The 2nd Amendment's rogue (1 Viewer)

[press]

I mean think about it: It's thanks to the Second Amendment that we have so much crime in this nation. Most murders involve a gun in some way, so if we remove the Second Amendment by constitutional amendment, we can dramatically reduce crime. Sure we would be preventing people from protecting themselves, but without guns in the first place, this need isn't present. Burgalaries? There are so many laws regulating when it's legal to shoot at a burgalar (they must be carrying a weapon themselves, they have to look like they can defend themselves, they must physically provoke you, etc) that owning a gun for defending your property is futile.

I was quick to send this to my Congressman, John Boozman, when he published this article today. I doubt that one email from one person is going to sway a Congressman, but it is excuses like that that keep one email from one person from being multiple emails from many people. Everyone thinks that they're "just one man who has no chance in hell of making a difference," but if everyone who thought that banned together for a common good, a lot of damage to crime can be delt. This "eye b jus' 1 m@n!" is a disgusting excuse for not going to your Congressman.

 

[Schweddy]

I mean think about it: It's thanks to the Second Amendment that we have so much crime in this nation.

Only if this were true, would I grant that you have a valid point.

Removing guns from the lawful people only invites the unlawful to own them. It will not remove guns in any fashion. It would create more criminals however.

This is similar to prohibition. Only the criminals drank alcohol, right?

 

[galenrox]

I mean think about it: It's thanks to the Second Amendment that we have so much crime in this nation. Most murders involve a gun in some way, so if we remove the Second Amendment by constitutional amendment, we can dramatically reduce crime. Sure we would be preventing people from protecting themselves, but without guns in the first place, this need isn't present. Burgalaries? There are so many laws regulating when it's legal to shoot at a burgalar (they must be carrying a weapon themselves, they have to look like they can defend themselves, they must physically provoke you, etc) that owning a gun for defending your property is futile.

I was quick to send this to my Congressman, John Boozman, when he published this article today. I doubt that one email from one person is going to sway a Congressman, but it is excuses like that that keep one email from one person from being multiple emails from many people. Everyone thinks that they're "just one man who has no chance in hell of making a difference," but if everyone who thought that banned together for a common good, a lot of damage to crime can be delt. This "eye b jus' 1 m@n!" is a disgusting excuse for not going to your Congressman.

Right, cause people are just sitting around with a gun and thinking "Well, I've got a gun, I might as well go shoot somebody!"
This argument is frickin ridiculous. Without the second amendment we'd have more crime, since undoubtedly in several states guns would be illegal, and thus people would be purchasing them on the black market, and thus more criminals.
The biggest cause of crime in this country is our failed drug laws. It's as simple as that. guns may be a catalyst to the crimes, but if drugs had never been made illegal crime would be only a fraction of what it is today.

Sure, most homocides involve guns, but what proof do you have that removing that one factor from the homocides a large portion of these homocides wouldn't happen? Cause the vast majority of these aren't mass murders, and thus stabbing, although it would require a little more work, wouldn't be that hard, and how many people do think are like "Damn, I should kill that guy, but I don't have a gun, only this stinking knife/club/frozen leg of lamb, screw it."?

 

[TurtleDude]

I mean think about it: It's thanks to the Second Amendment that we have so much crime in this nation. Most murders involve a gun in some way, so if we remove the Second Amendment by constitutional amendment, we can dramatically reduce crime. Sure we would be preventing people from protecting themselves, but without guns in the first place, this need isn't present. Burgalaries? There are so many laws regulating when it's legal to shoot at a burgalar (they must be carrying a weapon themselves, they have to look like they can defend themselves, they must physically provoke you, etc) that owning a gun for defending your property is futile.

I was quick to send this to my Congressman, John Boozman, when he published this article today. I doubt that one email from one person is going to sway a Congressman, but it is excuses like that that keep one email from one person from being multiple emails from many people. Everyone thinks that they're "just one man who has no chance in hell of making a difference," but if everyone who thought that banned together for a common good, a lot of damage to crime can be delt. This "eye b jus' 1 m@n!" is a disgusting excuse for not going to your Congressman.

Hmmm I shot someone once-wasn't even handcuffed
this post of yours is beyond ignorant-there are 300 million guns at least in this country and Galen is right-all you would do is crreate a black market

ENGLAND totally banned handguns-they never had a large number of them and they are an ISLAND and yet their gun crime rates are increasing while ours is DECREASING even with more and more legal guns being bought

 

[press]

ours is DECREASING even with more and more legal guns being bought

As much as this is going to shock you, it's thanks to video games like Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt that crime is decreasing. Now wait. Think about it: All these violent video games, instead of encouraging people to go out and do it in real life like stereotypists say, has actually given them an alternative adrenaline rush. Many political groups argue that point, but that's only because of stereotypists comparing them to movies, television, and music, which don't really have you doing the thing yourself; you're just watching it, so you don't get the same adrenaline rush. Playing violent video games is like soliciting a prostitute. You don't have the guts to do anything meaningful, so you go with an alternative.

 

[AK_Conservative]

As much as this is going to shock you, it's thanks to video games like Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt that crime is decreasing. Now wait. Think about it: All these violent video games, instead of encouraging people to go out and do it in real life like stereotypists say, has actually given them an alternative adrenaline rush. Many political groups argue that point, but that's only because of stereotypists comparing them to movies, television, and music, which don't really have you doing the thing yourself; you're just watching it, so you don't get the same adrenaline rush. Playing violent video games is like soliciting a prostitute. You don't have the guts to do anything meaningful, so you go with an alternative.

:roll:

So you are saying, becuase there are guns, people want to go play with em so they go kill someone? Only Virtual crime can reduce reality crime? Whatever. Your analogy is invalid. There is no connection. Besides the point that there would be a black market, murders would still exist... What about knives? Knives are leathel... When those get outlawed, whats next? Pencils? Pencils can be lethal! Guns dont kill people.. people kill people...

 

[TurtleDude]

As much as this is going to shock you, it's thanks to video games like Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt that crime is decreasing. Now wait. Think about it: All these violent video games, instead of encouraging people to go out and do it in real life like stereotypists say, has actually given them an alternative adrenaline rush. Many political groups argue that point, but that's only because of stereotypists comparing them to movies, television, and music, which don't really have you doing the thing yourself; you're just watching it, so you don't get the same adrenaline rush. Playing violent video games is like soliciting a prostitute. You don't have the guts to do anything meaningful, so you go with an alternative.

you are completely wrong. Some of the school shootings have been aided by these games. I teach people how to shoot defensively. It is hard to shoot a pistol accurately-for some people it is very hard to point a loaded weapon at another human. The military knew this and they have learned how to desensitize recruits-many of them who have never hunted or killed with a weapon (even a deer or a pigeon) to do that. Many of the violent video games are very similar. One kid in a Kentucky school IIRC shot at 8 people and got 7 solid hits . He had never shot a gun before to the best of the prosecutor's knowledge. He did play a ton of video games where a pistol simulator was used to shoot human targets.

crime is going down for a couple reasons including harsher sentences-especially Dept of Justice initiatives to prosecute felons caught with guns under more severe federal sentences where there is no parole. Three strikes laws-while often applied unfairly-incapacitates criminals for long periods of time. CCW laws have helped in some areas as well

the clinton gun bans took a few weeks to go from passage to implementation. Millions upon millions of guns and high capacity magazines were sold in reaction to this idiotic law. yet gun crime went down with all these new guns in circulation

the idiotic clinton ban sunset 13 months ago-WHERE IS THE BLOODSHED all the gun haters said would happen?

 

[Red State Sage]

To attempt to make the case that guns kill people, one must first dismiss the entire human element of crime. The gun doesn't say to itself, "hey, I think I'll bust a cap in somebody's a** today". It's merely a tool that is used to carry out the intent of the human mind...nothing more.

If eliminating crime from society is the goal, then at what point do we make illegal the possession of knives, bats, and other blunt objects? Knives are used countless times a day across this nation to carry out assaults, murders, rapes, and robberies. Yet, the US Constitution says nothing about the right to bear knives or bats, but it does guns. There are reasons for that. I won't go into all of them, but if you aren't familiar with them, then go read the writings of the Framers and what their intent was when writing the 2nd Amendment.

Also worth noting, is the fact that crime in states that have concealed carry permits has trended downward. There have interviews done on that very topic with inmates and what their thoughts were. Not suprisingly, they routinely indicate they avoid people who look as if they might be carrying, thereby targeting those who don't look like they would be (a.ka. the weak, elderly, and liberals).

 

[press]

you are completely wrong. Some of the school shootings have been aided by these games. I teach people how to shoot defensively. It is hard to shoot a pistol accurately-for some people it is very hard to point a loaded weapon at another human. The military knew this and they have learned how to desensitize recruits-many of them who have never hunted or killed with a weapon (even a deer or a pigeon) to do that. Many of the violent video games are very similar. One kid in a Kentucky school IIRC shot at 8 people and got 7 solid hits . He had never shot a gun before to the best of the prosecutor's knowledge. He did play a ton of video games where a pistol simulator was used to shoot human targets.

great. The "what about this one guy, out of all the millions of video game players" bullshit. I'm confident that the fact that he played video games may have taught him to aim, but it played no factor in his decision to go out and kill students. He was just autistic. I know this because I have a mild form of autism myself called aspergers, and I too have thought about doing soem school shootings because I thought everybody in the school was picking on me, so I considered "showing them who's boss," and if he wasn't autistic, he was clinnically insane in some way, I can garentee you (think about it: Anybody who walks into a school in broad daylight and starts shooting people at random has got to be insane. The video games did give him an alternative adrenaline rush; he just wanted revenge on the classmates. I'm not trying to say what he did was justified. I'm just saying that the video games did not influence his state of mind, only his aiming ability.

Of course, there is a solution to this: Make the aiming portion of the shooters as unrealistic as possible, and the youth won't learn how to aim.

 

[galenrox]

great. The "what about this one guy, out of all the millions of video game players" bullshit. I'm confident that the fact that he played video games may have taught him to aim, but it played no factor in his decision to go out and kill students. He was just autistic. I know this because I have a mild form of autism myself called aspergers, and I too have thought about doing soem school shootings because I thought everybody in the school was picking on me, so I considered "showing them who's boss," and if he wasn't autistic, he was clinnically insane in some way, I can garentee you (think about it: Anybody who walks into a school in broad daylight and starts shooting people at random has got to be insane. The video games did give him an alternative adrenaline rush; he just wanted revenge on the classmates. I'm not trying to say what he did was justified. I'm just saying that the video games did not influence his state of mind, only his aiming ability.

Of course, there is a solution to this: Make the aiming portion of the shooters as unrealistic as possible, and the youth won't learn how to aim.

Not to mention that in most video games aiming is already unrealistic, since you don't need to hold a frickin GUN, although some games have made it more realistic, making the site bob up and down as you breathe.
Please tell me why you think that getting rid of guns would cut down on crime.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Speaking of the second amendment, looks like they will be signing into law that prevents gun dealers, manufacterers from being held liable for crimes committed with their weapons. They have some liability where if they knowingly sell their weapons to a felon or something like that.

 

[press]

Not to mention that in most video games aiming is already unrealistic, since you don't need to hold a frickin GUN, although some games have made it more realistic, making the site bob up and down as you breathe.
Please tell me why you think that getting rid of guns would cut down on crime.

Okay, so maybe I was wrong on the make-games-less-realistic part, but you haven't even tried to comment on the rest of my post, especially the meat of it, where I said that games don't influence your state of mind. Try commenting on that.

But about your last sentence. As long as we can deal out harsh enough punishments for black marketing guns, nobody will want to take the risk. By "harsh enough," I mean something rediculous like crucifiction or getting gasoline poured on you and getting lit on fire, or getting your insides cut out and eaten while you're fully conciense.

In case you haven't noticed yet, I also believe in the abolishment of the cruel and unusual punishment clause. I believe that with harsher punishments, but without the "we'll kill whoever we so much as think did it, not taking into consideration if the real perpetrator gets away with it" attitude of China, people will be intimidated into obedience. I'm talking about getting whipped and lashed for stealing a lollipop, granted, that is, if you're judged "capable of judging your actions," which I think is a greater policy than this "juvenille vs. adult" BS because it also applies to idiots and insane persons.

 

[galenrox]

Okay, so maybe I was wrong on the make-games-less-realistic part, but you haven't even tried to comment on the rest of my post, especially the meat of it, where I said that games don't influence your state of mind. Try commenting on that.

But about your last sentence. As long as we can deal out harsh enough punishments for black marketing guns, nobody will want to take the risk. By "harsh enough," I mean something rediculous like crucifiction or getting gasoline poured on you and getting lit on fire, or getting your insides cut out and eaten while you're fully conciense.

In case you haven't noticed yet, I also believe in the abolishment of the cruel and unusual punishment clause. I believe that with harsher punishments, but without the "we'll kill whoever we so much as think did it, not taking into consideration if the real perpetrator gets away with it" attitude of China, people will be intimidated into obedience. I'm talking about getting whipped and lashed for stealing a lollipop, granted, that is, if you're judged "capable of judging your actions," which I think is a greater policy than this "juvenille vs. adult" BS because it also applies to idiots and insane persons.

Don't be a jerk, I was agreeing with you with all but the last sentence.
I think that that's ridiculous. So basically you want to get rid of the idea of proportionality, so that people will be terribly punished for making a stupid mistake. That's horrible and immoral.
And also, the idea that it's just the punishments aren't disproportionate enough is ridiculous too. Look at laws about pot. You can be put in jail for possession, and there have been a few cases of people being killed in raids for small amounts of pot. If that's not disproportionate, I don't know what is. Yet time and time again it's been shown that as long as there's a demand, there's a supply, and forcing that supply into a black market is really just the government surrendering its ability to regulate the market. So if the government outlawed guns, it would just surrender its ability to regulate the market.
Plus think about it, if guns are outlawed, who do you think will continue to buy guns? I'm pretty sure it won't be hunters, or people looking to protect their homes, the vast majority will be buying them for illegal purposes, and now there's zero risk if they break into a home that the homeowner will be home and packin.
Are you ****ing serious about modeling our stance on human rights after China's? You're reccomending that the populace gets rid of its guns, and erode the constitution at the same time? Do you have any idea in how many ways that could go wrong, like, in EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO?

 

[TurtleDude]

great. The "what about this one guy, out of all the millions of video game players" bullshit. I'm confident that the fact that he played video games may have taught him to aim, but it played no factor in his decision to go out and kill students. He was just autistic. I know this because I have a mild form of autism myself called aspergers, and I too have thought about doing soem school shootings because I thought everybody in the school was picking on me, so I considered "showing them who's boss," and if he wasn't autistic, he was clinnically insane in some way, I can garentee you (think about it: Anybody who walks into a school in broad daylight and starts shooting people at random has got to be insane. The video games did give him an alternative adrenaline rush; he just wanted revenge on the classmates. I'm not trying to say what he did was justified. I'm just saying that the video games did not influence his state of mind, only his aiming ability.

Of course, there is a solution to this: Make the aiming portion of the shooters as unrealistic as possible, and the youth won't learn how to aim.

what does this have to do with your illogical theme that doing away with the second amendment will decrease crime? How much experience do you have in say firearms or law enforcement?

 

[TurtleDude]

Okay, so maybe I was wrong on the make-games-less-realistic part, but you haven't even tried to comment on the rest of my post, especially the meat of it, where I said that games don't influence your state of mind. Try commenting on that.

But about your last sentence. As long as we can deal out harsh enough punishments for black marketing guns, nobody will want to take the risk. By "harsh enough," I mean something rediculous like crucifiction or getting gasoline poured on you and getting lit on fire, or getting your insides cut out and eaten while you're fully conciense.

In case you haven't noticed yet, I also believe in the abolishment of the cruel and unusual punishment clause. I believe that with harsher punishments, but without the "we'll kill whoever we so much as think did it, not taking into consideration if the real perpetrator gets away with it" attitude of China, people will be intimidated into obedience. I'm talking about getting whipped and lashed for stealing a lollipop, granted, that is, if you're judged "capable of judging your actions," which I think is a greater policy than this "juvenille vs. adult" BS because it also applies to idiots and insane persons.

More nonsense. THere have been all kinds of studies that put this scenario in play

what will decrease murders more Burning alive one murderer out of ten, or making sure every single murderer gets 7 years in prison? ANSWER-the latter. People don't expect to get caught. If every murderer got caught and got a few years that would be more a deterrent than roasting one of ten .

How many police would die if you tried to implement what you suggested? I would hope that any politician that implemented such a program would be taken out right away sinc that would be a violation of the constitution. we put people away for 20 years for dealing coke in many cases. I watched a guy get life for a few grand in crack-three strikes you are out stuff. Has that stopped the sale of stuff that HAS NO LEGITIMATE use. Guns will be available for police etc-an easy source of supply for others

 

[press]

what will decrease murders more Burning alive one murderer out of ten, or making sure every single murderer gets 7 years in prison? ANSWER-the latter. People don't expect to get caught. If every murderer got caught and got a few years that would be more a deterrent than roasting one of ten .

That's why we should catch all of the criminals. It would be easier than you think if we just allowed more types of evidence in court. There is so much evidence that is not admissable in court that would convict them that murderers get away with it nine times out of ten.

And no, I don't believe in abolishing proportionality. Quite the contrary: I think the punishments already intact are not proportionate enough. I think you should get handcuffed (so you can't fight back) and whipped and lashed for about two minutes for steeling a lollipop. The time you get whipped and lashed should be proportional to the value of what you are convicted of steeling. If you stole a car, then you get whipped and lashed for a straight twelve hours, and if you die from it, you deserved it you son of a bitch. Speeding deserves a fine of four thousand dollars for every mph you go over the speed limit.

You raped somebody? You get your skin shaven off with a potato peeler while you're fully conious. You killed somebody? You get gasoline poured all over you and are lit on fire. Like I said, keep proportionality, but make the punishments so harsh that no one wants to take the risk of getting caught.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's why we should catch all of the criminals. It would be easier than you think if we just allowed more types of evidence in court. There is so much evidence that is not admissable in court that would convict them that murderers get away with it nine times out of ten.

And no, I don't believe in abolishing proportionality. Quite the contrary: I think the punishments already intact are not proportionate enough. I think you should get handcuffed (so you can't fight back) and whipped and lashed for about two minutes for steeling a lollipop. The time you get whipped and lashed should be proportional to the value of what you are convicted of steeling. If you stole a car, then you get whipped and lashed for a straight twelve hours, and if you die from it, you deserved it you son of a bitch. Speeding deserves a fine of four thousand dollars for every mph you go over the speed limit.

You raped somebody? You get your skin shaven off with a potato peeler while you're fully conious. You killed somebody? You get gasoline poured all over you and are lit on fire. Like I said, keep proportionality, but make the punishments so harsh that no one wants to take the risk of getting caught.

Well that is really stupid. You have a slight problem called the 5th amendment and I am not willing to give up more rights for alleged increases in crime control I see from your profile you are 17 or so. You ever shot someone Press? You ever see the results of a knife fight? You ever tried a criminal case? Have you ever been involved in law enforcement? I can answer yes to all and I think as you get a little older, your zest for bloodshed will diminsh a bit. You make punishment that severe every perp might as well waste any body around

that is why we no longer execute kidnappers. IF a kidnapper gets the needle without killing his victim, he has no incentive NOT to kill the victim

If I know I will get beaten to death for stealing a car, I'm going to kill anyone who tries to arrest me.

You really need to think things through

 

[galenrox]

That's why we should catch all of the criminals. It would be easier than you think if we just allowed more types of evidence in court. There is so much evidence that is not admissable in court that would convict them that murderers get away with it nine times out of ten.

And no, I don't believe in abolishing proportionality. Quite the contrary: I think the punishments already intact are not proportionate enough. I think you should get handcuffed (so you can't fight back) and whipped and lashed for about two minutes for steeling a lollipop. The time you get whipped and lashed should be proportional to the value of what you are convicted of steeling. If you stole a car, then you get whipped and lashed for a straight twelve hours, and if you die from it, you deserved it you son of a bitch. Speeding deserves a fine of four thousand dollars for every mph you go over the speed limit.

You raped somebody? You get your skin shaven off with a potato peeler while you're fully conious. You killed somebody? You get gasoline poured all over you and are lit on fire. Like I said, keep proportionality, but make the punishments so harsh that no one wants to take the risk of getting caught.

man, dude, where can I get some of this **** you're smoking?
Have you ever been whipped? I mean, just a couple times, cause I have and that isn't something petty that stealing a lollypop would merit two minutes of.

I am confident that in time your lust for blood will die down, or you'll end up in a mental institution, one of the two.

What exactly do you know about pain, that you think it should be so easily given out by the state? Like, have you ever just had the crap beaten out of you? Have you ever been beaten so badly that you can't get up afterwards? It's not some petty crap that should be doled out to anyone for the slightest infraction, but then again, you're young, and so you're yet to understand empathy, so I understand.

 

[TurtleDude]

man, dude, where can I get some of this **** you're smoking?
Have you ever been whipped? I mean, just a couple times, cause I have and that isn't something petty that stealing a lollypop would merit two minutes of.

I am confident that in time your lust for blood will die down, or you'll end up in a mental institution, one of the two.

What exactly do you know about pain, that you think it should be so easily given out by the state? Like, have you ever just had the crap beaten out of you? Have you ever been beaten so badly that you can't get up afterwards? It's not some petty crap that should be doled out to anyone for the slightest infraction, but then again, you're young, and so you're yet to understand empathy, so I understand.

YOu got to wonder about a 17 year old who wants people flayed alive for stealing :roll:

 

[press]

Like, have you ever just had the crap beaten out of you? Have you ever been beaten so badly that you can't get up afterwards?

actually, yes. By my father, numerous times. And that's why I support the abolishment of cruel and unusual punishment, because, as much as you're not going to believe this, I have never done the same wrong thing twice because of the beatings I took. Cruel and unusual punishment for every misdemeanour works. I know this because it worked on me.

 

[TurtleDude]

actually, yes. By my father, numerous times. And that's why I support the abolishment of cruel and unusual punishment, because, as much as you're not going to believe this, I have never done the same wrong thing twice because of the beatings I took. Cruel and unusual punishment for every misdemeanour works. I know this because it worked on me.

I guess I will notify the DA in your area to beware of a child beater in say 8 years? most child beaters were beaten by their parents. My dad was a gold gloves finalist. He never had to hit me to get his point across. Maybe that's why I never have hit mine either

now lets get back to you uninformed position on the second amendment :mrgreen:

 

[Red State Sage]

Speaking of the second amendment, looks like they will be signing into law that prevents gun dealers, manufacterers from being held liable for crimes committed with their weapons. They have some liability where if they knowingly sell their weapons to a felon or something like that.

First of all, I'll be honest in admitting that I've not read the specifics of the bill. Though, I've read enough over the years about this legislation that I have a solid feel for the intent.

Let me start with a simple question. Should Ford Motor Company be held liable for selling a vehicle to a chronic alcoholic, who later that day is D.U.I. and in the process wrecks and kills another driver? I think most rational people would answer no to that question. Reason being, as a free society which engages in commerce, at some point the consumer citizen has to be the one who assumes all liability for actions he takes.

The target of law suits in the gun matter would not be the local "mom-n-pop" sporting store that sells firearms. It would be the manufacturer of the weapon who is most likely located half-way across the country from where both the sale and crime took place. To hold Smith & Wesson liable for a crime in Los Angeles, when S&W is located in Massachusetts is asinine.

In the case where a manufacturer exhibits extreme negligence, then yes, they should be held to account. This is so obscure that I can't even come up with a possible example of how any major gun producer could carry out such a scheme, or what they would have to gain. The risk would be far greater than the reward for them to engage in this type of activity, especially considering how they've been put under a microscope already.

 

[shatteredxdreams8]

By removing the right to own a gun from the constitution, would be just plain ignorant, i mean first off, guns are not the only thing that the 2nd amendment is referring to "the right to bear arms" this could mean having a pocket knife to protect yourself, also by taking away guns, our crime rate would increase steadily, because that would be making something new against the law and people would still find ways to buy and sell guns just like do with other things such as drugs. Also taking away guns will also not solve anything it would cause more problems, just because guns are illegal doesn't mean people won't get them and if they don't have them they will just find something else to use such as knifes or other things.. I'm not saying everyone has the right to bear arms i think the gov. should just make getting a gun more diffcult if you have any type of criminal record.

 

[TurtleDude]

First of all, I'll be honest in admitting that I've not read the specifics of the bill. Though, I've read enough over the years about this legislation that I have a solid feel for the intent.

Let me start with a simple question. Should Ford Motor Company be held liable for selling a vehicle to a chronic alcoholic, who later that day is D.U.I. and in the process wrecks and kills another driver? I think most rational people would answer no to that question. Reason being, as a free society which engages in commerce, at some point the consumer citizen has to be the one who assumes all liability for actions he takes.

The target of law suits in the gun matter would not be the local "mom-n-pop" sporting store that sells firearms. It would be the manufacturer of the weapon who is most likely located half-way across the country from where both the sale and crime took place. To hold Smith & Wesson liable for a crime in Los Angeles, when S&W is located in Massachusetts is asinine.

In the case where a manufacturer exhibits extreme negligence, then yes, they should be held to account. This is so obscure that I can't even come up with a possible example of how any major gun producer could carry out such a scheme, or what they would have to gain. The risk would be far greater than the reward for them to engage in this type of activity, especially considering how they've been put under a microscope already.

I actually have some experience in product liability law and TRADTIONAL PLL means if you sell someone a defective electric blanket and they burn up you are liable. If you sell medicinal oxygen that is contaminated, you are liable. If you sell a gun that explodes when used properly with proper ammo-then you are liable

the gun haters have attempted to sue gun makers into bankruptcy by suing them not because the gun failed to work safely, but becuase it worked as intended. THis bill prevents that. It prevents the city of Cincinnati, for example from suing every handgun maker for crime. it prevents some gang banger from suing beretta because another gang banger used a stolen 92 F to shoot him in the back

If a gun wholesaler sells to a dealer that it knows or had reason to know is selling guns illegally that wholesaler could theoretically be liable. Same with a manufacturer that sells to a rogue dealer. In reality, it would mostly be applicable to dealers-especially those without storefronts who sell at shows or flea markets and sell a gun to someone without doing the proper paperwork

I also believe that when a city or a syndicate of tort lawyers go after a gun maker and the maker wins (has happened in almost every case) the plaintiffs should not only pay the legal costs of the defendant-they should pay an amount of damages equivalent to what they were seeking. its time to bankrupt these attorneys and their clients

 

[Red State Sage]

I actually have some experience in product liability law and TRADTIONAL PLL means if you sell someone a defective electric blanket and they burn up you are liable. If you sell medicinal oxygen that is contaminated, you are liable. If you sell a gun that explodes when used properly with proper ammo-then you are liable

the gun haters have attempted to sue gun makers into bankruptcy by suing them not because the gun failed to work safely, but becuase it worked as intended. THis bill prevents that. It prevents the city of Cincinnati, for example from suing every handgun maker for crime. it prevents some gang banger from suing beretta because another gang banger used a stolen 92 F to shoot him in the back

Agreed...excellent point!

If a gun wholesaler sells to a dealer that it knows or had reason to know is selling guns illegally that wholesaler could theoretically be liable. Same with a manufacturer that sells to a rogue dealer. In reality, it would mostly be applicable to dealers-especially those without storefronts who sell at shows or flea markets and sell a gun to someone without doing the proper paperwork

I've got no quarrels with holding any manufacturer or dealer liable in these cases. Not likely to see this with a reputable manufacturer / dealer.

I also believe that when a city or a syndicate of tort lawyers go after a gun maker and the maker wins (has happened in almost every case) the plaintiffs should not only pay the legal costs of the defendant-they should pay an amount of damages equivalent to what they were seeking. its time to bankrupt these attorneys and their clients

Amen...I with ya brother!