Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Hillary being a cunt on gun control

Recommended Posts

Guest

Is trying to start the BS attack on gun manufacturers up again.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/politics/hillary-clinton-ad-seconds-obama-on-guns-rebuking-bernie-sanders.html

 

How can you hold a manufacturer liable when someone misuses their perfectly functioning product? It would be like suing GMC if a drunk guy kills a busload of nuns with his Yukon. Or a better analogy is suing GMC if a deranged guy deliberately plowed into a crowd on the Vegas strip.

 

It pure political cuntery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

 

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

 

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

 

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

 

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

 

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

 

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

 

 

 

 

You're talking to an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

 

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

 

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

 

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

 

 

 

 

You're talking to an idiot.

 

 

Damn. I was talking to my self.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

 

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

 

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

 

If they can't be sued, then why is special protection needed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

 

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

 

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

 

If they can't be sued, then why is special protection needed?

 

The same reason Home Depot can't be sued for selling a fucking hammer. Hammers are not covered by the Constitution.

 

Maybe I'm naive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

 

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

 

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

 

If they can't be sued, then why is special protection needed?

 

The same reason Home Depot can't be sued for selling a fucking hammer. Hammers are not covered by the Constitution.

 

Maybe I'm naive?

 

No, I think you're just so obsessed with your point that you're not actually reading my question.

 

I agree that gun manufacturers shouldn't get sued on the basis you describe.

But it seems to me that Home Depot (or even car manufacturers, to choose an example associated with more fatalities) do not have a problem with getting sued in this manner.

So why does there need to be specific protection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought up the thread topic in a Sanders thread and added this:

 

 

I guess she's angling for that Obama endorsement.

 

...

Even as I continue to take every action possible as president, I will also take every action I can as a citizen. I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform.

 

...

 

today, the gun industry is almost entirely unaccountable. Thanks to the gun lobby’s decades of efforts, Congress has blocked our consumer products safety experts from being able to require that firearms have even the most basic safety measures. They’ve made it harder for the government’s public health experts to conduct research on gun violence. They’ve guaranteed that manufacturers enjoy virtual immunity from lawsuits, which means that they can sell lethal products and rarely face consequences. As parents, we wouldn’t put up with this if we were talking about faulty car seats. Why should we tolerate it for products — guns — that kill so many children each year?

 

 

The gun industry is allowed to sell guns that are (gasp!) lethal! It's the craziest thing ever. They should be restricted to selling non-lethal guns because that's the way we want our car seats, which serve pretty much the same purpose as a gun.

 

The party line logic seems lacking to me, but if that's the party line, Hillary will toe it.

 

Battlecheese, the answer to your question is that it's unreasonable to expect guns to be non-lethal, but we have had lawsuits targeting guns for (gasp) being lethal.

 

We shouldn't need a special law to say that guns are different from car seats, and not only in constitutional protection, but in what they are intended to do.

 

But we do. So we have one. And Bernie was right to vote for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Car manufacturers get sued when their cars malfunction. And Home Depot can only be sued if they or one their employees fuck somebody up. Or perhaps if one of their own branded products is sold knowing it was defective.

 

Guns do what they're supposed to do-----shoot a bullet. But where that bullet goes is not their fucking problem ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

 

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

 

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

 

If they can't be sued, then why is special protection needed?

 

The same reason Home Depot can't be sued for selling a fucking hammer. Hammers are not covered by the Constitution.

 

Maybe I'm naive?

 

I am sure the 2nd mentions bare arms...

 

 

Drop-the-Hammer.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought up the thread topic in a Sanders thread and added this:

 

 

I guess she's angling for that Obama endorsement.

 

...

Even as I continue to take every action possible as president, I will also take every action I can as a citizen. I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform.

 

...

 

today, the gun industry is almost entirely unaccountable. Thanks to the gun lobby’s decades of efforts, Congress has blocked our consumer products safety experts from being able to require that firearms have even the most basic safety measures. They’ve made it harder for the government’s public health experts to conduct research on gun violence. They’ve guaranteed that manufacturers enjoy virtual immunity from lawsuits, which means that they can sell lethal products and rarely face consequences. As parents, we wouldn’t put up with this if we were talking about faulty car seats. Why should we tolerate it for products — guns — that kill so many children each year?

The gun industry is allowed to sell guns that are (gasp!) lethal! It's the craziest thing ever. They should be restricted to selling non-lethal guns because that's the way we want our car seats, which serve pretty much the same purpose as a gun.

 

The party line logic seems lacking to me, but if that's the party line, Hillary will toe it.

 

Battlecheese, the answer to your question is that it's unreasonable to expect guns to be non-lethal, but we have had lawsuits targeting guns for (gasp) being lethal.

 

We shouldn't need a special law to say that guns are different from car seats, and not only in constitutional protection, but in what they are intended to do.

 

But we do. So we have one. And Bernie was right to vote for it.

 

Successful lawsuits? Do you have a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, I predicted the wimminfolk would kick your ass someday. It's goin' down, I think. Go HIllary.

 

As you know, I laughed at The Donald's recent gun pandering. It was just like the level of NGS, not even the level of the SA Gun Club and TTAG.

But when Hillary spoke, however, no rhetoric whatsoever, it hit the heart of the matter. She called for a repeal of PLCAA. I was in awe.

 

When Hillary called out the PLCAA, I knew she was well coached.

The raggety-ass SAF presentation is about to meet its match. Here's the guy who did her homework:

 

Corey Ciorciari, Hillary Clinton policy advisor

The platform outlined bold positions on guns:

--expanding background checks,

--eliminating the “default proceed” sales for incomplete background checks, and

--executive action to allow more prosecutions of unlicensed gun businesses.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/notable-people-gun-debate-2015/>

 

 

When this guy had her go after the PLCAA, maybe it's because profiteering on a public health menace is just plain wrong.

And because a huge social benefit occurs as lawsuits make consumer items visible (therefore somewhat socially culpable). Even when corporations win such lawsuits. Corporate changes occur as a result, regularly.

 

There is no reason for this consumer item, meaning guns, to have special protection. The day the PLCAA passed was huge, a red-letter day for the NRA.

 

 

 

 

By the way, Jeff, low time-to-crime numbers show a link between retail sales and gun crime.

There are patterns of crime guns being sold massively through known wholesale channels.

There have been industry rumors of tsk tsk acceptance of this pattern within the gun industry.

With the cunty PLCAA in play, why should they care?

 

 

 

aa%20LPCAA%20wayne-lapierre-quote-its-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

 

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

 

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

 

If they can't be sued, then why is special protection needed?

 

The same reason Home Depot can't be sued for selling a fucking hammer. Hammers are not covered by the Constitution.

 

Maybe I'm naive?

 

 

Do you mean "constitutionally protected" in any absolute sense of the term?

You are deluded, IMO. Seduced by the cheap power of the nearest gun, backed up by fabricated crap from the SAF and GOA.

I scoff at your sorry asses, RD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

 

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

 

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

 

If they can't be sued, then why is special protection needed?

 

The same reason Home Depot can't be sued for selling a fucking hammer. Hammers are not covered by the Constitution.

 

Maybe I'm naive?

 

I am sure the 2nd mentions bare arms...

 

 

Drop-the-Hammer.jpg

 

 

By the looks of it, I'm guessing a 14 pound sledge hammer with a fiberglass handle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

 

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

 

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

 

If they can't be sued, then why is special protection needed?

 

The same reason Home Depot can't be sued for selling a fucking hammer. Hammers are not covered by the Constitution.

 

Maybe I'm naive?

 

 

Do you mean "constitutionally protected" in any absolute sense of the term?

You are deluded, IMO. Seduced by the cheap power of the nearest gun, backed up by fabricated crap from the SAF and GOA.

I scoff at your sorry asses, RD.

 

 

Unlike you, I don't own a gun.

 

Perhaps I have more cred WRT a neutral position in this matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck...I just barfed. I was channel surfing and came to LifetimeHD and they were airing a Hillary Clinton interview. What a pile of shit this hag is.

 

Agreed. The only thing this bitch should run for is Brazil.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

 

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

 

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

If they can't be sued, then why is special protection needed?

 

The same reason Home Depot can't be sued for selling a fucking hammer. Hammers are not covered by the Constitution.

 

Maybe I'm naive?

I am sure the 2nd mentions bare arms...

 

 

Drop-the-Hammer.jpg

 

By the looks of it, I'm guessing a 14 pound sledge hammer with a fiberglass handle?

 

Sledge hammer? Where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

 

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

 

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

 

 

You're talking to an idiot.

Three posts into the thread and Nanny starts the content free posting combined with personal attacks.

Gotta wonder what his contribution is to these discussions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I brought up the thread topic in a Sanders thread and added this:

 

 

I guess she's angling for that Obama endorsement.

 

...

Even as I continue to take every action possible as president, I will also take every action I can as a citizen. I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform.

 

...

 

today, the gun industry is almost entirely unaccountable. Thanks to the gun lobby’s decades of efforts, Congress has blocked our consumer products safety experts from being able to require that firearms have even the most basic safety measures. They’ve made it harder for the government’s public health experts to conduct research on gun violence. They’ve guaranteed that manufacturers enjoy virtual immunity from lawsuits, which means that they can sell lethal products and rarely face consequences. As parents, we wouldn’t put up with this if we were talking about faulty car seats. Why should we tolerate it for products — guns — that kill so many children each year?

The gun industry is allowed to sell guns that are (gasp!) lethal! It's the craziest thing ever. They should be restricted to selling non-lethal guns because that's the way we want our car seats, which serve pretty much the same purpose as a gun.

 

The party line logic seems lacking to me, but if that's the party line, Hillary will toe it.

 

Battlecheese, the answer to your question is that it's unreasonable to expect guns to be non-lethal, but we have had lawsuits targeting guns for (gasp) being lethal.

 

We shouldn't need a special law to say that guns are different from car seats, and not only in constitutional protection, but in what they are intended to do.

 

But we do. So we have one. And Bernie was right to vote for it.

 

Successful lawsuits? Do you have a link?

 

 

Successful in the typical mission of gun control, making gun ownership more expensive and burdensome.

 

Previous discussion:

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165145&p=4928368

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why do gun manufacturers get special lawsuit protection? Why not just make the laws clear that such a liability does not exist _in general_?

 

The same way Home Depot can't be sued if someone buys a hammer and slams it into someone's forehead?

SCOTUS might hold Williams Sanoma responsible for a knife fight.

Sheeple cunts actually think that emotion trumps Constitutional rights.

 

Fascist dicks.

If they can't be sued, then why is special protection needed?

The same reason Home Depot can't be sued for selling a fucking hammer. Hammers are not covered by the Constitution.

Maybe I'm naive?

Aren't battle axes and maces considered arms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to guess, I would say that Hillary's team is feeling like the campaign is in real trouble. She is trotting out Chelsea in a pathetic attemtp to attract young voters away from Bernie, and has a half dead Bill out there stumping for her as well. I don't think either of those things is going to help. Neither will attacking Bernie on the two things she is focused on, guns and healthcare. Instead, she is starting to confirm to Dem voters she is a snake and not trustworthy. Nobody is buying that Bernie is a shill for the NRA, it is just flat out not believable. And most Dem voters WANT single payer universal coverage and understand that is actually what Bernie proposes, so the effort to attack him on healthcare is going to fail spectacularly as well. We could very well be witnessing Hillary meltdown 2.0. I may be in some delusional state right now, but for a moment I am going to imagine a Trump vs Bernie election, where even though Trump is a clown, both party machines have lost control of their electorate and people are electing who they want, not who they are told to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary is in trouble. And it has nothing to do with Benghazi.

All the polls indicate Bernie will destroy any GOP candidate in the general, and do so much better than Hillary. The MSM and the DNC have lost control of this. The people will not be controlled. Much like the MSM and the RNC have lost control of the GOP.

America faces a choice come November, follow Germany into fascism or Finland into socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary is in trouble. And it has nothing to do with Benghazi.

All the polls indicate Bernie will destroy any GOP candidate in the general, and do so much better than Hillary. The MSM and the DNC have lost control of this. The people will not be controlled. Much like the MSM and the RNC have lost control of the GOP.

America faces a choice come November, follow Germany into fascism or Finland into socialism.

 

Except that you already have both fascism and socialism..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem the easy universal solution is a "loser pays" system like 95% of the rest of the world has. Frivolous law suits, like the ones against gun manufacturers require a bond be posted roughly similar to the defense costs. Then the anti-gun folks can't use the legal system to impose unnecessary defense costs on manufacturers. Would solve a lot of problems in other areas as well. It would probably drive down medical costs by 20%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem the easy universal solution is a "loser pays" system like 95% of the rest of the world has. Frivolous law suits, like the ones against gun manufacturers require a bond be posted roughly similar to the defense costs. Then the anti-gun folks can't use the legal system to impose unnecessary defense costs on manufacturers. Would solve a lot of problems in other areas as well. It would probably drive down medical costs by 20%.

Loser pays just allows deep pockets to string out plaintiffs and bleed them dry. Do you really want giant corporations to have basic immunity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would seem the easy universal solution is a "loser pays" system like 95% of the rest of the world has. Frivolous law suits, like the ones against gun manufacturers require a bond be posted roughly similar to the defense costs. Then the anti-gun folks can't use the legal system to impose unnecessary defense costs on manufacturers. Would solve a lot of problems in other areas as well. It would probably drive down medical costs by 20%.

Loser pays just allows deep pockets to string out plaintiffs and bleed them dry. Do you really want giant corporations to have basic immunity?

 

The well trodden argument of the ambulance chaser.

 

It doesn't have to. Reasonable discovery rules can prevent this. Lots of state courts have discovery and pre-trial limits that are based on law suit value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It would seem the easy universal solution is a "loser pays" system like 95% of the rest of the world has. Frivolous law suits, like the ones against gun manufacturers require a bond be posted roughly similar to the defense costs. Then the anti-gun folks can't use the legal system to impose unnecessary defense costs on manufacturers. Would solve a lot of problems in other areas as well. It would probably drive down medical costs by 20%.

Loser pays just allows deep pockets to string out plaintiffs and bleed them dry. Do you really want giant corporations to have basic immunity?

 

The well trodden argument of the ambulance chaser.

 

It doesn't have to. Reasonable discovery rules can prevent this. Lots of state courts have discovery and pre-trial limits that are based on law suit value.

 

Its a basic right to seek justice before a jury of your peers. Well funded defendants can crush that right. Simply by threatening the pursuit of a lawsuit has the potential to destroy the plaintiff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hillary is in trouble. And it has nothing to do with Benghazi.

All the polls indicate Bernie will destroy any GOP candidate in the general, and do so much better than Hillary. The MSM and the DNC have lost control of this. The people will not be controlled. Much like the MSM and the RNC have lost control of the GOP.

America faces a choice come November, follow Germany into fascism or Finland into socialism.

 

Except that you already have both fascism and socialism..

 

I'd love to see those Polls.

General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Sanders 43, Cruz 44 Cruz +1 General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 45, Sanders 42 Rubio +3

 

I guess SE has a different definition of "Destroy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hillary is in trouble. And it has nothing to do with Benghazi.

All the polls indicate Bernie will destroy any GOP candidate in the general, and do so much better than Hillary. The MSM and the DNC have lost control of this. The people will not be controlled. Much like the MSM and the RNC have lost control of the GOP.

America faces a choice come November, follow Germany into fascism or Finland into socialism.

 

Except that you already have both fascism and socialism..

 

I'd love to see those Polls.

General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Sanders 43, Cruz 44 Cruz +1 General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 45, Sanders 42 Rubio +3

 

I guess SE has a different definition of "Destroy"

 

 

Yeah, I have not seen any polls which show Sanders destroying anyone, although I do think he is more competitive than Hillary against any of the Republican candidates. In a Trump vs Sanders matchup, I would still put my money on Sanders but I am not giving odds on it, even money I think Sanders is the better bet. But destroy? Nah, I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I brought up the thread topic in a Sanders thread and added this:

 

 

I guess she's angling for that Obama endorsement.

 

...

Even as I continue to take every action possible as president, I will also take every action I can as a citizen. I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform.

 

...

 

today, the gun industry is almost entirely unaccountable. Thanks to the gun lobby’s decades of efforts, Congress has blocked our consumer products safety experts from being able to require that firearms have even the most basic safety measures. They’ve made it harder for the government’s public health experts to conduct research on gun violence. They’ve guaranteed that manufacturers enjoy virtual immunity from lawsuits, which means that they can sell lethal products and rarely face consequences. As parents, we wouldn’t put up with this if we were talking about faulty car seats. Why should we tolerate it for products — guns — that kill so many children each year?

The gun industry is allowed to sell guns that are (gasp!) lethal! It's the craziest thing ever. They should be restricted to selling non-lethal guns because that's the way we want our car seats, which serve pretty much the same purpose as a gun.

 

The party line logic seems lacking to me, but if that's the party line, Hillary will toe it.

 

Battlecheese, the answer to your question is that it's unreasonable to expect guns to be non-lethal, but we have had lawsuits targeting guns for (gasp) being lethal.

 

We shouldn't need a special law to say that guns are different from car seats, and not only in constitutional protection, but in what they are intended to do.

 

But we do. So we have one. And Bernie was right to vote for it.

 

Successful lawsuits? Do you have a link?

 

Successful in the typical mission of gun control, making gun ownership more expensive and burdensome.

 

Previous discussion:

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165145&p=4928368

 

Thanks. A long, but interesting read. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1101052.html

 

I think everyone would agree that the correct target was the father, but obviously he had no money so they went after the police and manufacturer.

 

The sheriff: He got hard done by - they've obviously gone to some trouble to try and avoid precisely this liability. Clearly the court wants them to physically inspect the cops' homes to verify that gun guidelines are being followed. It seems to me he would have been ok if it was a felony to leave your gun unsecured and accessible to children.

 

Beretta: The big one which tripped them up was this odd model they made for police etc with no magazine disconnect safety. They obviously just gave it a standard instruction book however, which made no mention of the absent magazine disconnect safety, thereby tossing all their defence about "read the instructions" warnings.

Once again, the absence of any crime committed is the problem here.

 

To be honest, looking at this case I am not seeing any reason why gun manufacturers should get different treatment to hammer manufacturers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing "odd" about a semiauto handgun that lacks a magazine disconnect safety. I've never seen one and have seen quite a few semiauto handguns. That's why the majority of people expect that such a gun will fire even without the magazine. Most do.

 

What's odd is a handgun with one. They were invented a long time ago and have been rejected by the market overwhelmingly ever since.

 

An instruction book that doesn't mention an odd feature that most guns lack is not a problem to me. I don't expect irrelevancies in instruction books.

 

Hammer manufacturers have not been subjected to what the court in that opinion twice called "novel" theories in law. The novelty: manufacturers responsible for misuse of products.

 

Other novelties: a gun that is like most others and is what consumers (both government and civilian) want is dangerous and defective. It's not.

 

And, as I said in the other thread, the idea that a gun becomes a toy when you think it is unloaded. Dangerous nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The flaw in your argument is the settlement that Beretta made. But I agree with you. The case summary is a good read I suggest you try to read when you have time. It is too long to post here. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1101052.html

 

 

I don't see how the settlement is a flaw in my argument, nor even really relevant. Settling can be a good business decision regardless of who is right or wrong. That's the nature of frivolous lawsuits.

 

 

You seem to have been convinced that "the lack of a safety feature that is practically non-existent in the market is not a defect." That's a pretty convincing statement, but remains a flaw because the company ceded to the settlement. if it was that convincing an argument they would have prevailed. No one spends millions of dollars unnecessarily.

 

 

If it will cost tens of millions to win, but only a few million to settle, a business "wins" by settling. I think you know this and won't argue it further.

 

As for the opinion of the court that you posted, it has some pretty astonishing things in it.

 

Plaintiffs next argue that the trial court erred in failing to find the handgun unreasonably dangerous under their strict product liability claim.   Plaintiffs dispute Beretta's claim that the sole function of the handgun is to fire a projectile with each pull of the trigger.   Plaintiffs argue that the function of the gun changed when Billy removed the magazine because he believed it to be unloaded, as if the safety were engaged, and, essentially, it became a toy gun.

 

Geezus!

 

Beretta first argues that the ordinary consumer of the handgun is not, as plaintiffs assert, a 13-year-old child, but an adult who can better understand the dangers and consequences of handling a firearm.

 

So they think a gun is a toy and the ordinary market is children? No wonder they have so many other fucked up conclusions.

 

When David started with the sheriff's office, his service revolver was a Smith & Wesson .38 Special.   Eventually, he became certified in automatic weaponry and the handgun became his service handgun. ... However, David was not aware that the handgun would fire a bullet with the magazine removed.

 

WTF? How do you get a certification in semi-auto's and not know?

 

...Teret prepared a report on the shooting and testified that he concluded that the absence of a magazine disconnect safety caused the shooting in this case.   Teret included data in his report from a survey designed by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, performed by the National Opinion Research Center and reported in the Journal of Public Health Policy.   The survey asked respondents whether they thought that a pistol can still be shot when its magazine is removed.   Of the 1,200 respondents:  65% answered the pistol could still be fired;  20.3% answered the pistol could not be fired;  14.5% did not know;  and .2% refused to answer.

 

I'm stunned that only 2/3 of respondents knew this, but that's still a majority. Kind of undercuts the argument that no one would expect this from a gun. 2/3 of people do expect it.

 

Plaintiffs argue that this evidence demonstrates that it is reasonable an intended user would expect that the removal of the magazine would render the handgun harmless.

 

I guess if you believe that adolescents are the intended market for handguns you might also believe that the expectations of 2/3 of people don't establish a standard of reasonable expectations.

 

...plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in:  failing to find that the handgun was unreasonably dangerous from failure to include a magazine disconnect

...

Experts for all parties agreed that most police officers specifically refuse to utilize a magazine disconnect safety for fear of not being able to utilize their firearm when needed the most.

 

So the vast majority of police prefer defective and dangerous guns. The flaw in their argument? Beretta settled! :rolleyes:

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same reason Home Depot can't be sued for selling a fucking hammer. Hammers are not covered by the Constitution.

Maybe I'm naive?

 

 

(...)

 

 

Unlike you, I don't own a gun.

 

Perhaps I have more cred WRT a neutral position in this matter?

 

 

Correction noted. Care to add your view of the SAF philosophy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing "odd" about a semiauto handgun that lacks a magazine disconnect safety. I've never seen one and have seen quite a few semiauto handguns. That's why the majority of people expect that such a gun will fire even without the magazine. Most do.

35% of people were confused. The plaintiff's expert witness provided a list of 300 models of gun which had such a feature.

What's odd is a handgun with one. They were invented a long time ago and have been rejected by the market overwhelmingly ever since.

 

An instruction book that doesn't mention an odd feature that most guns lack is not a problem to me. I don't expect irrelevancies in instruction books.

Given more than a third of the population is confused about the issue, I think if you sit back and think about it you will understand why this legal argument worked for them.

Hammer manufacturers have not been subjected to what the court in that opinion twice called "novel" theories in law. The novelty: manufacturers responsible for misuse of products.

 

Other novelties: a gun that is like most others and is what consumers (both government and civilian) want is dangerous and defective. It's not.

 

And, as I said in the other thread, the idea that a gun becomes a toy when you think it is unloaded. Dangerous nonsense.

That is why the court tossed that particular argument out.

They found that Beretta had "a duty to warn". That's all.

 

As I said before, the crux of the case, and the point where it has all come unstuck for the sheriff and beretta is the fact that no crime was committed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Involuntary manslaughter by a child is not treated as a crime, but Billy's action was still reckless.

Proving a product is defective involves

...introducing evidence that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.’ 


I don't think recklessness is reasonably foreseeable nor that manufacturers should be responsible for reckless behavior.

I think it's reasonable for manufacturers to respond to market demand. 300 models since 1910 is not a lot of models. Here's why:

Beretta argues that under the risk-utility test, the product still could not be found unreasonably dangerous.   While not per se rules, the open and obvious danger of firearms and the intended user, military and police personnel, are both important factors in the calculus under Calles.   Experts for all parties agreed that most police officers specifically refuse to utilize a magazine disconnect safety for fear of not being able to utilize their firearm when needed the most.   Beretta argues that the testimony of several experts indicated that plaintiffs' proposed magazine disconnect safety would undermine the utility of the handgun as a law enforcement weapon.   Beretta highlights witness testimony that over 20 years of requests for firearms from law enforcement agencies have overwhelmingly included specific requests that a magazine disconnect not be incorporated.


As I said in the quote above, I'm amazed that only 65% of people know how most guns behave.

Plaintiffs again assert that it was reasonable for Billy to believe that the handgun was unloaded and inoperable when he removed the magazine.   Plaintiffs assert that an ordinary person would believe the same and that Beretta had a duty to warn based on the level of awareness of an ordinary person.

 

 

Even accepting the ridiculous idea that the ignorance of 1/3 of the people about how most guns behave, and not the 2/3 who know how they behave, is a "reasonable person" standard, I think a much greater majority of reasonable people would agree that you never, EVER point a gun at someone and pull the trigger unless you want to injure or kill that person. Pointing a gun at your friend and pulling the trigger for the fun of it is reckless. If you're an adult, it's criminal. If you're a kid, we don't treat it that way, but it still seems unreasonable to me to require manufacturers to go against what the market overwhelmingly demands and design guns to be safe even if handled in a reckless manner.

 

You can't design guns to be safe if handled in a reckless manner. Requiring that means simply that you can't design a gun.

 

That's why Bernie Sanders was right to vote for the PLCAA and why Hillary is wrong to oppose it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Involuntary manslaughter by a child is not treated as a crime, but Billy's action was still reckless.

Of course it is not a crime. The (shoulda been) crime was the dad leaving his gun lying around.

Proving a product is defective involves

...introducing evidence that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.’ 

I don't think recklessness is reasonably foreseeable nor that manufacturers should be responsible for reckless behavior.

 

Haven't you spent any time at all on youtube? recklessness with guns should be assumed!

 

More seriously, when they were discussing this issue in the case they were mostly trying to pin the sheriff. They succeeded, because a child finding an unsecured weapon at home is a foreseeable event. The court felt that the sheriff did not do enough to ensure that his employees stored their weapons safely.

I think it's reasonable for manufacturers to respond to market demand. 300 models since 1910 is not a lot of models. Here's why:

 

>> Beretta argues that under the risk-utility test, the product still could not be found unreasonably dangerous.   While not per se rules, the open and obvious danger of firearms and the intended user, military and police personnel, are both important factors in the calculus under Calles.   Experts for all parties agreed that most police officers specifically refuse to utilize a magazine disconnect safety for fear of not being able to utilize their firearm when needed the most.   Beretta argues that the testimony of several experts indicated that plaintiffs' proposed magazine disconnect safety would undermine the utility of the handgun as a law enforcement weapon.   Beretta highlights witness testimony that over 20 years of requests for firearms from law enforcement agencies have overwhelmingly included specific requests that a magazine disconnect not be incorporated.

Why are you quoting this? if you had quoted the next sentence you would have included the bit where the court agreed with them.

As I said in the quote above, I'm amazed that only 65% of people know how most guns behave.

 

>> Plaintiffs again assert that it was reasonable for Billy to believe that the handgun was unloaded and inoperable when he removed the magazine.   Plaintiffs assert that an ordinary person would believe the same and that Beretta had a duty to warn based on the level of awareness of an ordinary person.

 

Even accepting the ridiculous idea that the ignorance of 1/3 of the people about how most guns behave, and not the 2/3 who know how they behave, is a "reasonable person" standard, I think a much greater majority of reasonable people would agree that you never, EVER point a gun at someone and pull the trigger unless you want to injure or kill that person. Pointing a gun at your friend and pulling the trigger for the fun of it is reckless. If you're an adult, it's criminal. If you're a kid, we don't treat it that way, but it still seems unreasonable to me to require manufacturers to go against what the market overwhelmingly demands and design guns to be safe even if handled in a reckless manner.

 

You can't design guns to be safe if handled in a reckless manner. Requiring that means simply that you can't design a gun.

That's not what they said.

They said these important safety differences should be in the manual. Beretta failed to fulfill it's "duty to warn".

 

Have you actually sat down and read the link yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should a manual talk about unusual features that are not included, nor wanted or expected, by most people?

 

Should each manual have the full history of all the weird firearms ever produced?

 

When I buy a product, I expect a manual that covers the product, not the entire history of the industry and products others have produced and sold over time.

 

Has any hammer manufacturer ever been sued for reckless misuse of a hammer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if we could get to a point where folks are responsible for their own fuckups and not looking to blame their own failings on everything and everyone around them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should a manual talk about unusual features that are not included, nor wanted or expected, by most people?

Because of a court case they settled years ago, in which they promised that every gun produced after the start of 2001 would either have this feature, or a warning that it was not present.

Has any hammer manufacturer ever been sued for reckless misuse of a hammer?

Noone's been sued (successfully) for that here either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if we could get to a point where folks are responsible for their own fuckups and not looking to blame their own failings on everything and everyone around them.

It would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should a manual talk about unusual features that are not included, nor wanted or expected, by most people?

 

Because one feature is extremely dangerous to the American public?

Because it caused problems, landing the manufacturer in court?

 

See how product safety improves when the judicial system airs out a problem?

This gun detail shows how the PLCAA and the Tiahrt amendments flaunt the danger of guns in the USA, by preventing judicial oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The facts of public safety speak against the gun power of Cuntfinder The Great.

Such facts are disclosed during the discovery process of adjudication. Sometimes.

 

I think the SAFand NRA are cheap cunts, each playing the coquette.

The Cuntfinder has been seduced, consensually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The facts of public safety speak against the gun power of Cuntfinder The Great.

Such facts are disclosed during the discovery process of adjudication. Sometimes.

I think the SAFand NRA are cheap cunts, each playing the coquette.

The Cuntfinder has been seduced, consensually.

 

And the fact that you favor criminal scum-balls over law abiding gun owners makes you a complete and total fucking traitorous vagina. Go fuck yourself you pathetic cunt.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why should a manual talk about unusual features that are not included, nor wanted or expected, by most people?

Because of a court case they settled years ago, in which they promised that every gun produced after the start of 2001 would either have this feature, or a warning that it was not present.

Has any hammer manufacturer ever been sued for reckless misuse of a hammer?

Noone's been sued (successfully) for that here either.

 

 

A label isn't a manual and a warning that reads "this gun is like almost all others" seems superfluous to me.

 

Do you think pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is reckless misuse (assuming you don't want to injure or kill the person)? That's what happened to start the case we are discussing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The facts of public safety speak against the gun power of Cuntfinder The Great.

Such facts are disclosed during the discovery process of adjudication. Sometimes.

 

I think the SAFand NRA are cheap cunts, each playing the coquette.

The Cuntfinder has been seduced, consensually.

 

How do you suppose the NRA/SAF/EvilBoogeymen managed to bribe Bernie Sanders to support this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The facts of public safety speak against the gun power of Cuntfinder The Great.

Such facts are disclosed during the discovery process of adjudication. Sometimes.

 

I think the SAFand NRA are cheap cunts, each playing the coquette.

The Cuntfinder has been seduced, consensually.

 

How do you suppose the NRA/SAF/EvilBoogeymen managed to bribe Bernie Sanders to support this one?

 

 

The idea that Bernie can be bought by the NRA but Hillary is the one with principles she will not violate is friggin' hilarious to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why should a manual talk about unusual features that are not included, nor wanted or expected, by most people?

Because of a court case they settled years ago, in which they promised that every gun produced after the start of 2001 would either have this feature, or a warning that it was not present.

Has any hammer manufacturer ever been sued for reckless misuse of a hammer?

Noone's been sued (successfully) for that here either.

 

A label isn't a manual and a warning that reads "this gun is like almost all others" seems superfluous to me.

 

It is not that hard to mention an issue which 35% of the population is wrong about in the manual. Especially given that in previous legal proceedings they have agreed that such a mention should be made.

 

The court mentioned an example which they seemed happy with - a rolled-in warning to read the manual.

They could have avoided this by acting as they agreed to in the case they lost over 15 years ago.

Do you think pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is reckless misuse (assuming you don't want to injure or kill the person)? That's what happened to start the case we are discussing.

Of course. Kids do all sorts of reckless shit, that's why the law should pile down on people who leave their guns lying around. I don't know how the dad managed to get off in this instance - do you know the details?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The facts of public safety speak against the gun power of Cuntfinder The Great.

Such facts are disclosed during the discovery process of adjudication. Sometimes.

 

I think the SAFand NRA are cheap cunts, each playing the coquette.

The Cuntfinder has been seduced, consensually.

 

The safety of the public and republic are best served with an armed citizenry. Go fuck yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is not that hard to mention an issue which 35% of the population is wrong about in the manual. Especially given that in previous legal proceedings they have agreed that such a mention should be made.

 

The court mentioned an example which they seemed happy with - a rolled-in warning to read the manual.

They could have avoided this by acting as they agreed to in the case they lost over 15 years ago.

Do you think pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is reckless misuse (assuming you don't want to injure or kill the person)? That's what happened to start the case we are discussing.

Of course. Kids do all sorts of reckless shit, that's why the law should pile down on people who leave their guns lying around. I don't know how the dad managed to get off in this instance - do you know the details?

 

 

I guess we'll just disagree about whether warning people that most guns are like most guns is necessary. I don't think a warning in a manual would have changed the outcome in this case. The kid was killed because of reckless and unintended use of the gun, not because of a lack of a warning that it acts like a normal gun.

 

I have little good to say about the dad. He didn't train the kid in gun safety, which to me is worse than failing to secure the gun. As the article noted, kids manage to get to secured guns if all they have to do is find a key.

 

Even worse, it's probably just as well the father didn't train the kid because you want a trainer who knows how most guns behave. He didn't know how his own gun would behave. That made him dangerous, not the gun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we'll just disagree about whether warning people that most guns are like most guns is necessary. I don't think a warning in a manual would have changed the outcome in this case. The kid was killed because of reckless and unintended use of the gun, not because of a lack of a warning that it acts like a normal gun.

I totally agree it would not have impacted the incident.

It would have enabled Beretta to avoid the liability though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess we'll just disagree about whether warning people that most guns are like most guns is necessary. I don't think a warning in a manual would have changed the outcome in this case. The kid was killed because of reckless and unintended use of the gun, not because of a lack of a warning that it acts like a normal gun.

I totally agree it would not have impacted the incident.

It would have enabled Beretta to avoid the liability though.

 

 

So would common sense. You know, like we apply to hammers. A product is not defective or dangerous if reckless misuse causes problems. Reckless misuse is what's dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I guess we'll just disagree about whether warning people that most guns are like most guns is necessary. I don't think a warning in a manual would have changed the outcome in this case. The kid was killed because of reckless and unintended use of the gun, not because of a lack of a warning that it acts like a normal gun.

I totally agree it would not have impacted the incident.

It would have enabled Beretta to avoid the liability though.

 

So would common sense. You know, like we apply to hammers. A product is not defective or dangerous if reckless misuse causes problems. Reckless misuse is what's dangerous.

 

I looked at my 10-yo hammer today. There's a sticker near the head which is still slightly legible warning of the very narrow range of things I'm permitted to hit with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I guess we'll just disagree about whether warning people that most guns are like most guns is necessary. I don't think a warning in a manual would have changed the outcome in this case. The kid was killed because of reckless and unintended use of the gun, not because of a lack of a warning that it acts like a normal gun.

I totally agree it would not have impacted the incident.

It would have enabled Beretta to avoid the liability though.

 

 

So would common sense. You know, like we apply to hammers. A product is not defective or dangerous if reckless misuse causes problems. Reckless misuse is what's dangerous.

 

 

Ladders

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I guess we'll just disagree about whether warning people that most guns are like most guns is necessary. I don't think a warning in a manual would have changed the outcome in this case. The kid was killed because of reckless and unintended use of the gun, not because of a lack of a warning that it acts like a normal gun.

I totally agree it would not have impacted the incident.

It would have enabled Beretta to avoid the liability though.

 

So would common sense. You know, like we apply to hammers. A product is not defective or dangerous if reckless misuse causes problems. Reckless misuse is what's dangerous.

 

I looked at my 10-yo hammer today. There's a sticker near the head which is still slightly legible warning of the very narrow range of things I'm permitted to hit with it.

 

 

This reminds me of a Simpsons episode in which Homer saw a similar warning and said, "See? Because of me, they have a warning now!"

 

If you do something reckless that was never intended by the hammer manufacturer, does that mean the hammer is dangerous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

So, back to Hillary. As soon as she is sworn in, one of the "Conservative" SCOTUS members will have an "Accident", Clinton style.

 

Hillary has publically stated "Confiscation is a possibility", which is code for "Find them, then confiscate them", just like Australia.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The facts of public safety speak against the gun power of Cuntfinder The Great.

Such facts are disclosed during the discovery process of adjudication. Sometimes.

 

I think the SAFand NRA are cheap cunts, each playing the coquette.

The Cuntfinder has been seduced, consensually.

 

How do you suppose the NRA/SAF/EvilBoogeymen managed to bribe Bernie Sanders to support this one?

 

 

The idea that Bernie can be bought by the NRA but Hillary is the one with principles she will not violate is friggin' hilarious to me.

 

 

That is pretty funny, in a tragic sort of way. Should probably be cross posted in the we are doomed thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The facts of public safety speak against the gun power of Cuntfinder The Great.

Such facts are disclosed during the discovery process of adjudication. Sometimes.

 

I think the SAFand NRA are cheap cunts, each playing the coquette.

The Cuntfinder has been seduced, consensually.

 

The safety of the public and republic are best served with an armed citizenry. Go fuck yourself.

 

I see. You and your gun buddies are protecting the republic, with your guns.

You feel you are more patriotic than those who approach the second amendment with skepticism.

You claim to fight crime with your guns, you claim that these guns have caused dramatic decreases in crime.

You claim to be a militia, but have not complied with what the real Publius laid out for militia structure.

 

I think you have self-esteem problems, and those guns are an effort to compensate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The facts of public safety speak against the gun power of Cuntfinder The Great.

Such facts are disclosed during the discovery process of adjudication. Sometimes.

 

I think the SAFand NRA are cheap cunts, each playing the coquette.

The Cuntfinder has been seduced, consensually.

 

The safety of the public and republic are best served with an armed citizenry. Go fuck yourself.

 

I see. You and your gun buddies are protecting the republic, with your guns.

You feel you are more patriotic than those who approach the second amendment with skepticism.

You claim to fight crime with your guns, you claim that these guns have caused dramatic decreases in crime.

You claim to be a militia, but have not complied with what the real Publius laid out for militia structure.

 

I think you have self-esteem problems, and those guns are an effort to compensate.

 

 

The reason for the 2A is to protect the public from people like you. It is a matter of public health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I guess we'll just disagree about whether warning people that most guns are like most guns is necessary. I don't think a warning in a manual would have changed the outcome in this case. The kid was killed because of reckless and unintended use of the gun, not because of a lack of a warning that it acts like a normal gun.

I totally agree it would not have impacted the incident.

It would have enabled Beretta to avoid the liability though.

 

So would common sense. You know, like we apply to hammers. A product is not defective or dangerous if reckless misuse causes problems. Reckless misuse is what's dangerous.

 

I looked at my 10-yo hammer today. There's a sticker near the head which is still slightly legible warning of the very narrow range of things I'm permitted to hit with it.

 

 

This reminds me of a Simpsons episode in which Homer saw a similar warning and said, "See? Because of me, they have a warning now!"

 

If you do something reckless that was never intended by the hammer manufacturer, does that mean the hammer is dangerous?

 

 

Geez you guys are lost in a trite world. That said, I guarantee you I own the most hammers.

 

 

Guns have lethal implications. And time-to-crime figure are implicating dealers, manufacturers, and vendors.

Given the carnage, meaning the daily death and injury toll, the NRA is recklessly close to RICO statute violations.

So is the neighborhood dealer with a checkered history,

 

Courts are where this stuff gets sorted out. Hillary is a hero for going after the PLCAA of 1985, and for going after Sanders for supporting it from Vermont.

 

Conflict with Sanders over gun control ius appropriate. Adjusting for population, Vermont was the #1 crime gun exporter in 2013, according to FBI figures. Crime guns recovered in NY and CT from Vermont increased 38% in 2012-'13. The states are largely prohibited from prosecuting, and are impeded from gathering the information pertinent to what is happening.

Hillary also needs to go after the Tiahrt amendments. They are blocking access to facts normally accessable via the Freedom of Information Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, back to Hillary. As soon as she is sworn in, one of the "Conservative" SCOTUS members will have an "Accident", Clinton style.

 

Hillary has publically stated "Confiscation is a possibility", which is code for "Find them, then confiscate them", just like Australia.

 

Paul T

 

You can't document such a plan. And Cuomo made the statement, about one overkill subset of firearms.

 

Things may play out like in Australia, but only due to necessity. But to my knowledge, there is no organized (or covert, for that matter) plan to "find guns, then confiscate them."

 

If there is such a plot, lay it out with quality sources. If there isn't. you are pandering fear.

 

Dabnis, having said that, listen up: if you are your friends are stupid enough, matters will tend to evolve in the direction that you fear (meaning an Aussie-like, big-time gun collection). Why? Because the freewheeling NRA gun mentality is spinning out of control, and yeah, now the natives are getting vocal: they are uneasy about guns.

 

You SAF-type gun supporters are becoming pariahs on society. What is your plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, back to Hillary. As soon as she is sworn in, one of the "Conservative" SCOTUS members will have an "Accident", Clinton style.

 

Hillary has publically stated "Confiscation is a possibility", which is code for "Find them, then confiscate them", just like Australia.

 

Paul T

 

 

You SAF-type gun supporters are becoming pariahs on society. What is your plan?

 

 

More guns. More ammo. Fewer terrorists, criminals and Jocals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I guess we'll just disagree about whether warning people that most guns are like most guns is necessary. I don't think a warning in a manual would have changed the outcome in this case. The kid was killed because of reckless and unintended use of the gun, not because of a lack of a warning that it acts like a normal gun.

I totally agree it would not have impacted the incident.

It would have enabled Beretta to avoid the liability though.

So would common sense. You know, like we apply to hammers. A product is not defective or dangerous if reckless misuse causes problems. Reckless misuse is what's dangerous.

I looked at my 10-yo hammer today. There's a sticker near the head which is still slightly legible warning of the very narrow range of things I'm permitted to hit with it.

This reminds me of a Simpsons episode in which Homer saw a similar warning and said, "See? Because of me, they have a warning now!"

 

If you do something reckless that was never intended by the hammer manufacturer, does that mean the hammer is dangerous?

It is not so easy to sue someone in most parts of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The facts of public safety speak against the gun power of Cuntfinder The Great.

Such facts are disclosed during the discovery process of adjudication. Sometimes.

 

I think the SAFand NRA are cheap cunts, each playing the coquette.

The Cuntfinder has been seduced, consensually.

 

The safety of the public and republic are best served with an armed citizenry. Go fuck yourself.

 

I see. You and your gun buddies are protecting the republic, with your guns.

You feel you are more patriotic than those who approach the second amendment with skepticism.

You claim to fight crime with your guns, you claim that these guns have caused dramatic decreases in crime.

You claim to be a militia, but have not complied with what the real Publius laid out for militia structure.

 

I think you have self-esteem problems, and those guns are an effort to compensate.

 

 

The reason for the 2A is to protect the public from people like you. It is a matter of public health.

 

Only if Jocal comes to your doorstep in a uniform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

So, back to Hillary. As soon as she is sworn in, one of the "Conservative" SCOTUS members will have an "Accident", Clinton style.

 

Hillary has publically stated "Confiscation is a possibility", which is code for "Find them, then confiscate them", just like Australia.

 

Paul T

 

You can't document such a plan. And Cuomo made the statement, about one overkill subset of firearms.

 

Things may play out like in Australia, but only due to necessity. But to my knowledge, there is no organized (or covert, for that matter) plan to "find guns, then confiscate them."

 

If there is such a plot, lay it out with quality sources. If there isn't. you are pandering fear.

 

Dabnis, having said that, listen up: if you are your friends are stupid enough, matters will tend to evolve in the direction that you fear (meaning an Aussie-like, big-time gun collection). Why? Because the freewheeling NRA gun mentality is spinning out of control, and yeah, now the natives are getting vocal: they are uneasy about guns.

 

You SAF-type gun supporters are becoming pariahs on society. What is your plan?

 

 

 

My plan:

 

1. Use a gun in a crime, get the death penalty

 

2. Prosecute the drunk driver, or the gun user criminal, not the car or gun

 

3. Focus on the violent criminal, regardless of the weapon he uses.

 

It appears many criminals are not too concerned about using a gun. We need to help them be more concerned, like item # 1

 

Hillary on gun control:

 

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, back to Hillary. As soon as she is sworn in, one of the "Conservative" SCOTUS members will have an "Accident", Clinton style.

 

Hillary has publically stated "Confiscation is a possibility", which is code for "Find them, then confiscate them", just like Australia.

 

Paul T

 

You can't document such a plan. And Cuomo made the statement, about one overkill subset of firearms.

 

Things may play out like in Australia, but only due to necessity. But to my knowledge, there is no organized (or covert, for that matter) plan to "find guns, then confiscate them."

 

If there is such a plot, lay it out with quality sources. If there isn't. you are pandering fear.

 

Dabnis, having said that, listen up: if you are your friends are stupid enough, matters will tend to evolve in the direction that you fear (meaning an Aussie-like, big-time gun collection). Why? Because the freewheeling NRA gun mentality is spinning out of control, and yeah, now the natives are getting vocal: they are uneasy about guns.

 

You SAF-type gun supporters are becoming pariahs on society. What is your plan?

 

 

 

My plan:

 

1. Use a gun in a crime, get the death penalty

 

2. Prosecute the drunk driver, or the gun user criminal, not the car or gun

 

3. Focus on the violent criminal, regardless of the weapon he uses.

 

It appears many criminals are not too concerned about using a gun. We need to help them be more concerned, like item # 1

 

Paul T

 

You heard it here first: Dabs wants the bozos in Oregon executed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

So, back to Hillary. As soon as she is sworn in, one of the "Conservative" SCOTUS members will have an "Accident", Clinton style.

 

Hillary has publically stated "Confiscation is a possibility", which is code for "Find them, then confiscate them", just like Australia.

 

Paul T

 

You can't document such a plan. And Cuomo made the statement, about one overkill subset of firearms.

 

Things may play out like in Australia, but only due to necessity. But to my knowledge, there is no organized (or covert, for that matter) plan to "find guns, then confiscate them."

 

If there is such a plot, lay it out with quality sources. If there isn't. you are pandering fear.

 

Dabnis, having said that, listen up: if you are your friends are stupid enough, matters will tend to evolve in the direction that you fear (meaning an Aussie-like, big-time gun collection). Why? Because the freewheeling NRA gun mentality is spinning out of control, and yeah, now the natives are getting vocal: they are uneasy about guns.

 

You SAF-type gun supporters are becoming pariahs on society. What is your plan?

 

 

 

My plan:

 

1. Use a gun in a crime, get the death penalty

 

2. Prosecute the drunk driver, or the gun user criminal, not the car or gun

 

3. Focus on the violent criminal, regardless of the weapon he uses.

 

It appears many criminals are not too concerned about using a gun. We need to help them be more concerned, like item # 1

 

Paul T

 

You heard it here first: Dabs wants the bozos in Oregon executed.

 

 

When they shoot & kill an innocent person, yes.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So, back to Hillary. As soon as she is sworn in, one of the "Conservative" SCOTUS members will have an "Accident", Clinton style.

 

Hillary has publically stated "Confiscation is a possibility", which is code for "Find them, then confiscate them", just like Australia.

 

Paul T

 

You can't document such a plan. And Cuomo made the statement, about one overkill subset of firearms.

 

Things may play out like in Australia, but only due to necessity. But to my knowledge, there is no organized (or covert, for that matter) plan to "find guns, then confiscate them."

 

If there is such a plot, lay it out with quality sources. If there isn't. you are pandering fear.

 

Dabnis, having said that, listen up: if you are your friends are stupid enough, matters will tend to evolve in the direction that you fear (meaning an Aussie-like, big-time gun collection). Why? Because the freewheeling NRA gun mentality is spinning out of control, and yeah, now the natives are getting vocal: they are uneasy about guns.

 

You SAF-type gun supporters are becoming pariahs on society. What is your plan?

 

 

 

My plan:

 

1. Use a gun in a crime, get the death penalty

 

2. Prosecute the drunk driver, or the gun user criminal, not the car or gun

 

3. Focus on the violent criminal, regardless of the weapon he uses.

 

It appears many criminals are not too concerned about using a gun. We need to help them be more concerned, like item # 1

 

Paul T

 

You heard it here first: Dabs wants the bozos in Oregon executed.

 

 

When they shoot & kill an innocent person, yes.

 

Paul T

 

What if they just wing the innocent person? Or just point the gun at them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You SAF-type gun supporters are becoming pariahs on society. What is your plan?

 

 

My plan:

 

1. Use a gun in a crime, get the death penalty

 

2. Prosecute the drunk driver, or the gun user criminal, not the car or gun

 

3. Focus on the violent criminal, regardless of the weapon he uses.

 

 

Paul T

 

 

Dabs, 85% of gun mishaps are NOT related to criminal activity, meaning secondary crimes setting off the conflict.

Most shootings are human situations, in everyday interactions.

 

A FEW OF THE REASONS WE SHOT EACH OTHER IN DEC. 2015

1.I was using video chat to demonstrate the proper way to clean a gun when I unintentionally shot myself on camera. (FL, 12/22)

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/miami-dade/sfl-man-shoots-himself-cleaning-gun-dies-20151222-story.html?utm_content=buffer5a67d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

2.I heard a noise so I grabbed my shotgun to investigate, but unintentionally discharged it into my five-month-old baby’s crib. (GA, 12/06)

http://www.newtoncitizen.com/news/local/month-old-accidentally-shot-in-arm/article_efbfe2a7-9450-55b4-b9a4-b3c867155011.html

3.I wanted my 14-year-old niece to give me her Jordans so I could sell them. She said no, so I shot her dead. (WA, 12/07)

http://q13fox.com/2015/12/07/search-continues-for-man-suspected-of-killing-columbia-city-teen/

4.My neighbor was watching a movie and the sound was bothering me so I knocked on his door and shot him when he answered. (MO, 12/12)

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/maryland-heights-man-charged-with-killing-neighbor-wore-bulletproof-vest/article_e01ee342-793f-5182-9fcd-6e26ef7af179.html?mobile_touch=true

5.My fiancé was holding my dog so I could euthanize it with my gun. The bullet went through the dog and into his wrist. (FL, 12/15)

http://www.rnrfonline.com/woman-tries-to-shoot-dog-shoots-husband-instead/

6.I was teaching my wife how to defend herself with a gun when I unintentionally shot her in the shoulder. (OK, 12/16)

http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/Off-duty-officer-accidently-shoots-wife-in-shoulder-362892281.html#.VnSTS3qcQRQ.twitter

7.A coworker made a joke about me so I shot him in the butt. (PA, 12/17)

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2015/12/police_angry_man_shot_co-worke.html

8.Dad and I were fighting and his gun fell on the floor. It went off when I picked it up and shot mom dead. (MI, 12/17)

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2015/12/17/police-detroit-mom-dies-accidentally-shot-son/77533656/

9.I was watching the Eagles game with my buddies and we got into an argument about football, so I shot three of them. (PA, 12/20)

http://6abc.com/news/1-dead-2-hurt-after-argument-during-eagles-game-in-west-oak-lane/1130370/

10.A man tried to rob my store, but I have a concealed carry license, so I pulled out my gun. I unintentionally shot a bystander, and one of my bullets hit a nearby house. The robber got away unharmed. (IL, 12/05)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bystander-wounded-during-shootout-between-robber-shop-owner-20151206-story.html

11.I met a woman who didn’t believe in God, so I shot her dead and made a shrine out of her body. (AZ, 12/24)

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-news/64863225-story

12.My boyfriend didn’t want to spend Christmas with my mom, so I shot him. (SC, 12/25)

http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/crime/article52047340.html

13.I got a new gun for Christmas and I was playing with it and unintentionally shot my two-year-old niece in the face. (OR, 12/25)

http://komonews.com/news/local/toddler-shot-in-the-cheek-by-family-member-cleaning-gun-12-25-2015

14.Another customer at McDonald’s yelled at me that my order was ready, so I shot him. (FL, 12/26)

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/ill-kill-you-right-now-florida-man-opens-fire-at-mcdonalds-restaurant-after-dispute-over-order-escalates/

15.I got into an argument at a family gathering, so I started blasting away in a blind rage. I shot two little kids playing with Christmas presents. (MI, 12/27)

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/64378106-story

16.My brother accused me of disrespecting our mom, so I threatened to shoot him. He handed me my gun and dared me to shoot him, so I did. Twice. (FL, 12/27)

http://m.news-journalonline.com/article/20151227/NEWS/151229653/0/COLUMNS

17.I grabbed my gun to go see what my dogs were barking at. I unintentionally shot myself in the leg, then lied to police and said a home invader shot me. (NY, 12/28)

http://13wham.com/news/top-stories/portage-woman-charged-with-lying-about-shooting

18.I heard somebody approaching my bed in the middle of the night, so I grabbed my gun and fired. It was my daughter. She’s dead now. (FL, 12/29)

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/homeowner-accidentally-shoots-kills-daughter-st-cloud-police-say

19.A car pulled into the parking lot of my apartment complex while the driver consulted the GPS. The headlights were right in my face, so I shot nine times at the car, hitting the six-year-old in the back seat. (TX, 12/29)

http://www.kens5.com/story/news/2015/12/29/breaking-6-year-old-shot-road-rage-incident/78056368/

20.My son’s girlfriend was using my washing machine, and we had a fight about it, so I shot her and another guy who was visiting and then my unarmed son wrestled my gun away and shot me with it. (CA, 12/31)

http://m.gazette.com/article/feed/304039?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_The_Gazette

21. A guy fell asleep at my New Year’s Eve party. I thought it would be funny to scare him and wake him up with my gun pointed at his face. But I unintentionally shot him in the head. (AZ, 12/31)

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/chandler/pd-chandler-intruder-story-made-up-man-arrested-for-murder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of those ^quotes^ above were proven to be complete fuking lies years ago. Why you continue to trot them out to make a point just shows all of us (once again) what a pathetic loser you truly are.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of those ^quotes^ above were proven to be complete fuking lies years ago. Why you continue to trot them out to make a point just shows all of us (once again) what a pathetic loser you truly are.....

Those links are for relatively current events, the last one is dated 1/1/2016. So how could they be proven lies years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lazy_and_ignorant _in_AZ

 

Follow each link. Folllow ANY link. Each occurrence was in December, 2015.

Paying attention? We've had eighteen to twenty different episodes per month since May (when LenP loudly pronounced I had fabricated them).

 

Parents Against Gun Violence has said they have trouble selecting only a few dozen dumbass incidents per month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of those ^quotes^ above were proven to be complete fuking lies years ago. Why you continue to trot them out to make a point just shows all of us (once again) what a pathetic loser you truly are.....

Those are current events. I started a thread here a couple of weeks ago with the one about a mother shooting her intruder daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try this yet one more time.....are you two fuck-sticks claiming that those 'quotes' be accurately acreditted to the shooter(s)? Verbatim?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, back to Hillary. As soon as she is sworn in, one of the "Conservative" SCOTUS members will have an "Accident", Clinton style.

 

Hillary has publically stated "Confiscation is a possibility", which is code for "Find them, then confiscate them", just like Australia.

 

Paul T

You can't document such a plan. And Cuomo made the statement, about one overkill subset of firearms.

 

Things may play out like in Australia, but only due to necessity. But to my knowledge, there is no organized (or covert, for that matter) plan to "find guns, then confiscate them."

 

If there is such a plot, lay it out with quality sources. If there isn't. you are pandering fear.

 

Dabnis, having said that, listen up: if you are your friends are stupid enough, matters will tend to evolve in the direction that you fear (meaning an Aussie-like, big-time gun collection). Why? Because the freewheeling NRA gun mentality is spinning out of control, and yeah, now the natives are getting vocal: they are uneasy about guns.

 

You SAF-type gun supporters are becoming pariahs on society. What is your plan?

 

 

My plan:

 

1. Use a gun in a crime, get the death penalty

 

2. Prosecute the drunk driver, or the gun user criminal, not the car or gun

 

3. Focus on the violent criminal, regardless of the weapon he uses.

 

It appears many criminals are not too concerned about using a gun. We need to help them be more concerned, like item # 1

 

Hillary on gun control:

 

 

Paul T

 

You guys eat so much bullshit it must be coming out your ears by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try this yet one more time.....are you two fuck-sticks claiming that those 'quotes' be accurately acreditted to the shooter(s)? Verbatim?....

I've told you for years to stop making up shit about us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try this yet one more time.....are you two fuck-sticks claiming that those 'quotes' be accurately acreditted to the shooter(s)? Verbatim?....

No, we're asserting that those are actual current events that went down just as described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rest my case.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites