• 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!

Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturer Remington, lower court ruling overturned (1 Viewer)

That was not my point. We were discussing a different issue- of whether it’s OK to put some reasonable regulations and limits on things people use, even if they are not necessarily using them in an illegal manner.

So this isn't about limiting or banning possession? we all agree you shouldn't shoot pigeons with a MI Rifle on Times Square or practice marksmanship with a Barrett 50 in central park.
 
There are numerous regulations on what makes a car street legal. If a manufacture breaks them, they are liable. People can’t just make and drive any crazy car on public streets, even if they drive at the speed limit and don’t hurt anyone.

We're not even talking about that. Pretty much every single street legal car in the US is capable of reaching speeds over 100 mph. That's after all the regulations you speak of. So if someone decide to go 100 mph in a residential street and kill someone, is the car manufacturer liable for his actions?
 
Guns are made to shoot - and people are one of the things they are made to shoot at by the manufacturer as legitimate use of the product .

Gasoline is not intended to kill people in a building as a legitimate use of the product.

Our society probably could not function without gasoline. Across the world, lots of societies function rather well without civil use of weapons.

Your comparison is off.

It doesn't matter what they are made for, it matters that the company follow regulations when making the item. What it is made for should not enter in to the discussion.

Our Society could function without gasoline, they are already making all electric cars and trucks. electric lawnmowers, electric motorcycles. Gasoline is not necessary any longer. It might be bad for the ozone layer.

Guns as made by legal manufacturers are not intended to kill people in a building as a legitimate use of the product. That is illegal and should be the fault of the perpetrator not the person who made the tool following federal regulations.

My comparison was not off unless it made too much sense and you just want it to be.

if someone makes a tool following all the federal regulations are they at fault if someone else commits a crime with that tool?
 
It does not matter because the manufacturer made the product to fire bullets and that is what their product did by its use and function. They made the gun and it works legal or illegal, adult or child, the situation matters not to the manufacturer who simply makes a firearm that works.

We’re getting far away from the central conversation. You assert that PLCAA grants special protections to firearms manufacturers, and I say that PLCAA does not grant special protections to firearms manufacturers.

We’ve both spent a (more than) a fair amount of time defending our positions and neither of us is budging, which is fine. We generally do see eye to eye on most of the discussions here and maintained mutual respect during this debate. Can’t ask for more than that. I recommend we allow this dead horse be allowed to Rest In Peace and move on. :cheers:
 
The infantry (militia) of the Coast Guard would be applicable. Not the Coast Guard in its entirety. And only the arms of their infantry.

Says who? You? You are just projecting your opinions on the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Neither of them have said any such stuff.
 
Says who? You? You are just projecting your opinions on the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Neither of them have said any such stuff.

"Militia... arms."
 
We're not even talking about that. Pretty much every single street legal car in the US is capable of reaching speeds over 100 mph. That's after all the regulations you speak of. So if someone decide to go 100 mph in a residential street and kill someone, is the car manufacturer liable for his actions?

We have decided, for various reasons, that it's OK if cars can go 100mph. But there are other things that we decided they shouldn't be able to do if you're going to drive them on public street. The point is that lines were drawn on what is even street legal to own and drive on public streets, even if it's used in a perfectly legal way.
 
Last edited:
"Militia... arms."

But you are specifying that "arms" should mean not to include artillery or nukes. It doesn't make sense. You are just throwing random personal opinions to have things make sense the way you want. Those specifications have not been made by the Constitution.
 
So this isn't about limiting or banning possession? we all agree you shouldn't shoot pigeons with a MI Rifle on Times Square or practice marksmanship with a Barrett 50 in central park.

Yeah sure. But I wouldn't use the Constitution to argue for such restrictions.

It's clear you are OK with certain restrictions. It's OK on the right to infringe on some rights to arms. Just not the ones you personally like. Am I right?
 
You are invoking state power rather than federal. what proper power does the federal government have concerning speech or firearms. Why do liberals often look to limit rights they don't like while interpreting ones they do-as expansively as possible?

Firearms? Nukes are not on sale at your local Walmart. That is not because of state law.

Free speech? There are numerous federal restrictions on free speech, including:

Inciting imminent lawless action

Fighting words[edit]
Inflammatory words that are either injurious by themselves or might cause the hearer to immediately retaliate or breach the peace. Use of such words is not necessarily protected "free speech" under the First Amendment.[44]

True threats[edit]
Main article: True threat
See Watts v. United States, Virginia v. Black.

Obscenity[edit]
Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is a type of speech which is not legally protected. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)

The 1998 Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act in Alabama applies to sex toys. The similar 1973 Texas obscenity statute (updated in 2003) was declared unconstitutional in 2008.

Child pornography[edit]
See New York v. Ferber.

Torts[edit]
Defamation[edit]
Main article: United States defamation law
Limits placed on libel and slander attach civil liability and have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court narrowed the definition of libel with the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell made famous in the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan established the actual malice standard, a high bar for public figure plaintiffs. Making false statements in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government is also a crime.

Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia

(cont'd on next post)
 
(cont'd from previous post)

Invasion of privacy[edit]
See Time, Inc. v. Hill.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress[edit]
See Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, Texas v. Johnson.

Political spending[edit]
Campaign contributions[edit]
See Buckley v. Valeo and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

Independent political expenditures[edit]
See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Government speech[edit]
The government speech doctrine establishes that the government may censor speech when the speech is its own, leading to a number of contentious decisions on its breadth.

Public employee speech[edit]
Statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline as per the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos. This applies also to private contractors that have the government as a client. The First Amendment only protects employees from government employers albeit only when speaking publicly outside their official duties in the public interest Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist., updated and clarified by Lane v. Franks. Speech is not protected from private sector disciplinary action.[45]

A number of cases consider speech is related to or required by an employer, or speech retaliated against by a third party such as an employer. The case Lane vs. Burrows (previously Lane vs. Franks) considers a number of these matters and summarizes the outcome. A person who testifies in a court, and where that testimony is not part of their employment duties, testifies as a citizen and has First Amendment protection, whereas a person whose speech is an actual part of their duties and is not merely related to their duties may have no such protection.[46]

The issues raised in such cases include the overriding need for persons in court to feel safe to speak the truth, and to in fact speak the truth; the requirement of employers to be able to act in the event that an employee speaks in a manner damaging to the employer; the rights of whistleblowers; the benefit to society if people who know the reality of a matter and are well informed of it, are able to speak of it.

Student speech[edit]
Main article: School speech (First Amendment)

Original "BONG HITS FOR JESUS" banner now hanging in the Newseum in Washington, D.C.
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court extended broad First Amendment protection to children attending public schools, prohibiting censorship unless there is "substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others". Several subsequent rulings have affirmed or narrowed this protection. Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) supported disciplinary action against a student whose campaign speech was filled with sexual innuendo, and determined to be "indecent" but not "obscene". Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) allowed censorship in school newspapers which had not been established as forums for free student expression. Guiles v. Marineau (2006) affirmed the right of a student to wear a T-shirt mocking President George W. Bush, including allegations of alcohol and drug use. Morse v. Frederick (2007) supported the suspension of a student holding a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" at a school-supervised event which was not on school grounds. In Lowry v. Watson Chapel School District, an appeals court struck down a school dress code and literature distribution policy for being vague and unnecessarily prohibitive of criticism against the school district.[47]

Such protections also apply to public colleges and universities; for example, student newspapers which have been established as forums for free expression have been granted broad protection by appeals courts.[48][49]

Cont'd on next post
 
Cont'd from prior post:

National security[edit]
Military secrets[edit]
Publishing, gathering, or collecting national security information is not protected speech in the United States.[50] Information related to "the national defense" is protected even though no harm to the national security is intended or is likely to be caused through its disclosure.[51] Non-military information with the potential to cause serious damage to the national security is only protected from willful disclosure with the requisite intent or knowledge regarding the potential harm.[51] The unauthorized creation, publication, sale, or transfer of photographs or sketches of vital defense installations or equipment as designated by the President is prohibited.[52] The knowing and willful disclosure of certain classified information is prohibited.[53] The unauthorized communication by anyone of "Restricted Data", or an attempt or conspiracy to communicate such data, is prohibited.[54] It is prohibited for a person who learns of the identity of a covert agent through a "pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents" to disclose the identity to any individual not authorized access to classified information, with reason to believe that such activities would impair U.S. foreign intelligence efforts.[55]

In addition to the criminal penalties, the use of employment contracts, loss of government employment, monetary penalties, non-disclosure agreements, forfeiture of property, injunctions, revocation of passports, and prior restraint are used to deter such speech.[56]

Inventions[edit]
The Voluntary Tender Act of 1917 gave the Commissioner of Patents the authority to withhold certification from inventions that might harm U.S. national security, and to turn the invention over to the United States government for its own use.[57][58] It was replaced in 1951 with the Invention Secrecy Act which prevented inventors from publishing inventions or sharing the information.[59] Both attached criminal penalties to subjected inventors.[60] The United States was under a declared state of emergency from 1950–1974, after which peacetime secrecy orders were available.[61][62][63]

The government issued between approximately 4,100 to 5,000 orders per year from 1959 to 1974, a peak of 6,193 orders in 1991, and approximately 5,200 per year between from 1991 to 2003.[63] Certain areas of research such as atomic energy and cryptography consistently fall within their gamut.[64] The government has placed secrecy orders on cold fusion, space technology, radar missile systems, and Citizens Band radio voice scramblers, and attempts have been made to extend them to optical-engineering research and vacuum technology.[64]

Nuclear information[edit]
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 automatically classifies "all data concerning (1) design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons; (2) the production of special nuclear material; or (3) the use of special nuclear material in the production of energy".[65] The government has attempted and failed to prohibit publication of nuclear information, including bomb design, in Scientific American in 1950 and The Progressive in 1979.[66][65]

Weapons[edit]
Pub.L. 106–54 of 1999, a bill focused on phosphate prospecting and compensation owed to the Menominee tribe, added 18 U.S.C. § 842(p) making it an offence "to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction" either intending or knowing that the learner/viewer intends "that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence".[67][68] This is in addition to other federal laws preventing the use and dissemination of bombmaking information for criminal purposes.[69] The law was first successfully used against an 18-year-old anarchist in 2003, for distribution of information which has since been republished freely.[70]
Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia

Man, we must really live in a dictatorship, huh? But would you have it any other way? :)[/QUOTE]
 
We have decided, for various reasons, that it's OK if cars can go 100mph. But there are other things that we decided they shouldn't be able to do if you're going to drive them on public street. The point is that lines were drawn on what is even legal to own and drive on public streets, even if it's used in a perfectly legal way.

We're not discussing what arms should allowed to the public. We're discussing whether or not a company can be sued for the illegal actions of another person.
 
We're not discussing what arms should allowed to the public. We're discussing whether or not a company can be sued for the illegal actions of another person.

Yeah I know. The subject changed a little. We even started talking about free speech and whether it's OK to have federal restrictions on it up above. It got a little ADD.

As far as the suing, I would look to see what happened to the tobacco industry. They were peddling tobacco to the public even after it was shown to be unsafe. Public health studies have been showing the same about assault weapons, and yet the gun lobby keeps marketing and pushing that stuff on the public. Should they be liable for marketing and selling something shown to be a public health hazard?

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.
 
But you are specifying that "arms" should mean not to include artillery or nukes. It doesn't make sense. You are just throwing random personal opinions to have things make sense the way you want. Those specifications have not been made by the Constitution.

Firearms.
 
Firearms.

Again, that's your personal opinion. It doesn't say that.

You really do have a tough time separating your personal opinions from what it actually says there, don't you?
 
Yeah I know. The subject changed a little. We even started talking about free speech and whether it's OK to have federal restrictions on it up above. It got a little ADD.

As far as the suing, I would look to see what happened to the tobacco industry. They were peddling tobacco to the public even after it was shown to be unsafe. Public health studies have been showing the same about assault weapons, and yet the gun lobby keeps marketing and pushing that stuff on the public. Should they be liable for marketing and selling something shown to be a public health hazard?

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.

The Tabacco industry was sued for hiding information basically. They said that the product the made was healthy when knowing that it wasn't.
 
Again, that's your personal opinion. It doesn't say that.

You really do have a tough time separating your personal opinions from what it actually says there, don't you?

Granted, firearms is my interpretation, as I don't find bombs to be particularly useful in self defense. And all legal precedence agrees. Unless you know somewhere claymores are legal.

Regardless, our context is militia (infantry) and they don't employ tanks or nukes.
 
The Tabacco industry was sued for hiding information basically. They said that the product the made was healthy when knowing that it wasn't.

Gun manufacturers are marketing the slogan that you need guns to keep you safe. The studies on it have not shown that, and if anything, have shown quite the opposite: the more guns, the more violent crime.

So they are deliberately peddling misinformation and confusion to sell a product. Seems to me that's not that different from the tobacco industry after all.
 
Granted, firearms is my interpretation, as I don't find bombs to be particularly useful in self defense. And all legal precedence agrees. Unless you know somewhere claymores are legal.

Regardless, our context is militia (infantry) and they don't employ tanks or nukes.

What do you mean? The Coast Guard is a militia- and and has tanks. And attack helicopters. Artillery too.
 
What do you mean? The Coast Guard is a militia- and and has tanks. And attack helicopters. Artillery too.

Militia does not mean "all the military force of a nation".

It means infantrymen. Grunts.

I don't mean to be insulting, but is English your mother tongue? Militia does not equal military.
 
Militia does not mean "all the military force of a nation".

It means infantrymen. Grunts.

I don't mean to be insulting, but is English your mother tongue? Militia does not equal military.

Sorry, I actually had something like the National Guard in mind.

"Like members of the National Guard, the Navy and Marine Reservists who constitute most of the membership in naval militias serve in a dual federal and state capacity; they operate as a component of their state's military force, and are subject to be called up and deployed by the governor of their respective states during emergencies. However, when individual sailors and marines are federalized, they are relieved from their state obligations and placed under federal control until they are released from active service."
Naval militia - Wikipedia

The National Guard is what a "well regulated militia" is all about. THey are well regulated, and even have those tanks you think they shouldn't have:

YouTube

Here is what happens when they are not well regulated.

YouTube
 
Sorry, I actually had something like the National Guard in mind.



The National Guard is what a "well regulated militia" is all about. THey are well regulated, and even have those tanks you think they shouldn't have:

YouTube

Here is what happens when they are not well regulated.

YouTube

I understand interpreting militia to mean the likes of the National Guard. However, the Bill of Rights is about individual natural rights. The rights to life, expression and self defense. One aspect of this expressly protected/enumerated is the press. One needn't join a government agency to publish, and one needn't join a government agency to realize self defense.

These rights, life expression and self defense, pre exist government. They're ours as human beings. Universal agreements resulting from a sense of species preservation. No one gives them to us and no one can take them away. And no one can require we join the government to realize them.

There are other problems with a National Guard interpretation, but I find that the most philosophically visceral.
 
Here is what happens when they are not well regulated.

I didn't click on the videos, but I'm gonna tell you what well regulated means. It means when one is dying in place to hold a line, one is trained and equipped and educated enough to believe in their cause and execute their duty with deadly efficiency until dying breath.

Well regulated means holding a line even when it is overrun. Well regulated does not break.
 
Last edited:
I understand interpreting militia to mean the likes of the National Guard. However, the Bill of Rights is about individual natural rights. The rights to life, expression and self defense. One aspect of this expressly protected/enumerated is the press. One needn't join a government agency to publish, and one needn't join a government agency to realize self defense.

These rights, life expression and self defense, pre exist government. They're ours as human beings. Universal agreements resulting from a sense of species preservation. No one gives them to us and no one can take them away. And no one can require we join the government to realize them.

There are other problems with a National Guard interpretation, but I find that the most philosophically visceral.

I understand. Such visceral feelings are often cultural. It is the way we see the world. It is how we have grown up. The feelings come first, the reasoning and rationality and looking for legal justifications for them come later. But it is not at all clear that the founding fathers, if they knew of the mind boggling advancing technology, would have worded the Second Amendment in quite the same way, with no restrictions specified. Any restrictions that are there now, from artillery to nuclear weapons, are purely our own, to try to keep up with the technology.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom