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 watched her first appearance and that is where the court said she worked and her position as it was required to be disclosed before bail was set.I don't think she was director of marketing for a large firm. Her heard she worked as a real estate agent, and even if she was director of marketing for this, its not really that significant a position. Some real estate agencies are small and only have a handful of people working there.
When I say she was a "profane Trumpster", did you see what she wrote on her blog? It was something really stupid and disgusting, saying "I'd rather be grabbed by my pussy" than something else similarly profane, in regards to her love of Trump.
What got your panties in a twist was me calling her a profane Trump supporter.I watched her first appearance and that is where the court said she worked and her position as it was required to be disclosed before bail was set.
Why do you lefties ALWAYS make assumptions from a position of ignorance?
Just admit you were wrong like an adult.What got your panties in a twist was me calling her a profane Trump supporter.
There was nothing speculative about that, it was her own blog post that confirmed this.
Nope, I refuse to accept your politically motivated double standard. Stay away from my rights.----------------------------------------
The two above posts are of a kind, and thus can be responded to as a twofer.
Let's all cordially agree that......a car ain't a gun. A gun ain't a car. Examples illustrating such are too obvious to mention.
But, if anyone here does not understand there are defining differences between 'em in construction, appearance, and use.....well then, this thread, this forum, may not be the place for you.
Likewise, let us all agree that a gun ain't the same as scissors, or ball bats, or hammers.
Sure, they all can kill. And have.
But then, a rubber-ducky left on the stairway can too.
The real world reality is that firearms are uniquely, singularly, different. In a category wholly different than your F-150, or Fiskar's pruning shears.
And that singularity....their ease of use, concealability, portability, and high lethality potential .... make them uniquely different and inherently dangerous to society.
Sure, there are plenty of a valid reasons to have guns in the American civilian society. For one, our Constitution allows it. But from a utilitarian aspect they possess other appropriate features...... for self-defense safety, for hunting, for recreational plinking.
So eliminating guns ain't the issue. I am not calling for that. After all, I own a bunch of 'em. And want to continue to do so.
However, if one chooses to buy a firearm, it is my position that the new owner...the 'owner-of-record' ..... not only gets the hardware, he gets the 'software' that is an inseparable part of it.
I mean by that, he gets the responsibility of using it safely, appropriately and legally.
AND.....which is my argument......he also gets the liability when that hardware leads to harm.
If you own the benefits of the tool. You own the liability if it causes harm.....in your hands, when you shoot a hole in the neighbors fence, or in your kid's hands if he shoots the principal, or in the hands of the guy sticking it in the face of the 7/11 clerk.
You own the hardware. So you own its uses....and misuses.
--------------------------------------------
As far as me be 'un-American'......please, grow up. This is the Adult Swim section. Go to the wading pool if one cannot participate here in a thoughtful and productive manner.
Maybe quit getting high on your RemOil.
But gun owners like the Michigan family don't give a shit. That's the real problem.There is a nearby thread about the Michigan high-school shooter and his parent's gun. It is a good thread with erudite posters examining Michigan's current laws. It's worth the time to read it, but.....but this thread takes a little bit different tack that perhaps warrants a stand alone thread,
I suggest that and post this topic in order to discuss the 'liability' one incurs in bringing a firearm into our society. Perhaps, 'responsibility' is a better word than 'liability'.
Regardless, in my view the parents of that shooter-kid need be held accountable because they are the 'owner-of-record' who introduced that high-lethality instrument in our society.
Which, launches me into my view that ALL gun owners need be responsible to some degree whenever any weapon they own causes harm.
In short, if you own the gun, you own the harm it may cause. At least a portion of it. Even if gun was used by an 'unauthorized' shooter, even if the gun was stolen from you. You 'own' the gun. You own what it produces.
That means -- if you didn't put trigger-locks on the gun and your 4yr old kills his 3yr old sibling.....you are criminally liable.
That means, if your Glock21 is stolen from under your car seat....and it ends up killing the 7/11 clerk you are criminally liable to some degree.
Sure, one could argue 'contributory negligence'.....but I desire it be stricter, more black & white than that.
If I was king....ANY harm by a firearm to which you possess as the "owner-of-record" comes burdened with strict liability. You own the gun, you own the benefits that accrue to it, you own the harms (to some degree) that it causes.
It is not a free lunch...to own a gun. If the gun was used to cause harm, you own part of the harm.
You pay to reimburse those harmed for your share of the harm.
No exceptions. You brought the high-lethality tool into society. You have the responsibility (liability) to ensure that it neve causes harm.
Thus, when it is used to do so.......you share in the liability.
Let’s say someone steals a gun while the owner is sleeping and then commits murder. You want to blame the victim of the crime for the actions of the criminal?? That’s nuts!There is a nearby thread about the Michigan high-school shooter and his parent's gun. It is a good thread with erudite posters examining Michigan's current laws. It's worth the time to read it, but.....but this thread takes a little bit different tack that perhaps warrants a stand alone thread,
I suggest that and post this topic in order to discuss the 'liability' one incurs in bringing a firearm into our society. Perhaps, 'responsibility' is a better word than 'liability'.
Regardless, in my view the parents of that shooter-kid need be held accountable because they are the 'owner-of-record' who introduced that high-lethality instrument in our society.
Which, launches me into my view that ALL gun owners need be responsible to some degree whenever any weapon they own causes harm.
In short, if you own the gun, you own the harm it may cause. At least a portion of it. Even if gun was used by an 'unauthorized' shooter, even if the gun was stolen from you. You 'own' the gun. You own what it produces.
That means -- if you didn't put trigger-locks on the gun and your 4yr old kills his 3yr old sibling.....you are criminally liable.
That means, if your Glock21 is stolen from under your car seat....and it ends up killing the 7/11 clerk you are criminally liable to some degree.
Sure, one could argue 'contributory negligence'.....but I desire it be stricter, more black & white than that.
If I was king....ANY harm by a firearm to which you possess as the "owner-of-record" comes burdened with strict liability. You own the gun, you own the benefits that accrue to it, you own the harms (to some degree) that it causes.
It is not a free lunch...to own a gun. If the gun was used to cause harm, you own part of the harm.
You pay to reimburse those harmed for your share of the harm.
No exceptions. You brought the high-lethality tool into society. You have the responsibility (liability) to ensure that it neve causes harm.
Thus, when it is used to do so.......you share in the liability.
Your right to responsibly own a gun....remains. No change."Stay away from my rights."
say someone steals a gun while the owner is sleeping and then commits murder. You want to blame the victim of the crime for the actions of the criminal??
"How about the gun manufacturers then?
No it doesn't, as you intend to place undue and unconstitutional burdens on the citizens for actions not their own. You collectivist are abhorrent.Your right to responsibly own a gun....remains. No change.
Your liability for an inadequately secured firearm ......is enhanced.
You enjoy the benefits of the gun you brought into the social mix.......Accordingly, you are on the hook for the harms. Yin and Yang.
In your scenario, good poser TBird....I think you are suggesting that the victim of the theft (the gun owner) is the guy being murdered?
If so.....then, of course not. The guy is dead. So think that one through.
I realize that this is off of the immediate topic, but how would you hold Kyle Rittenhouse to this standard? Assuming he hadn't already been acquitted?No exceptions. You brought the high-lethality tool into society. You have the responsibility (liability) to ensure that it neve causes harm.
Thus, when it is used to do so.......you share in the liability.
Noper. There is nothing 'unconstitutional' about requiring a gun owner....me included....to be responsible in exercising the 2nd A. right.you intend to place undue and unconstitutional burdens on the citizens for actions not their own.
how would you hold Kyle Rittenhouse to this standard?
So in some cases liability and in other cases not?Noper. There is nothing 'unconstitutional' about requiring a gun owner....me included....to be responsible in exercising the 2nd A. right.
With rights comes responsibilities.
And when that responsibility is not performed.....then there is a liability.
If you do not adequately secure your weapon you are liable for the harm it does. Not 100% ..... but a share of it.
After all, the 3yr old who shot is 2yr old sister holds the primary responsibility. However, the Dad who left it on the dresser does.....share in the responsibility to a degree (to be determined by a jury or yet to be enacted legislation.)
-----------------------------------------------
Well, I hadn't thought about Rittenhouse. But......if he is the legal 'owner-of-record' and his actions with his firearm are deemed legal and appropriate......I would suggest there would be little liability for the harms created.
But in the Rittenhouse scenario....there is, I believe, the complication of a straw-purchaser being involved. And I believe the Wisconsin courts are addressing that guy's liability right now.
I suppose you’d like to collect a fine from his estate.Your right to responsibly own a gun....remains. No change.
Your liability for an inadequately secured firearm ......is enhanced.
You enjoy the benefits of the gun you brought into the social mix.......Accordingly, you are on the hook for the harms. Yin and Yang.
In your scenario, good poser TBird....I think you are suggesting that the victim of the theft (the gun owner) is the guy being murdered?
If so.....then, of course not. The guy is dead. So think that one through.
Yupper.
Exactly.
You read my post correctly.
The thief bears the 'primary' responsibility and deserves the greater punishment.
But the 'owner-of-record' introduced that gun into our society......he is not without liability. He owns a share of the harm....determined by jury, or determined by yet to be passed legislation .... he owns a share .
If the gun had been more adequately secured......
He doesn't realize that no one else supports his stupid ideas!You're really not very good at this.
How do you know who the owner of record is without gun registration? Your plan is stupid because it is flawed in it's inception.----------------------------------------
The two above posts are of a kind, and thus can be responded to as a twofer.
Let's all cordially agree that......a car ain't a gun. A gun ain't a car. Examples illustrating such are too obvious to mention.
But, if anyone here does not understand there are defining differences between 'em in construction, appearance, and use.....well then, this thread, this forum, may not be the place for you.
Likewise, let us all agree that a gun ain't the same as scissors, or ball bats, or hammers.
Sure, they all can kill. And have.
But then, a rubber-ducky left on the stairway can too.
The real world reality is that firearms are uniquely, singularly, different. In a category wholly different than your F-150, or Fiskar's pruning shears.
And that singularity....their ease of use, concealability, portability, and high lethality potential .... make them uniquely different and inherently dangerous to society.
Sure, there are plenty of a valid reasons to have guns in the American civilian society. For one, our Constitution allows it. But from a utilitarian aspect they possess other appropriate features...... for self-defense safety, for hunting, for recreational plinking.
So eliminating guns ain't the issue. I am not calling for that. After all, I own a bunch of 'em. And want to continue to do so.
However, if one chooses to buy a firearm, it is my position that the new owner...the 'owner-of-record' ..... not only gets the hardware, he gets the 'software' that is an inseparable part of it.
I mean by that, he gets the responsibility of using it safely, appropriately and legally.
AND.....which is my argument......he also gets the liability when that hardware leads to harm.
If you own the benefits of the tool. You own the liability if it causes harm.....in your hands, when you shoot a hole in the neighbors fence, or in your kid's hands if he shoots the principal, or in the hands of the guy sticking it in the face of the 7/11 clerk.
You own the hardware. So you own its uses....and misuses.
--------------------------------------------
As far as me be 'un-American'......please, grow up. This is the Adult Swim section. Go to the wading pool if one cannot participate here in a thoughtful and productive manner.
Maybe quit getting high on your RemOil.
Well, Vine....as always in the type of case you suggested......details an specifics would come to bear."So in some cases liability and in other cases not?"
Ummm, good poster TBird, you can make any kind of speculation you desire.I suppose you’d like to collect a fine from his estate.
Yes, you would own a share of the liability for the harm your own firearms caused.How are you going to hold me responsible if someone steals them and uses them in a crime?
