Related Posts
Also about victims and bear arms
+251It would make a lot of sense to refuse paranoid schizophrenics, depression victims, or people with a criminal record the right to bear arms for the safety of themselves and others. I understand it's a violation of freedom, but it's a small price to pay to save countless lives, amirite?
Also about bear arms
+497I laugh at the second amendment... who in the world would want bear arms, amirite?
There should be no law stopping you.
I don't know of anyone who wants to take our guns away, but the NRA has convinced people of that with all their lies. Even if someone tried it, it would be an impossibility.
No, it is like saying "no one wants to strangle you, they just want you to have access to cleaner air."
No one wants to take our guns away. That's the NRA putting the fear into people, it's not true at all The "right" fretted, worried, lied, about Obama wanting to take the guns away, and he never once said that. Any sensible person wants stricter back ground checks....and I think automatic rifles should be banned. Those are nothing but killing machines.
I would gladly give up my guns if it meant no more people would be killed.
They have the option. They don't have the option to sue the gun manufacturer.
Why do you think hammers have warning labels? They did not get laughed out of court, they lost.
What the fuck Maze. I already said it would not change anything. Get off your merrygoround and understand that it is not fair that the industry is exempt from prosecution. We the people have rights, the rights granted to corporations are due to oligarchy and corporatocracy, they are not in the best interest of the people
Agreed. Ownership shall not be restricted. They should have restricted the manufacturer, not "the people"
Let everyone keep their guns and ban bullets.
There are only two answers to this debate. Either get rid of guns or learn to live with mass shootings.
If we define mass shooting as 4 or more deaths from 1 shooter in 1 incident we have 9 mass shootings every 10 days in the US.
Not including gang related incidents there have been 1624 mass shootings in the last 1870 days.
Those are some pretty staggering figures, no?
Something is seriously wrong here and I have to wonder if it has any correlation to the widespread use of psychotropics. About 16% or 1 in 6 people
A little over 6% of adolescents age 12-19.
It may also be because they can't get laid.
Will Kevlar be the new fashion trend?
too much slaughter
No more Slaughter. Sadly Louise passed last week. She was a champion of women's rights and liberal ideas. She will be missed as head of the House Rules Committee.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Slaughter
If a victim can show that a manufacturer or dealer sold a firearm knowing it would be used to commit a crime ... they already can be sued.
If a person can show that a manufacturer or dealer sold a firearm knowing it was defective ... they already can be sued.
To sue the manufacturer or dealer for selling something, just because it CAN be used to harm someone, is stupid. >> And that is why there is your "exception" law. Because idiots keep talking about suing manufacturers for things the manufacturer has no control over.
Like I can sell you a cigarette but I don't make you smoke it. I can sell you asbestos, but I don't make you install it. Like that?
Nice try ... but a classic "red herring" ploy.
Exactly the same. The purpose of a cigarette is to smoke . The purpose of military grade rifle is to shoot people.
Oh, I misunderstood.
You want to remove military-grade rifles.
Fine. I've said for years the police should be de-militarized, and our military should be drastically reduced.
Actually I don't want any reduction. This post is advice for people who think they have a chance of restricting ownership. They don't, however they have a small chance of restricting manufacture, if they are seriously wanting change.
Actually I didn't say it would make a difference. I just said it was the only hope for change.
Thank for reading your own biased right-wing interpretation of my post. Let me help you.
It is very clear
the right of 'the people' to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Stop trying to regulate the people (it won't happen, and its doubtful it would help anyway).
The only hope of legislative success is in regulating the manufacture of arms. This last sentence is a bone to those who still want to do something.
Please understand Ms. Gronk that all of my post support the constitution and I DO NOT want to lose the bill of rights. So please look in the mirror and make sure you are coming from a place of unbiased review.
You can't read so good bye.
Who the heck are you calling a "gun grabber" READ GRONK READ!~
the right of 'the people' to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Stop trying to regulate the people, (it won't happen, and its doubtful it would help anyway).
That what this post says. So buzz off please. You should be agreeing with this post, if you - like me want to stop them trying to change the constitution!
How's that (grin)
I am not reading this. Go bark up a different tree.
After that...we go after vehicles.
Families with 2, 3, 4 cars...is just ridiculous.
We slowly push people back to walking as the only means of transportation.
I'm tired of traffic accidents and deaths.
Lump everyone together and punish them.
That'll show them!.
Oh, except the future perps...it won't bother them so much..
We already allow you to sue car companies that make dangerous cars, that's why there are recalls.
Own as many cars and guns as you want. Gun manufacturers don't deserve more immunity than any other companies.
It's called personal accountability.
Don't blame crazy peoples actions on sane people..
Ban or cut down on manufacturing guns whatever you want.
It might make you feel good but it won't stop criminals from doing what they want to do..
That's the fact...plain and simple.
I agree 100%. I don't think gun manufacturers deserve special protections. OP clearly says I doubt it would make a difference.
I don't think they should get special protections either and they don't..
Blaming the manufacturer of a gun because someone used it to kill someone else, makes as much sense as blaming the manufacturer of a spoon, because a inmate made a shiv with it and killed someone.
Break out the chopsticks...
Well maybe not, they can be sharpened pretty good too.
They do get special treatment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...ce_in_Arms_Act
Either give that protection to all or take it away from them.
That doesn't look like special treatment to me, that looks like common sense..
No difference than if someone ran over and killed somebody while driving a Suburban, that is mechanically sound..
If the Suburban had a recall on it and the owner didn't take care of the recall, resulting in a injury or death...yes the manufacturer could be held liable.
If nothings wrong with the Suburban in the same situation, all responsibility is on the owner and his insurance....you know...the people that get sued, driving up insurance rates for everyone else..
Then why hide behind that law. Face them in court and let the chips fall where they will.
There is no
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Automobiles Act
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Dental Equipment Act
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Toys and Games Act
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Cosmetics Act.
etc.
Why do gun manufactures need a special law?
No one is hiding behind the law.
I know you understand the difference between a accident and negligence.
I'm tired of going in a circle..
Have a good day..
You are going in circles. I know you understand the difference between no special law and a special law for one industry.