Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

Hillary being a cunt on gun control

Recommended Posts

 

 

Will you admit that Adam Winkler is right?

 

Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, in an email to NPR. "The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product."

 

 

 

 

Where is the link to your cite?

 

 

When a block of text has already been quoted and cited in a thread, I'll sometimes quote it again but omit the second citation.

 

I think he's right about the problem he noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal to the Badgeless Fabricator: Where is the link to your cite of Adam WInkler?

 

When a block of text has already been quoted and cited in a thread, I'll sometimes quote it again but omit the second citation.

 

I think he's right about the problem he noted.

 

 

You cherry-picked the Winkler quote, thus juking, and mis-representing, a great article.

 

Adam Winkler despises the PLCAA, and this Tom Ray crap is not truthful

 

Publius Johnson Posted 22 January 2016 - 04:18 AM

Why should it be any different for gun manufacturers?” he (Senator Schiff) asked.

The answer to his question, of course, is that it's not different.

 

The article, taken as a whole, disagrees with Tom's dishonest representations of it.

The Long Answer:

Clinton is wrong that gun companies have zero liability for their goods, but they do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.

The special legal considerations for the gun industry is what that article is about.

 

Here, Tom's article dissects the extended Simple Jeff dodge succinctly:

 

Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

But the issues at hand are more complex, say some legal scholars.

"It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal in Australia you would not get a firearm license it would be declined because you are not a fit and proper person.

 

This Green politician is a anti gun nutter he was knocked back because he couldn't pass being a fit and proper person.

http://www.davidshoebridge.org.au/2013/02/07/mps-request-gets-shot-down-smh

 

The link you provide does not concern someone having their license application rejected, it concerns a high-profile politician having their membership of a gun club rejected by slightly less-high profile politicians. Who also arguably committed a criminal breach of the privacy legislation.

 

Are you actually that bad at reading?

Or are you trying to lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bc

Clubs can decide if someone is a fit and proper person to have a firearm license, if a club tells the police they are not fit and proper person they don't get a firearm license.

 

He tried to use hunting club as a genuine reason for firearm license and failed, this will always be on his record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bc

Clubs can decide if someone is a fit and proper person to have a firearm license, if a club tells the police they are not fit and proper person they don't get a firearm license.

 

He tried to use hunting club as a genuine reason for firearm license and failed, this will always be on his record.

I think you'll find that the police only go to ask the club when they have an application hit their desk.

It doesn't sound like an application was made - he just sent in an app to the club to stir up trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The firearms act 1996 specifically mentions a firearms license can only be given to a fit and proper person , the exact same words used here.

 

The clubs have a lot of power in rejecting people if they don't believe they should have a gun, pistol license holders have to pass a six month probationary period with their club before they can buy a pistol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you just stfu and answer Jeff and mine question....how do you think a firearm manufacturer could POSSIBLY be legally liable for a perfectly functioning gun ....that someone used to shoot somebody with?....

 

The question of whether the manufacturer/dealer of a truck deliberately used to kill pedestrians is liable is plain dumb. We don't know if it was advertised as useful to do so, we don't know if the dealer knowingly sold it to a person who had done this a lot, we don't know if the dealer knowingly fitted a bull bar for the customer to make that action more effective. I think it's ridiculous for me to type any of that just I think it is ridiculous for me to know the arguments.

 

A supreme court with better minds than anyone's here are best to judge what liabilities may be appropriate for gun manufacturers to wear.

 

Special protections for gun manufacturers under the law is a recipe for dysfunction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The firearms act 1996 specifically mentions a firearms license can only be given to a fit and proper person , the exact same words used here.

 

The clubs have a lot of power in rejecting people if they don't believe they should have a gun, pistol license holders have to pass a six month probationary period with their club before they can buy a pistol.

He will not get a firearm license life ban just because a bunch of yobs who personally dislike him don't let him into their club.

There are other clubs.

There are other justifications for being issued a license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bc

 

Shoebridge is on record for having license denied because he is not a fit and proper person, the firearms act says the commissioner of police has to be satisified he is a fit and proper person before issuing a firearms license.

 

The evidence from the hunting club or pistol clubs or target shooting clubs is taken very seriously by the police with license applications.

 

No other club will accept Shoebridge, the police will bring up the fact he has been judged as not a fit and proper person if he tries again for a license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bc

 

Shoebridge is on record for having license denied because he is not a fit and proper person, the firearms act says the commissioner of police has to be satisified he is a fit and proper person before issuing a firearms license.

 

The evidence from the hunting club or pistol clubs or target shooting clubs is taken very seriously by the police with license applications.

 

No other club will accept Shoebridge, the police will bring up the fact he has been judged as not a fit and proper person if he tries again for a license.

Because I am a sad loser with no life I have gone and looked up the actual legislation and regs. WA chosen because you declared them to be most strict.

 

Act: http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_339_homepage.html

Regs: http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1453_homepage.html

 

Secret back-channels between gun clubs and the police are not mentioned at all.

 

I'm sure there are situations where the police could make an application difficult because of unofficial friendships with those in gun clubs etc.

 

But your suggestion in this case is simply rubbish. The administration tribunal would take a giant shit on the police before the complaint even hit their desk based only on the public admissions (from your link) that the rejection was personal, and no rigorous vetting had occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your links are for the 1973 firearms act perhaps you should be looking at the 1996 firearms act.

 

If you are using a club membership as a genuine reason for firearms license are you saying the Police require no evidence you are a member of that club when issuing a license when club membership is required to prove genuine reason?

 

If a shooting club informs the police you are not a fit and proper person then surely the police would be negligent in issuing a firearm licenses when the firearms act says the police commissioner has to be satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person before issuing a license.

 

I find those who praise our gun laws are actually ignorant about them

 

Gun laws shit over all other rights in Australia, with a firearm prohibition order the Police don't need a warrant to search you home or car for firearms, section 79 of the 1996 firearms act allows doctors/nurses to break doctor patient confidentiality without civil or legal liability when related to firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Leyonhjelm is a lawyer ,a vet who owns a farm and has a masters in business administration, he has probably forgotten more about the law than what some internet experts claim to know.

 

He also belives those who have been subject to an AVO should never be allowed to have a firearm license, Labor-Liberals and the Greens say an AVO is only worth 5 years disqualification from having a firearms license.

I agree with leyonhjelm, if you're stupid enough for someone to take out an AVO against you then you should never have a firearms license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your links are for the 1973 firearms act perhaps you should be looking at the 1996 firearms act.

If you look at the history you will note that there was a big update to it in 1996...

If you are using a club membership as a genuine reason for firearms license are you saying the Police require no evidence you are a member of that club when issuing a license when club membership is required to prove genuine reason?

One of the possible supporting documents you are expected to supply with your license application is a letter of support from your gun club.

Obviously these guys are not going to give him a reference, but there is no other official way for their dislike of him to be known to the cops.

 

In principle he can go to another club, have an earnest discussion with the leadership and convince them of his sincere desire to take up target shooting to better understand the issues he wishes to debate. Then he could take a letter from them.

 

Probably the simplest solution would be to simply buy a farm in a region with some pests: http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/231958/NRM_Animal_pests_broch_29042013.pdf

If a shooting club informs the police you are not a fit and proper person then surely the police would be negligent in issuing a firearm licenses when the firearms act says the police commissioner has to be satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person before issuing a license.

 

I find those who praise our gun laws are actually ignorant about them

It appears those who criticise them aren't a real lot better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He cannot go to another club and try again he is already on record as not being a fit and proper person with NSW police, the police commissioner has to be satisfied he is a fit and proper person before issuing a firearms license, it would be negligent of the police to issue him a license in violation of the 1996 firearms act.

Club membership was brought in as a requirement in 1996, do you think clubs allow any fuckwit to be a member considering all law abiding firearm owners are vilified for the actions of criminals in Australia.

 

Farmers still have to pass the fit and proper person part of the firearms act before the police commissioner will issue a license, buying a farm cannot help him.

 

The clubs are the first line in weeding out the fuckwits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The firearms license application form asks if you have ever been refused or prohibited or had a license suspended, revoked or cancelled, it also points out it is a serious offence to make a statement you know is false and misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He cannot go to another club and try again he is already on record as not being a fit and proper person with NSW police, the police commissioner has to be satisfied he is a fit and proper person before issuing a firearms license, it would be negligent of the police to issue him a license in violation of the 1996 firearms act.

I think you guys are getting a bit too excited circle-jerking around in your gun forums.

 

Let's look at what NSW specifically says: http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/133133/Firearms_Users_Guide.pdf

Is there anything that may prevent me from getting a licence?

You will be prevented from getting a licence if, in the past ten years, you have

committed a:

■ Firearms offence (or you are subject to a firearms prohibition order);

■ A prohibited drugs or a prescribed restricted substances offence;

■ An offence involving violence;

■ Offences of a sexual nature;

■ Terrorist offences;

■ You are the subject of an Apprehended Violence Order; or

■ You are the subject of a Good Behaviour Bond.

Additionally, you will be refused a licence if it is considered that you are not a fit

and proper person and cannot be trusted to have possession of a firearm

without harm to public safety or peace. Discretionary grounds for refusal are

also contained with in the Act.

And regarding the Fit and Proper person test see section 29 (page 36): http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforcepdf/1996-46.pdf?id=d772cd06-2110-e8a0-e62c-c0a8f671be2b

29 General restrictions on issuing permits (cf APMC 4 (a), 1990 Reg cl 16)

(1) A permit must not be issued unless the Commissioner is satisfied that

the applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have

possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a permit must not be

issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the

applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible

control over firearms because of:

(a) the applicant’s way of living or domestic circumstances, or

( B) any previous attempt by the applicant to commit suicide or cause

a self-inflicted injury, or

© the applicant’s intemperate habits or being of unsound mind.

(3) Subject to this Division, a permit must not be issued to a person who:

(a) is under the age of 18, or

( B) has, within the period of 10 years before the application for the

permit was made, been convicted in New South Wales or

elsewhere of an offence prescribed by the regulations, whether or

not the offence is an offence under New South Wales law, or

© is subject to an apprehended violence order or who has at any

time within 10 years before the application for the permit was

made been subject to such an order (other than an order which has

been revoked), or

(d) is subject to a good behaviour bond, whether entered into in New

South Wales or elsewhere, in relation to an offence prescribed by

the regulations, or

(e) is subject to a firearms prohibition order.

(3A) A permit must not be issued to a person if the Commissioner is of the

opinion, having regard to any criminal intelligence report or other

criminal information held in relation to the person, that:

(a) the person is a risk to public safety, and

( B) the issuing of the permit would be contrary to the public interest.

(3B) The Commissioner is not, under this or any other Act or law, required

to give reasons for not issuing a permit on the grounds referred to in

subsection (3A).

(4) Despite any other provision of this section, the Commissioner may

refuse to issue a permit if the Commissioner considers that issue of the

permit would be contrary to the public interest.

(5) The regulations may provide other mandatory or discretionary grounds

for refusing the issue of a permit.

You may notice that there is nothing about being a hostile politician in there.

Not about "my mates at a different gun club from the one which supported him don't like him" either.

 

The administrative appeals tribunal is set up specifically to ream out bureaucrats who try this shit. Any cop who attempted to block a serious attempt by mr shoebridge to get his license on these grounds would be on a fast-track to supervision of school crossings.

Club membership was brought in as a requirement in 1996, do you think clubs allow any fuckwit to be a member considering all law abiding firearm owners are vilified for the actions of criminals in Australia.

 

Farmers still have to pass the fit and proper person part of the firearms act before the police commissioner will issue a license, buying a farm cannot help him.

 

The clubs are the first line in weeding out the fuckwits.

No doubt, but I think they're getting too excited about playing politics and missing the bigger picture.

- Why not let him be a member? What have they got to fear?

- Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer etc etc.

 

He would either get bored with how compliant and careful everyone is and drift away to search for headlines elsewhere, or he might even enjoy it and moderate his views a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The firearms license application form asks if you have ever been refused or prohibited or had a license suspended, revoked or cancelled, it also points out it is a serious offence to make a statement you know is false and misleading.

Not being let into a club being run by your political opponents is hardly having your application for a license refused...

 

Remember that the license application comes after you've managed to join a club and shown up for a few months to convince them to write a letter supporting your license application.

 

Edit: for NSW you don't even need to provide a supporting letter from your club, just proof that you're a member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss this?

 

 

11.General restrictions on issue of licences.

(3) a licence must not be issued unless

(a) the commissioner is satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person

 

The first gun club he went to rejected him because he was not a fit and proper person, what reason did Shoebridge give on his website for being rejected?

 

Would it be extreme negligence for the police to issue a license to someone gun clubs say is not a fit and proper person?

 

If a gun club says someone is not a fit and proper person to have a firearm license how can the commissioner of police be satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person?

 

Circle jerk yourself on this one all shooters know shoebridge is fucked and can never have a license, he even tried to have toy guns banned which shows the extent of his hoplophobia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Remember that the license application comes after you've managed to join a club

 

Not true yet I don't expect people who don't have a firearms license to understand the process.

 

My missus was the most recent firearms license I was personally involved with, told her to ring the firearms registry and ask for an application form, they sent them out and even assigned her a customer number despite the fact she had nothing to support her genuine reason for shooting ferals and had not done a firearm safety test.

 

Her police customer number has not changed since her license was approved it is the exact same number they used when sending her license application forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss this?

11.General restrictions on issue of licences.

(3) a licence must not be issued unless

(a) the commissioner is satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person

 

Did you miss my huge post regarding the specific guidelines for the Fit and Proper test?

Personal dislike is not one of the criteria.

The first gun club he went to rejected him because he was not a fit and proper person, what reason did Shoebridge give on his website for being rejected?

 

Would it be extreme negligence for the police to issue a license to someone gun clubs say is not a fit and proper person?

It is not clear that the gun club being discussed has made any rigorous assessment of this. They just don't like the guy's politics.

They seem to think they can intimidate all other clubs into towing the line and keeping him out.

If a gun club says someone is not a fit and proper person to have a firearm license how can the commissioner of police be satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person?

What if a different club says he's fine?

Circle jerk yourself on this one all shooters know shoebridge is fucked and can never have a license, he even tried to have toy guns banned which shows the extent of his hoplophobia.

I think you are deluded, and have listened to your own echo chamber for far too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Remember that the license application comes after you've managed to join a club

Not true yet I don't expect people who don't have a firearms license to understand the process.

 

My missus was the most recent firearms license I was personally involved with, told her to ring the firearms registry and ask for an application form, they sent them out and even assigned her a customer number despite the fact she had nothing to support her genuine reason for shooting ferals and had not done a firearm safety test.

 

Her police customer number has not changed since her license was approved it is the exact same number they used when sending her license application forms.

 

omg, so fucking what?

I'm sure it's easy for the police to check whether a license number someone provides is valid...

 

Edit: you've applied for a license when you return all your paperwork, not when you ask for a form and they give you a reference number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was personal dislike mentioned in rejecting this can you cite anything with that or did you pluck that from your ass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why don't you just stfu and answer Jeff and mine question....how do you think a firearm manufacturer could POSSIBLY be legally liable for a perfectly functioning gun ....that someone used to shoot somebody with?....

 

The question of whether the manufacturer/dealer of a truck deliberately used to kill pedestrians is liable is plain dumb. We don't know if it was advertised as useful to do so, we don't know if the dealer knowingly sold it to a person who had done this a lot, we don't know if the dealer knowingly fitted a bull bar for the customer to make that action more effective. I think it's ridiculous for me to type any of that just I think it is ridiculous for me to know the arguments.

 

A supreme court with better minds than anyone's here are best to judge what liabilities may be appropriate for gun manufacturers to wear.

 

Special protections for gun manufacturers under the law is a recipe for dysfunction.

 

 

JFC, that's literally the dumbest and most evasive answer I've read here yet. Congrats, you are officially PA's #1 idiot for the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was personal dislike mentioned in rejecting this can you cite anything with that or did you pluck that from your ass?

Here's the link again, because it's a pita to keep scrolling up to find it: http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2013/02/07/mps-request-gets-shot-down-smh/

Mr Leyonhjelm is a registered officer and treasurer of the Liberal Democratic Party, which advocates the right to carry concealed firearms for self-defence. He said the hunting club’s five-person committee had unanimously rejected Mr Shoebridge’s application on Friday night.

 

“There are some people we don’t want in the club,” he said. “Mostly the nutters. And I suppose that’s another way of describing a Green politician.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The police start doing checks on you when you call up and ask for a license application from firearms registry, people can be rejected at this stage by the police with no license application sent out.

 

All her personal details were already printed on the license application form when it arrived, name address,date of birth, drivers license number what category of license along with vermin control as the reason, there was very little left for her to fill in.

 

A customer number is different from a reference number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was rejected because he is not a fit and proper person, the greens are nutters Leyonhjelm is 100% correct with that.

 

Spin it however you like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The police start doing checks on you when you call up and ask for a license application from firearms registry, people can be rejected at this stage by the police with no license application sent out.

 

All her personal details were already printed on the license application form when it arrived, name address,date of birth, drivers license number what category of license along with vermin control as the reason, there was very little left for her to fill in.

They're not going to refuse to send you a form you can download for free with absolutely no checks from the internet.

A customer number is different from a reference number.

Well, you just finished talking about how there isn't in this case...

What's the problem? is there some reason they need to keep track of a whole bunch of separate references? One reference which may end up being a submitted application which may end up being an issued license sounds fine to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was rejected because he is not a fit and proper person, the greens are nutters Leyonhjelm is 100% correct with that.

 

Spin it however you like

Mr Leyonhjelm not liking him is not a reason the cops will be able to use when rejecting his application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can apply for a license online and they will mail the pre printed application forms out to you in NSW if they think you have a chance, others can follow the link for licenses even if you cannot figure it out i am sick of your bullshit.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/services/firearms

 

Shoebridge was rejected because he is not a fit and proper person to have a firearm license it has nothing to do with like or dislike, they do talk to each other in parliament with friendly banter, when shoebridge complained about people shooting ferals recently Leyonhjelm reminded everyone he is a hypocrite who tried to join his club because he wanted to shoot ferals

 

Those who think Leyonhjelm is a nutter should listen to the last 30 seconds of this video on unintended changes to maritime law

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can apply for a license online and they will mail the pre printed application forms out to you in NSW if they think you have a chance, others can follow the link for licenses even if you cannot figure it out i am sick of your bullshit.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/services/firearms

Well there you go, they don't seem to have a separate download for the NSW forms. The WA regulations have a copy of all the various forms at the end.

 

I note the optional drivers license, etc, and am deeply skeptical about your suggestion they do much checking of this data.

Shoebridge was rejected because he is not a fit and proper person to have a firearm license it has nothing to do with like or dislike, they do talk to each other in parliament with friendly banter, when shoebridge complained about people shooting ferals recently Leyonhjelm reminded everyone he is a hypocrite who tried to join his club because he wanted to shoot ferals

Fit and Proper is a specific phrase which lawyers fight over. It is not determined by a bunch of guys who don't want greenies in their gun club.

Those who think Leyonhjelm is a nutter should listen to the last 30 seconds of this video on unintended changes to maritime law

Just listen to all of it. It's not that long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do a lot of checking before they send out the printed forms with all your details on it, they know who you are when you apply for the license application forms, you still have to wait 28 days for them to process a license after lodging it.

 

What you fail to realise it wasn't just Leyonhjelm who rejected shoebridge it was the entire board of 5 in a unanimous agreement,Leyonhjelm was just one vote of 5 in that club.

The clubs have to inform police if members have not met minimum club participation requirements, the firearms registry asks the clubs for proof minimum participation requirements have been met they have to log membership attendance and submit this.

It's a huge paperwork shitfight running a shooting club.

 

Shoebridge is a barrister Leyonhjelm has a law degree, the fact they mentioned not a fit and proper person fits in with the firearms act 1996 in denying him a license, the Police already have it on record he has been denied due to not being a fit and proper person he can't lie about it they will never give him a license.

 

Shoebridge has been photographed with the Lindt siege offender Monis, fucking great company that green dickhead kept, Monis used a sawn off pump action shotgun so shoebridge brought in a bill that failed to ban the Adler lever action shotgun which has been perfectly legal under our 1996 laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

So getting back to the thread topic, it looks like Hillary and Obama won this round as Bern has reversed his position

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders completed his walkback on guns Thursday with a move to co-sponsor a bill that repeals gun industry protections he backed in 2005.

...Hillary Clinton has hammered Sanders for his 2005 vote in favor of the measure, arguing that he caved to the firearms lobby at a time when Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly back more gun control.

Sanders had said repeatedly that he was open to “changes” in the liability protection law. His official change of heart came just hours after his Senate staff met with activists from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. It also came a day after he met with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office. While it’s unclear whether the question of gun control came up in that meeting, Obama has urged people to be “single-issue voters” on guns, and in an op-ed in The New York Times, Obama said he would not support even Democrats who don’t share his positions on guns, including industry liability.

In explaining his 2005 vote for the liability shield, known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Sanders has pointed to the fact that his predominantly rural home state of Vermont has few gun restrictions. In what he called a “complicated vote,” the Democratic presidential candidate said he was trying to protect mom-and-pop gun dealers in his state from getting sued and having to shut down because a customer used the gun in a crime.

...

I guess Bern must figure there are lots of Obama's single issue voters out there during primary season. Or he dares not piss off the Brady Bunch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another vote whoring cunt. And a flip flopping piece of shit as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why don't you just stfu and answer Jeff and mine question....how do you think a firearm manufacturer could POSSIBLY be legally liable for a perfectly functioning gun ....that someone used to shoot somebody with?....

 

The question of whether the manufacturer/dealer of a truck deliberately used to kill pedestrians is liable is plain dumb. We don't know if it was advertised as useful to do so, we don't know if the dealer knowingly sold it to a person who had done this a lot, we don't know if the dealer knowingly fitted a bull bar for the customer to make that action more effective. I think it's ridiculous for me to type any of that just I think it is ridiculous for me to know the arguments.

 

A supreme court with better minds than anyone's here are best to judge what liabilities may be appropriate for gun manufacturers to wear.

 

Special protections for gun manufacturers under the law is a recipe for dysfunction.

 

 

JFC, that's literally the dumbest and most evasive answer I've read here yet. Congrats, you are officially PA's #1 idiot for the week.

 

 

"Dumb" and "evasive" are your trademarks on our forums.. As is typical, you are discussing only a narrow angle of this issue.

If we stray from your narrow, self-serving repititions, your defense of the PLCAA falls apart.

 

Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

But the issues at hand are more complex, say some legal scholars.

"It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.

http://www.npr.org/s...bility-for-their-behavior>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well maybe you should go back and have some more pow-wows with your violent darky friends? You know the ones, the ones you told us all here that have a much higher propensity for guns and murder?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a violence-based mental pattern, my friends do not.

 

 

the ones you told us all here that have a much higher propensity for guns and murder?.....

The numbers say that black gun violence is higher.

Rick, the Second Amendment is now facing a civil rights lawsuit based on the unequal racial outcome of gun violence.

 

I quoted the shocking numbers, and reflected on them.

This fratricide is another bad outcome of the overall gun problem in the USA.

 

Yeah Boozer, that black r&b cadre wants better gun restrictions, and none of them pack.

They say too many gun funerals in The Hood, Jimi's hood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the bangers kill themselves until there's only one left is my mantra. No one gives a shit.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the bangers kill themselves until there's only one left is my mantra. No one gives a shit.....

 

You have made similar statements before. Fratricide in the USA is okay by you.

 

If you don't care, then you just add to the problem of gun violence.

This leads to the necessity of restricting guns, just because.

Just because an entire culture of gunowners didn't heed the outcomes of gun violence.

Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dear Mr. Booze, gun mayhem will work against you, I fear.

With 21,000 gun suicides per year, how about this gem.

 

EMHubrisMachine_zps8598ec6e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

So getting back to the thread topic, it looks like Hillary and Obama won this round as Bern has reversed his position

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders completed his walkback on guns Thursday with a move to co-sponsor a bill that repeals gun industry protections he backed in 2005.

...Hillary Clinton has hammered Sanders for his 2005 vote in favor of the measure, arguing that he caved to the firearms lobby at a time when Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly back more gun control.

Sanders had said repeatedly that he was open to “changes” in the liability protection law. His official change of heart came just hours after his Senate staff met with activists from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. It also came a day after he met with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office. While it’s unclear whether the question of gun control came up in that meeting, Obama has urged people to be “single-issue voters” on guns, and in an op-ed in The New York Times, Obama said he would not support even Democrats who don’t share his positions on guns, including industry liability.

In explaining his 2005 vote for the liability shield, known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Sanders has pointed to the fact that his predominantly rural home state of Vermont has few gun restrictions. In what he called a “complicated vote,” the Democratic presidential candidate said he was trying to protect mom-and-pop gun dealers in his state from getting sued and having to shut down because a customer used the gun in a crime.

...

I guess Bern must figure there are lots of Obama's single issue voters out there during primary season. Or he dares not piss off the Brady Bunch.

 

 

 

Feel The Bern needs to update their website.

 

As of today, it still says this about the thread topic:

 

Manufacturers and sellers of firearms should not be held accountable for the misuse of their products.

What legislation has Bernie voted in favor of to support this?

Bernie voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevents firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence as a result of the misuse of their products.

Why does Bernie support this?

In a recent interview, Bernie said:

“Now, the issues that you’re talking about is, if somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer, and that murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not anymore than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beat somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about.”

In other words, the instrument itself cannot be held responsible for the being misused by the individual.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let the bangers kill themselves until there's only one left is my mantra. No one gives a shit.....

 

You have made similar statements before. Fratricide in the USA is okay by you.

 

If you don't care, then you just add to the problem of gun violence.

This leads to the necessity of restricting guns, just because.

Just because an entire culture of gunowners didn't heed the outcomes of gun violence.

Just sayin'.

 

 

That right there folks, is probably one of the best examples of shitty jocal logical reasoning. My not caring if the bangers are killing each other does NOT "add" to the violence. The violence is the violence. It will be there with or without me caring.

 

And to prove my point, the sad fact is that the rest of America doesn't care much if the bangers are killing each other off or not either. A couple dozen bangers are killed each and every day in the US and it doesn't even cause a ripple in our consciousness or in the media. But let one white school kid get shot by some mentally ill fuckstick and we are ready to rip apart the 2nd amendment.

 

Just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killy needs to disarm her entourage first...;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killy needs to disarm her entourage first...;)

 

Not Killary, her vagina is MUCH more special than those of the common woman. Especially those vaginas in DC, Baltimore, Hell-A and NYC.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the Police already have it on record he has been denied due to not being a fit and proper person he can't lie about it they will never give him a license.

We've already been over this a few times. He only applied for membership to a club. The license application only asks if he has ever had an application for a license rejected.

 

If you care about the perception of gun owners in australia, you should refrain from posting on public boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...the Police already have it on record he has been denied due to not being a fit and proper person he can't lie about it they will never give him a license.

We've already been over this a few times. He only applied for membership to a club. The license application only asks if he has ever had an application for a license rejected.

 

If you care about the perception of gun owners in australia, you should refrain from posting on public boards.

 

 

Shoebridge tried to rort the system to get his grubby little hands on a gun and failed, the clubs are obliged to report people who they think are trying to rort the system to get a gun.

You have no evidence he didn't apply for a license application form.

 

Nice to see you will judge all firearm owners by 1 person that sort of thinking started back in 1996 when Howard used fear to sell his gun laws , I tend to respect individuality over being forced to conform to what some internet expert. thinks I should be doing or thinking

 

Nothing to fear from me,I can't even use a gun for self defence in my home in Australia, my dogs will be the first line of defence if they get through a door or window, i will grab my 100% legal bow and arrow and pin the fucker to the wall then let my dogs chew on him until the police arrive.

Since the average response time is around 10-15 minutes it's going to be real messy by the time the police turn up,i don't think this nanny state has a law that makes me liable for what my dogs do to intruders in my own home.

 

I think the Americans are starting to learn the truth with aussie gun grabbers in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you care about the perception of gun owners in australia, you should refrain from posting on public boards.

Nice to see you will judge all firearm owners by 1 person that sort of thinking started back in 1996 when Howard used fear to sell his gun laws , I tend to respect individuality over being forced to conform to what some internet expert. thinks I should be doing or thinking

 

Well maybe not me, but there are certainly others who do.

I'm sure you're a lovely person .... I was going to get all preachy here, but what the hell. It's not like you're the worst arguer on this forum.

 

Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Let the bangers kill themselves until there's only one left is my mantra. No one gives a shit.....

 

You have made similar statements before. Fratricide in the USA is okay by you.

 

If you don't care, then you just add to the problem of gun violence.

This leads to the necessity of restricting guns, just because.

Just because an entire culture of gunowners didn't heed the outcomes of gun violence.

Just sayin'.

 

 

That right there folks, is probably one of the best examples of shitty jocal logical reasoning. My not caring if the bangers are killing each other does NOT "add" to the violence. The violence is the violence. It will be there with or without me caring.

 

And to prove my point, the sad fact is that the rest of America doesn't care much if the bangers are killing each other off or not either. A couple dozen bangers are killed each and every day in the US and it doesn't even cause a ripple in our consciousness or in the media. But let one white school kid get shot by some mentally ill fuckstick and we are ready to rip apart the 2nd amendment.

 

Just sayin'

 

 

This stunning social engineering by Jeff and Boothy has been stated before.

 

I'm calling bloodbath on you both.

 

And on Quasi-Publius, who has no presentable road map to racial equality, but encourages more guns for blacks, as a solution to too much gun violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killy needs to disarm her entourage first... ;)

 

Gun extremists have gone overkill, and have created a gun-rich environment.

They have pandered to the cheap, violent interests of the weakly minded.

They have stirred insurrection against public figures, then they have the audacity to mock the need for bodyguards for politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...the Police already have it on record he has been denied due to not being a fit and proper person he can't lie about it they will never give him a license.

We've already been over this a few times. He only applied for membership to a club. The license application only asks if he has ever had an application for a license rejected.

 

If you care about the perception of gun owners in australia, you should refrain from posting on public boards.

 

 

Shoebridge tried to rort the system to get his grubby little hands on a gun and failed, the clubs are obliged to report people who they think are trying to rort the system to get a gun.

You have no evidence he didn't apply for a license application form.

 

Nice to see you will judge all firearm owners by 1 person that sort of thinking started back in 1996 when Howard used fear to sell his gun laws , I tend to respect individuality over being forced to conform to what some internet expert. thinks I should be doing or thinking

 

Nothing to fear from me,I can't even use a gun for self defence in my home in Australia, my dogs will be the first line of defence if they get through a door or window, i will grab my 100% legal bow and arrow and pin the fucker to the wall then let my dogs chew on him until the police arrive.

Since the average response time is around 10-15 minutes it's going to be real messy by the time the police turn up,i don't think this nanny state has a law that makes me liable for what my dogs do to intruders in my own home.

 

I think the Americans are starting to learn the truth with aussie gun grabbers in this forum.

 

 

Moh, you have been caught lying to us on several occasions. The most recent was trying to pass off a well organised and funded anti-gun site, as just a facebook page run by a grey haired old lady. Your posts have no credibility and you are wasting your time here.

 

Please stop diverting electrons and using them for evil.

 

You must apologise and self ban for at least 48 hours. Start with an apology for your transgressions in a dedicated thread

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

We know what you should ban yourself from doing randumb, give it a rest or you could go blind.

 

You are the first person I will put on ignore here, I don't have time for idiots like you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on Quasi-Publius, who has no presentable road map to racial equality, but encourages more guns for blacks, as a solution to too much gun violence.

 

 

Tell ya what joe, you and I together will advocate for a ban on black people owning and possessing guns since you are convinced that black people are the problem here with gun irresponsibility and crime. No more black gun ownership! In fact, I think we need to be reasonable and just do a 10 year trial period that sunsets unless renewed by Congress just to see what the results are before we take away black's 2nd Am rights away forever. But given that blacks account for the vast majority of crime and murder in the US, I'm pretty confident that we will see a significant drop in those numbers by selectively removing their rights.

 

No more "Shall Issue" for the states. It will be changed to "May issue as long as your skin is not dark". In fact I would go one further in the spirit of trying to achieve balance and charge the local LEOs who make those arbitrary decisions about giving out gun licenses with the following: I would allow them the discretion of issuing licences to light chocolate skinned folks who probably have at least 50% white in them provided they don't come in with their hat on sideways, their pants are around their waist properly and they speak with a "clean non-african American" inflection (as Joe Biden would say).

 

You good with this jocal? I think you're on to something and we need to capture this momentum and ride it all the way to Congress. PM me and we'll get started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

We've already been over this a few times. He only applied for membership to a club. The license application only asks if he has ever had an application for a license rejected.

 

If you care about the perception of gun owners in australia, you should refrain from posting on public boards.

 

 

Shoebridge tried to rort the system to get his grubby little hands on a gun and failed, the clubs are obliged to report people who they think are trying to rort the system to get a gun.

You have no evidence he didn't apply for a license application form.

 

Nice to see you will judge all firearm owners by 1 person that sort of thinking started back in 1996 when Howard used fear to sell his gun laws , I tend to respect individuality over being forced to conform to what some internet expert. thinks I should be doing or thinking

 

Nothing to fear from me,I can't even use a gun for self defence in my home in Australia, my dogs will be the first line of defence if they get through a door or window, i will grab my 100% legal bow and arrow and pin the fucker to the wall then let my dogs chew on him until the police arrive.

Since the average response time is around 10-15 minutes it's going to be real messy by the time the police turn up,i don't think this nanny state has a law that makes me liable for what my dogs do to intruders in my own home.

 

I think the Americans are starting to learn the truth with aussie gun grabbers in this forum.

 

 

Moh, you have been caught lying to us on several occasions. The most recent was trying to pass off a well organised and funded anti-gun site, as just a facebook page run by a grey haired old lady. Your posts have no credibility and you are wasting your time here.

 

Please stop diverting electrons and using them for evil.

 

You must apologise and self ban for at least 48 hours. Start with an apology for your transgressions in a dedicated thread

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

We know what you should ban yourself from doing randumb, give it a rest or you could go blind.

 

You are the first person I will put on ignore here, I don't have time for idiots like you

 

 

Sorry that is not an apology. You need to start a new thread, apologise with feeling, we need to feel the integrity. After all, there is no integrity in lying to us like you did.

 

You can redeem yourself, it's ok, we will forgive you if you show good intentions.

 

Your sincerely

Random

 

P.S. You might also return the electrons you have wasted in evil ways.

 

 

Anti gun site?

 

Click on the pic on the left with the 60 year old grandmother holding a semi auto shotgun and stop telling lies.

http://www.facebook.com/oneshotaustralia1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And on Quasi-Publius, who has no presentable road map to racial equality, but encourages more guns for blacks, as a solution to too much gun violence.

 

 

Tell ya what joe, you and I together will advocate for a ban on black people owning and possessing guns since you are convinced that black people are the problem here with gun irresponsibility and crime. No more black gun ownership! In fact, I think we need to be reasonable and just do a 10 year trial period that sunsets unless renewed by Congress just to see what the results are before we take away black's 2nd Am rights away forever. But given that blacks account for the vast majority of crime and murder in the US, I'm pretty confident that we will see a significant drop in those numbers by selectively removing their rights.

 

No more "Shall Issue" for the states. It will be changed to "May issue as long as your skin is not dark". In fact I would go one further in the spirit of trying to achieve balance and charge the local LEOs who make those arbitrary decisions about giving out gun licenses with the following: I would allow them the discretion of issuing licences to light chocolate skinned folks who probably have at least 50% white in them provided they don't come in with their hat on sideways, their pants are around their waist properly and they speak with a "clean non-african American" inflection (as Joe Biden would say).

 

You good with this jocal? I think you're on to something and we need to capture this momentum and ride it all the way to Congress. PM me and we'll get started.

 

 

What are you going on about?

Do you find that I appreciate the white boy guns?

It doesn't seem to work out in either race, for different reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And on Quasi-Publius, who has no presentable road map to racial equality, but encourages more guns for blacks, as a solution to too much gun violence.

 

 

Tell ya what joe, you and I together will advocate for a ban on black people owning and possessing guns since you are convinced that black people are the problem here with gun irresponsibility and crime. No more black gun ownership! In fact, I think we need to be reasonable and just do a 10 year trial period that sunsets unless renewed by Congress just to see what the results are before we take away black's 2nd Am rights away forever. But given that blacks account for the vast majority of crime and murder in the US, I'm pretty confident that we will see a significant drop in those numbers by selectively removing their rights.

 

No more "Shall Issue" for the states. It will be changed to "May issue as long as your skin is not dark". In fact I would go one further in the spirit of trying to achieve balance and charge the local LEOs who make those arbitrary decisions about giving out gun licenses with the following: I would allow them the discretion of issuing licences to light chocolate skinned folks who probably have at least 50% white in them provided they don't come in with their hat on sideways, their pants are around their waist properly and they speak with a "clean non-african American" inflection (as Joe Biden would say).

 

You good with this jocal? I think you're on to something and we need to capture this momentum and ride it all the way to Congress. PM me and we'll get started.

 

 

What are you going on about?

Do you find that I appreciate the white boy guns?

It doesn't seem to work out in either race, for different reasons.

 

 

Really? Where in this graph do you see the white boy gun problem?

 

m6227a1f3.jpg

 

And what I'm going on about is your continued stance that black people should not allowed or encouraged to own guns and that is contributing to the high murder rates. Hey, I'm just giving you what you're asking for......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are an agent to fratricide, in our country. Not cool, for any color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are an agent to fratricide, in our country. Not cool, for any color.

 

But you are singling out blacks for special treatment, you fucking racist! However, you are correct. Limiting blacks access to guns would in fact reduce the crime and murder rate significantly. However, to implement that - you would also need to trash the 4th Amendment for blacks as well - since we all know criminals aren't really good at paying attention to gun laws - so you would be impacting the law-abiding blacks the most with draconian gun laws. So to actually get guns out of the hands of blacks, since you contend they are the real problem here - the only way to do that is to do house to house warrantless searches of all black neighborhoods in the US in order to confiscate all those existing guns in circulation. Of course some blacks with legal guns will also get swept up in this - but hey, its for the greater good. Right Joe?

 

For the Record jocal, I find your racist views on gun ownership and privacy rights for blacks more than a little uncomfortable - but I have to at least hand it to your that they are pragmatic.

 

"Fuck the constitution when it can save just one black child" (a likely jocal quote).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And on Quasi-Publius, who has no presentable road map to racial equality, but encourages more guns for blacks, as a solution to too much gun violence.

<SNIP>

 

Roadmap to racial equality? I thought you were on the bandwagon to curb violence? BTW - a path forward HAS been proffered, you simply chose to disregard that approach, because it doesn't include the social salve of confiscation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guns are an agent to fratricide, in our country. Not cool, for any color.

 

But you are singling out blacks for special treatment, you fucking racist! However, you are correct. Limiting blacks access to guns would in fact reduce the crime and murder rate significantly. However, to implement that - you would also need to trash the 4th Amendment for blacks as well - since we all know criminals aren't really good at paying attention to gun laws - so you would be impacting the law-abiding blacks the most with draconian gun laws. So to actually get guns out of the hands of blacks, since you contend they are the real problem here - the only way to do that is to do house to house warrantless searches of all black neighborhoods in the US in order to confiscate all those existing guns in circulation. Of course some blacks with legal guns will also get swept up in this - but hey, its for the greater good. Right Joe?

 

For the Record jocal, I find your racist views on gun ownership and privacy rights for blacks more than a little uncomfortable - but I have to at least hand it to your that they are pragmatic.

 

"Fuck the constitution when it can save just one black child" (a likely jocal quote).

 

 

When attempting to implement a positive change, don't you think it's prudent to understand causation, and to implement the change that would be most permanently efficacious? The prohibition approach that you espouse is a band aid, and completely ignores causation. It's simply that which makes your premise untenable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Guns are an agent to fratricide, in our country. Not cool, for any color.

 

But you are singling out blacks for special treatment, you fucking racist! However, you are correct. Limiting blacks access to guns would in fact reduce the crime and murder rate significantly. However, to implement that - you would also need to trash the 4th Amendment for blacks as well - since we all know criminals aren't really good at paying attention to gun laws - so you would be impacting the law-abiding blacks the most with draconian gun laws. So to actually get guns out of the hands of blacks, since you contend they are the real problem here - the only way to do that is to do house to house warrantless searches of all black neighborhoods in the US in order to confiscate all those existing guns in circulation. Of course some blacks with legal guns will also get swept up in this - but hey, its for the greater good. Right Joe?

 

For the Record jocal, I find your racist views on gun ownership and privacy rights for blacks more than a little uncomfortable - but I have to at least hand it to your that they are pragmatic.

 

"Fuck the constitution when it can save just one black child" (a likely jocal quote).

 

 

When attempting to implement a positive change, don't you think it's prudent to understand causation, and to implement the change that would be most permanently efficacious? The prohibition approach that you espouse is a band aid, and completely ignores causation. It's simply that which makes your premise untenable.

 

 

Causation will not drop out of a pinata someday. It will be concluded from associations between guns and behavior.

The empirical correlation is now considered "robust."

Tick tock indeed.

 

I am the kind of racist who has a black kid from Louisiana crashing in his guest room.

He can out-work me, but not by much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And on Quasi-Publius, who has no presentable road map to racial equality, but encourages more guns for blacks, as a solution to too much gun violence.

<SNIP>

 

Roadmap to racial equality? I thought you were on the bandwagon to curb violence? BTW - a path forward HAS been proffered, you simply chose to disregard that approach, because it doesn't include the social salve of confiscation.

 

 

Tom, you bring up race, a lot. You have zero constructive format or content to present, just racial zingers.

You learned at the trailer park how to trash-talk MLK by using his name to peddle "shall issue" gun violence.

Bloomberg is a racist, because stop-and-frisk is racist. Shall issue is racist. Random is held accountable for racism down under, repeatedly.

When I present the enormity of the black violence with numbers, you spam the tragedy (to repeatedly claim it disproves the research conclusions of white gun ownership and high rates of gun mayhem).

You have presented guns and the Black Panthers, guns and the Nation of Islam, guns with Darren X, and guns with the SCLC.

From Judge Taney to MLK, you play race to the hilt (while shitting libertarian decadence on what MLK stands for).

 

After months of your extended, lowbrow race-baiting (which you ceased for a period after the Charleston racial killings) I asked you to lay out your racial overview for us.

 

Jocal Posted 08 May 2015 - 06:21 AM

I am waiting for you to apply some understanding to this situation. Instead, you choose to misunderstand my Irish ass.

I am still getting painted with the Tom Ray racist broadbrush. This is pointless (but no surprise).

 

We need you to take a shot at explaining the high gun damage numbers among blacks.

Address it as well as you can, and lay out your viewpoint on how to sort it.

Pointing fingers at others is not good enough, since you constantly drag the topic of racism and guns into our forums.

Simply lay out your overview for us.

Your reply was a gem. Summoning all your wisdom, you are against racist policy in "the government".

 

If you have nothing positive to add racially, you could always just avoid the subject.

But you don't. From the thread about the on-camera reporter 's killing:

 

 

Tom Ray Posted 31 August 2015 - 04:11 AM You were not supposed to notice the desire to start a race war. This time. Maybe next time the motivation will be more convenient. Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=167978&page=4#entry5053661>

It seems that you like to sling racial poo...but I note a long-term absence of contribution here.

BTW, your one-size fits all racial solution (adding even more guns to a bloodbath situation) is misguided, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guns are an agent to fratricide, in our country. Not cool, for any color.

 

But you are singling out blacks for special treatment, you fucking racist! However, you are correct. Limiting blacks access to guns would in fact reduce the crime and murder rate significantly. However, to implement that - you would also need to trash the 4th Amendment for blacks as well - since we all know criminals aren't really good at paying attention to gun laws - so you would be impacting the law-abiding blacks the most with draconian gun laws. So to actually get guns out of the hands of blacks, since you contend they are the real problem here - the only way to do that is to do house to house warrantless searches of all black neighborhoods in the US in order to confiscate all those existing guns in circulation. Of course some blacks with legal guns will also get swept up in this - but hey, its for the greater good. Right Joe?

 

For the Record jocal, I find your racist views on gun ownership and privacy rights for blacks more than a little uncomfortable - but I have to at least hand it to your that they are pragmatic.

 

"Fuck the constitution when it can save just one black child" (a likely jocal quote).

 

 

Let's assume for the moment that you are a person of integrity. You wouldn't want to appear to be saying-

 

 

since you (jocal) contend they(meaning blacks) are the real problem here -

 

I didn't say that. The suggestion that I said that is, well, childish.

If you want a conversation with me, you need to do better than that.

I think I'll go read someone who is well-informed, and who doesn't play little games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Guns are an agent to fratricide, in our country. Not cool, for any color.

 

But you are singling out blacks for special treatment, you fucking racist! However, you are correct. Limiting blacks access to guns would in fact reduce the crime and murder rate significantly. However, to implement that - you would also need to trash the 4th Amendment for blacks as well - since we all know criminals aren't really good at paying attention to gun laws - so you would be impacting the law-abiding blacks the most with draconian gun laws. So to actually get guns out of the hands of blacks, since you contend they are the real problem here - the only way to do that is to do house to house warrantless searches of all black neighborhoods in the US in order to confiscate all those existing guns in circulation. Of course some blacks with legal guns will also get swept up in this - but hey, its for the greater good. Right Joe?

 

For the Record jocal, I find your racist views on gun ownership and privacy rights for blacks more than a little uncomfortable - but I have to at least hand it to your that they are pragmatic.

 

"Fuck the constitution when it can save just one black child" (a likely jocal quote).

 

 

Let's assume for the moment that you are a person of integrity. You wouldn't want to appear to be saying-

 

 

since you (jocal) contend they(meaning blacks) are the real problem here -

 

I didn't say that. The suggestion that I said that is, well, childish.

If you want a conversation with me, you need to do better than that.

I think I'll go read someone who is well-informed, and who doesn't play little games.

 

 

No, actually jocal, you DID say it. You have repeatedly said blacks are the problem with guns and have pointed (correctly) to higher violence rates among blacks as a reason not to allow them to have weapons. Just fucking own it dude. YOU are the only one who brings race up in a gun discussion. Your prescriptions for dealing with gun violence are decidedly racist. You have finally admitted a couple of posts up that May issue is racist. Yet you still want it. So fuck black's constitutional rights - we know what's best for them - right joe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bloomberg is a racist, because stop-and-frisk is racist. Shall issue is racist.

 

 

I needed to preserve this before he went and deleted it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Guns are an agent to fratricide, in our country. Not cool, for any color.

 

But you are singling out blacks for special treatment, you fucking racist! However, you are correct. Limiting blacks access to guns would in fact reduce the crime and murder rate significantly. However, to implement that - you would also need to trash the 4th Amendment for blacks as well - since we all know criminals aren't really good at paying attention to gun laws - so you would be impacting the law-abiding blacks the most with draconian gun laws. So to actually get guns out of the hands of blacks, since you contend they are the real problem here - the only way to do that is to do house to house warrantless searches of all black neighborhoods in the US in order to confiscate all those existing guns in circulation. Of course some blacks with legal guns will also get swept up in this - but hey, its for the greater good. Right Joe?

 

For the Record jocal, I find your racist views on gun ownership and privacy rights for blacks more than a little uncomfortable - but I have to at least hand it to your that they are pragmatic.

 

"Fuck the constitution when it can save just one black child" (a likely jocal quote).

 

 

Let's assume for the moment that you are a person of integrity. You wouldn't want to appear to be saying-

 

 

since you (jocal) contend they(meaning blacks) are the real problem here -

 

I didn't say that. The suggestion that I said that is, well, childish.

If you want a conversation with me, you need to do better than that.

I think I'll go read someone who is well-informed, and who doesn't play little games.

 

 

No, actually jocal, you DID say it. You have repeatedly said blacks are the problem with guns and have pointed (correctly) to higher violence rates among blacks as a reason not to allow them to have weapons. Just fucking own it dude. YOU are the only one who brings race up in a gun discussion. Your prescriptions for dealing with gun violence are decidedly racist. You have finally admitted a couple of posts up that May issue is racist. Yet you still want it. So fuck black's constitutional rights - we know what's best for them - right joe?

 

 

VOICES FROM THE SINGLE WIDE

with your host, JBSF

 

I want your claim cited, in context, using my own words. That's how we do it on Political Anarchy.

The root problem with the blacks, IMO, may rest in the stubborn misunderstandings of others.

 

More childish, counter-productive games. I was quoting a chain of Tom's repeated statements, not my own beliefs.

You need cheap tricks, and to mis-quote others, to move your trailer trash narrative along.

Like Tom, you offer no racial solution...but you can sling racial poo.

Not very impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kamala Harris being a stupid cunt on gun control....

 

 

 

 

The Danger is Real

Posted on February 3, 2016 by gunownersca

2014 Firearm Crime Stats and pie chart (002)

 

 

 

According to Attorney General Kamala Harris, in 2014 she can only account for a whopping 14 crimes committed with long guns in the entire state of California. This must be why she’s signed on with the Legislature to ban future sales of almost all semi-automatic centerfire rifles by 2017 plus require that all existing semi-auto rifles be registered as California “Assault Weapons.”

 

That’s right. There may be a day not far down the road when there will be NO semi-auto centerfire rifles in California.Sounds like a page out of some dictatorial Third World country.

 

The reality is this: if the bills in question (AB 1663, AB 1664 & SB 880) pass, no one will be able to sell or transfer any existing semi-auto rifles to anyone, with the exception of a licensed California Assault Weapons Dealer (who would have zero market to sell them). What’s more, when the owner of the firearm dies, the gun dies (no, you will not be allowed to pass the gun down to your family members) – literally and figuratively. It must be turned in to the police or destroyed.

 

Those who believed that their Ruger Mini-14s, Springfield M1As, Kel-Tecs, and even

Browning BAR hunting rifles (plus others) were safe from the California Assault Weapons Act, you aren’t. Why? Because the liberals who control all things political believe wholeheartedly that you are a danger to society. Thus, you will be required to register those rifles as “assault weapons” and all the constraints and prohibitions that go along with such baloney will apply. Additionally, firearms equipped with bullet buttons will no longer be able to be defined as having a non-readily detachable magazine because…why?

 

Because “they are designed only to facilitate the maximum destruction of human life,” according to SB 880 author Senator Isadore Hall.

 

This means that literally millions of modern sporting rifles based on AR or AK platforms will be illegal.

 

The libs are not just fiddling around on the edges with our rights, folks. They are taking dead-aim at us, so it’s time to BE ARMED AND BE INFORMED.

 

 

Share this:

TwitterFacebook275EmailPinterest

 

Related

If it Weren’t So Chilling, It Would Be Funny.

In "GUN NEWS"

The DA's Nail Newsom

In "GUN NEWS"

Congressman Thompson’s State Capitol Dog and Pony Show

In "GUN NEWS"

Posted in GUN NEWS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"The danger" is real. Be armed and be informed....

 

 

You are no doubt armed, but unfortunately uninformed. I could argue that all day for a week.

Where is your link, mate?

 

Let's do a cost analysis.

The gun industry generates 43.5 billion/yr in commerce at a cost of 229 billion/yr in the costs of gun danger.

Not from AW restriction danger, but from general bullet danger.

The only researchers claiming guns have social cost benefit, Lott and Kleck, have been discredited.

 

 

 

The libs are not just fiddling around on the edges with our rights, folks.

 

Don't assume the "right" to mass killing machine toys, okay?

Popular does not mean constitutional.

Courts in NY, CT, CA, and IL have banned or restricted AW's and LCM's

The SC refused to discuss it a few months ago._get_over_it.

You need to shift your absolute rights position a bit.

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a Chicago suburb’s ordinance that banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

The decision not to hear the case has no precedential force, but was nonetheless part of a series of signals from the Supreme Court giving at least tacit approval to even quite strict gun control laws in states and localities that choose to enact them.

“The justices don’t reveal their reasons for denying review, but one thing is clear,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The justices certainly aren’t eager to take up a Second Amendment case these days.”

“One has to wonder,” he said, “if the Supreme Court is having second thoughts about the Second Amendment.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/supreme-court-will-not-hear-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban-of-highland-park-ill.html?_r=1>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffie's superficial Yukon suit would have failed before the PLCAA.

 

Gun companies were not about to face the same transformative legal assault that had recently rocked the tobacco industry.

Timothy Lytton, who edited Suing the Gun Industry, tells The Trace that even before the gun industry secured the shield law it wanted, courts were dismissing most of the suits that sought to hold those companies accountable for violence.

 

But if the financial threat posed by the cases was a gun lobby bogeyman, gun companies did have another reason for wanting the lawsuits to go away. “They exposed some information about how they distribute weapons,” Lytton says. “They put the spotlight on the role of industry in supplying weapons for illegal trade.”

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/bernie-sanders-gun-industry-vote/>

 

The political environment will not produce gun safety. It's only natural that a problem would result.

The courts are the very tool to sort this out.

Gun industry protection in the courts is a double-fail.

 

Wendy Wagner wrote a paper on this. It became a chapter 11 in Lytton's Suing the Gun Industry (quoted above).

 

Stubborn Information Problems and the Regulatory Benefits of Gun Legislation, Wendy Wagner

21 pgs.

The gun industry is mostly privately held. Information recovery is "stubborn".

Normally, industry information is obtained through discovery when a problem reaches the courts.

The PLCAA now prevents this, and the Tiahrt Amendments now obstruct the collection of information relevant to the public safety.

This is special treatment for a dangerous consumer product. Just sayin'.

 

Please note:

While spouty lofty-sounding constitutional principles, gun extremists seem to be blocking gun violence information and public safety.

The libertarian-type outcome here seems to breach civil rights, public records, and the public good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure who's a bigger cunt on gun control..... hillary or joke-al?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure who's a bigger cunt on gun control..... hillary or joke-al?

 

Hillary. Jocal is NCBROI (not cunt by reason of insanity) . Crazy people can be as annoying as fuck, but they can't control themselves. Jocal can no more stop himself from cutting and pasting or photoshopping than breathing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring your thoughtful input next time, Jeffie.

I'm just a cunt, and you are Cuntfinder The Great.

When can we get a room?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure who's a bigger cunt on gun control..... hillary or joke-al?

 

Hillary. Jocal is NCBROI (not cunt by reason of insanity) . Crazy people can be as annoying as fuck, but they can't control themselves. Jocal can no more stop himself from cutting and pasting or photoshopping than breathing.

 

 

I am somewhat dedicated to tracking your elk, intelligently. Then I take my best shot.

Rev. Hollow Point is welcome to shoot back, at any post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring your thoughtful input next time.

I'm just a cunt, and you are Cuntfinder The Great.

When can we get a room?

 

We won't. I have no desire to be in the same room with you, joe. Seriously. I feel dumber every time I actually try to engage with you. I can't imagine how much you would suck my will to live in person. So.... no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not sure who's a bigger cunt on gun control..... hillary or joke-al?

 

Hillary. Jocal is NCBROI (not cunt by reason of insanity) . Crazy people can be as annoying as fuck, but they can't control themselves. Jocal can no more stop himself from cutting and pasting or photoshopping than breathing.

 

 

I am somewhat dedicated to tracking your elk, intelligently. Then I take my best shot.

Rev. Hollow Point is welcome to shoot back, at any post.

 

 

So, please tell us when exactly is this "intelligently" part going to actually start.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm not sure who's a bigger cunt on gun control..... hillary or joke-al?

 

Hillary. Jocal is NCBROI (not cunt by reason of insanity) . Crazy people can be as annoying as fuck, but they can't control themselves. Jocal can no more stop himself from cutting and pasting or photoshopping than breathing.

 

 

I am somewhat dedicated to tracking your elk, intelligently. Then I take my best shot.

Rev. Hollow Point is welcome to shoot back, at any post.

 

 

So, please tell us when exactly is this "intelligently" part going to actually start.....

 

 

I have sorted and entered current research from about sixty different sources.

Not one member of the SA Gun Club can challenge the weakest of these studies intelligently.

If you could challenge even one researcher with your shallow rhetoric, you would have 59 more studies to dissect.

When will any intelligent examination of this empirical evidence begin?

 

Is my content intelligent? Our readers will decide that. Much of this research is peer-reviewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bring your thoughtful input next time.

I'm just a cunt, and you are Cuntfinder The Great.

When can we get a room?

 

We won't. I have no desire to be in the same room with you, joe. Seriously. I feel dumber every time I actually try to engage with you. I can't imagine how much you would suck my will to live in person. So.... no thanks.

 

 

You are presently ambivalent about your willingness to live?

 

 

 

 

Jeff: I feel dumber every time I actually try to engage with you.

 

I suppose that you would feel dumber. I feel a bit brighter after our exchanges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm not sure who's a bigger cunt on gun control..... hillary or joke-al?

 

Hillary. Jocal is NCBROI (not cunt by reason of insanity) . Crazy people can be as annoying as fuck, but they can't control themselves. Jocal can no more stop himself from cutting and pasting or photoshopping than breathing.

 

 

I am somewhat dedicated to tracking your elk, intelligently. Then I take my best shot.

Rev. Hollow Point is welcome to shoot back, at any post.

 

 

So, please tell us when exactly is this "intelligently" part going to actually start.....

 

 

See? Delusions of grandeur and paranoia. He imagines he is some genius super sleuth tracking us and protecting the world from our mayhem. This is not hyperbole for him, he really believes this shit. He really thinks that his creepy photoshops are saving the world from evil. He is nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure who's a bigger cunt on gun control..... hillary or joke-al?

 

Hillary. Jocal is NCBROI (not cunt by reason of insanity) . Crazy people can be as annoying as fuck, but they can't control themselves. Jocal can no more stop himself from cutting and pasting or photoshopping than breathing.

 

 

I am somewhat dedicated to tracking your elk, intelligently. Then I take my best shot.

Rev. Hollow Point is welcome to shoot back, at any post.

 

 

So, please tell us when exactly is this "intelligently" part going to actually start.....

 

 

I have sorted and entered current research from about sixty different sources.

Not one member of the SA Gun Club can challenge the weakest of these studies intelligently.

If you could challenge even one researcher with your shallow rhetoric, you would have 59 more studies to dissect.

When will any intelligent examination of this empirical evidence begin?

 

Is my content intelligent? Our readers will decide that. Much of this research is peer-reviewed.

 

 

Challenge these, bitch! I don't need a biased agenda "gun study" to see that violent crime rates are down while gun sales and liberalised conceal carry has soared. Explain these numbers, in your own words and not some cunt n paste and we might start taking you seriously. Maybe......

 

GunOwnershipVCrimeRate.jpgcch-crime-stats.png

 

Meanwhile, a country who went the other way seems to be not having as good a luck getting the problem under control

 

GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-U.K.-Violent-Cri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random proffered without cite:

"Hillary Clinton highlighted the issue during this week's Democrat debate.

"We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths." "

 

Hillary DOESN'T know that. I suspect that if you look at #s, you'll find that especially on a city level, that the inverse is true. How does Vermont compare to IL, or even just the Chicago area itself, excepting contributions from the rest of the state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites