• 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!

Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....


Not one of those mentions the right to keep and bear arms, much less ties it only to use in the militia. The two are entirely distinct concepts.

Federal Cases Regarding the Second Amendment

From this, we can see the 2nd Amendment was NOT interpreted as an unabridged right to own any and all firearms a citizen wanted, it merely regulated the federal government.
Click to expand...

The only thing the Court in Cruikshank said was that the 2A only applied to the federal government, as did every other article of the Bill of Rights before it specifically incorporated against the states. This is no more useful than saying the 1A mentions only what Congress may not do -- not states, not municipalities, only Congress. The rights to free speech, free press, and free exercise of religion are no more collectivized in the state than is the 2A.

And to that end, the Court is saying that even though the right to keep and bear arms is protected against federal infringement, citizens can look to other sources for its protection when the state is the encroacher.

Yours, of course, is a frequent dishonest reading of Cruikshank, but as you are hardly the first one to do so, I will not attribute that fault to you. You will not, however, find any such interpretation of Cruikshank prior to 1940. You will find it all over the Warin-based Circuit Courts Circle Jerk, however, which has happily been corrected by the Supreme Court.

When we combine this with the previous statements
Click to expand...

The previous statements had nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and thus any "combining" is erroneous at best and simply dishonest at worst.

we can make the argument the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the federal government from limiting state governments to form their own militias.
Click to expand...

And it's a silly, erroneous, and dishonest argument. But sure, you can make it.

The idea the 2nd Amendment only limited the federal government (and did not mean universal rights to a gun) was furthered in Presser v. Illinois
Click to expand...

The problem is that the bolded part is completely fabricated. The court didn't say this. The court didn't NEED to say this to decide the case in front of it. This is pulled out of thin air.

Presser involved ONLY the claim that men may join together, publicly, in paramilitary groups on their own volition and that the state couldn't interfere with it. That had nothing to do with the individual right to arms and most certainly did not establish that the right to arms exists only for the purpose of participation in a state militia. At most, it said the 2A doesn't keep a state from reserving to itself the only authority to create a militia, not that the right to arms is dependent on it.

You are claiming things which simply aren't there.



Except, as I've point out, it's all bull****.
 
Harshaw said:
Feel better?
Click to expand...

Like I said, there are more similarities between tobacco and guns than differences. But mostly they are both products that when used as intended kill. I don't think such products should be given immunity from civil action.
 
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But, I bet a good lawyer can come up with a reason and show negligence to a jury. Maybe a gun should have a code, like a PIN number lock, so that if its stolen it won't work. Or maybe it should have a sensor and microchip signaling that this isn't the proper owner, so when junior steals dad's guns he can't shoot up a school.
 
calamity said:
Like I said, there are more similarities between tobacco and guns than differences.
Click to expand...

There are NO similarities between them other than they're both products which are sold. After that, there is zero commonality.

But mostly they are both products that when used as intended kill.
Click to expand...

This is preposterous spin stretching for a "similarity" which doesn't exist.

I don't think such products should be given immunity from civil action.
Click to expand...

And gun manufacturers are not immune from civil action due to their own negligence. You've already been told this; that you choose to ignore it is voluntary ignorance, which is the worst kind of ignorance.
 
Harshaw said:
There are NO similarities between them other than they're both products which are sold. After that, there is zero commonality.
Click to expand...
Sure there are. You just refuse to see them.

Cigarettes, a perfectly legal product that many people use for a variety of reasons, from easing socialization to providing therapeutic comfort, do not kill everyone who smokes, but they kill an amazingly large number of people who do, as well as those who live with them. The same can said for guns: they kill lots of people who own them as well those under their roof.

This is preposterous spin stretching for a "similarity" which doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Quite the oppostite. THe only real differences are one is addictive and the other is constitutionally protected.

And gun manufacturers are not immune from civil action due to their own negligence. You've already been told this; that you choose to ignore it is voluntary ignorance, which is the worst kind of ignorance.
Click to expand...
If you put a product out there that does not have the safeguards installed that the manufacturer knows will make the product saver and guards again misuse, it could be argued that this is negligent. Try selling a car without seatbelts or a pack of cigarettes without the warning label.
 

Cigrattes are a drug for personal consumption. Guns are machines and tools.

You might as well be arguing that Coca-Cola and a Black and Decker power screwdriver are mostly identical. Yes, that's how stupid your argument is.




This is exactly what I said about your voluntary ignorance. Gun manufacturers are not immune from suit for design negligence or manufacturing defect. I've said this, what, three or four times now?

The reason you're not getting it is because you refuse to.

Or, you're purposely making a dishonest comparison. Misuse of a gun, criminal misuse of a gun, would be the same as criminal misuse of a car, for which car manufacturers are NOT liable.

This is the last time I'm going around in this circle, so if you repeat yourself yet again -- and you might -- review my last few posts on the subject for your response.
 

That's a cute talking point.
 
Harshaw said:
Cigrattes are a drug for personal consumption. Guns are machines and tools.

You might as well be arguing that Coca-Cola and a Black and Decker power screwdriver are mostly identical. Yes, that's how stupid your argument is.
Click to expand...
If drinking Coca-Cola and using a Black & Decker screwdriver as intended was killing people by the tens-of-thousand, I probably would make the comparison. But, since neither of them are, then you're the one who brought up the strawman.


Guns are fired accidentally all the time. It should not be too difficult to make guns safer. And, that a manufacturer cannot be sued for guns going off accidentally should be a crime.

Let's take it even further. In this day of fancy electronics, it would be very easy to make a gun that will only fire when the rightful owner pulls the trigger. Also, someday, it will probably not take too much effort to make smart-guns. If there is legal incentive, like fear of lawsuits, manufacturers will make guns so that they don't fire when aimed at unarmed, non-threatening victims. Of course, Bush put an end to any of that ever happening when he took gun-makers off the hook for all the carnage.
 
calamity said:
If drinking Coca-Cola and using a Black & Decker screwdriver as intended was killing people by the tens-of-thousand, I probably would make the comparison. But, since neither of them are, then you're the one who brought up the strawman.
Click to expand...

I brought up no "strawman." I didn't even bring up the initial comparison. You don't even know what's being said from post to post, and I don't think this is the first time or first thread I've pointed this out about you.

You're attempting to say that something which is consumed for personal pleasure is almost identical to something which is a machine. That will continue to be stupid no matter how much you flail.



Yeah, and you can make cars which don't go above the speed limit, too.

And as for the bolded part, that's inane fantasy, which shows starkly exactly how seriously you should be taken. :roll:
 
Harshaw said:
I brought up no "strawman." I didn't even bring up the initial comparison. You don't even know what's being said from post to post, and I don't think this is the first time or first thread I've pointed this out about you.
Click to expand...
Yes you did. You don't even realize it.

You're attempting to say that something which is consumed for personal pleasure is almost identical to something which is a machine. That will continue to be stupid no matter how much you flail.
Click to expand...
No. I'm pointing out that both products kill when used as intended. Pretty simple actually. I'm surprised you don't get it.




Yeah, and you can make cars which don't go above the speed limit, too.

And as for the bolded part, that's inane fantasy, which shows starkly exactly how seriously you should be taken. :roll:
Click to expand...
In the future, cars probably will be driven by machine and hence not exceed the speed limits. If gun manufacturers had installed half the safety equipment as the car makers, I suspect we'd see a lot fewer deaths. Are you aware that automobile deaths are in decline?
 
calamity said:
Yes you did. You don't even realize it.


No. I'm pointing out that both products kill when used as intended. Pretty simple actually. I'm surprised you don't get it.
Click to expand...

No, I got what you were trying to say just fine; it continues to be a stupid, contrived false equivalency.




Yeah. You still refuse to acknowledge the difference between negligence and someone else's intentional, criminal misuse.

You cannot claim you didn't think of the distinction or were not aware of it. You simply refuse. You prefer voluntary ignorance. As such, any further discussion is pointless.
 
calamity said:
Like I said, there are more similarities between tobacco and guns than differences. But mostly they are both products that when used as intended kill. I don't think such products should be given immunity from civil action.
Click to expand...

that's moronic. if you use a gun properly it does not harm the user whatsoever and can preserve the life of the user. Tobacco almost always harms the user
 

you don't know much about firearms do you? and even less about the defensive use of weapons.
 

wow the idiocy continues. should ford be sued when someone gets into a traffic accident? again, you merely demonstrate how little you know of the subject

and I note that those who scream the most for more laws are the most ignorant of the issue they rant about
 

MOre laws? Just the opposite. I am advocating for people to have the right to sue gun manufacturers. I'm a little surprised to see the "pro rights" crowd be against that.

Actually, on second thought, maybe I am not surprised.
 
calamity said:
MOre laws? Just the opposite. I am advocating for people to have the right to sue gun manufacturers. I'm a little surprised to see the "pro rights" crowd be against that.

Actually, on second thought, maybe I am not surprised.
Click to expand...

for what? what did they do negligently

and since gun makers won almost everyone of those stupid suits, do you support making the plaintiffs pay the gun makers' costs, legal fees etc? I sure do
 
TurtleDude said:
for what? what did they do negligently

and since gun makers won almost everyone of those stupid suits, do you support making the plaintiffs pay the gun makers' costs, legal fees etc? I sure do
Click to expand...
I've always favored losers of lawsuits pay legal fees of the winners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…