• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My biggest pet peeve in gun debates

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
19,278
Reaction score
5,933
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Held to be in violation of the Tenth Amendment by the Supreme Court in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) and struck from the illegal Brady Bill.


Held to be in violation of the Second Amendment by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2020.



The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-92) is here to stay. The bill passed the House just 7 votes shy of a two-thirds majority, and it passed the Senate with just 2 votes short of a two-thirds majority. So there will be no repealing this law. You and your ilk will just have to find some other way to impose your anti-American fascism, because frivolous law suits against gun manufacturers won't cut it.

Any judge who even attempts to hear a case against gun manufacturers can be impeached for violating the above law.
The question was what limits I would like to see. Not what would hold up under legal challenge. And I am no more anti-American than those who continue with their fetishistic worship of guns, supporting a special status to the industry. Some of the restrictions were part of our history, even supported by the NRA, before the new gun religion took over. Let the carnage continue!
In the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" the DOJ noted that “universal” background checks can’t be effective without a reduction in the illegal sources of guns to criminals and can’t be enforced without comprehensive firearm registration.

In "Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016", the DOJ reported in Table 5 where criminals get their guns. We see that vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals come from straw purchases, family transfers, theft and the underground market (Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drug). A total of 0.8% come from gun shows. Purchases from "good guys" in private sales don't even show up.

What does a UBC do to prevent criminals from getting guns?






What limit is needed? Denver said 20; Colorado said 15; California uses 10; New York wanted 7; Oregon has proposed just 5.

Given that there will still be over 2 billion "large capacity magazines" in circulation, what's the point with this law?



Why should a manufacturer be liable a crime committed by someone not legally allowed to possess a gun? How can they prevent a felon from shooting someone with a gun acquired illegally?
So why not make all industries free from any liability?
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
11,465
Reaction score
4,084
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So why not make all industries free from any liability?
Because anti-American leftist filth are frivolously attacking no other industry other than firearm manufacturers. Thus making it unnecessary for Congress to provide similar protections to any other industry.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
19,278
Reaction score
5,933
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Because anti-American leftist filth are frivolously attacking no other industry other than firearm manufacturers. Thus making it unnecessary for Congress to provide similar protections to any other industry.
And anti-American rightist filth don’t seem to care as the bodies pile up.
 

craig

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
As always the two extremes argue from absolutes and ignorance, never the practical which is always in the center.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
11,465
Reaction score
4,084
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And anti-American rightist filth don’t seem to care as the bodies pile up.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the firearm manufacturers, and everything to do with those who use those firearms for criminal purposes. A concept that leftist filth are incapable of grasping.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Wasn’t legislation passed regarding something like that?
A gun maker can be sued for the following

1) introducing into the stream of commerce a gun that is unsafe-meaning one that blows up when used as directed. So if you buy a Smith and wesson revolver chambered for 357 Magnum and you use factory loaded 357 Magnum ammo (which is not defective) and the gun blows up when you fire it-SW may be sued and you most likely will win

2) if a gun maker knowing provides firearms to those who are not licensed dealers or individuals who have not passed a background check, the maker can be held criminally liable and liable civilly to anyone who, as a direct result, suffers an injury

what Firearms makers cannot be sued for-are firearms they transferred legally to licensed wholesalers or Dealers-or individuals who passed a check-only to have the firearm used criminally at a point in the future
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And anti-American rightist filth don’t seem to care as the bodies pile up.
Here is the deal-we probably care more than those who use the deaths to advance their anti gun agenda. But the gun banners and political operatives claim that unless we cede more of our rights, we don't care. That's complete bullshit. It is akin to saying that you don't care about drunk driving deaths if you continue to drink responsibly or you don't care about rapes and sexual assault if you continue to enjoy sexual relationships with your spouse or adult lover.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
19,278
Reaction score
5,933
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the firearm manufacturers, and everything to do with those who use those firearms for criminal purposes. A concept that leftist filth are incapable of grasping.
The issue with manufacturers was the way weapons were marketed, I believe, not their existence.

Other societies similar to ours seem to be able to grasp how to deal with guns. We did too, in the old west, where guns were controlled. The NRA, before it became a marketing tool for the arms industry, used to support gun controls they now condemn.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
19,278
Reaction score
5,933
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A gun maker can be sued for the following

1) introducing into the stream of commerce a gun that is unsafe-meaning one that blows up when used as directed. So if you buy a Smith and wesson revolver chambered for 357 Magnum and you use factory loaded 357 Magnum ammo (which is not defective) and the gun blows up when you fire it-SW may be sued and you most likely will win

2) if a gun maker knowing provides firearms to those who are not licensed dealers or individuals who have not passed a background check, the maker can be held criminally liable and liable civilly to anyone who, as a direct result, suffers an injury

what Firearms makers cannot be sued for-are firearms they transferred legally to licensed wholesalers or Dealers-or individuals who passed a check-only to have the firearm used criminally at a point in the future
Sounds fair enough.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The issue with manufacturers was the way weapons were marketed, I believe, not their existence.

Other societies similar to ours seem to be able to grasp how to deal with guns. We did too, in the old west, where guns were controlled. The NRA, before it became a marketing tool for the arms industry, used to support gun controls they now condemn.
The ATF Controls the marketing of firearms. Bannerhoids want to use nuisance suits to destroy the firearms industry
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
19,278
Reaction score
5,933
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Here is the deal-we probably care more than those who use the deaths to advance their anti gun agenda. But the gun banners and political operatives claim that unless we cede more of our rights, we don't care. That's complete bullshit. It is akin to saying that you don't care about drunk driving deaths if you continue to drink responsibly or you don't care about rapes and sexual assault if you continue to enjoy sexual relationships with your spouse or adult lover.
Explain how other societies in the developed world which control guns are less free than we are.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Explain how other societies in the developed world which control guns are less free than we are.
Explain why I should give a shit-I live in the USA and in other places I couldn't own the guns I own here. Explain why EVERY SINGLE anti gun poster on this board is a left-winger
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Sounds fair enough.
which is exactly the same with other industries. You buy a Ford Truck and the brakes fail and you break your back, you are going to win a bunch of money. Your Ford gets stolen by some unlicensed driver who is flying on some blow and he runs over three kids in a crosswalk, those kids cannot sue Ford and most likely have zero claim against you and the dealer where you bought the car. The lawsuits the anti gun left want to push are ones where the estate of the dead children could sue FORD.
 

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
100,458
Reaction score
21,261
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
e you hip you to something. I'm a member of a very small club, and I would be surprised if anyone here was also a member. You see, I'm someone who's actually used his firearm to protect himself and his loved ones, resulting in the death of another human being. I think about that every single time I put my sidearm in its holster and slip that holster into the hip of my jeans. I think about how I made the conscious decision to end the life of another person. After nine years I still question myself as to whether or not there was another way I could've handled it. And every time I hear my niece and nephew's voices, or see the smiles on their faces, I'm reminded of the fact that my actions were absolutely justified. I'm reminded of the likelihood that they probably wouldn't be alive today had I not been armed and trained in the use of my firearm. I'm reminded of that at every one of their birthday parties, their high school graduations and, in the case of my nephew, his wedding.

Lots of weasel words ^
Sounding a lot like somebody else we know that salivates about their guns and "has shot a person".
 

natman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
516
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Wasn’t legislation passed regarding something like that?
Yes, but....

The Clinton administration threatened to sue gun manufacturers endlessly if they didn't follow tighter distribution procedures and other changes the administration wanted. These new procedures had no legal basis; the Clintons were grossly abusing executive power. The manufacturers were already following the actual law. So in order to prevent this sort of abuse in the future, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was passed. Please note that the PLCAA only prevents gun manufacturers from being sued for ILLEGAL use of their products.

Gun makers are liable for defective products, just like everybody else. What the Democratic party wants is to make it possible for gun makers to be sued for the results of illegal activities using their products. This is like somebody getting drunk, plowing their Chevy into a crowd and the victims suing General Motors and Jack Daniels for damages. This sort of suit has been attempted many times and has never won. A manufacturer is not responsible for illegal use of their products.

So if this kind of suit never wins, why do gun makers need special protection? Because even if a win is certain it costs a lot of money in legal fees to mount a defense. Some state governments and deep pocket individuals have brought suits of this type, hoping to drive gun makers out of business with harassment suits, sometimes financed by taxpayer dollars. Gun makers get special protection from this sort of suit only because no other industry is subjected to this sort of harassment.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
158,099
Reaction score
56,144
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Pet Peeve: Semi automatic penis extensions.

 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yes, but....

The Clinton administration threatened to sue gun manufacturers endlessly if they didn't follow tighter distribution procedures and other changes the administration wanted. These new procedures had no legal basis; the Clintons were grossly abusing executive power. The manufacturers were already following the actual law. So in order to prevent this sort of abuse in the future, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was passed. Please note that the PLCAA only prevents gun manufacturers from being sued for ILLEGAL use of their products.

Gun makers are liable for defective products, just like everybody else. What the Democratic party wants is to make it possible for gun makers to be sued for the results of illegal activities using their products. This is like somebody getting drunk, plowing their Chevy into a crowd and the victims suing General Motors and Jack Daniels for damages. This sort of suit has been attempted many times and has never won. A manufacturer is not responsible for illegal use of their products.

So if this kind of suit never wins, why do gun makers need special protection? Because even if a win is certain it costs a lot of money in legal fees to mount a defense. Some state governments and deep pocket individuals have brought suits of this type, hoping to drive gun makers out of business with harassment suits, sometimes financed by taxpayer dollars. Gun makers get special protection from this sort of suit only because no other industry is subjected to this sort of harassment.
excellent summary
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
11,465
Reaction score
4,084
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The issue with manufacturers was the way weapons were marketed, I believe, not their existence.

Other societies similar to ours seem to be able to grasp how to deal with guns. We did too, in the old west, where guns were controlled. The NRA, before it became a marketing tool for the arms industry, used to support gun controls they now condemn.
First, there are no other societies similar to ours. Second, none of those "other societies" acknowledge the individual right to keep and bear arms. Third, the only reason States deliberately violated the Second Amendment during the 19th century was because the Supreme Court was negligent in applying the Fourteenth Amendment to the States. It took the Supreme Court 153 years to finally incorporate the Second Amendment and apply it to the States. Which now makes every one of those State gun control laws illegal.

The NRA did indeed support gun control, and was very anti-Second Amendment until 1988. Then things switched around when the NRA came under new management. After NRA President Joe Foss was elected in 1988 the NRA suddenly became pro-Second Amendment for the very first time in its 117 year history. It has remained true to the Second Amendment since.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
11,465
Reaction score
4,084
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Explain how other societies in the developed world which control guns are less free than we are.
For the very obvious fact that those "other societies" do not recognize the individual rights of its people. Only the US does, and even that is limited.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
11,465
Reaction score
4,084
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, but....

The Clinton administration threatened to sue gun manufacturers endlessly if they didn't follow tighter distribution procedures and other changes the administration wanted. These new procedures had no legal basis; the Clintons were grossly abusing executive power. The manufacturers were already following the actual law. So in order to prevent this sort of abuse in the future, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was passed. Please note that the PLCAA only prevents gun manufacturers from being sued for ILLEGAL use of their products.
One small problem. The PLCAA was not enacted into law until 2005. Long after Clinton left office. Which means that the PLCAA had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton's threats.
 

natman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
516
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
One small problem. The PLCAA was not enacted into law until 2005. Long after Clinton left office. Which means that the PLCAA had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton's threats.
True, the PLCAA was not a direct immediate response solely to the Clinton's illegal attempts to strong arm the gun industry, but they were part of the legal climate in the 90s that prompted the eventual passage of the PLCAA:

What is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was enacted in 2005 following extensive lobbying by the gun industry to shield gun manufacturers and dealers from civil litigation. The effort to enact this law was a reaction to numerous lawsuits in the early 1990s filed on behalf of more than 40 cities;

 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
19,278
Reaction score
5,933
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Really?
For the very obvious fact that those "other societies" do not recognize the individual rights of its people. Only the US does, and even that is limited.
France, the UK, Canada, etc., don’t recognize the individual rights of their citizens? We are the only free society in the world? News to me, and probably them.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
16,066
Reaction score
6,982
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Really?

France, the UK, Canada, etc., don’t recognize the individual rights of their citizens? We are the only free society in the world? News to me, and probably them.
They have no individual right to keep and bear arms.
 
Top Bottom