Suing Gun Manufacturers

[mrjurrs]

2:26.

Love Deadpool...

 

[Rich2018]

more complete and utter bullshit. that isn't even responsive to my point that you cannot prevent lawful gun owners from doing anything

Shooting their guns in public would be one such thing...

 

[Rich2018]

FFS Heller already stated that restricting firearms to use within a person's home is infringing upon the rights detailed in the 2nd amendment and they are not conferred but recognized by such.

It did ?

Can you point to the bit in the ruling that says that ?
(and I'm suggesting a restriction to private property, not just the home).

 

[TurtleDude]

Shooting their guns in public would be one such thing...

that's already illegal in incorporated areas and some townships.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The point is that you can't distinguish between a boundary and a barrier

****ing hell. Not only are they are synonyms, THIS IS STILL UTTERLY ****ING IRRELEVANT.

Prattle on about boundaries versus barriers. You'll be talking to the wall because I'm done with your sideshow.

Please stop the over use of pro-nouns: "they" = rights or guns ?

Both, according to you.

Because they're AUTHORIZED to carry a gun

But carrying a gun makes them a threat. This was your categorical statement.

It's called grammar and in law "objects" and "people" are treated differently

Your entire premise is that the second amendment can be limited to private property because it doesn't state it applies elsewhere. Your assertion has nothing to do with objects vs. people.

"Abridged" refers to a shortened piece of writing

So either your comprehension or command of English would seem to be flawed

Certainly not from any dictionary you use.

Hey, Daniel Webster, you should try this again. And this time you should go beyond your first Google result.

Regardless, even if you were correct about the definition of the word, only a complete dumbass wouldn't be able to figure out what I meant. So, knowing what I meant, you still decided to press on with another irrelevant sideshow rather than address the obvious point.

The reason is obvious: you cannot.

 

[Rich2018]

that's already illegal in incorporated areas and some townships.

Which contradicts your assertion: "...my point that you cannot prevent lawful gun owners from doing anything"

 

[Lursa]

****ing hell. Not only are they are synonyms, THIS IS STILL UTTERLY ****ING IRRELEVANT.

Prattle on about boundaries versus barriers. You'll be talking to the wall because I'm done with your sideshow.

Your entire premise is that the second amendment can be limited to private property because it doesn't state it applies elsewhere. Your assertion has nothing to do with objects vs. people.

It's a stupid idea...the epitome of 'useless, feel-good' legislation.

A law that would restrict gun owners to only keep firearms on their own property would be useless. It would allow any non-prohibited person to own firearms...and if they chose to commit a crime...to walk off their property with their firearms and use them.

A charge of 'leaving your property with a firearm' would be the least of their concerns if they had criminal intent
​

 

[Rich2018]

****ing hell. Not only are they are synonyms, THIS IS STILL UTTERLY ****ING IRRELEVANT.

No they're not, a barrier (eg a wall) can cross boundaries (like the demarcation of an area of private property and public property)

A boundary doesn't even need to be marked at all (like a boundary between two counties or two states)

So you're wrong

Prattle on about boundaries versus barriers. You'll be talking to the wall because I'm done with your sideshow.

You certainly didn't devote too much time considering the differences between the two

Both, according to you.

It was your post, don't you understand your own words ?

But carrying a gun makes them a threat. This was your categorical statement.

Carrying a gun makes you a threat - correct
An authorized person, like a policeman*, shouldn't be so regarded, though I can understand how recent events in Minnesota might undermine such a belief

*Because they're meant to be upholders of the law, be fully trained and properly vetted etc

Your entire premise is that the second amendment can be limited to private property because it doesn't state it applies elsewhere. Your assertion has nothing to do with objects vs. people.

But it does state that there are other limits on other rights....the 2nd Amendment would be the only one requiring a geographical limit

Regardless, even if you were correct about the definition of the word, only a complete dumbass wouldn't be able to figure out what I meant....

There's no "even" about it. "Abridged" mean the shortening of a written description

So, non-dumbass people are meant to be psychic ?
Your posts are not to be taken literally, but readers can substitute other words to make the meaning more clear ?

Good to know

So, knowing what I meant, you still decided to press on with another irrelevant sideshow rather than address the obvious point.

What word did you mean Btw?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No they're not, a barrier (eg a wall) can cross boundaries (like the demarcation of an area of private property and public property)

A boundary doesn't even need to be marked at all (like a boundary between two counties or two states)

So you're wrong




You certainly didn't devote too much time considering the differences between the two




It was your post, don't you understand your own words ?




Carrying a gun makes you a threat - correct
An authorized person, like a policeman*, shouldn't be so regarded, though I can understand how recent events in Minnesota might undermine such a belief

*Because they're meant to be upholders of the law, be fully trained and properly vetted etc




But it does state that there are other limits on other rights....the 2nd Amendment would be the only one requiring a geographical limit



There's no "even" about it. "Abridged" mean the shortening of a written description

So, non-dumbass people are meant to be psychic ?
Your posts are not to be taken literally, but readers can substitute other words to make the meaning more clear ?

Good to know




What word did you mean Btw?

Goodbye.

 

[RedAkston]

Moderator's Warning:

@Grizzly Adams @Rich2018 knock it off

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Moderator's Warning:

@Grizzly Adams @Rich2018 knock it off

?

 

[zsu2357]

Not my point. A gun that blows up is a defective product. A gun when used as it is designed, like a cigarette, has costs that gun manufacturers should be liable for (imo)

A gun that blows up and then you use a cigarette as an analogy. Did you get a hold of one of those exploding cigarettes?

 

[uptower]

So some politicians want to be able to sue gun manufacturers and they want to get rid of so called "protections" that keep gun manufacturers from being sued. Well I don't see what all the fuss is about since gun manufacturers can be sued and its never been any different. If anybody thinks gun manufacturers can't be sued, here is an example.

Savage Arms Sued For Exploding Barrel - AllOutdoor.com

Savage Arms has been hit with a lawsuit over its 10ML-II stainless steel muzzleloader rifle. Ronald Hansen, a farmer from Hampton, Iowa, loaded the rifle as he had done before. Aimed at the target, and pulled the trigger. Rather than the bullet hitting the target, the barrel exploded, severely...

www.alloutdoor.com

I think the question floated by some politicians and pundits is suing manufacturers for someone using the product to harm others, rather than suing over a faulty product. The latter is nothing new. The former would be. Guns are made for a purpose and that purpose is valid. When someone goes on a crime spree they are exceeding the intended use. If they were marketing them in such a way that encouraged this there might be a case, but I don't see direct liability on the part of gun makers here.

Restricting access is a different story. Tougher gun laws and licensing might 'punish' manufacturers indirectly by reducing sales. The intention there is to reduce the dangers of a high number in circulation or in the wrong hands however, not to 'hurt' the makers. It's not their fault for simply making something that is legally sold on the market.

 

[mrjurrs]

A gun that blows up and then you use a cigarette as an analogy. Did you get a hold of one of those exploding cigarettes?

Please note the period, two different things.

 

[Rich2018]

Please note the period, two different things.

With the same result, sadly.

 

[zsu2357]

Please note the period, two different things.

And it stands. What you got a thing about periods?

 

[mrjurrs]

And it stands. What you got a thing about periods?

So your response remains incoherent. I do have a thing about periods, and spelling, and manners etc. They mean something. And it's not what you responded to.

 

[Rich2018]

I think the question floated by some politicians and pundits is suing manufacturers for someone using the product to harm others, rather than suing over a faulty product. The latter is nothing new. The former would be. Guns are made for a purpose and that purpose is valid. When someone goes on a crime spree they are exceeding the intended use. If they were marketing them in such a way that encouraged this there might be a case, but I don't see direct liability on the part of gun makers here.

Restricting access is a different story. Tougher gun laws and licensing might 'punish' manufacturers indirectly by reducing sales. The intention there is to reduce the dangers of a high number in circulation or in the wrong hands however, not to 'hurt' the makers. It's not their fault for simply making something that is legally sold on the market.

Really only legislation that seeks to reduce the number of guns in circulation, and to reduce the number significantly, is of any use.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Well wasnt it the 9th that also decided that the magazine limits in CA were unconstitutional? (Mag limits in general, I think) That was a good decision.

In this instance they are allowing may issue concealed carry as well as denying open carry. That leads to the right being restricted to home only which they argued was constitutional, and it clearly isn't.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It did ?

Can you point to the bit in the ruling that says that ?
(and I'm suggesting a restriction to private property, not just the home).

District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense...

www.britannica.com

"District of Columbia v. Heller originated in a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in 2003. In Parker v. District of Columbia, six residents of the federal District of Columbia asked the court to enjoin enforcement of three provisions of the district’s Firearms Control Regulation Act (1975) that generally banned the registration of handguns, prohibited the carrying of unlicensed handguns or any other “deadly or dangerous” weapon capable of being concealed, and required that lawfully stored firearms be disassembled or locked to prevent firing. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss. In 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, after determining that only one of the plaintiffs, Dick Heller, had standing to sue (because only he had suffered an actual injury, the denial of his application for a license to possess a handgun), struck down the first and third provisions and limited the enforcement of the second."

 

[Rich2018]

District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense...

www.britannica.com

"District of Columbia v. Heller originated in a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in 2003. In Parker v. District of Columbia, six residents of the federal District of Columbia asked the court to enjoin enforcement of three provisions of the district’s Firearms Control Regulation Act (1975) that generally banned the registration of handguns, prohibited the carrying of unlicensed handguns or any other “deadly or dangerous” weapon capable of being concealed, and required that lawfully stored firearms be disassembled or locked to prevent firing. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss. In 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, after determining that only one of the plaintiffs, Dick Heller, had standing to sue (because only he had suffered an actual injury, the denial of his application for a license to possess a handgun), struck down the first and third provisions and limited the enforcement of the second."

OK, where's the bit about being able to carry a gun on public property ?

Can you highlight the bit I should look at ?

 

[OpportunityCost]

OK, where's the bit about being able to carry a gun on public property ?

Can you highlight the bit I should look at ?

I just gave you a paragraph quote, read it. There are only 3 components, its the 2nd one.

BTW, get real and read for comprehension please, not for talking points.

 

[Rich2018]

I just gave you a paragraph quote, read it. There are only 3 components, its the 2nd one.

BTW, get real and read for comprehension please, not for talking points.

So you can't actually highlight a bit referring to public property ?

 

[TurtleDude]

Which contradicts your assertion: "...my point that you cannot prevent lawful gun owners from doing anything"

I am talking about YOU. YOU cannot do anything about what gun owners do

 

[Rich2018]

I am talking about YOU. YOU cannot do anything about what gun owners do

No, I can't, hence my need for laws and policemen to enforce them

I can't do anything about what pedophiles do either

Or rapists

Or murderers...