Whose gun is it, anyway?

[Renaissance Man]

Guy #1 walks into church in Knoxville, TN, and shoots people (while in church) because they are liberals.

Guy #2 then shoots (and kills) two police officers in Pittsburgh because he fears his guns will be taken.

Guy #3 then walks into church and shoots (and kills) a doctor that performs late-term abortions.

Guy #4 walks into Holocaust museum and shoots (and kills) a security guard days after the president visits Buchenwald.


What do all of these guys have in common?

[MichaelHarris]

1. everyone

of them had criminal records yet still owned guns.

[villager]

2. Thank God their "Second Amendment Rights" were intact 'til the end!

n/t

[baldguy]

18. Guns have more rights than people in this country.

[jgraz]

153. Not quite. Corporations have more rights than people.

And gun manufacturers are a particularly powerful breed of corporate criminal. Not every industry has their own bought-and-paid-for cheering section of "private, law-abiding" citizens.

[krispos42]

306. Why are you surprised by this?

Why are you suprised that when some movement decides that the country would be better off by disarming people, that those people would push back?

We see here on DU that there is a minority of members that are extremely critical of automobiles and American car culture. If this movement ever gained national strength and threatened American car owners, then you would see drivers push back and gather around the AAA.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madeline_con]

179. Their second amendment rights had been revoked.

But they had firearms anyway. If I turn in my legally purchased weapons, will this madness stop?! :dunce:

[krispos42]

307. And he was takend into custody and charged in a court of law

Thank god his "Fifth Amendment Rights", "Sixth Amendment Rights", "Seventh Amendment Rights", and "Eighth Amendment Rights" are intact.

[OneGrassRoot]

4. Really? Geesh....... thanks. n/t

[jgraz]

5. And #2 had a concealed-carry permit

You know, that law-abiding group of gun owners who would never harm a fly. :eyes:

[X_Digger]

197. Really? Show me a quote..

Where someone said CHL holders _never_ commit crime.

Please, go ahead, I'll wait.

[jgraz]

241. OK, so ironic hyperbole is another concept you're having trouble with

Just trying to figure out how low to set the bar.

[X_Digger]

274. No, you're trying to score points..

We've pointed out the stats from both Texas and Florida that show that CHL holders as a whole have a crime rate less than the general public, even less than cops.

You pointing out that one of these recent shooters _may_ have had a CHL (we only have poplawski's buddy's word for it, after all) is a way to try to tar all CHL holders with a broad brush.

[SteveM]

286. The hyperbole/culture war/"intellectual" snobbery is quite common...

The irony is you do this thinking you are going to change some minds. Keep it up. You will.

[NewMoonTherian]

330. But there was nothing ironic about it.

If it's true, it's a pertinent fact that bears discussion and some serious investigation of law enforcement.

If it's false, then you're just lying.

If you wanted to be hyperbolic, by defition you need to go big. "And #2 was the NRA president." or something along those lines. "He had a CCW" is too plausible to be reckognized as hyperbole.

[davepc]

7. Every convicted criminal should have their place of residence searched regularly

so that we know that they haven't illegally acquired a firearm.

Preferably the search should be done "no-knock" style.

[jgraz]

12. Or, we could keep the Fourth Amendment and just implement sane gun policies.

That's why they call it the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of the Second Half of One Right.

[davepc]

17. There are almost as many firearms as people in this nation. We need to disarm the crazys

using the power of the police and military if need be.

We need to take away these peoples guns at...well...the point of a gun.

How did the 4th amendment work for all those murdered people in the OP?


edit: and since I bet a bunch of them are smart enough to keep in places other then their own homes we need to no-knock search where they work and the homes of their families and friends to find their hidden guns.

[jgraz]

19. Or, the gun companies can stop overproducing for the criminal market

Do you think criminals are mixing up a batch of guns in their basements? These are items that are manufactured and/or imported by American corporations, even though the so-called "law abiding" market has been saturated for decades.

Of course, you're in favor of removing my Seventh Amendment rights to sue the gun companies for negligence, aren't you? (There's those pesky 9 1/2 other amendments again)

[paulsby]

23. constitutional rights are dangerous. they are supposed to be

the 4th and 5th , for instance, offer great protections to suspected and accused criminals. in many cases, less civil rights would lead to collection of evidence and conviction, whereas 4th and 5th amendment often means the obviously guilty go free

but we don't sacrifice the constitution for safety or convenience.

[davepc]

32. I dont care what the Constitution says, I want to feel SAFE! Safety is more important.

More important then any amendment. 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 14th.

[paulsby]

38. lol

that's the kind of logic that leads to patriot act and worse

[jgraz]

43. Sadly, I can't tell if he's kidding or not

His post is well within the bounds of what appears regularly in the gun forum.

[paulsby]

49. a quote for the ages

" i don't care what the constitution says. i want to FEEL safe"

note the use of the emotive "feel" safe.

it has to be satire.

that is a classic example of anti-civil rights logic, when people say "i FEEL" X.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

161. You are right the gun grabbers are constantly talking about wanting to feel safe.

[SteveM]

288. It's that "irony" thing; you know, the hepcat stuff you are so up on? (nt)

[Raskolnik]

44. Ok, now I know its satire.

But you had me going for a second.

[hack89]

164. You must have loved the Patriot Act. nt

[Xenotime]

59. Agreed. 100%

[hack89]

163. And we can give the cops cool brown shirts to wear as they go house to house. nt

[madeline_con]

181. Fucking genius, that. Search their family members' homes.

How long have you been insane?

spell edit

[krispos42]

309. Yes, with some kind of government-created list.

I'm sure it would work better than the TSA watchlist.

[madeline_con]

180. I like your idea better. n/t

[Callisto32]

261. As opposed to the introductory clause of one right?

Don't play grammar games. A sentence is, by definition, a single thought. You have to read ALL of it, and none of that one limits the other part.

[Raskolnik]

42. You're not being serious, are you?

Please tell me you're not.

[krispos42]

308. I'm sure the minority-advocacy groups would love that plan. n/t

[derby378]

10. Did Guy #2 have an actual criminal record?

I know he was dishonorably discharged, which should disqualify him as far as I'm concerned, but I can't recall if he had an actual rap sheet.

[Euromutt]

138. "Not honorably discharged" does not equal "dishonorably discharged"

Basically, the guy's mother got it wrong because she didn't understand there are more options than just "honorable" and "dishonorable" discharges. To get a dishonorable discharge, you have to have been found guilty by a court martial of an offense that would be a felony for a civilian to commit. There's no such thing as a dishonorable discharge without a criminal record.

[X_Digger]

198. Administrative discharge, I believe..

..but what I think the poster refers to is a protective order sworn out against him.

And we haven't seen anything from the police about the guy actually having a concealed permit, just from his doper buddy.

[Soylent Brice]

24. wow.

[geckosfeet]

47. And long guns were only used in crimes 1,2 and 4. The doctor killer was a freak.

on edit: Changed rifles to long guns as number 1 was a shotgun if I remember correctly.

[votingupstart]

55. check shooter #1's record - weapons charges were dropped

google on .0023 seconds. are you saying everyone who has been aressted should lose their right to won a firearm??

[geckosfeet]

123. I didn't read that. Did you? I think the law, in some states, is that a felony conviction

makes you permanently ineligible for certain classes of weapons permits. Further, granting a permit is at the discretion of the issuing agency.

If you don't like it, you can take it to court.

Until then, stop making shit up.

[votingupstart]

134. making shit up am i ?? google .0023 seconds -- you = fail

Muslim convert accused of fatally shooting an Army private and wounding another had previously been arrested on a weapons charge in Tennessee, but that charge eventually was dropped.

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Ark_Shooting_Suspect_Had_Earlier_Arrest_060409

[Recursion]

3. All of them attacked gun-free zones?

[jgraz]

8. Yes, because the guards at the Holocaust museum shot back with mind-bullets

:dunce:

[Caliman73]

21. good point

A private security guards with standard security guard training in the commission of their job, stopped a bad situation from becoming way worse. Unfortunately one guard was killed stopping the assailant. Imagine if the criminal had been the only one armed? :dunce:

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Recursion]

31. My response was a cheap crack and you were right to zing me for it. That said...

...I definitely don't trust the police and military to be the only armed people in this country. Do you?

[jgraz]

34. If you can't trust the police and military (and we can't) no amount of firepower will protect you

If you're unclear about that, just ask one of the Branch Davidians. Oh wait...

The solution to this problem is more democracy, not more weaponry.

[Recursion]

35. The thing is, I was in the military, for several years

And I trust my neighbors more than some of the guys that were in there.

[jgraz]

40. Which means we need a better military, not more randomly-armed citizens

Tell me, what weapon can you legally purchase that will protect you from a military or para-military assault? Again, see Davidians, Branch.

[Recursion]

46. See Iraq

Those guys fought the most advanced military history to a draw (if not better) in just a few years with small arms and improvised explosives.

[jgraz]

48. Key word: legal

Can you purchase (or make) fully automatic weapons or IEDs in the US?

Oh, and over a million of "those guys" ended up dead. Along with their children, wives, grandparents, etc. Not exactly a shining moment for the Second Amendment.

[derby378]

50. You're building a case that maybe we should

Full-auto is still technically legal in some 38 states for civilians who have NFA clearance.

[jgraz]

52. I could say "my butt hurts" and pro-gunners would see it as building a case for more guns

The fact that the Iraqis could shoot back led directly to the overwhelming force used against the insurgency. The Iraqis did NOT fight the US to a draw. We lost 4000, they lost over a million. How is that a good outcome for their RKBA?

[derby378]

56. A million insurgents or a million Iraqis total?

More clarification is needed.

[jgraz]

61. Yes, because that totally makes a difference

[rrneck]

182. We're still there hemorrhaging money and blood.

Total Cost of Wars Since 2001 $866,770,475,836 and counting.
http://costofwar.com/

American deaths

Total - 4311
Total wounded Official - 31327 Estimated - Over 100000

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

They don't have to win, they just have to not lose.

[jgraz]

238. I'm sure that makes her feel a lot better

Bottom line: the insurgency may have sucked for us, but it's been an unmitigated catastrophe for the Iraqis.

[rrneck]

276. It's a disaster for everyone involved. nt

[krispos42]

314. We didn't kill a million Iraqis

Many of them died from illness, and most of the rest were killed in factional fighting among Iraqis, not under US bombs and bullets.

[X_Digger]

200. IED yes, FA no (but not every useful in an insurgency anyway)

Enough info exists on the net to make pretty powerful explosives. Restrictions on fertilizer post-OK City bombing just added a couple of steps to the recipe, rather than actually doing anything.

[krispos42]

313. He didn't say full-auto, he said "small arms"

And Iraq is not the US. It's a lot harder to make out the "bad guys" when they looks exactly like you. Not to mention fighting foreigners is far different from fighting your own countrymen. The military would fragment under the emotional and political stress.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

157. Trust them to do what?

[Caliman73]

60. Here's another idea: I don't have to join either to own a firearm.

Here is yet another: Fortunately, you don't get to decide who owns a firearm.

I know it is impossible to get through your filter of irrational fear ad prejudice so I won't even engage you. Suffice it to say, that proponents of firearm ownership do not want criminals to own firearms nor do they want tragedies like this to occur. We are not willing to live defenseless to those who do not respect the laws nor as defenseless subjects dependent on an armed authority to "protect" us as they see fit.

[jgraz]

63. Here's another idea: short term memory

You could at least try to follow an argument for more than one post.

[madeline_con]

185. DING DING!

The old "I have no intelligent rebuttal, so I'm going into personal attack mode" post.

:rofl:

[EndersDame]

116. What if I just want to protect my home and family?

[jgraz]

122. Start working to reduce poverty and fully fund education

That's gonna do a lot more to protect your family than any weapon will.

[EndersDame]

137. I agree it will reduce signifigantly but wont stop all

crazies.Have you ever encountered someone on PCP.I have . And guess what PCP is all ready illegal. And people dont commit crimes or do drugs just because they are poor. Alot of rich kids that i met whilst attending a private highschool with bragged about breaking and entering just for the hell of it and came to school all coked up. Would you deny a tool of protection for someone who is a member of a minority group that these fuckers are targeting .

[jgraz]

145. Neither will a firearm.

And your work against poverty won't support a pro-repuke agenda. Or get your toddler shot.

[votingupstart]

201. so a firearm wont stop criminals?? - gotta call BS on that

i'll tell you what if someone is robbing you or stealing your car point a banana at them and see what happens, next time point a firearm at them - my guess first time you get your stuff stolen, second time your stuff doesn't get stolen. welcome to reality - tell me what temperature is it on your planet, do you have cookies?

[gorfle]

275. I wonder.

I wonder if working against poverty and working for education would have helped this woman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3vWsa4ags&feature=related

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

158. So what should the poster do until poverty is reduced and education is fully funded?

[Callisto32]

262. Will you reduce poverty and fully fund education through government programs?

WIll the money be acquired through taxes? If so, then doing that is also violent, because you have to steal from someone to accomplish it.

[krispos42]

316. To reduce poverty we need to have a liberal economy

To have a liberal economy we have get the repubs out of office.

To get the repubs out of office we have to stop giving them an emotional wedge issue that draws votes to them.

[raimius]

333. How about both?

I'm a big fan of multiple methods to increase the chances of success.
Reducing poverty and improving education are great, and will likely reduce crime rates.
Being competant with and having a firearm available boosts one's odds against those times when the above fails to prevent that particular instance.

[madeline_con]

186. You'll get killed with your own weapon, dontcha know?

[madeline_con]

184. Military and police members NEVER go off the deep end. n/t

[Euromutt]

282. So you're cool with Blackwater keeping their guns, then?

Or whatever they're calling themselves these days; "Xe" or something. Anyway, I do believe they were considered to be "trained security guards" by somebody in government not too long ago, and who are we question the judgment of the government in determining who is or is not fit carry a firearm? After all, people who owned villas in and New Orleans during Katrina had a legitimate need for doped-up goons with rifles, excuse me, "trained security guards" at that time.

No, call me strange, but if the proposal is to abolish private ownership of firearms, I don't see why there should be an exception for private security firms. Why should the corporations and private individuals who can afford their services be exempt from firearm restrictions by proxy? They can damn well call 911 and take their chances with the rest of us.

Actually, jgraz, given how you constantly harp on about how society is to blame for crime, and we could make it all go away if only we pumped more money into education and social programs, why aren't you in favor of disarming the police? After all, if you're right, there's not only no reason for the police to need guns, it would be actively wrong to provide them with the means to inflict violence on someone who's only real crime is to have been wronged by society.

Or do you acknowledge that there are situations in which police may legitimately need to use lethal force to stop a threat to innocent life? But if so, why won't you acknowledge that there may be situations in which private citizens might need to do the same thing?

[Happyhippychick]

6. They are the repubelican middle aged white men that all of the minorities are oppressing.

[slackmaster]

9. They all used guns to commit violent crimes in locations where firearms are not permitted

:shrug:

[jgraz]

14. Yes, because the guards at the Holocaust museum shot back with mind-bullets

:dunce:

[slackmaster]

30. The point remains, visitors are not permitted to bring firearms to the museum

:dunce: back at you.

[jgraz]

36. No, really. That's your "point"?

That the neo-nazi should have been allowed to carry his weapon INTO the museum before he unloaded? Is that really what you're advocating for here?

[slackmaster]

140. That is a classic straw man

That the neo-nazi should have been allowed to carry his weapon INTO the museum before he unloaded? Is that really what you're advocating for here?

Of course not. Don't be silly.

My point is that the neo-Nazi should never have been let out of prison. He was a known violent criminal. Most heinous crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal records.

[jgraz]

155. OK, so your point is that we should lock up criminals longer so you can carry your gun?

The guy who shot Tiller was only convicted of vandalism. Should he have been locked up forever? How about the VaTech shooter? The Arkansas shooter? Or the one from New York. Or Philadelphia. Or San Diego. Or, or, or...

Do we lock everyone up who commits or may commit a crime? So you can carry your gun into the freaking National Holocaust Museum?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

162. So you want to reduce crime but not lock up criminals?

[jgraz]

165. Yes, Dave. This *is* a Democratic forum, all evidence to the contrary

Many progressives like to explore other methods of reducing crime besides locking people up or shooting them.

For someone so concerned about crime, I'm surprised you don't understand that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

166. I think violent criminals belong in prison, sorry you disagree.

[jgraz]

170. Not what I said, but you're once again making my point for me.

What I said was that prison and citizen shootings are not the way you reduce crime. Our biggest crime reduction in decades occurred when the economy improved under Clinton. Crime goes up when poverty goes up, and it goes down when economic conditions improve.

If you're really serious about reducing the crime rate, you work to reduce poverty and improve education. If you have another agenda, you talk about building more prisons and selling more guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

171. No middle ground with you is there.

How about reducing poverty, improving education and increasing the penalties for criminals who choose to commit violent acts against innocent people especially those that do so with firearms? Clinton put a whole lot of federal money into local police forces, I'm sure that didn't have anything at all to do with the reduction in crime according to you.

David

[jgraz]

174. The middle ground is waaaay over to the left

Anyone who thinks the current prison-industrial complex is the answer to our social problems is not anywhere near the middle ground.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

176. So you really don't think violent criminals belong in prison. You have left me speechless.

[jgraz]

183. No, but I think our public schools need to beef up their reading comprehension programs

You sometimes need to actually understand the meaning behind the words you read. Not everything has a simplistic, black-and-white answer.

RIght now, the only solutions I see proposed on this forum are a) shooting people and b) sending them to those for-profit rape camps we call penitentiaries. What I never see is any acknowledgment of how horrifically inadequate and misguided those "solutions" are.

No other society incarcerates as many people as we do. No other industrialized society shoots as many people as we do. Doesn't that strike you as a problem we need to solve?



On the other hand, if misunderstanding me has left you speechless, by all means continue.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

187. Maybe you missed this post of mine earlier.

It's important to get the facts correct, if one wants to have an honest discussion.

Yes a lot of people are killed by firearms in this country and many of those deaths are preventable, the number though is not as high as you stated. Better mental health care would lower the number of suicides regardless of the means. Increasing the penalties for felons possessing firearms to an automatic 10 year sentence that must run consecutive to any other sentences and must be served day for day would drastically lower the number of murders committed with firearms. Obviously the African American community needs a lot of attention in regards to violence, especially gang violence. I would leave that to the experts but the government should focus a lot of attention there. Something other than putting a disproportionate amount of African Americans in prison and finding some solutions to the poverty that seems inescapable in many of these communities would be a start. Accidental gun deaths have been dropping for quite some time, better education could lower that number even more. In regards to your assertions, the only magazines I subscribe to are golf magazines and the overwhelming majority of people who possess firearms legally are responsible, law abiding citizens. I hope that helps in your understanding of my position.

David

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3914215&mesg_id=3915870


See you and I agree on so much we might as well be best friends.

David

[jgraz]

189. You may be surprised to learn that I don't seek out and read all of your posts

But yes, that is a refreshingly enlightened viewpoint compared to the "good shoot" celebrations that seem to dominate this forum.

I disagree that your automatic 10-year sentence would be that effective, since what criminal expects to get caught.

But, that is a discussion for a different time. Right now, it's my birthday, my girlfriend is finally home from work and I'm going to go celebrate. (Not to be confused with running away crying)


See you and I agree on so much we might as well be best friends.

Most people on DU would be best friends if it wasn't for the Internet Effect. I'm thinking we all need to spend less time online.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

191. Hey Happy Birthday, I sincerely hope you have a great night.

[madeline_con]

192. Happy Birthday.

:party:

[votingupstart]

202. happy birthday nt

[madeline_con]

190. What I find "horrifically inadequate and misguided" is blaming reading programs.

Some kids show up on the first day of school so badly abused and malnourished that they will never reach grade level. But the criminals who did this to them are the same they go home to every night. A hug and no jail would solve all that, I'm sure.

[jgraz]

211. Um, that was just a backhanded ding at Dave

Then he went and wished me a Happy Birthday and made me feel all bad about posting it. Bastard.

[madeline_con]

188. Perhaps if your home is invaded, you can "explore" letting

the intruder live with you instead of going to jail. Then I can carry my weapon, and everyone will be happy.

[jgraz]

212. Yeah. because home invasions are really, really common

Far more common than mass shootings by people legally allowed to possess firearms.

(Yes, :sarcasm:)

[Euromutt]

219. Maybe you could provide some evidence of your assertion

(After all, there's a first time for everything.)

Or maybe it's just that news stories about mass shootings are way more common than ones about home invasions. Or you're exhibiting confirmation bias.

[jgraz]

223. Feel free to prove me wrong

Oh wait, you can't -- because most states don't keep statistics on so-called "home invasions". It's just another scare tactic by the NRA/GOP/gun lobby.

[X_Digger]

278. Use the force, Luke.. (the google force that is)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=home+invasion+dallas

[Euromutt]

279. It doesn't work that way

You make a claim, you get to provide the evidence. Since you admit that you don't have any statistics on home invasions, you have nothing to support your assertion. Once again, you're just throwing out factoids that are entirely the product of your imagination. Oh, but "it stands to reason" that they'd be true, surely? Yeah, well, read my sig line to see what I think of that notion.

[madeline_con]

281. Then, if Von Brunn pulls through, he can stay at your house. n/t

[slackmaster]

283. I don't carry a gun

Nice try, but you are making a lot of bad assumptions about me.

You COULD just ask me about what I think about things and what I actually do, but I guess it's more fun for you to try to badger me.

The Holocaust Museum shooter was legally disqualified from even possessing a firearm. Enforcing the laws we already have would prevent a lot of gun-related crimes. Of course some of the crimes would still occur with substitute weapons, but there is a lot we could do to prevent violent crime that does not involve stomping on the rights of good people.

[villager]

20. actually, haven't you been celebrating the recent proliferation of firearms in DC

thanks to the Heller decision?

:shrug:

[DonP]

26. You mean the Heller, as in Heller the armed security guard at the Supreme Court Building, decision?

That Heller?

Ironic that you try to make a cheap point about the tragedy. Heller is one of the guards that risks his life every day protecting the Supreme Court. His lawsuit thought it was stupid that he was trusted to guard SCOTUS with a gun but not his own home.

DC hasn't changed any laws that would allow people to carry a gun outside of their homes (as if this pinhead would care about any law you might pass anyway) and, as of now, only allows revolvers, since the classify any semi automatic as "machine guns". Nice try but not even close to anything factual ... as usual.

[villager]

27. I mean the Heller decision about the personal ownership of handguns

I don't believe his NRA-applauded lawsuit was about letting armed guards be armed at their jobs.

Right?

Speaking of folks trying to make cheap points.

[Euromutt]

280. Same thing

The District of Columbia had no issue with the plaintiff carrying a firearm while he was on the job, but felt that as soon as he went off the clock, he could no longer be trusted with a firearm.

[slackmaster]

29. Not really, and there hasn't been much of a "proliferation" and probably never will be

DC is not my concern.

[villager]

33. Yet we agree you need to retire the NRA rhetoric about DC being a "gun free zone"

now -- a phrase you use only when it suits you -- in light of the Heller decision?

[slackmaster]

141. Much of it still is a GFZ because guns aren't allowed in government buildings

Which is fine with me as long as there are physical security measures in place to make sure people don't bring in weapons.

[Statistical]

284. DC allows no open or concealed carry by private citizens.

So yes 99% of DC is a "gun free zone".

Even though Heller allows people to own firearms in their home....
DC has not approved any applications for new gunshops/ranges and federal law prohibits buying handgun out of state.
DC has also not approved any new FFL so there is no way to transfer guns into DC.

So while residents technically under the law can't be prohibited from owning a handgun in DC there is still a "defacto ban".

Another lawsuit in underway despite DC losing Heller, losing taxpayer money, then having to pay plantiff legal costs. They are going for round 2.

[Recursion]

39. "Recent proliferation"?

You didn't live in DC in the early 90s, did you?

[Caliman73]

11. They are all White Protestant Christian Males?

Should we ban them? :sarcasm:

[paulsby]

25. false

the holocaust museum shooter was a fierce opponent of christianity, in particular, and i see no evidence he is protestant

[Caliman73]

53. my bad...

They were all male though right? It would go to say if he was an opponent of Christianity that he was not a practicing protestant.

[paulsby]

96. yes, that's a reasonable assumption :)

i think the amazing thing is that the guy is 89 years old?

not saying that people in their 80's NEVER commit homicide, but it's pretty frigging rare.

[Caliman73]

115. Perhaps he felt that he was aging out....

and he wanted to go out in dramatic fashion as a "martyr" to his cause. Crazy old bastard!! Thankfully he was stopped before he was able to really cause a great deal of destruction. I feel bad for the guard who was killed and his family, but grateful that he did his job.

[paulsby]

133. yes, i remember at the Seattle Jewish Center

shooting and there weren't any armed guards there. thank god, they had armed guards at the holocaust museum.

another political tie-in is that the petitioner in the DC v. Heller 2nd amendment case was also an armed security guard in DC.

i've been a cop 20 yrs, and one thing i learn is to expect the unexpected. one does not expect an 89 yr old to be homicidal, but you never know.

[Recursion]

37. This latest guy seems to be a neo-Pagan

But I'm not sure

[WeDidIt]

13. FreeRepublic is a Nexus of their online rants

One way or another, writings of all four ended up on FreeRepublic.

[Oregone]

15. They all enjoyed Cheez-It Brand snack crackers?

[proteus_lives]

72. I love Cheez-its.

I just had to say. :-)

[baldguy]

16. OH, NO! DON'T BLAME THE POOR LITTLE IN-OH-CENT GUN!!!!

:cry: :cry: :cry:

Guns never hurt ANYONE!! (That didn't have it coming!)

p.s. for the sarcasm impaired: :sarcasm:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

51. Would you rather the guy had 10lbs of explosives strapped to his chest?

Or a razor sharp katana or other bladed weapon?

Violent crime is violent crime. The tool is just the instrument that carries out the will of the perpetrator.
It's the perpetrators will that is to blame.

When's the last time you saw a NASCAR Driver thank his Car Jacks or Wrench Set for a well built car.
They don't... because tools aren't the cause of anything.

[jgraz]

54. 10lbs of explosive would be illegal.

Is it your point that if guns were illegal, he wouldn't have used them either?

And yeah, I like the chances of the armed security guard against a sword a lot better than against a point-and-shoot weapon.

[votingupstart]

57. i think his point was just that - regardless of the weapon he was there to commit murder

regardless of the laws/choice of weapons he was going to commit murder, if he didn't have a gun he could have used explosives, his truck, propane cylinders/ pool chlorine and acid etc. the point is that even if you ban all guns right now and somehow magically make them all disappear from everywhere, people will find ways to commit murder/violence/terrorism.

[jgraz]

66. No, his point was "I WANT MY GUNS!!!!!111111!!!oneone!!!!"

When Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer to blow kill 168 people, we implemented restrictions on fertilizer purchase. When meth freaks started using decongestants to mix drugs, I suddenly had to provide a photo ID before I could buy Sudafed -- even though only 450 people die from meth abuse per year.

Yet, we have 30,000+ people die each year from firearms, and the NRA/GOP talking point is always the same: we need more guns with fewer restrictions.

[armyowalgreens]

78. Gun control doesn't stop gun violence.

We have a constitutional right to bear arms. Are you trying to take that away from us?

[jgraz]

109. You have a constitutional right to join a well-regulated militia

Republican reactionary courts notwithstanding

[votingupstart]

118. since you don't believe in or need the bill of rights or SCOTUS

you obviously don't want or need any of the protections afforded by them - so go on type this same stuff on a russian or chinese political forum. oh and i hardly call the SCOTUS "republican reactionary"

[jgraz]

127. I just don't believe in the "Bill of Right" (singular)

Or, technically, the Bill of the Last Half of One Right.

Tell me, oh civil libertarian, where do you stand on the right of the people to bring suit against gunmakers for negligence?

[votingupstart]

132. you obviously do -- you only want to have some of them? nt

[jgraz]

146. No, I want all of them

I want my Seventh Amendment right to sue gunmakers restored. And I want the first half of the Second Amendment respected.

You want neither of those. So who's more of a civil libertarian?

[votingupstart]

177. only the first half - careful - such a civil libertarian

i think you should have the right to sue a person for committing a criminal act - the 7th amendment was never intended to allow people to use the courts to set social policy - and its the same reason i cant sue the chain saw companies for deforestation, or gasoline companies for global warming.

by the way i do want all of my 2nd amendment - and i would be more than happy to have the seventh so you could sue gun companies as long as you pay for their expenses if you lose.

[jgraz]

221. Once again, you CAN sue chainsaw companies for deforestation

And you can sue oil companies for global warming. You may not win that suit, but you have a right to bring it and have it heard by the courts. And if your suit is determined to be frivolous, you'll likely get stuck with court costs.

The ONLY industry that is immune from such lawsuits is the gun industry. Of course, we all know that so-called tort "reform" is never about preventing frivolous lawsuits. It's *always* about preventing valid lawsuits from ever getting in front of a jury.

And, btw, the civil courts have historically been used quite well to set social policy. Ford didn't stop making cars that blew up because of government legislation, they did it because of massive civil judgments. The same goes for tobacco companies and their intentional marketing to children. Often, a civil suit is the only way to bring such corporate malfeasance to light.

What the gun manufacturers are scared to death of is not a judgment per se, but the discovery phase of any negligence suit. They've been overproducing for decades with full knowledge that the legitimate firearms market is at or near saturation. In the late 90's, they started losing lawsuits when this evidence began to come out. This prompted their lobbying initiative to overturn parts of the Fifth and Seventh Amendments.

Happily, some courts still respect the Constitution, which is why the Indiana Supreme Court decided this January to let stand Gary, Indiana's lawsuit against the gunmakers' knowing overproduction for black market sales.

[votingupstart]

295. as stated before - you chose to ignore the facts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

reading IS fundamental


still alone i see - stay classy out there

[X_Digger]

206. Wait, are you an ambulance chaser?

That would explain why you're so bent out of shape on that issue.. Had your yacht all picked out, did ya?

[jgraz]

222. No, just a real civil libertarian

You know, the kind who supports the other 9 1/2 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

[Callisto32]

266. Please do not sully the word libertarian by placing civil in front of it.

A libertarian is a person who does not believe in initiating force against another person. A civil libertarian means someone who thinks that people should have whatever rights I think they should have.

[Euromutt]

336. I don't think you have a patent on the word

Civil libertarian: one who supports the upholding of civil liberties. I don;t think we have another term for it. It might not mesh with your notion of what a libertarian is, but that really isn't anybody's problem but your own.

[Callisto32]

265. Define "negligence" first, then we can talk.

If you mean product liability, then you are in a totally different area of law then negligence. If you mean real negligence, establish the duty that the gun makers are breaching. Then, limit liability in either duty or causation. Simply saying "negligence" doesn't mean anything.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

168. Several liberals on the Supreme Court and President Obama disagree with you.

[armyowalgreens]

194. Not true. I have judicial backing from both sides.

Best check yourself before you wreck yourself sir.

[AtheistCrusader]

320. Not just a right, a duty.

My age and gender make me a member two different ways:

Federal Statute: US Code Title 10 section 311 and the Militia Act of 1903
State Statute: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=38.04.030

The problem with recent abuse of the term 'militia' by hateful POLITICAL groups like the Michigan Milita, etc, is that they fail to recognize that any Militia is subject to a Civilian Authority. That being, the Governor, or the President, respectively. In Washington State, the Unorganized, or 'Irregular' Militia is at the beck and call of Christine Gregiore. A little fact that will make most 'militia' types heads explode.

"SECTION 2 ORGANIZATION -- DISCIPLINE -- OFFICERS -- POWER TO CALL OUT. The legislature shall provide by law for organizing and disciplining the militia in such manner as it may deem expedient, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Officers of the militia shall be elected or appointed in such manner as the legislature shall from time to time direct and shall be commissioned by the governor. The governor shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the state to suppress insurrections and repel invasions."

Not something the 'check on government power' militia types espouse is it?

[TPaine7]

335. jgraz,

You are cordially invited to contribute to the discussion on my latest thread, "Let’s Assume that Heller was Wrongly Decided."

I would like to hear your opinion on the Fourteenth Amendment.

[X_Digger]

204. You do know that the fertilizer restrictions just added..

.. a couple of steps to the anarchist's cookbook, right?

So your point is.. let me get this straight.. "We make stupid restrictions that have little effect all the time, so what's one more?"

[Callisto32]

263. And, the restrictions on fertalizer and drugs are both as bad as a gun ban would be.

Saying that the thousands of people who have legitimate use of liquid fertilizer should not be allowed to buy it because of a couple of crazies, or that anybody should be controlled as to what chemicals they should be allowed to put into their bodies is ridiculous.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

64. I posted my point...

It was that violent crime, regardless the means, is violent crime.
There are stories of killing sprees and genocides with non-firearm weapons that rival many shooter's wet dreams.
He used a gun because he wanted to... not because laws precluded his use of alternative means.

And yeh, within striking distance knives are far more lethal than bullets.

[jgraz]

67. When's the last time we had a mass knifing in this country?

I really think we need to look into the cognitive effects of gunmetal exposure.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

89. Ok then, why do you propose tighter restrictions on guns?

To what effect (public sercice)?

[Callisto32]

267. Gunmetal is a kind of brass alloy.

It fell out of favor many, many years ago.

[Euromutt]

290. In this country, quite a while back, if ever...

But I can list a brace of mass knifings in other countries in the past year alone. Okay, a little over year:

08-Jun-2008: Akihibara massacre, Tokyo, Japan; 7 dead, 10 wounded
01-Jul-2008: Zhabei police station attack, Shanghai, China; 6 dead, 3 wounded (all policemen)
20-Oct-2008: Nonhyeon-dong massacre, Seoul, South Korea; 6 dead, 7 wounded
23-Jan-2008: Dendermonde day care attack, Dendermonde, Belgium; 3 dead, 12 wounded

Just because it doesn't happen in the US doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

167. So was him having a gun.

[one-eyed fat man]

328. tell you what

Go to Lowe's buy some acetone (used as lacquer reducer), go to the beauty and barber supply and get some hair bleach (30% hydrogen peroxide), hit Auto Zone for some battery acid, or Home Depot for some muriatic acid to clean the oil stain off the driveway. Get a bunch of ice, and if you don't blow yourself up like an inept member of Hamas, you can brew in your bathtub an explosive that is, pound for pound, 80% as potent as TNT, is undetectable by bomb-sniffing machines, is missed by most bomb dogs, but has the drawback of not being very stable or having a very long shelf-life.

Best of all you don't need anything exotic, like blasting caps to detonate it. It also makes an ideal booster charge for another transparent explosive, ANFO. We used to teach that stuff to our soldiers 30 years ago. I bet it still works. The best part of Army training it wasn't just an theoretical academic exercise. We would actually mix up improvised explosives like ANFO and TATP and detonate them on the demo range.

Setting effective booby-traps is easy when you view them as practical jokes, played for keeps. For some reason I have yet to figure out, leftist radicals resort to bombs and arson while the right wing wackos tend to use guns. Is it more despicable to look defenseless people in the eye and shoot them or indiscriminately incinerate them after you are long gone, simply to advance a cause?

[baldguy]

58. False choices - the standard bullshit NRA propaganda always ignores popular culture.

Suicide bombers aren't immortalized in film; John Wayne never wielded a sword (aside from "The Conqueror" - godawful movie) and the slogan of the RW extremists isn't "God, gays & Mr Goodwrench".

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

65. Can you spell that out a little more for me...

I'm not sure I'm getting your point.

Also, if it helps, my questions was certainly not serious.
It was just an exercise to show the tools should not be held accountable for the actions of their possessors.

[baldguy]

70. This isn't the 3rd grade.

If you can't read your own post, that ain't my problem.

[jgraz]

71. Or the gun forum

Which clocks in at about halfway through kindergarten.

[baldguy]

75. .

:rofl:

[votingupstart]

80. wow - baldy and J - two whole people - taking on everyone else.

must be nice to know your views are in the majority?

[jgraz]

84. Spoken like a true bully

Why does that always come out from the pro-gun types?

Unfortunately, you can't shoot me over the internet. You need to use facts, knowledge and command of language. Sad day for you.

[votingupstart]

93. not a bully - just pointing out the facts

now go home and cry about how the bad man called you names - after you started calling others names - oh and pleaseeeee turn this into a "he said, she said" thread.

[jgraz]

104. You haven't pointed out a single "fact"

Including who's in the majority: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27229/Gallup-Summary-Americans-Gun-Control.aspx

I guess you lose.

[votingupstart]

108. oh .. a gallup poll - really well ..i guess they never change like the wind

i am all wrong - guess i will just shred the bill of rights/constitution/ fbi statistics/ doj statistics they are obviously liars too.

[jgraz]

111. Reading is fundamental

Gallup has asked Americans 20 times over the last 16 years whether laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, made less strict, or kept as they are now.



In every instance, at least a majority has agreed that gun laws should be made more strict -- although the exact level of that sentiment has varied significantly. The high point for agreement with the "more strict" alternative was 78% in 1990, the first time the question was asked. The low point was in October of 2002, with only 51% in agreement.

Yeah, they're all over the map. :eyes:

[votingupstart]

121. wow - reading oh.. and the ability for context - did you look at the gallop drug polls. oops

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102061/little-change-publics-view-us-drug-problem.aspx

despite passing more and more laws we still have not been able to solve that darn crimnal problem have we - well since i am reading please show me where the statistics are that show guns commit crimes not criminals or that the AWB for 10 years worked.

[jgraz]

129. nice change of subject. Too bad it isn't going to work

Let's review, shall we:

You argue that I'm in the minority, therefore I'm wrong and I suck and I take lollipops from babies.

I prove to you that I am, in fact, in the majority on this issue.

You suddenly want to talk about drugs.


Weak sauce. Seriously. Weak. Sauce.

[votingupstart]

135. you wanted to throw polls around - who's changing the subject -

wanting more gun control and not having the right to own a gun are 2 separate issues - as you said before reading is fundamental - so is comprehension.

[Statistical]

136. You just "happened" to find the out of date poll.

Most recent version.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/support-gun-control-laws-time-lows.aspx

SUPPORT FOR GUN CONTROL AT ALL TIME LOW.





While you are at it how about this one:



You are on the minority side of:
more gun control
banning guns
meaning of 2nd amendment.

This is a progressive board why so reactionary?

I mean you can't even admit the 2nd means an individual right.

Even many groups opposed to gun rights are willing to accept that and frame the discussion.
You are still stuck in the totally debunked "collective rights" nonsense.

Within a generation no legal or historical scholar will be willing to attach their name to such nonsense.

[jgraz]

147. you need to take a basic statistics class

49% means an even split (margin of error, anyone) for the first time in the history of the poll -- even given the huge inertia on these polls toward a "keep it the same" answer. And, of course, that poll was taken before the current rash of mass shooting or the recent domestic terrorism. Care to wager on where that number will be come October?

Those in favor of fewer gun restrictions (i.e. most on this board) are still the tiny minority.

Also note that, while Gallup asked about the extreme pro-gun-control position, there was not an equivalently extreme pro-gun question, e.g. "are you in favor of no restrictions on handgun ownership?" Any guesses on where that question would come out?

[votingupstart]

178. so one gallop poll is good enough for you to quote

but another gallop poll is not good enough for to show you're wrong - hypocritical much???

[Callisto32]

268. I've had that class

and I have a degree in political science with a concentration on political philosophy and psychology (how people think, or don't, about politics). Basically, polls don't mean shit, at least, a single one does not. People's opinions swing in the wind with whatever is on their minds, and their memories are usually woefully short. To get real data, you have to look at many polls, over many years, from many pollsters and see what patterns develop. Sure, a very good poll can get you close, but usually questions are loaded, whether we want to admit it or not, and usually the follow or immediately precede a very emotional issue.

[X_Digger]

207. See you and raise you..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/support-gun-control-laws-time-lows.aspx



http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html
"Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll."

(And mine aren't two years old, either..)

eta: bold added for more recent poll

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

98. Hypocrite much?

So Baldy & J basically call me stupid for requesting clarification, and then accuse someone of speaking like a bully... all in the same subthread?!?!

wow... awesome thinking! :thumbsup:

[jgraz]

105. No we're not calling you stupid for asking a question

We're calling you stupid for ... wait for it ... actually saying stupid things.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

114. right...

and the notion that blaming guns for deaths, not the people weilding them, is a brilliant beacon of intelligence. I have never seen a gun hop up on it's own and start shooting - not that I expect too... but your stance certainly hints of such an irrational paranoia

Look at several examples of strict gun control around the world and you'll notice the violent crime rate increases.
Guns don't cause crime and the purpose of gun control is to somehow reduce crime... which it doesn't.
The concept of gun-control as a crime prevention method is BROKE. What about that concept can't you grasp?

[jgraz]

120. See, now there's a perfect example.

We try to play nice but, damn, you make it hard.

[votingupstart]

125. shame shame - you were not playing nice - well i didnt really expect you too nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

169. You never insult anyone do you? Don't make me go back and get the posts.

[jgraz]

257. My response had nothing to do with insults.

I was responding to the poster's disgusting might-makes-right approach to debate. Very few propaganda techniques are more annoying than argumentum ad populum.

[konnichi wa]

62. By all means let's make it difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens to have guns.

THAT will fix the problem.


:eyes:

[jgraz]

68. No, that will significantly reduce the problem

Along with many, many other problems.

[Pavulon]

73. Finish your drug ban, a model of brilliance then move on to a gun ban..

i think we have a murder ban. Ever been to switzerland. I have. zurich is ultra safe and is the country in general. lots of guns. Funny how that works.

Canada has guns as well.

Banning shit is stupid and always fails flagrantly. I mean the weed ban is a stunning success, impossible to find weed.

[jgraz]

77. Apples... oranges...

Lots of things are banned in the US with much success -- weapons, even. How many mass shootings have we had with fully-automatic weapons? How many deaths from Quaaludes last year?

Legal restrictions often work just fine. You just need to do it right.

[armyowalgreens]

83. I think it's more because .22 caliber/ 9mm pistols are cheap

It has nothing to do with an assault weapons ban. Assault weapons are incredibly expensive and criminals don't need them. A pistol or shotgun is more than enough fire power for most circumstances.

[Pavulon]

86. Shitloads die on painkillers

two famous people this year dies from a mix of legal but restricted drugs. Fully automatic weapons are legal, just well regulated. IMHO if you get a violent or firearms felony you should have to go through a rigorous process to get a firearm, or never own again.

The NFA system works because it is ENFORCED. 10 years for infractions.

[jgraz]

90. apples... dragons...

Really, you need to find a better analogy.

[Pavulon]

95. Nope, you need to amend the constitution, the booze idiots did

they actually followed the rules to ban alcohol. Then they realized the horrible fuckup they made and then reversed it. Jesus will return to yankee stadium before a gun ban takes effect.

You realize how easy it is to make an ak variant. The g code in in public venue.

[jgraz]

100. Or, you just need to follow the Constitution

Like that pesky first half of the Second Amendment.

Of course, you'd be perfectly find with that since you're a law-abiding citizen.

[Pavulon]

106. So when i was ready reserve status in NG

i could keep my weapon? That was an M4, a real machine gun not a replica. Could I keep frag grenades, det cord, comp4? Well regulated militia right? The swiss basically say everyone is ready reserve and keeps a weapon.

I can afford to buy around any bullshit law morons pass. NYC for example allows ccw if you can pay for it. Just take guns away from poor people. Right?

You are in way over you head.

[jgraz]

117. You could take frag grenades home with you?

Now that doesn't sound particularly well-regulated to me.


I can afford to buy around any bullshit law morons pass.

But... you're a law-abiding citizen. You certainly wouldn't advocate violating the law because then, by your own definition, you should not be allowed to own firearms.


Here's the key: you couldn't buy your way around gun laws if we had sane restrictions on the manufacture and import of weapons. The problem comes in when so-called pro-2nd-Amendment advocates turn themselves into a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturers.

If gun makers were prevented from overproducing for the black market or, even better, if Congress restored our Seventh Amendment right to sue the gun makers for negligence, a lot of these problems would go away. And you could keep your guns.

[Pavulon]

126. Swiss do, ready reserve militia would need issued weapons

that would consist of several hundred rounds of 556 nato. An m4 or m16a4, fragmentation grenades. Body armor, basically everything you would be issued combat.

Obviously the US does not follow that model.

And no getting a ccw by donating money to campaign funds or showing up at 4000 a plate dinners is not illegal. Want a ccw in nyc, that can speed the process. Same in socal. Not illegal, just like playing golf with people is not illegal.

You are not violating the law if you do not break it.

Unless a gun blows up in my hand, why would you sue them. That is just a backdoor ban.

Amend the constitution or stop this sillyness. the days of gun control as a fix are over, that trick has been used. Enforce the law, that is why NFA works.

Are you actually saying we should ban import and manufacture?

[jgraz]

139. No, the Swiss do not have grenades in their homes

And, since a high-profile domestic shooting in 2007, they also are not issued military ammunition. Still want to use the Swiss as an example?

Oh, and those military weapons are used to murder around 280 people / year, giving Switzerland the fourth-highest firearm death rate in Europe (behind Estonia, Northern Ireland and Finland).


Unless a gun blows up in my hand, why would you sue them. That is just a backdoor ban.

So you are against my Seventh Amendment right to sue gunmakers in civil court. Why do you hate America?

[friendly_iconoclast]

196. Repeating a meme ad nauseum doesn't make it any more true

Your needle keeps skipping at the phrase:

If gun makers were prevented from overproducing for the black market

as if it was established fact.

[jgraz]

228. It's established fact according to several civil judgments

Please educate yourself. I'm tired of having to do it for you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

239. Civil judgements establish fact? Juries are not so reliable, as shown here:

http://www.archive.org/details/criminalprosecut00evaniala

"The criminal prosecution and capital punishment of animals"

One rarely meets logicians of your caliber outside the Discovery Institute

[jgraz]

256. From 1906. Nice to see you've finally caught up to the 20th century

Too bad it's been over for almost a decade.

Here's a far-out idea: why don't you read up on the actual cases I'm referring to and comment on the evidence?

Or, you can just stick to your content-free approach to posting.

[Callisto32]

270. Names or citations would help.

"That case where the guy shot that kid." Makes it pretty hard to find....

[Euromutt]

326. Which were subsequently overturned on appeal (n/t)

[Euromutt]

216. Oh, change the funking record!

Always the same bullshit assertions with you, isn't it? And no amount of evidence will change your mind, because your mind is firmly closed against anything that contradicts the reality you've constructed for yourself.

Your "evidence" that gun manufacturers "oversaturate" the market for the express purpose of having the overflow end up in criminal hands consists of one jury verdict (because juries never make mistakes, which is why DNA evidence has never exonerated a guy on death row) that was overturned on appeal.

Do you believe computer and software manufacturers "overproduce"? Or car manufacturers? Surely everybody who needs a computer or a car has got one by now, right? So no more need to be made.
Except for the small detail that the manufacturers make improvements to their products, and consumers buy them because they want a car or computer that does a better job than the one they have now. You need to have some curiously Marxist mindset to think that any one computer or car is exactly equivalent to any other.

Well, it's the same thing with firearms. For example, I'm left-handed, and I'm not interested in acquiring a firearm that's designed to be operated right-handed. Problem is, until fairly recently, the overwhelming majority of gun designs weren't made for southpaws. The first gun I bought was a model that wasn't even in production four years ago. Should I, if I wanted a handgun, been forced to buy some gun that completely didn't work for me, but was already in circulation? That's like saying you shouldn't order a hybrid because there's unsold gas-powered cars sitting on dealership lots, or buy a new car when you can get a used one, even if it doesn't have airbags, or a catalytic converter or decent gas mileage. It should also be noted that newer production handguns incorporate safety features that older ones did not, such as firing pin blocks (and other features that prevent guns from discharging when dropped), internal locks, loaded chamber indicators, etc.

And where the Sam Hill do you get the idea that the Seventh Amendment protects a "right to sue"? The Seventh Amendment secures a right to have a jury be the trier of fact in any civil suit in which more than $20 is at stake, but it doesn't say that you're entitled to the civil suit itself. Which figures, really, because the Bill of Rights is all about what government--particularly the federal government--cannot do to its citizens; it's not about what citizens can or cannot do to each other. Besides, the bulk of the suits against gun manufacturers were filed by local governments, not by poor, put-upon private citizens. Frankly, I'm inclined to think the PLCAA would have been unnecessary if the United States had a "loser pays" doctrine for civil suits. Be that as it may, I cited a Ninth Circuit ruling in Ileto v. Glock (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/11/06-56872.pdf) that found that the PLCAA is not unconstitutional; it is telling, moreover, that the plaintiffs didn't even try to argue that the Seventh gives them a "right to sue." Maybe their lawyers know something you don't.

And why would it be somehow illegitimate for me to support gun manufacturers in these bullshit suits? They're the companies who make guns I want to buy, and the spare parts for the guns I already own; I have a material interest in their continued existence. Similarly, if the anti-vaxxer crowd tried to close down the vaccine manufacturers by filing tons of bullshit suits, that would materially affect me as the parent of a small child who has not yet completed the vaccination schedule. Yeah, they could (and almost certainly would) paint me as a "Big Pharma shill"--just like you're accusing any number of us of being gun industry shills--but that's a blatant ad hominem. But hey, if you have evidence of any pro-RKBAer on this board receiving money from a gun, ammunition or firearms accessory manufacturer (aside from rebates on purchases), you let us know.

Or you can just pretend you haven't read this and spew your talking points in the next thread, just like you've always done till now.

[jgraz]

229. The Indiana Supreme Court would like a word

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/01/21/indiana-supreme-court-allows-gary-gun-lawsuit-to-proceed-to-trial

But hey, thanks for dragging out the "Marxist" accusations. When I reduce you guys to 50's-style redbaiting, I know you're really scared.

[Euromutt]

258. "The Court has ruled that a lawsuit [...] can proceed to trial."

This is simply a denial of a motion by Smith & Wesson's counsel to dismiss.

In other words, the questions of whether, as the City of Gary alleges, "the manufacturers know of these illegal retail sales of handguns, and know that a small percentage of dealers, including the dealer-defendants here, account for a large portion of illegally obtained handguns" and whether "the manufacturers and distributors have the ability to change the distribution system to prevent these unlawful sales but have intentionally failed to do so" have yet to be ruled. (Quotes from the ruling: http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10290701jts.pdf)

It's also interesting to note that one question raised was:

Whether the PLCAA violates the Due Process Clause, separation of powers principles, and the Tenth Amendment.

Conspicuously absent, once again, is any mention of the Seventh Amendment, especially as affirming some "right to sue."

You really do have knack for reading into a document what you want it to say, rather than what it actually says, don't you?

Note that I didn't call you a Marxist, or call your opinions on private firearms ownership Marxist. I said:

You need to have some curiously Marxist mindset to think that any one computer or car is exactly equivalent to any other.

Did I imply you think one computer or car is exactly equivalent to any other? No, because I don't think you do, which is why I would find it strange that would subscribe to the notion that different models of firearm are wholly interchangeable.

[friendly_iconoclast]

315. Overproducing? Then why aren't used gun prices lower?

There should be plenty of used guns available, at lower prices, not HIGHER ones as we see today.

Reason: Demand is far higher-

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13788623

Once again, your brilliant arguments are sullied by grubby reality

[Euromutt]

323. Obviously because we're all turning around and selling them to criminals

Haven't figured you figured it out yet, iconoclast? Criminals are only instruments of crime, because really society is to blame, and the criminals wouldn't have guns wouldn't have guns if we gun owners didn't constantly sell them to convicted felons (along with unstable teenagers and mental patients) at loophole-riddled gun shows, so we're paranoid because violent crime isn't all that bad that we'd need gun to protect ourselves, except it is, but that's because we create criminals and then arm them.

It's all one big conspiracy between us pro-RKBA types and the sinister "gun lobby" (funded by corporations that are far bigger and wealthier than their shareholder reports show) to put as many guns in the hands of people who wouldn't hurt a fly if it weren't for the fact that we deprive them of education and social services and then give them guns so that we have an excuse to demand to keep our own metal penis compensators and Gaston Glock can buy half of Austria.

(Do I really need to add a "sarcasm" tag?)

[TPaine7]

310. Exactly how does one follow

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"?

What exactly does it tell us to do?

I feel free that we are already doing whatever it commands, and always have.

[Callisto32]

269. Like you can't get quaalude... n/t

I went to college, recently. Trust me, there are plenty of people taking Quaaludes. Heck, my stepbrother is recovering from stupid phase where he dissolved and injected the things. Did he die? No. But he sure got them. So, they aren't "successfully banned" as you suggest.

[armyowalgreens]

81. I believe that something like less than 1 percent of gun violence

comes from licensed gun owners.

[jgraz]

87. Unless you count the 12,000+ gun suicides

Then those stats go way up.

[armyowalgreens]

91. As someone who has suffered from suicidal depression...

Suicidal people will find a way to kill themselves. Banning firearms won't stop that.

[jgraz]

94. Wrong.

Guns make it a helluva lot easier to kill yourself. Most gun suicide attempts are successful. Most suicide attempts by other means are not.

[armyowalgreens]

101. Bullshit.

There are different types of suicidal people. Some literally want to die. Some simply want to stop the suffering and have last minute "epiphanies". And still others simply want attention.

People who shoot themselves are determined to die. People who cut their wrists and then call 9/11 aren't as determined.

The ones who truly want to kill themselves will find a way. They can swallow massive amounts of pills. They can jump from high places. They can suffocate themselves. There are plenty of methods that people can use.

Take away guns, and people will find other methods.

[bossy22]

148. no....your wrong

the argument that some how guns increase the suicide rate is silly...just look at some of the stats

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

if we go by your logic, than countries with strict gun laws will have less suicides...but that aint the case....look at the countries that are ahead of us- china, japan.....those countries of strict gun control, yet have a rate that is higher than ours...why?- because it is very hard to prevent an adult from killing themselves. People who use guns truly want to die, and if you take that gun away from them, its not going to stop them. They will turn on their car with the garage door shut (or if you dont have a garage just turn on your heat and close your windows), they will leap from bridges, jump in front of trains, all sorts of things. ohh and btw, in my town awhile back a man committed suicide by the car method (in the garage), he died....but so did the other 4 members of his family when the deadly CO gas seaped up into their house and killed them in their sleep...thank god he didnt have a gun right?

there are many valid arguments to be made for gun control, the suicide one is not one of them

[Euromutt]

218. And yet, the US suicide rate is unremarkable

Somehow, Canadians, Germans, Chinese, Poles, French, Japanese and Russians all manage to off themselves at higher rates than Americans, in spite of not having anywhere near as many guns. So maybe the guns don't actually make a difference.

Of course, I've pointed this out a few times before, so I'm not expecting you to acknowledge it this time either, frankly.

[Euromutt]

325. Fine then, 1% of *violent crime* involving a firearm

Last time I heard, it wasn't crime to off yourself. Even classing suicide as a violent act is disingenuous if you ask me, since it only ever happens when a gun is used. You never hear anyone talk about "rope violence" or "sleeping pill violence" or "high bridges violence," do you? Classing firearm suicides as "gun violence" is just a way to pad the numbers of "gun violence deaths" by more than 100%.

And, if I may be blunt, I don't think the state has any right to stop people from killing themselves; it's a violation of the most fundamental human right, namely that of self-determination. That's not to say I think the state shouldn't try to persuade people not to kill themselves, but if it fails to dissuade them, that should be that. Moreover, by taking guns away, you're not solving the problem that's making this person suicidal. Once again, gun control is what you do to be seen to be doing something, while not actually doing anything useful.

And better that people shoot themselves instead of jumping in front of trains and inflicting emotional trauma on the drivers, or gassing themselves with hydrogen sulfide gas in the bathroom and putting everyone in the apartment building in danger, or jumping off a bridge or tall building (possibly hitting someone beneath, inflicting emotional trauma on bystanders, and snarling up traffic for hours, like Seattle gets on the Aurora Bridge http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=3664).

[noiretextatique]

112. thanks for this

:rofl:

[Euromutt]

334. A gun's an inanimate object; it can't possess guilt or innocence

People can hurt others with guns. They can also hurt others with knives, baseball bats, hammers, motor vehicles, bath tubs, the jawbone of an ass, the list is endless.

[guardian]

28. So your point is that gun control laws are useless & ineffective

and only punish law abiding citizens???

[jgraz]

69. Or, maybe we need gun control laws that *aren't* useless and ineffective

They certainly exist in countries that don't have NRA/GOP pro-gun-corporation drones.

[Pavulon]

74. Like those in switzerland. Finland or canada?

they have guns, people own and carry them. Funny that their murder ban seems to work a bit better.

Pick a new issue to push, this one is done for. Americans figured out this shuck and jive issue the last time around. Sounds great but does jack shit.

Did you know we have a weed ban?

[jgraz]

79. Here's an idea -- how bout we try to make our country as egalitarian as those?

Then you can have your guns back.

[Pavulon]

88. Back, that assumes a ban would ever work.

finish your drug ban. Get that done I will surrender my firearm first.

[jgraz]

92. No, you're a law-abiding citizen. If we pass a gun ban, you'll be first in line to turn yours in

Or.. aren't you a law-abiding citizen?

[Pavulon]

103. If you pass a ban...When jesus shows up in yankee stadium

i will watch that on tv. Then after that goes off your ban will pass. Really. Will NEVER happen, no how many people get shot by criminals. You will get a car ban first.

I am sure all those machine shops I have set up all over latin america for aerospace would never start stamping out weapons to feed an illegal market. Much easier to fabricate weapons than turbine blades or aluminum parts.

[votingupstart]

76. well we certainly proved we could do it with drugs ... oh... wait.....

that has not work out to well for us, and hell we declared war on them.

[jgraz]

82. Oh hey, it's BAD ANALOGY time

Did you know that private ownership of NUCLEAR WEAPONS is illegal? And we haven't had a single incident of a private use of a nuclear bomb since they were invented.

So, clearly, complete bans work perfectly.

[votingupstart]

85. right because there are already 600 million nuclear bombs in civilian hands - REALLY bad analogy

talk about apples and oranges -

[jgraz]

97. Ah, so you're in favor of severe restrictions on the manufacture and import of new firearms

Glad to see we agree on something.

[votingupstart]

102. not in the slightest - nt

[jgraz]

107. So is availability of weapons important or not?

In one post you say it is, in another you say it isn't.

[votingupstart]

113. wow -- still? really?

in what la la land do you really believe that if you can get all of the guns in the US confiscated, it will reduce crime? criminals will still commit crimes.

[jgraz]

119. You need to try to think outside the NRA/GOP talking points

No one talked about gun confiscation. I've never advocated it.

I am, however, in favor of strong restrictions on the manufacture of firearms. Especially when it's clear that the gunmakers are intentionally supplying the black market. Hell, just restore our Seventh Amendment right to sue gunmakers and a lot of these problems will go away.

[Pavulon]

128. Sue for bad product, or backdoor crap to attempt to impact business

unless the product is defective, no lawsuit.

[jgraz]

143. You understand that no other industry has that immunity from lawsuits

Any other company can be sued for negligence in anything they do. Gunmakers have been given a special exemption from the Seventh Amendment.

How does that sit with your alleged civil libertarian instincts?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

152. How do you figure?

If gunmakers make a defective gun you can certainly file suit for any damages.
There are lawsuits and recalls all the time in the gun world.

You CANNOT sue gun makers when thier merchandise operates as intended - killing whoever is on the other end of the barrel.
The courts recognize here (once again) that it is not the FIREARMS that are responsible for the actions of those who misuse/mistreat firearms.
Should we be able to sue car companies for the thousands of deaths that autos cause from speeding?
How about suing alcohol breweries/distilleries for the life ending choices brought on by alcohols effects.

The only people that want to hold firearm manufactures accountable for the actions of criminals and misfits are those who hope to use the action in frivolous lawsuits to the effect of bankrupting the gun companies resulting in a defacto (backdoor) manufacturing ban. Here's what I say... come up with some sort of tort reform where the loser pays, and small special interest groups can sue the gun industry all day long. We'll see how long that tactic lasts. HAHA.

[jgraz]

159. Sigh... why do I have to cover this EVERY FUCKING TIME I post in this forum?

Please, go read the 2005 Gun Liability Law. For the first time, your Seventh Amendment right has been declared subordinate to the interests of a corporation.

In case you were unclear: YES, you can sue car companies for speeding deaths. And YES, you can sue breweries for alcohol deaths. If your suit has merit, you win. If it doesn't, you lose. It's a fucking CIVIL RIGHT.

The only industry that is exempt from the Seventh Amendment is the gun industry. They cannot be sued for negligence in the manufacture, marketing or distribution of their product. They can only be sued for defects in their product and "negligence per se", which means knowingly breaking a federal statute.

No one else has this exemption. It is a straight-up assault on the Bill of Rights that somehow our civil-libertarian gun owners were all in favor of.

[votingupstart]

175. so no firearms manufacturer has been sued?? nt

[jgraz]

226. Once again, reading is fundamental

Under current US law, gun makers cannot be sued for anything other than a knowing violation of the law or a direct product defect. That protection is not given to any other industry or individual.

[votingupstart]

296. so they can be sued? that means you lied... shame on you jgraz

so if they can be sued - you lied when you said you we not allowed to sue them --- shame shame



so far away from reality - is it nice no to worry about the real world?

[jgraz]

298. Please, please, please, learn to read

This is the most frustrating thing about this forum: having to deal with dim-bulb posters who can't retain a single idea for more than two minutes.

[votingupstart]

300. i dim becase you lied? - nice logic - you are obviously a mental giant and i

should just agree with what ever you say - or not

[jgraz]

303. No, "you dim" (sic) because you can't follow a conversation

Now, if you can hold the thought long enough, please point out exactly where you think I lied.

Edit: here, let me help you out (again). From my big LIE post:

The only industry that is exempt from the Seventh Amendment is the gun industry. They cannot be sued for negligence in the manufacture, marketing or distribution of their product. They can only be sued for defects in their product and "negligence per se", which means knowingly breaking a federal statute.

Now, I don't think it takes a "mental giant" to understand that the phrase "They can only be sued..." logically means that gun companies can still be sued under certain circumstances. Does that make sense to you or should I get my 10-year-old niece to explain it further?


You were saying something about a lie...?

[votingupstart]

199. ps you cant even get you laws right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

this is what protects gun manufacturers

and do you know why you are crying about your 7th amendment rights being "violated", and that you so desperately want to sue the gun manufacturers - hint is has to do with you being the minority position (as usual)

BECAUSE YOU CANT GET THE VOTES IN CONGRESS TO PASS THE LEGISLATION - so you want to use the courts to push your MINORITY agenda. did it ever occur to you why cant you get the votes????? because the MAJORITY of (US)DEMOCRATS would prefer criminal control over gun control and the MAJORITY of (US)DEMOCRATS realize that the bans haven't worked in other countries they wont work here and we will be handing the congress over to the republicans (again). so go ahead keep crying and whining and citing false facts, keep yelling at the top of your lungs because you do not speak for the majority of US/we/Democrats.

take a look at this thread - many different people have tried to point out your obvious errors, and you wont listen well that is your right but look closely at the posts you are the majority of posts on your side. (feeling lonely ahhh poor j - not to worry, there are a few other fringers out there - I'm sure)

[jgraz]

210. Your post is a good candidate for the most ignorant thing written on the Constitution ever

Do you even have the first freaking clue why the Bill of Rights was written? It was written to protect the rights of the MINORITY from the tyranny of the MAJORITY. That's why a MAJORITY of people in CONGRESS can't vote to reinstitute SLAVERY. That's why CONGRESS can't outlaw ABORTION. And it's why they can't ban DUMBASSES from ever POSTING to the INTERNET (lucky you).

In 2005, Congress took away YOUR RIGHT to have your day in civil court against a corporation. But, I guess, as long as you can shoot somebody when you get really pissed off, you're cool with losing every other right guaranteed under the Constitution.

[friendly_iconoclast]

232. You might want to wipe the flecks of spittle off your monitor before you post again.

God help me, I can't help being amused by your posts. It's like watching an obnoxious drunk trying to take
on an entire bar...

[jgraz]

234. Can't help but notice how you, once again, fail to address the substance of my post

Instead, you find amusement in my refusal to adopt a herd mentality. And here I thought you gunners were all about the rugged individual. My mistake.

[friendly_iconoclast]

243. OK. Your last sentence in post #210 is a lie

Substantial enough for you?

[jgraz]

259. Well, at least we can add the word "lie" to the list of things you don't understand

In case you've forgotten, here's the last sentence of post 210: But, I guess, as long as you can shoot somebody when you get really pissed off, you're cool with losing every other right guaranteed under the Constitution.

Again, that's something that those of us with a better-than-10th-grade education call "sarcasm". Since we've already established that this is on the almost endless list of things you don't understand, I'll attempt to remediate with a little trip to dictionary.com

sar⋅casm  
–noun
1.harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2.a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.


I'd say my remark falls squarely under definition #2.


So, which concept did you get wrong? Your choices are: "sarcasm", "lie", "sentence", "last" or "210".

[votingupstart]

292. and you seem not to be able to understand the SCOTUS or the bill of rights.

2a applies to people -- luckily as you pointed out 1a also allows dumb asses to post on the internet - good for you, you're safe. oh and you obviously missed the bill of rights because its main protection is to individuals. it does protect the minority and the MAJORITY (of which you are not thankfully) according to the individuals rights.

Nice to see your are all alone in posting thought - must be fun out there in la-la land - i still want to know if they have cookies?

[Callisto32]

271. Could you sue Ford if your husband got killed by somebody driving one?

Sure, but it would be thrown out. Unfortunately, gun manufactures were under the gun, so to speak, for stuff other manufacturers were not, such as criminal use of the guns, that the judges were allowing through. At least, this is my understanding of the situation, pardon if I am incorrect. The law saying that you can't sue them for criminal actions of another simply brought it in line with the rest of product liability common law.

[tortoise1956]

205. You do realize you don't understand the 7th amendment at all?

Full text of the 7th amendment:

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

There is absolutely nothing that can be construed as creating a right to bring frivolous lawsuits into court. It only guarantees the right to a trial by jury once a suit has reached a trial stage, and the guarantee that your case will be heard and decided in accordance with relevant legal statutes.

Besides, using frivolous lawsuits against some manufacturers as a basis for suing gun manufacturers is a specious argument. You would have been thrown off my high school debate team for an inane line of reasoning such as that...

[jgraz]

209. And the Second Amendment only guarantees your right to join a militia

Funny how you guys get all literalist when it's convenient.

[tortoise1956]

213. Once again, dealing with fanatics.

Full text of the second amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice it says "people". These are the same "people" referred to in the first, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments, which are all recognized as covering individual rights. So how on God's green earth can you define "people" as referring to an individual right in four out of five amemdments, but not the one you don't like? The Bill of Rights is not designed to please everyone, but to define and protect the natural rights of all Americans.

BTW, the individual rights view is one that is supported by some pretty competent jurists. Lawrence Tribe, Sanford Levinson, and Nat Hentoff- none of which, by the way, are "gun nuts"-have all stated that the second amendment describes an individual right.

For a link to possibly the most cogent paper I have ever read on RKBA, try this link:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

OK, your turn-got any more specious arguments I need to refute?

UPDATE: I Edited this post in several places for better clarity-I must be more tired than I realized. time to go beddy bye-5:30 comes soon.

ANOTHER UPATE: The link above does not state with certainty that the second amendment is an individual right. It does, however, suggest that the arguments against an individual right lack a strong base. Sorry about misrepresenting the article.

[Euromutt]

324. Actually, what the Second guarantees...

... is that I can keep a firearm and practice with so that, in the event that I mustered into the state militia, they won't have to send resources and time (important in a state of emergency) teaching me marksmanship, and ideally, they won't even have to issue me a firearm, since I already have one that will do the job.

[Euromutt]

224. Because it was bullshit EVERY previous FUCKING TIME

Seriously, I've lost count of how many times your tropes have been challenged just since I joined this board, and you never, ever have a decent rejoinder. You just slink off and regurgitate them in the next, lather, rinse, repeat.

As tortoise1956 points out, the Seventh Amendment doesn't give you the right to sue anyone; it just says that if legitimately can, and the amount involved is more than $20, you have the right to have the case come before a jury.
Which is logical, since the Bill of Rights concerns itself with limiting the power of government--particularly the federal government--over its citizens. It does not concern itself with what citizens can do to each other.

For someone who makes a habit of telling other people they're delusional, you sure have a knack of seeing things in text that no-one else can.

[jgraz]

233. Once again, the Indiana Supreme Court disagrees

However, they use the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to point out the law's violation of the Constitution.

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/01/21/indiana-supreme-court-allows-gary-gun-lawsuit-to-proceed-to-trial/

I'm perfectly happy to defer to the courts and their use of the Fifth Amendment argument. It doesn't change my basic premise one bit: that the 2005 liability shield is unconstitutional and that you alleged civil libertarians don't give one shit as long as you can keep your guns.

[Euromutt]

272. You're reading things that aren't there again

The Indiana Supreme Court issued a denial of transfer; from a Brady Bunch press release found on Indiana Law Blog (http://www.indianalawblog.com/archives/2009/01/ind_decisions_b_22.html):

<...> the Indiana Supreme Court refused the gun manufacturers’ petition to transfer the case, instead allowing the Court of Appeals ruling to stand.

I.e. no actual opinion, just a message to S&W et al. that they're stuck with the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Your man Turley there failed to point out in his post that the ruling he posted the link to (http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10290701jts.pdf) is the Court of Appeals' from 2007, not the Supreme Court's. Still, because the SC's ruling upheld the CoA's opinion, let's see what we find on page 5:

Because we conclude that the PLCAA does not bar the City’s claims, we need not address the constitutional issues.

Italics mine.
The Fifth Amendment isn't referred to at all in the ruling, let alone to deem the PLCAA unconstitutional.

But I see you're not making this up entirely from whole cloth: the opinion you describe was indeed issued, by Lake County Judge Robert A. Pete (http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/referenced-docs/gary-ruling.pdf). So not by the Indiana Supreme Court, not even by the Court of Appeals, but by a single county superior court judge. Maybe I failed to pay attention during my citizenship test, but since when do county judges have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of federal legislation? Oh, that's right: they don't.

Who does? How about a federal court of appeals? Say, the Ninth Circuit, in its opinion in Ileto vs. Glock http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/11/06-56872.pdf And what do we find on pages 5569-5577, but the study of the exact same argument that Judge Pete accepted! Except the 9th rejects the lot and concludes:

<18> In conclusion, like all other appellate courts to have addressed the issue, we hold that the PLCAA is constitutional.

I think a federal appellate court trumps one county judge, let alone multiple federal appellate courts.

And the majority in this ruling consisted of judges Graber and Reinhardt, neither noted for their conservatism, to put it mildly.

So "weak sauce" (to borrow your phrase) on your side of the argument, against some rather good béarnaise on mine, methinks. Or should I be claiming "sauce of Peter North-like proportions"? I'm insufficiently familiar with the idiom.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

130. NRA != GOP

Sorry. I recall reading somewhere that they had more democratic donations recently than GOP donations.
They are a single issue lobbying organization.
Thier loyalties lie with whomever interests are inline with thier member base.

[jgraz]

142. Sure it does. It supports a lot more of the GOP agenda than simple gun rights

A good example is the egregiously unconstitutional ban on lawsuits against gunmakers. The GOP are trying to implement that same model to take away our rights to sue drug companies that push needless medicines and food companies that aggressively market unhealthy food to children.

The NRA is about a lot more than your (alleged) RKBA. It's about a pro-corporate, anti-democratic, racist agenda that keeps the right-wing in power.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

150. It's about civil rights that have implications about gun ownership.

If gun manufactures get sued, gun proliferation decreases --> Main interest: More Gun Ownership.
If other industries can be sued because the american people are too stupid for their own good, it sets precedence to also sue gun companies. See reasoning above to fight for these other companies.

Just about every action the NRA does is to promote/encourage gun ownership, gun safety training, and defending gun rights.
If promoting guns is "pro-corporate, anti-democratic, racist"... then to hell with everything else - that is their stance.

And it's funny that you mention racist... as the very heart and roots of "gun-control" was purely racist.

[jgraz]

151. Their racist agenda is favoring dead black men over economic and educational reforms

Why bother working to reduce poverty and increase education? Just strap on a gun and shoot anybody who comes after what's yours.

That's the philosophy pushed by the NRA and their supporters. And it's a straight-up racist agenda.

Just check out the celebratory posts on this forum: almost all of them are high-fiving a black or brown man getting shot by a white property owner. It's sick.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

160. It's the NRA... they deal with Civil rights issues involving guns.

They are not required to support other more effective social efforts. They deal with protecting gun ownership - that's it. Speaking of education, they do more for gun education, training, & accident prevention than any other organization (but I'm sure you meant scholastic education). It's not a politically driven organization, although very politically active in it's efforts. It's not democrat, it's not GOP, it's not black/white/whatever... it's guns. They fight for RKBA wherever it may put them morally/politically, and that's it. It's alot like a dog and food... when they're eating (defending RKBA) nothing else in the world matters.

Would reducing poverty and increasing education decrease gun violence? Most likely.
Would reducing poverty and increasing education promote gun ownership? Probably not. So the NRA spends it's money elsewhere.

As far as "racism"? :rofl:

Black males commit a more crimes than other demographics. That is not a racist statement, it's a statistic. Criminals get shot (with guns) because people have an inalienable right to self defense - that concept is certainly not racist. The NRA defends RKBA because... well, it's the NRA and that's what they do. When most criminals that are gunned down are black that is not racist - IT'S THE LAW OF STATISTICS. This does not make make the NRA one iota racist. They accept minority members and have done nothing I'd ascribe to as racially motivated. People are celebrating what they see as the doling out of justice and exercising their rights... not the shooting of a black male by a white person.
Nice try though, put the racist card back in your wallet to play another day.

[friendly_iconoclast]

195. Funny, the NRA had no problem helping this black man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams

Williams had already started the Black Armed Guard with the National Rifle Association's blessings, to defend the local black community from Ku Klux Klan activity. KKK membership numbered some 15,000 locally at a time when gun ownership was fairly common in the South. Black residents fortified their homes with sandbags and resorted to being trained with rifles on hand in the event of night raids by the Klan. Followers attested to Williams' advocacy of the use of advanced powerful weaponry instead of more traditional firearms. Williams insisted his position was defensive in the face of provocation as opposed to a declaration of war: "armed self-reliance" in the face of white terrorism. Threats against Williams' life and on his family would become more frequent

http://www.amazon.com/Negroes-Guns-African-American-Life/dp/0814327141


Editorial Reviews
Product Description
A southern black community's struggle to defend itself against racist groups.

From the Publisher
First published in 1962, "Negroes with Guns" is the story of a southern black community's struggle to arm itself in self-defense against the Ku Klux Klan and other racist groups. Frustrated and angered by violence condoned or abetted by the local authorities against blacks, the small community of Monroe, North Carolina, brought the issue of armed self-defense to the forefront of the civil rights movement. The single most important intellectual influence on Huey P. Newton, the founder of the Black Panther Party, "Negroes with Guns" is a classic story of a man who risked his life for democracy and freedom.

http://www.amazon.com/Radio-Free-Dixie-Robert-Williams/dp/0807849235

Once again, Pope jgraz I gets his facts wrong

[jgraz]

215. Contrast that with their failure to speak out after the post-Katrina gun confiscations

I guess over the past 40 years, the NRA has rethought its position on the RKBA for non-whites.

[tortoise1956]

217. Again, total BS

A Google search located at least one lawsuit brought by the NRA concerning confiscation of guns after Hurricane Katrina.

Here are some links:

http://www.newser.com/story/1435/nra-targets-post-katrina-gun-seizures.html?utm_source=ssp&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=story

http://cbs3.com/topstories/NRA.Settle.Suit.2.835460.html

Once again, research wins out over inanity.

[jgraz]

220. Not total BS. It took enormous pressure to get the NRA to bring that lawsuit

Initially, they were perfectly happy to side with their buddies in the Bush regime.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/09/09/359/86753

[friendly_iconoclast]

227. Back and fill much? Even YOUR FELLOW GUN CONTROLLERS disagree!

http://www.gunguys.com/?cat=17

The NRA made quite a fuss late last year after the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. They wanted every police officer and mayor around the country to make a pledge to never confiscate guns from citizens during times of
disaster


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/nra-katrina-campaign-to-m_b_21298.html

Josh Sugarmann

Josh Sugarmann is the executive director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, DC.
Posted: May 19, 2006 01:40 PM

NRA Katrina Campaign to "Mint Money," But at What Price?


This week the NRA's annual meeting opens in Milwaukee, and the "big announcement" is that the NRA is launching a nationwide campaign today under the battle cry of "Remember New Orleans" targeting mayors and police chiefs to pledge to never confiscate firearms in the wake of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

[jgraz]

231. My point still stands. Their initial silence spoke more loudly than their late opportunism.

These are the people who showed up in Colorado days after Columbine with one of their ridiculous "cold dead hands" rallies. Yet not a peep from them as weapons were being confiscated in New Orleans.

[friendly_iconoclast]

236. And my point still stands. You substitute bluster for fact, and hope we don't notice

You do for gun control what Rush Limbaugh does for classical conservatism.

After reading you, I long for the concise realism of Josh Sugarman, or the erudition of Carolyn McCarthy.

However smoothly you back and fill, your many errors are apparent.

And when your latest pronunciamento is met with less than total agreement, you fume and sputter
like a third-rate director reading a bad review.

[jgraz]

237. Blah blah blah substance-free ad hominem blah blah

Do you plan on making an actual point anytime soon?

[friendly_iconoclast]

240. Yeah. You post absolute nonsense, and when caught have a non-reply reply

[jgraz]

244. So... not yet.

That's OK. I realize that whole "adult conversation" thing can be difficult for some. Just lemme know if you need some pointers. I'm here for ya, buddy.

[friendly_iconoclast]

230. You need a new Google machine. That, or learn how to research *before* you post

I guess you believe the stuff you post when you post it, so for you it's not really untrue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4&fmt=18

"NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina" by NRAVideos


http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?id=11653


After Years of Stonewalling, New Orleans Mayor Admits Illegal Gun Confiscation, Settles with NRA


Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Fairfax, VA-After a three-year legal battle over the unconstitutional confiscation of lawfully owned firearms, the City of New Orleans has agreed to settle a law suit by the National Rifle Association (NRA). A permanent injunction has been issued against the city, Mayor Ray Nagin and current Police Chief Warren Riley. The Second Amendment Foundation assisted NRA in the legal battle against Mayor Ray Nagin and the City of New Orleans.

“Today’s outcome is an important victory for the citizens of New Orleans and the Second Amendment,” said Wayne LaPierre, NRA’s executive vice president. “We fought for three long years in a fundamental legal challenge to assert the inherent self-defense rights for law-abiding citizens, knowing the Constitution would prevail. Today it has prevailed and freedom has won.”

Judge Carl J. Barbier presided over the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Judge Barbier signed the permanent injuncation against the City of New Orleans. The city admitted the firearm confiscations carried out by Nagin and Riley were unconstitutional and illegal.

Look on the bright side. If Jeb Bush ever runs for President, you have all the ethical qualifications to be
his press secretary.

[jgraz]

235. Note the dates on your links

Some of us were actually paying attention *during* Katrina. The NRA's initial silence raised quite a few eyebrows on both the right and left.

[friendly_iconoclast]

245. What about them? You said the NRA failed to speak out , without qualification

When caught out, you changed your tune.

Never wrong, are you?

[jgraz]

246. Sorry, I used shorthand thinking you were actually aware of the issues

Won't make that mistake again.

[friendly_iconoclast]

248. You're almost ready to replace iverglas as Zampolit Of The Gungeon

You've got most of the attributes:

A near-Papal belief in your own infallability.
The absolute certainly that what comes out of you mouth (or keyboard) regarding guns is The Truth.
The inability to admit error.
The hyperlexia.
The reflex to post first and research later.
The conviction that those who disagree with you are not only wrong, but morally depraved.

Develop a little more gravitas (see post #210), and you're there!

Can't do anything about the reflexive Canadian chauvanism, not being Canadian. Sorry.

[jgraz]

254. Blah blah blah substance-free ad hominem blah blah

Still no actual point, eh? Sucks to be you.

[Callisto32]

273. Wait, weren't the mayor and chief of police...BLACK????!!?!?! n/t

[votingupstart]

203. i find your post untrue - i cannot see the NRA cheering a "Black or Brown man" getting shot for his

race

and if they are so racist - why base one of there most important cases on a black man - Heller v US

sorry gotta call BS on that.

[jgraz]

214. No one said anything about someone getting shot as a hate crime

Again, it's a bit more challenging to win an argument if you don't make up both sides.

What I said is that many pro-gun folks find it deeply satisfying when a white property owner shoots a poor brown person during the commission of a property crime. Just watch the posts on this forum or on blogs like the Gun Defense Blog. You can also find the stories reposted on StormFront and other white supremacist sites.

Funny how no one asks why the crime occurred in the first place, or why the alleged perpetrator was armed (assuming they were armed). It seems the preferred solution to property crime (or any crime) is to have the ersatz "victim" shoot and kill the alleged "criminal". A simple google of "Jerome Ersland" will show you what I mean.

[votingupstart]

293. yes - you did - here it is

"Their racist agenda is favoring dead black men over economic and educational reforms
Why bother working to reduce poverty and increase education? Just strap on a gun and shoot anybody who comes after what's yours."

you cant even follow your own argument - nice

[jgraz]

299. once again, post-third-grade reading skills are required

I'm tired of explaining simple English to you. Please find someone to explain what I was talking about and check back when you've figured it out.

[votingupstart]

301. oh not not the 3rd grade insult again - you lied, you got caught, man up and move on nt

[jgraz]

305. Hey, it's looking like 3rd grade was a compliment.

See my post upthread about your bullshit claims. Oh, hell. Just let me repost it here so maybe you can find it.

The only industry that is exempt from the Seventh Amendment is the gun industry. They cannot be sued for negligence in the manufacture, marketing or distribution of their product. They can only be sued for defects in their product and "negligence per se", which means knowingly breaking a federal statute.

or here:

Any other company can be sued for negligence in anything they do. Gunmakers have been given a special exemption from the Seventh Amendment.

In every post, I clearly say that the gun companies can no longer be sued for negligence. Not that they can't be sued at all, but that they cannot be sued for negligence. At all... for negligence ... at all ... for negligence.

Is it starting to sink in a little? Or would you like to continue your EPIC FAIL argument?

[votingupstart]

131. yea - oh i need a box alright -

because i really don't want to get your so called "facts" (wow i cant believe i could even remotely call them that) on my feet. oh and i have just been quoting the GOP/NRA all day? - wait... i haven't used them once have i..... nice try

[jgraz]

144. Really? Want to tell me again how my views are in the minority?

Oh, sorry. Did I get some fact on you?

[votingupstart]

172. and i thought this thread was locked -

you got no facts on me because you have no facts - if you want to play lets post a poll ok

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/support-gun-control-laws-time-lows.aspx

i notice you didn't want to past this one and chose an older one - trying to hide the truth are we

[one-eyed fat man]

249. you probably flunked shop, but

I'll ask anyway. A blacksmith's forge and files will produce a gun. A couple hundred pounds of cave dirt will yield saltpeter to make gunpowder.
Who is going to homebrew a nuke? Not just a "dirty bomb" with some plutonium, but actual nuclear fission device?

If the worker's paradise of North Korea took years, you figure what a weekend or two in Berkley? Oh that's right the UN banned North Korea from having nukes. Never mind.

[jgraz]

255. Does an NRA membership require the removal of one's sense of irony?

I've lost count of the number of obviously sarcastic, ironic or flat-out hyperbolic statements that have been misinterpreted as dead serious on this forum. Do I really have to restrict my posts to plodding literality in order to be understood here?

[qanda]

41. Guy #2 killed three police officers in Pittsburgh

just fyi

[spanone]

99. wingnuts/guns

[undeterred]

110. they were all disarmed too late

We need to disarm the public now.

:hide:

Please don't shoot me for saying that. :scared:

[benEzra]

149. You are free to disarm yourself. It's a free country.

But please do not attempt to compel me to live by your life choices. My family chooses differently, and I would like us to retain that choice, thanks.

[Deadric Damodred]

208. I'd like to see you try.

One untrained 20-something kid killed 3 cops with a shotgun, handgun, and an AK-47 Clone. That's one person who was untrained. What do you think it would be like against 100 million gun onwers, almost all of whom would be proficient with their guns, and some of whom would have actual training? If you think you can steal our guns (steal our expensive property that we have spent lots of our hard earned money on), bring it on.

[jgraz]

225. If a law is passed requiring it, I'm sure you'll be the first in line to turn in your weapons.

Since you're such a law-abiding citizen and all. After all, I can't imagine a responsible gun owner advocating that people violate the law, let alone shoot and kill authorities who are simply trying to enforce said law.

Wouldn't such advocacy make you an irresponsible, non-law-abiding gun nut who shouldn't be allowed to own a sharpened stick? Just curious...

[Deadric Damodred]

242. If the Republicans passed a law...

..that said you are required to praise Bush in a public venue by getting down on your knees and giving fealty to him, I'm sure you'd be the first one on your knees. I can't imagine a responsible 1st Amendment advocate violating the law. Woudln't such advocacy make you an irresponsible free speech nut who shouldn't be allowed to speak a single word? Being a law-abiding citizen doesn't equate to kneeling in fealty to obviously unconstitutional tyranny.

[jgraz]

247. I don't pretend to be a law-abiding citizen deserving of access to unlimited firepower

In fact, I'm expressly NOT a law-abiding citizen when it comes to civil disobedience.

Mostly, I just like poking holes in the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" BS. The truth is that every violent threat I've seen posted on gun policy has come from one of these alleged "safe" gun owners like yourself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

250. And no one here is either.

The truth is that every violent threat I've seen posted on gun policy has come from one of these alleged "safe" gun owners like yourself.

If you *do* have evidence of some DUer making threats, you have the responsibilty to alert the mods
and law enforcement. Being the ethical person you are, I'm sure you would never stoop to LIHOP tactics
to promote a political agenda...

[jgraz]

251. Are you actually reading any threads, or are you just following me around?

One untrained 20-something kid killed 3 cops with a shotgun, handgun, and an AK-47 Clone. That's one person who was untrained. What do you think it would be like against 100 million gun onwers, almost all of whom would be proficient with their guns, and some of whom would have actual training? If you think you can steal our guns (steal our expensive property that we have spent lots of our hard earned money on), bring it on.

Just a couple of posts upthread... easy pickings.

[friendly_iconoclast]

312. So, you reported them. Hit the 'alert' button? Called the FBI?

Do tell...

[friendly_iconoclast]

317. Apparently "violent threat" = "thoughtcrime", or maybe "harshes his mellow"

Here's an expansion on the "threat", from another thread. Judge it for yourselves, DUers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=226497&mesg_id=226858

Deadric Damodred (109 posts) Wed Jun-03-09 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
93. Hey Union, let me ask you something about your wish for disarmament.
We already know that disarmament here in America will never happen, but to engage your fantasy, let's look at an interesting piece of information: A 20-something kid in philly killed 3 cops with using a shotgun, handgun, and an AK-47 Clone. That's three cops dead by one untrained psycho nobody. How the fuck do you expect to disarm 100 million gun owners, a portion of which will have some sort of training and be ready? If you go by those statistics, there won't be any cops left by the time you get finished with the first few blocks.

Another thing to consider is that how do cops arrest dangerous people? They send 30 cops after one armed & dangerous person. You ever watch the show COPS or watch a car chase on live media coverage? There are dozens of cop cars chasing the bastard. And what happens when the guy exits the vehlicle and runs? He or she is chased down by 30 cops. Now take that and apply it to what is going on in Iraq. What is happening there? There are suicide bombers killing our brave men and women. So if you send troops to disarm America, what's to stop them from strapping a suicide bomber with bombs, getting the attention of the cops by driving like a jackass, getting a chase going, stoping when enough are following, exiting the vehlicle and running, getting tackled by dozens of cops, and then blowing him or herself up?

If you want to go into the fantasy land of the disarmament of America, let's go through all the dirty details of what both sides are capable of.

For me, I'd say political speculation, not "violent threat"

[Deadric Damodred]

337. I'm beginning to see that "violent threat"...

...in the eyes of the anti's...means anything distastful, that they dont' agree with. Another didn't like my "Reality Need Not Apply" thread, so he alert it.....failing to read the following (which I started off in the thread):

"Now before we start, I believe that the best way to achieve what you want, is through the peaceful process of politics. This thread is merely a vent thread for those that have decided to say "fuck you" to the other side. Nothing in this thread is real, nothing in this thread is a prediction. This thread is fantasyland."

That line alone pretty much means he wasted his time in alerting it. The thread may have been distasteful, but the person in question decided the post was one gigantic threat.....I assume their blinders were on and they didn't read that I specifically stated the entire thread was not real and was only a discussion of "what could" or "what if"? I guess I'll just have to tone down any "what if" type of threads or posts, but it seems that to some people the 1st Amendment only applies to what they agree with; and if they don't agree with it, they try to mask it behind "that's a violent threat".

[one-eyed fat man]

252. that explains a lot

You are an "end justifies the means" kind of guy.

Charles Schumer says, "We will break them with endless litigation" referring to driving gun companies out of business by using public coffers to bleed them dry in legal fees and you think it is exemplary.

Do you deny or disavow the stated intent of those whose strategy was to bankrupt all domestic gun manufacturers by bleeding them dry through endless litigation?

"Using the deliberate infliction of litigation costs to obtain leverage over an opponent was once considered a breach of legal ethics, but times have changed. Litigators boasted that their attacks would bleed the thinly capitalized gun industry into submission. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo warned gun makers that unless they cooperated they'd suffer "death by a thousand cuts." Several makers have in fact gone bankrupt since the courtroom siege began."

Suppose in one of your little civil disobedience escapades you get sued. Supposing they just keep suing you until you run out of money? Will it matter if you were right or wrong? Will a jury ever see the case? Will you live long enough to find out?

If a group of Mayors use public money to do that to a gun company that is good?

If a bureaucrat does that to a citizen is that better?

Or are you a lawyer where suits, counter-suits and endless motions are just job-security? (Gotta pad them billable hours!)

Would you promote this if loser pays?

[jgraz]

253. What in hell are you talking about?

I've been explicit in my support for individual civil liberties, including the right to sue in civil court. How in any way is that an "ends justify the means" approach?

If gun makers can be found to be negligent, they should pay the penalties just like any other plaintiff who loses a lawsuit. One of the benefits of civil suits is they enable individual citizens to change corporate misbehavior ahead of any specific legislation. Just look at what the Ford Pinto judgment did to the soulless corporate practice of applying cost-benefit analysis to human life.

You *are* in favor of individual civil rights, are you not?


Or are you a lawyer where suits, counter-suits and endless motions are just job-security? (Gotta pad them billable hours!)

And again, we see the right-wing baggage that unfailingly accompanies a pro-gun stance. Go after the trial attorneys who represent the little guy against Corporate America. How very very progressive of you.

(And no, I'm not an attorney -- just someone who believes in more than one civil liberty.)

"Using the deliberate infliction of litigation costs to obtain leverage over an opponent was once considered a breach of legal ethics, but times have changed. Litigators boasted that their attacks would bleed the thinly capitalized gun industry into submission. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo warned gun makers that unless they cooperated they'd suffer "death by a thousand cuts." Several makers have in fact gone bankrupt since the courtroom siege began."

And please, give credit where credit is due. This is lifted directly from the website of the ultra-right-wing http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-plaintiffs_lawyers_take_a.htm">Manhattan Institute. Always nice to know who's really behind the pro-gun agenda.

[one-eyed fat man]

264. Yep straight from the WSJ too

You still haven't answered, do you think that the strategy of "sue them into bankruptcy' is one that you espouse for industries you don't like?

The fact that it was reported on a right wing website or published in the Wall Street Journal doesn't make it untrue. Andrew Cuomo most certainly said that when they started after Smith and Wesson and they also threatened to withhold Federal Law Enforcement sales. You may recall the British firm that owned S&W at that time very shortly divested itself of the company. Colt Industries, not long after, sold off the parent division, Colt Firearms. If nothing, both those moves made the pockets Bloomberg and the boys want to raid a lot less deep.

And you also described yourself, "In fact, I'm expressly NOT a law-abiding citizen when it comes to civil disobedience."

Is that not espousing breaking the law to achieve some result you deem more worthy? Sounds like "the end justifies the means" there.

Suppose, a drunk, driving on the wrong side of an Interstate, hits an overloaded, poorly maintained, gasoline-powered former school bus being used as a church bus. The bus bursts into flame on impact and the difficulties encountered by the victims attempting to evacuate the crowded bus quickly in the smoke and darkness through an aisle blocked by coolers and baggage in reaching the rear emergency door, result in the death of 27 people and injuries to 34 of 67 passengers on the 44 passenger bus. Six passengers escaped without significant injury.

Who should be sued, who should pay, and whose fault is it?

[jgraz]

297. But you didn't get it from the WSJ, did you?

Once again, the gun manufacturers were losing these lawsuits before the Congress intervened. This had nothing to do with avoiding frivolous lawsuit. It was all about avoiding the suits that had merit.

Again, it sounds like you're advocating a complete revocation of a citizen's right to sue. Is that what you're proposing?


Is that not espousing breaking the law to achieve some result you deem more worthy? Sounds like "the end justifies the means" there.

Wow, you understand less about activism than you do about the legal system. Do you know how civil disobedience works? Stopping traffic to protest a war is hardly Machiavellian.

[one-eyed fat man]

311. That it matters

yes, I did get the snippet from the WSJ archives, but as for saying I want to eliminate the right to sue, you need to go back and take your own advice, "Once again, reading is fundamental." and "This is the most frustrating thing about this forum: having to deal with dim-bulb posters who can't retain a single idea for more than two minutes."

What I said is that an unsuccessful plaintiff should bear the entire cost of the defendants successful defense. How does that equate to denying a citizen the right to sue? As it is now you sue and lose you are out the filing fee. You get sued and win, you are out the legal fees you incurred to defend yourself.

You still haven't weighed in on whether or not DELIBERATELY trying to bleed an opponent through sheer weight of the cost of litigation is an ethical practice. Or is the answer to that question dependent on your approval or disapproval of who is being sued?

She first achieved nationwide notoriety when a weapon registered in her name was linked to the murder of Judge Harold Haley......it's the same Berkley? In 1972, eighteen months after her capture, she was tried and acquitted of all charges; the mere fact that she owned one of the guns used in the crime was not sufficient to establish her responsibility for the plot. But you argue that the company that made Angela Davis' shotgun is complicit?

[jgraz]

318. So yes, you're arguing for a de facto elimination of the right to sue large corporations

The court costs canard is another corporate talking point. They know how much they are willing to spend on defense, so the threat of a million-dollar reverse judgment is enough to keep ordinary citizens out of court.

We already have ways to recover court costs. You countersue. Or, you get a law passed where a judge can award court costs + punitive damages if s/he decides the lawsuit is completely without merit. Corporations usually come out against such laws because it prevents them from filing frivolous lawsuits against each other and against ordinary citizens (see SLAPP suits).


What I'm expressly against is a mindless winner-take-all approach to civil suits. You should not be penalized simply for bringing a lawsuit and losing.

You still haven't weighed in on whether or not DELIBERATELY trying to bleed an opponent through sheer weight of the cost of litigation is an ethical practice. Or is the answer to that question dependent on your approval or disapproval of who is being sued?

As a general question, of course I'm against that tactic. But I'm also against using it as an excuse to rob citizens of civil liberties in order to preserve corporate profits. The gunmakers should be made to answer in court for their supply of the black market.

She first achieved nationwide notoriety when a weapon registered in her name was linked to the murder of Judge Harold Haley......it's the same Berkley? In 1972, eighteen months after her capture, she was tried and acquitted of all charges; the mere fact that she owned one of the guns used in the crime was not sufficient to establish her responsibility for the plot. But you argue that the company that made Angela Davis' shotgun is complicit?

And again I have to ask: what in hell are you talking about? (And, it's "Berkeley", not "Berkley" -- as in: the city in Northern California. It's on all the maps)

[one-eyed fat man]

321. so we are back to

"As a general question, of course I'm against that tactic. But I'm also against using it as an excuse to rob citizens of civil liberties in order to preserve corporate profits. The gun makers should be made to answer in court for their supply of the black market."

You only disavow despicable tactics when they are not arrayed against gun makers. In one New York case where the murder weapon was never recovered, a judge ruled that all manufacturer's were liable for damages based on their market share. Ironically, the alleged shooter was acquitted of murder charges.

The municipalities suing the gun makers believed that with annual sales of only $1.4 billion a year, the industry was so vulnerable to potential litigation costs that they did not actually have to win a lawsuit. The stated strategy was to bring enough suits to force the gun manufacturers accede to their demands or go out of business.

As for Angela Davis, you must be very young not recall that she was arrested and charged with being an accomplice to murder when a shotgun she owned was used, by people she knew, to blow the head off a kidnapped judge. She was acquitted because the jury apparently felt that mere ownership of the gun was insufficient to link her to the crime. Yet you seem perfectly willing, even eager, to draw a more tenuous link by proclaiming the gun industry complicit for all illegal uses of its product.

I bet you think O.J. is looking for the real killers too.

[one-eyed fat man]

277. "...they should pay the penalties just like any other plaintiff...

I will assume you are tired and it is late. I believe you meant "defendant" if found liable.

Plaintiff is the one BRINGING the suit, and the system might work a lot better if the Plaintiff did have to pay for a losing suit. Lawyers are hired guns, for every altruistic lawyer defending the little guy against corporate greed there are a dozen dispossessing widows from their homes for back taxes.

All it takes to bring a suit is some "boilerplate" and a filing fee. When you are sued you have to hire an attorney and respond. To ignore it simply because it is too stupid for words risks a court awarding a default judgment. Your neighbor sues you because your house on your lot blocks the sun to his solar panel. You may think that because you are on your lot and meet city codes that he has no squawk, especially if you were there first. But you are in California, where people have been sued, and kept from building homes because it would "spoil the view."

It makes one just about wish formalized dueling were still a legal way to resolve personal disputes. At least, you would either be eminently satisfied by the result, or not in a position to bitch. Of course it might allow those with no prowess with pistol or sword to be bullied by those who are proficient. It would certainly cause a lot of ambulance chasing shysters to be out of work.

When is the last time you have heard of a plaintiff in a lawsuit being required to pay a defendant for his successful defense, barring a counter-suit? As it is now, anyone with sufficient means can hire attorneys to overwhelm an opponent with the cost of litigation. A practice you have yet to disavow when employed against targets you don't like.

[jgraz]

294. Funny how every other industry seems to survive just fine without the protection

It sounds like you're advocating that no one be allowed to sue anyone ever. Is that your solution? Complete revocation of the constitutional right to due process in civil cases?

[one-eyed fat man]

322. The blade cuts both ways.

What I said was using the weight of the wallet to overwhelm an opponent in a lawsuit used to be considered unethical. Do I think that tort system is being abused by greedy plaintiffs and greedier lawyers, you're damn tootin' I do.

Do I think that by making a losing plaintiff pay the defendant's legal fees would deter frivolous lawsuits. Yep sure do.

Do I think someone who deliberately sells a defective product should be sued, yep.

Do I think you should get sued because your neighbor steals your lawn mower and uses it to run over the Mayor's cat? Nope, but I guess you'd have no problem with it if Sears and Craftsman were?

[Deadric Damodred]

287. I just find it interesting...

...that you seem to need to ask the question about whether people would turn in their fiearms. Let's put it another way, there are a lot of people out there that have put thousands of dollars into their collections. You know about the gun surge in sales, right? So what if some of those people have $50,000 invested in their gun collections? You are demanding they "take the hit" and just turn in their expensive property just to make you feel better? Would you give up $50,000 of your property just to make someone else "feel better"? If you honestly think people are going to say "here take my expensive property.....just take it", you are living in a fantasy land; many of them will make it over their dead bodies.

[Statistical]

285. Just was soon as you repeal the 2nd.

Of course that takes 2/3rd vote from both houses and 3/4ths of the states.

You get started on that first then we can worry if I will turn in my firearms.

[undeterred]

329. You're a very sick person.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

124. They all wanted to take away the rights of others.

Sound familiar?

[pipoman]

154. Best answer on this thread...EOM

[AtheistCrusader]

319. Hot damn, we have a winner.

:toast:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

156. They are all murderers.

[madeline_con]

173. They should have been locked in asylums. n/t

[TheWraith]

193. They're all good examples of why liberals should be armed. nt

[Callisto32]

260. They aren't Che Guevara?

Leftists and rightists both have a nasty history of violence.

[JonQ]

289. I notice you entirely left out the muslim shooter

Why is that?

[SteveM]

291. Doesn't fit the image of angry, white, racist (usually Southern) male. (nt)

[JonQ]

302. All serial killers, terrorists, bigots, and general low lifes

are white christian men.

That is, if you trim off and ignore all the ones that aren't.

[SteveM]

304. "Liberal, straight, white, racist male" is sometimes used by hyper-I.D. groups ...

to disparage anything/anyone who doesn't fit the mold of some kind of radical progressivism; usually, however, it is a bludgeon by any identity group who wants a turn at the trough. Used to hear that shit a lot from Austin's holier-than-thou leftists.

[Euromutt]

327. So, Renaissance Man, did you have an answer yourself?

I mean, strikes me you had to be driving at something other than the blindingly obvious answers, so what is it?

[NVJJC]

331. 23 AG's say NO to AWB - My Democratic AG is listed - is yours?

State Attorneys General

A Communication From the Chief Legal Officers
of the Following States:

Alabama * Arkansas * Colorado * Florida * Georgia
Idaho * Kansas * Kentucky * Louisiana * Michigan * Missouri
Montana * Nebraska * Nevada * New Hampshire
North Dakota * Oklahoma * South Carolina * South Dakota * Texas
Utah * Wisconsin * Wyoming

June 11, 2009

The Honorable Eric Holder
United States Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice

Via facsimile

Dear Attorney General Holder:

We the undersigned Attorneys General respectfully write to express our opposition to the
reinstatement of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994’s semi-automatic
firearms prohibition, which is commonly referred to as the assault weapons ban.

As the states’ top law enforcement officials, we share the Obama Administration’s commitment
to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We also share your deep
concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not believe that restricting law-
abiding Americans’ access to certain semi-automatic firearms will resolve any of these problems.
So, we were pleased by the President’s recent comments indicating his desire to enforce current
laws – rather than reinstate the ban on so-called assault weapons.

As you know, the 1994 ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ did not apply to machine guns or
other fully automatic firearms. Machine gun ownership was first regulated when the National
Firearms Act was passed in 1934. And more than twenty years ago, Congress took additional
steps to ban fully automatic weapons. Because fully automatic machine guns have already been
banned, we do not believe that further restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to certain semi-
automatic firearms serves any real law enforcement purpose.

Recent public statements by congressional leaders reflect that same view. On February 26, 2009,
The Hill newspaper quoted the Senate Majority Leader’s spokesman saying: “Sen. Reid would
oppose an effort reinstate the ban.” When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was recently asked
whether she supports reinstating the 1994 ban, the Speaker reportedly responded “No…I think
we need to enforce the laws we have right now.” We agree with the Speaker and the Majority
Leader.

The same sentiment has also been expressed to you by sixty-five (65) Congressional Democrats
in a letter dated March 17, 2009. In that letter, they astutely noted, “It is hard to believe the ban
would be…effective in controlling crime by well-funded international drug traffickers, who
regularly use grenade launchers, anti-tank rockets, and other weapons that are not available on
the civilian market in the United States.”

Under Title 18, Section 924 of the U.S. Code, knowingly transferring a firearm to an individual
who will use that firearm to commit a violent or drug-related crime is already a federal offense.
Similarly, it is also a felony to possess a firearm for the purpose of furthering drug trafficking.
At a recent Congressional hearing, Kumar Kibble, the Deputy Director of the Immigration and
Custom Enforcement’s Office of Investigations, testified that the Patriot Act included changes to
Title 18, Section 554 of the U.S. Code, which improved federal authorities’ ability to investigate
and prosecute illegal smuggling.

As Attorneys General, we are committed to defending our constituents’ constitutional rights –
including their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. This duty is particularly
important in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision, which held that
the Second Amendment “elevated above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible
citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” The high court’s landmark decision
affirmed that individual Americans have a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.
We, the undersigned Attorneys General, are staunch defenders of that right and believe that it
should not be encroached upon without sound justification – and a clear law enforcement
purpose.

We are pleased that the Administration appears to conform with the Congressional leadership’s
position on this very important issue. Importantly, the White House website no longer calls for
the reinstatement of the 1994 ban. In fact, it expressly acknowledges “the great conservation
legacy of America’s hunters.” We share that appreciation for hunters and are committed to
defending our Second Amendment rights—which is why we believe that additional gun control
laws are unnecessary. Instead, authorities need to enforce laws that are already in place.

As Attorneys General, we look forward to working with you and President Obama on common-
sense law enforcement solutions to transnational crime. We stand ready to cooperate and
collaborate on crime prevention and law enforcement initiatives that will protect our
constituents, crack down on transnational crime, and help reduce narcotics consumption in the
United States. But, for the reasons explained in this letter, we do not believe that reinstating the
1994 assault weapons ban will solve the problems currently facing the United States or Mexico.

Sincerely,

Dustin McDaniel
Attorney General of Arkansas

Greg Abbott
Attorney General of Texas

John W. Suthers
Attorney General of Colorado

Troy King
Attorney General of Alabama

Bill McCollum
Attorney General of Florida

Thurbert E. Baker
Attorney General of Georgia

Lawrence G. Wasden
Attorney General of Idaho

Steve Six
Attorney General of Kansas

Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky

James D. Caldwell
Attorney General of Louisiana

Mike Cox
Attorney General of Michigan

Chris Koster
Attorney General of Missouri

Steve Bullock
Attorney General of Montana

Jon Bruning
Attorney General of Nebraska

Catherine Cortez Masto
Attorney General of Nevada

Kelly A. Ayotte
Attorney General of New Hampshire

Wayne Stenehjem
Attorney General of North Dakota

W.A. Edmondson
Attorney General of Oklahoma

Henry McMaster
Attorney General of South Carolina

Lawrence Long
Attorney General of South Dakota

Mark L. Shurtleff
Attorney General of Utah

J.B. Van Hollen
Attorney General of Wisconsin

Bruce A. Salzburg
Attorney General of Wyoming

[X_Digger]

332. Yup, sure is! n/t