisoning, you follow car licencing regulations to be suitable trained to use car, you follow Health & Safety regulations so you are safe on a building site etc... In the likes of the UK, you follow the regulations in using and owning a gun. To past this test, it's simply within your control; have a clean police record (minor infractions are ignored), no dangerous instances on your driving record, nothing of concern on your medical record, and you are shooting in fields on your farm or you're part of a shoot and/gun club etc.. or in essence you have a validate reason as saying, "To protect me and my family, I will shot anyone walking onto my land.

The only food, access equipment, and gun regulations makes sure the type and features are safe. So for example, you can't buy raw milk from a farm in Scotland, you must wash your hands handling raw meat before swapping to the pie counter to pick a pie up. You can have a handgun in the UK but it has to be over a certain length, a shotgun can't be pump action etc..

You guys keep bleating on about gun bans. Thick as fuck despite what westwall believes.

And I can guarantee it Bob, straight through your lugs and you'll be back with the same shit.

Throughout time the elite have only been able to keep their power by keeping the peasants disarmed.

Try reading some history, you are terribly ignorant of it.

 

[westwall]

If that was true, what has been previously said in gun debates would have been retained in the heads of gun nuts, and the same ole clichés would stop being blurted out. But here we are, back amongst the thick gun nuts.

More importantly, it would have been retained in the skulls of you bootlickers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Did they specifically design the car to kill people and then sold it to you despite you being a crazy person?

firearms manufacture's don't do that you liar.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Distinction without a difference. The gun industry knows the kind of people they are selling to, in fact they are superficially marketing to them.



Uh, sorry, let's say we developed a Gun that couldn't possibly kill anyone... why would you buy it?


But that's what it's DESIGNED to do, that's the point.

So here's a simple solution. Since you all REALLY don't want to kill anyone, let's ONLY allow the sale of weapons with non-lethal ammo- Tasers, Rubber Bullets, etc.

keep lying you aren't good at it but you do it so much.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Liar

 

[Grau]

OP link is behind paywall; What a jerbroni.

Not even gonna bother. Next!

I won't pay to read something when I can predict what it will say anyway:
"GUNS ARE BAD AND I DON'T LIKE THEM"

Meanwhile, since my AR-15 can read and promised not to shoot anyone, it got an idea from the article below: "Happy Land fire"

"My AR-15 jumped out of the closet yesterday morning, fixed itself a cup of coffee, smoked a cigarette and drove my car down to the corner gas station where it bought $1.00 worth of gasoline, made a crude WMD that it used to kill 87 people"


"Happy Land fire"

Happy Land fire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED


The killer who started the Happy Land Fire couldn't find a gun in NYC to kill his ex girlfriend so he made a crude WMD that managed to kill more people than any "assault weapon".

My point is that even if "assault weapons" were impossible to get, determined killers will still find a way to kill a large number of people either in the community or at a school where another crude WMD killed more people than any "assault weapon" in any school mass killing.

"The 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School Massacre"

"Ninety years ago, a school in Bath, Michigan was rigged with explosives in a brutal act that stunned the town"

The 1927 Bombing That Remains Americaâs Deadliest School Massacre

More than 90 years ago, a school in Bath, Michigan was rigged with explosives in a brutal act that stunned the town

www.smithsonianmag.com

EXCERPTS "In the end 44 people died, 38 of them students. It wasn’t the first bombing in the country’s history—at least eight were killed during the Haymarket Square rally in Chicago in 1886, and 30 when a bomb exploded in Manhattan in 1920. But none had been so deadly as this, or affected so many children."CONTINUED


Thanks,

 

[JoeB131]

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.

It's not a Second Amendment Issue. The Second Amendment clearly puts the 'right to bear arms" within the context of "Well-Regulated Militias"

The problem, of course, is the gun industry's own conduct has brought us to this point. They know the people they are unstable or criminal. They don't care. They actually want the crazies to have guns, both because they are more likely to want more guns, and they are more likely to create incidents that frighten everyone else into wanting them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's not a Second Amendment Issue. The Second Amendment clearly puts the 'right to bear arms" within the context of "Well-Regulated Militias"

The problem, of course, is the gun industry's own conduct has brought us to this point. They know the people they are unstable or criminal. They don't care. They actually want the crazies to have guns, both because they are more likely to want more guns, and they are more likely to create incidents that frighten everyone else into wanting them.

the supreme court and the English language disagree with that claim.

 

[BackAgain]

It's not a Second Amendment Issue. The Second Amendment clearly puts the 'right to bear arms" within the context of "Well-Regulated Militias"

False. It mentions the militia but it does not put it in that context, clearly or otherwise.

It is a second amendment issue.

The problem, of course, is the gun industry's own conduct has brought us to this point.

Nope.

They know the people they are unstable or criminal. They don't care.

And you know all of this based on … nothing.

They actually want the crazies to have guns,

Link?

both because they are more likely to want more guns, and they are more likely to create incidents that frighten everyone else into wanting them.

Speculation.

Here’s a fact: you are a hack.

 

[Auld Phart]

It's not a Second Amendment Issue. The Second Amendment clearly puts the 'right to bear arms" within the context of "Well-Regulated Militias"

The problem, of course, is the gun industry's own conduct has brought us to this point. They know the people they are unstable or criminal. They don't care. They actually want the crazies to have guns, both because they are more likely to want more guns, and they are more likely to create incidents that frighten everyone else into wanting them.

The Second Amendment clearly puts the 'right to bear arms" within the context of "Well-Regulated Militias"

wrong, as has been explained to you numerous times.

They actually want the crazies to have guns, both because they are more likely to want more guns, and they are more likely to create incidents that frighten everyone else into wanting them.

propaganda

 

[JoeB131]

It is one thing to note (correctly) that the legal issues are more than trying to outlaw guns. I agree with you on that much.

But my point is that it obviously seeks to have a social impact on (and against) gun manufacturers. The result of such suits are clearly designed to cause economic injury to those manufacturers. And the impact of that could cause them to shutter.

Or they could change their conduct.

The Airlines refused to upgrade security. They refused to put re-inforced doors on the cockpit, or hire competent security, or a bunch of other things that would impact the bottom line. Until 9/11 happened, and they lost billions in damages and lost business.

The problem here is the gun manufacturers' conduct. They decided that when hunting fell out of fashion as a sport, they needed a new market, and that was nitwits afraid of crime or the government.

For instance, when the drug manufacturers realized that anti-histamines were being used to make Cyrstal Meth, they didn't shrug their shoulders, they got behind sensible rules to limit who could buy them and how much they were buying.

the supreme court and the English language disagree with that claim.

And then we get a new court to reconsider the opinion... one the gun manufacturers will be BEGGING for after they've been hit with enough lawsuits.

False. It mentions the militia but it does not put it in that context, clearly or otherwise.

It is a second amendment issue.

Nope, it's a commerce issue. The gun industry decided that Nancy Lanza was a prime market, even though she was batshit crazy and had a kid who was even crazier. You market to crazy people, you accept the results.

 

[BackAgain]

Or they could change their conduct.

The Airlines refused to upgrade security.

Airlines don’t get the benefit of explicit Constitutional protection.

Guys like you refuse to grasp that motor vehicles result in many deaths. Yet we don’t ban cars.

It isn’t the guns that cause the deaths. It is the folks who misuse them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Or they could change their conduct.

The Airlines refused to upgrade security. They refused to put re-inforced doors on the cockpit, or hire competent security, or a bunch of other things that would impact the bottom line. Until 9/11 happened, and they lost billions in damages and lost business.

The problem here is the gun manufacturers' conduct. They decided that when hunting fell out of fashion as a sport, they needed a new market, and that was nitwits afraid of crime or the government.

For instance, when the drug manufacturers realized that anti-histamines were being used to make Cyrstal Meth, they didn't shrug their shoulders, they got behind sensible rules to limit who could buy them and how much they were buying.



And then we get a new court to reconsider the opinion... one the gun manufacturers will be BEGGING for after they've been hit with enough lawsuits.



Nope, it's a commerce issue. The gun industry decided that Nancy Lanza was a prime market, even though she was batshit crazy and had a kid who was even crazier. You market to crazy people, you accept the results.

funny how you are all for not changing court rulings until it is a ruling you happen to disagree with.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Link, fag?

Use the search feature. You're the one who mistakenly believes shit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is one thing to note (correctly) that the legal issues are more than trying to outlaw guns. I agree with you on that much.

But my point is that it obviously seeks to have a social impact on (and against) gun manufacturers. The result of such suits are clearly designed to cause economic injury to those manufacturers. And the impact of that could cause them to shutter.

To accomplish these ends, the plaintiffs use our court system. That is government. And it is that which implicates our 2d Amendment.

Oddly enough, although I most often completely disagree with you on almost all matters of discussion, this time around you don’t strike me as being completely unhinged.

Like the Tin Man, I just needed a little oil.

I believe the legal issues are more than trying to outlaw specific types of guns, and well said on the social impact. Most lawsuits like the ones in the OP, will and do have a social impact. Mass shootings affect the whole of society. But much people are talking about are side issues, and possible fallout from any wins of those bringing the lawsuits.

The economic injury to people engaged in commerce.

I believe the hopes for some who cheer on the lawsuits are to penalize the manufacturers, and the hopes of others is to put them out of business. I don't see the legal issues involved in these lawsuits as going to any argument against gun manufacturers being in the business of manufacturing guns. A side effect could be some manufacturers going out of business, but that is the nature of business and law in our capitalistic, consumer society. Not sure why, but writing this reminds me of the story of the Pinto and the Ford Bean Counters.

The Pinto Memo: ‘It’s Cheaper to let them Burn!’

None

www.spokesman.com

The social impact: It's about the responsibilities of manufacturers to the public, the responsibilities to society.






Freedoms and Liberties are not Free. And we are a nation of laws, not men or businesses.

Second Amendment issues will be affected.

 

[JoeB131]

Airlines don’t get the benefit of explicit Constitutional protection.

Guys like you refuse to grasp that motor vehicles result in many deaths. Yet we don’t ban cars.

It isn’t the guns that cause the deaths. It is the folks who misuse them.

Here's the problem with this flawed analogy.

Cars are HEAVILY regulated. To operate a car, I have to be licensed, insured, and registered.

I agree, it's the people who misuse guns that are the problem.

So let's get guns out of the hands of people who are likely to misuse them, especially if they aren't part of a well-regulated militia.

 

[BackAgain]

Here's the problem with this flawed analogy.

My argument wasn’t flawed. Your attempted rebuttal is.

Cars are HEAVILY regulated.

So? There’s no second amendment type protection for cars. Don’t you get it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here's the problem with this flawed analogy.

Cars are HEAVILY regulated. To operate a car, I have to be licensed, insured, and registered.

I agree, it's the people who misuse guns that are the problem.

So let's get guns out of the hands of people who are likely to misuse them, especially if they aren't part of a well-regulated militia.

every person aged 17 to 45 is part of the militia.