Jump to content

Hillary being a cunt on gun control


Recommended Posts

 

 

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>
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 458
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not really. Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...     ...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness

One aspect of the fun does continue for me. This one: Even the famously independent Sanders could not break the TeamD tribal taboos surrounding gun control. Something that continues today, a

Posted Images

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.

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'.

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.

 

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'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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......

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, so if you look "on a city level", mmmm. So it's different if you bring race into it? How bout that guy. The quote was about States.

 

"We have a no-fly list where people can't get on planes but those same people who we don't allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm and there's nothing we can do to stop them. That's a law that needs to be changed."

Obama - After the San Bernardino shooting, December 2015

 

"The number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism. We're willing to spend trillions of dollars to prevent terrorist activities but we haven't been willing, so far at least, to impose some common sense gun safety measures."

Obama - After the Virginia shooting, August 2015

 

Who mentioned anything about Race?

 

I mentioned a city level to make the comparison even more stark - If you look at real #s, you'll see that one city in IL, with some of the most restrictive gun legislation in the country, fares worse than an entire state, VT, with some of the most liberal gun legislation. The point? Gun laws don't make the difference - the attitudes and behaviors of people in specific locales does, and that those attitudes have contributed to the highest concentration of violence being in places with the strictest gun laws, thus, your point, and if MMe Clinton actually said that, her comment, are not supported by the #s.

 

Chicago, LA, DC, Detroit, Baltimore all reside in states with restrictive gun laws, and fare far worse in terms of per-capita incidents of violence than do places like VT, WY, MO, VA, etc, who all have less restrictive firearms legislation.

 

There are no "common sense gun laws" that will work, because gun laws aren't the problem - dumbasses who think nothing of hurting others to achieve immediate gratification is. I'll opine that instituting some common-sense dumbass controls would be much more effective than anything thus far proposed by the pro-prohibition crowd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A_gun_in_the_Chesapeake, on 08 Feb 2016 - 1:42 PM, said:


Who mentioned anything about Race?



I mentioned a city level to make the comparison even more stark - If you look at real #s, you'll see that one city in IL, referring to Chicago, Ill. with some of the most restrictive gun legislation in the country, fares worse than an entire state, VT, with some of the most liberal gun legislation.



False comparison. Troubled, poverty ridden, employer starved race-torn inner city vs. gentrified rural state?



The point? Gun laws don't make the difference - the attitudes and behaviors of people in specific locales does, and that those attitudes have contributed to the highest concentration of violence being in places with the strictest gun laws,



Bullshit. Undocumented bullshit. The opposite is true.



thus, your point, and if MMe Clinton actually said that, her comment, are not supported by the #s.



Chicago, LA, DC, Detroit, Baltimore all reside in states with restrictive gun laws, and fare far worse in terms of per-capita incidents of violence than do places like VT, WY, MO, VA, etc, who all have less restrictive firearms legislation.



Okay, let's look at the whole picture, say the indexes of gun violence in 50 states over a period of time.


http://truth-out.org/news/item/15524-a-50-state-analysis-of-gun-violence-and-its-link-to-weak-


BTW AGIC, Vermont has aglaring problem with domestic gun violence, and it has a gun export problem noted in CT and MA.



There are no "common sense gun laws" that will work,



LMFAO. Cite that shit against this info (a link to three studies citing crime increases after lax RTC laws. Another showing a 16% increase in murder rates after MO background checks were cancelled.)


http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165829&p=4956535



because gun laws aren't the problem



That's dishonest propaganda. Gun laws present a compound problem:


1. Our gun laws have been made impotent by a focused, systematic effort from the gun lobby for thirty years.


2.The PLCAA civil immunity of the gun industry invites indifference to gun safety progress


3. Law is being practiced under cover of industry marketing secrecy, via the Tiahrt Amendments. The Freedom of Information Act has been hijacked...another curious example of special treatment for the gun industry.



dumbasses who think nothing of hurting others to achieve immediate gratification is. I'll opine that instituting some common-sense dumbass controls would be much more effective than anything thus far proposed by the pro-prohibition crowd.


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?

 

Guy, you are a fine man, no need to be ignorant. What about all this work?

CAP 4-13, A 50-State Analysis of Gun Violence and Its Link to Weak State Gun Laws

Thursday, 04 April 2013 09:41By Arkadi Gerney, Chelsea Parsons, and Charles Posner, Center for American Progress |

Overall, the strongest vs weakest state gun law results are summed up as "weak laws, bad outcomes."

The link between high levels of gun violence and weak state gun laws

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2013/04/03/59026/the-link-between-gun-violence-and-state-gun-laws/

Many factors influence rates of gun violence in any community. One such factor

is the relative strength or weakness of the laws enacted in the state to prevent gun-

related crimes. In the pages that follow, we compare the aggregate ranking of states

based on rates of gun violence and the degree to which states have enacted laws

intended to protect the public from this type of violence. As discussed below, this

comparison reveals a significant correlation between weaker state gun laws and

higher rates of gun violence...

Conclusion, Centers for American Progress

While many factors contribute to the rates of gun violence in any state, our

research clearly demonstrates a significant correlation between the strength of

a state’s gun laws and the prevalence of gun violence in the state. Across the key

indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun

laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high—104

percent higher—than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

<http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770&page=2#entry4661142>

 

 

 

 

Fleegler 2013: States with more gun laws have less gun violence

Specifically, Fleeger pointed to states with many gun laws like Massachusetts, which had 3.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, and New Jersey, which had 4.9 gun-deaths per 100,000 people. Conversely, he focused on states with less laws like Louisiana, which had 18 deaths per 100,000 individuals and Alaska, which had 17.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals.

...States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found.

The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

...The study also found that laws requiring universal background checks and permits to purchase firearms were most clearly associated with decreasing rates of gun-related homicides and suicides.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/>

http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/y517/Jocal505/weaklawsbadoutcomes_zps2e45ca2a.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

BTW AGIC, Vermont has aglaring problem with domestic gun violence, and it has a gun export problem noted in CT and MA.

 

 

 

Because of the state’s tiny population, the quantity of victims represented by the rates in the study are small: The total number of women murdered by men in the state was just five in 2013, the year covered by the VPC’s most recent data, and only two were killed with guns. What’s more, Vermont didn’t appear in the top ten of any other recent editions of the annual study. A one-time surge in killings, combined with a small sample size, could be playing havoc with the numbers.

 

 

In other words, they know they're cherry-picking again. Those two people are a glaring problem. The other three are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A_gun_in_the_Chesapeake, on 08 Feb 2016 - 1:42 PM, said:

Who mentioned anything about Race?

I mentioned a city level to make the comparison even more stark - If you look at real #s, you'll see that one city in IL, referring to Chicago, Ill. with some of the most restrictive gun legislation in the country, fares worse than an entire state, VT, with some of the most liberal gun legislation.

False comparison. Troubled, poverty ridden, employer starved race-torn inner city vs. gentrified rural state?

 

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa...... so you finally admit that the actual problem is "troubled, poverty ridden, employer-starved race-torn inner cities"?

 

JFC, will miracles never cease? jocal finally gets what we've been saying all along - that there are deeper societal issues causing the mayhem and not a tool that is easily obtainable in Vermont, yet for some strange reason they don't kill each other at the same rates as inner city slum dwellers. Furthermore, he admits that race is a factor in the killings and that blacks cannot be trusted with guns.

 

It is a true "Two-fer Tuesday"!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, our very highways have been cushioned for safety.

Energy-absorbing water canisters against overpasses.

Steel rails as a transition to concrete bridge railings.

Well-graded safety shoulders.

Sand transitions between pavement and abutments.

Extended margins next to interstates.

Formula One extended the public highway cushion ideas...

Get a grip, danger can be managed somewhat if you don't try to change human behavior first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(snipped....misc. typing, routinely mis-quoting jocal)

Furthermore, he admits that race is a factor in the killings and that blacks cannot be trusted with guns.

 

Whose beliefs are you quoting? Hello?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a grip, danger can be managed somewhat if you don't try to change human behavior first.

Why aren't you interested in changing human behavior first? Or do you just continue to believe the blacks are incapable of not being violent?

 

MADD worked to change human behavior. They did not try to prohibit cars or alcohol. It worked. Well. I'm simply at a loss as to why you want to ignore what has worked and pursue what has proven to be a failure. Because prohibition and draconian restrictions has worked SOOOO fucking well with alcohol, drugs, and Justin Beiber so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(snipped....misc. typing, routinely mis-quoting jocal)

Furthermore, he admits that race is a factor in the killings and that blacks cannot be trusted with guns.

Whose beliefs are you quoting? Hello?

 

 

I'd say Bloomberg's:

 

 

 

Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.

 

“These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,” Bloomberg said. “They just don’t have any long-term focus or anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”

 

At one point, the former mayor brought up New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices, which gained national attention in 2011. Bloomberg said that during his last year in office, a minister at a Baptist church in Harlem invited him to speak.

 

“While I’m sitting there waiting for him to introduce me, he said to his congregation, ‘You know, if every one of you stopped and frisked your kid before they went out at night, the mayor wouldn’t have to do it,’” Bloomberg said. “And so I knew I was going to be okay with that audience.”

 

 

And yours:

 

 

 

...

As you showed in this thread, whites own guns at twice the rate of black people. If the guns cause the "mentality" you don't like, why are they causing it so much more among blacks?

...

 

 

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Badgeless Racebaiter strikes again.

I tried to discuss the brothers with you, a subject other than guns. You trashed it.

You could not return in kind.

 

Your entire wisdom and courage about race, so far, is this: I thought you knew I am against racist policy in "government."

 

You are edgy with the subject of race, with cheap shots galore, yet I notice you have no actual contribution.

I'd like to see you pull this shit TEN TIMES in front of your symbionic figure, Ernie.

TOM RAY'S ten MONTHS OF RACE BAITING

Example 1.Post Tom Ray, on 20 Aug 2015 - 05:05 AM, said:

Quote:

jocal505, on 04 May 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

(Tom) I don't have to call you names or snip part of that sentence. Anyone can see it for what it is.

2.Tom Ray Posted 21 August 2015 - 08:59 AM

Why do you suppose MLK owned guns and applied for a concealed weapons permit?

Do you think his immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower was amplified, and more volatile, than that of whites?

3.Tom Ray Posted 28 August, 09:46 AM

No, I took the position that denying his concealed weapons permit because of his race was wrong. I don't buy into your idea that

jocal505, on 06 May 2015 - 07:26 AM, said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

4.Publius Johnson, on 23 Jan 2016 - 09:52 AM, said:

I have never said anything anywhere near this racist:

jocal505, on 04 May 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

5.Tom Racebaiting #10

Tom Ray Posted 10 February 2016 - 03:02 AM

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

6.Tom Ray, on 20 Aug 2015 - 05:05 AM, said:

Quote:

jocal505, on 04 May 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

(Tom) I don't have to call you names or snip part of that sentence. Anyone can see it for what it is.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=5043622

7.Tom Ray Posted 21 August 2015 - 08:59 AM

Why do you suppose MLK owned guns and applied for a concealed weapons permit?

Do you think his immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower was amplified, and more volatile, than that of whites?

8.Tom Ray Posted 28 August, 09:46 AM

No, I took the position that denying his concealed weapons permit because of his race was wrong. I don't buy into your idea that

jocal505, on 06 May 2015 - 07:26 AM, said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

9.Publius Johnson, on 23 Jan 2016 - 09:52 AM, said:

I have never said anything anywhere near this racist:

jocal505, on 04 May 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

10.Tom Ray Posted 10 February 2016 - 03:02 AM

And yours.

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I still believe that denying MLK's concealed weapons permit application because of his race was wrong.

 

I know my opposition to racist government policies is abhorrent, but I can't help it. I just don't like racist policies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I still believe that denying MLK's concealed weapons permit application because of his race was wrong.

 

I know my opposition to racist government policies is abhorrent, but I can't help it. I just don't like STRAW MAN ALERT racist policies.

 

"May issue" is not inherently racist. As proposed, it would be inherently discrete.

Gun clubs should do the screening with input from LE, IMO.

 

The Tom Ray Echo Chamber lacks wisdom with both your statements (see quote).

Will you be repeating this a lot, again?

Why are you so impressed with such content, as to repeat it?

Why did your race-baiting fall silent for five weeks after the Charleston shootings?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

 

 

 

 

The chances of a fix are nil. Our trial lawyers will $peak to that if it should ever come up. So it makes sense to focus on the one and only industry subjected to these ridiculous lawsuits.

 

That second point is true. I only focused on the tool manufacturers who contributed to building the wall, but there are other culprits here. The tool manufacturers who supplied the stalker are responsible for his actions as well.

 

 

My case is every bit as clear as the usual case against gun manufacturers: other people did bad things using their tools, so they're responsible!

 

I think you'll find if you read the manual of your own stalker-tools, you will find a mention in there that photography is not legal under all situations, and you should carefully check local laws first.

 

 

I actually do read camera manuals and have never seen such a warning. In any case, as this thread shows, courts are increasingly recognizing that photography is not a crime.

 

Putting holes in walls you don't own is, so the people who built the walls and rented the walls and provided the tools to build the walls and to create the illicit holes are every bit as responsible as the camera manufacturers.

 

Anyone but the actual person who did something wrong, that's the rule for guns and should be the rule for all tools!

 

The manufacturer has not been negligent just because a crime has been committed.

So in that gun example you were waving around a few months ago, Baretta had previously agreed in court that a certain warning was necessary for one of it's guns.

 

In the subsequent incident it was found that the users did not understand how their guns worked, and there was still no warning about the magazine behaviour on the gun or in the manual.

If they had mentioned it in the manual (as they had promised to do) they would have been fine.

 

Edit: I went and had a look at a few camera manuals. I didn't find any warnings to check the law about photography, which in retrospect is not surprising since ignorance of the law is not an excuse, so the camera provider does not need to warn you.

Interestingly, there is a warning about the camera's wifi and the law. I guess because you need to specifically turn it off - it is a "hidden" feature.

 

 

 

And a manufacturer has not been negligent just because one person failed to learn how to use his gun. Ignorance of how to use your gun is your fault, not anyone else's.

 

Even though there was a previous frivlolous lawsuit. The previous lawsuit is part of the pattern of these lawsuits that are intended to effect the goals of gun controllers without the hassle of actually winning elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"May issue" is not inherently racist. As proposed, it would be inherently discrete.

Gun clubs should do the screening with input from LE, IMO.

 

 

What if I don't belong to a gun club?

 

 

I still want to know from joke-al whether I have to join a gun club in order to get my may issue permit. Does the SA gun club count?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

The chances of a fix are nil. Our trial lawyers will $peak to that if it should ever come up. So it makes sense to focus on the one and only industry subjected to these ridiculous lawsuits.

 

That second point is true. I only focused on the tool manufacturers who contributed to building the wall, but there are other culprits here. The tool manufacturers who supplied the stalker are responsible for his actions as well.

 

 

My case is every bit as clear as the usual case against gun manufacturers: other people did bad things using their tools, so they're responsible!

 

I think you'll find if you read the manual of your own stalker-tools, you will find a mention in there that photography is not legal under all situations, and you should carefully check local laws first.

 

 

I actually do read camera manuals and have never seen such a warning. In any case, as this thread shows, courts are increasingly recognizing that photography is not a crime.

 

Putting holes in walls you don't own is, so the people who built the walls and rented the walls and provided the tools to build the walls and to create the illicit holes are every bit as responsible as the camera manufacturers.

 

Anyone but the actual person who did something wrong, that's the rule for guns and should be the rule for all tools!

 

The manufacturer has not been negligent just because a crime has been committed.

So in that gun example you were waving around a few months ago, Baretta had previously agreed in court that a certain warning was necessary for one of it's guns.

 

In the subsequent incident it was found that the users did not understand how their guns worked, and there was still no warning about the magazine behaviour on the gun or in the manual.

If they had mentioned it in the manual (as they had promised to do) they would have been fine.

 

Edit: I went and had a look at a few camera manuals. I didn't find any warnings to check the law about photography, which in retrospect is not surprising since ignorance of the law is not an excuse, so the camera provider does not need to warn you.

Interestingly, there is a warning about the camera's wifi and the law. I guess because you need to specifically turn it off - it is a "hidden" feature.

 

 

And a manufacturer has not been negligent just because one person failed to learn how to use his gun. Ignorance of how to use your gun is your fault, not anyone else's.

 

Even though there was a previous frivlolous lawsuit. The previous lawsuit is part of the pattern of these lawsuits that are intended to effect the goals of gun controllers without the hassle of actually winning elections.

 

 

WTF? Are you anti-safety?

 

The manufacturer was negligent, for not employing a caution about a dangerous gun feature (i.e. that a round may remain in the chamber even after the magazine is ejected). There was a reason it promised to do so.

Winning elections is okay, but judicial and legislative pressure is also fair game.

In fairness here, the fact that the political arena is $lanted puts more pressure on civil cases, does it not?

Just like MADD, the gun controversy is becoming a battle of how Americans see the acceptance of guns.

What do guns themselves represent in the hearts and minds of the public?

Do the positive aspects of guns out-weigh the carnage, and what seems to be a deterioration of social values?

Link to post
Share on other sites

<SNIP>

WTF? Are you anti-safety?

 

The manufacturer was negligent, for not employing a caution about a dangerous gun feature (i.e. that a round may remain in the chamber even after the magazine is ejected). There was a reason it promised to do so.

Winning elections is okay, but judicial and legislative pressure is also fair game.

In fairness here, the fact that the political arena is $lanted puts more pressure on civil cases, does it not?

Just like MADD, the gun controversy is becoming a battle of how Americans see the acceptance of guns.

What do guns themselves represent in the hearts and minds of the public?

Do the positive aspects of guns out-weigh the carnage, and what seems to be a deterioration of social values?

 

 

You can't be this stupid - there's nothing at all that any magazine fed weapon can do to eject a round in the chamber when the magazine is ejected. Clearing the chamber after you drop the magazine is part of the procedure, and the fact that the pistol doesn't do this automatically isn't a safety issue or a design flaw.

 

Of course, reason and logic have no place in an emotional hand-wringer's discussion. it's for the CHILDREN!!!!

 

PS - Soylent green is made from people - RENEW!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<SNIP>

WTF? Are you anti-safety?

 

The manufacturer was negligent, for not employing a caution about a dangerous gun feature (i.e. that a round may remain in the chamber even after the magazine is ejected). There was a reason it promised to do so.

 

Winning elections is okay, but judicial and legislative pressure is also fair game.

In fairness here, the fact that the political arena is $lanted puts more pressure on civil cases, does it not?

 

 

 

Just like MADD, the gun controversy is becoming a battle of how Americans see the acceptance of guns.

What do guns themselves represent in the hearts and minds of the public?

Do the positive aspects of guns out-weigh the carnage, and what seems to be a deterioration of social values?

You can't be this stupid - there's nothing at all that any magazine fed weapon can do to eject a round in the chamber when the magazine is ejected. Clearing the chamber after you drop the magazine is part of the procedure, and the fact that the pistol doesn't do this automatically isn't a safety issue or a design flaw.

 

Of course, reason and logic have no place in an emotional hand-wringer's discussion. it's for the CHILDREN!!!!

 

PS - Soylent green is made from people - RENEW!

 

 

Yeah, what the dummy wants is a mandated magazine disconnect safety so the gun won't shoot when the mag is dropped. I would consider that an unsafety. I would want the gun to still fire if the mag fell out, you have to be pretty ignorant of how guns work to think that it is unloaded just because you dropped the mag, and there are times where a mag might not be in the gun and you still really really want the gun to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<SNIP>

WTF? Are you anti-safety?

 

The manufacturer was negligent, for not employing a caution about a dangerous gun feature (i.e. that a round may remain in the chamber even after the magazine is ejected). There was a reason it promised to do so.

Winning elections is okay, but judicial and legislative pressure is also fair game.

In fairness here, the fact that the political arena is $lanted puts more pressure on civil cases, does it not?

Just like MADD, the gun controversy is becoming a battle of how Americans see the acceptance of guns.

What do guns themselves represent in the hearts and minds of the public?

Do the positive aspects of guns out-weigh the carnage, and what seems to be a deterioration of social values?

 

 

You can't be this stupid - there's nothing at all that any magazine fed weapon can do to eject a round in the chamber when the magazine is ejected. Clearing the chamber after you drop the magazine is part of the procedure, and the fact that the pistol doesn't do this automatically isn't a safety issue or a design flaw.

 

Of course, reason and logic have no place in an emotional hand-wringer's discussion. it's for the CHILDREN!!!!

 

PS - Soylent green is made from people - RENEW!

 

 

Don't kid yourself. Yes, he CAN absolutely be this stupid. Jokeys solution is to outlaw all magazine fed weapons. That would solve it in the most perfect nanny-state fashion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"May issue" is not inherently racist. As proposed, it would be inherently discrete.

Gun clubs should do the screening with input from LE, IMO.

 

 

What if I don't belong to a gun club?

 

 

I still want to know from joke-al whether I have to join a gun club in order to get my may issue permit. Does the SA gun club count?

 

 

You are the person making the only exclusions, so the details are on you, mate.

 

 

 

 

This is only "us vs them" if you make it that way, Jeff.

I'm a gunowner, but I'm convinced I can be part of the solution.

I'm convinced you can be, too.

 

The pattern in the US courts is that gun laws will become more restrictive and/or better enforced.

More violence-prone, marginal types will someday be properly screened out by informed standards of public research.

There will be a certain failure rate. What to do?

 

 

Behavior modification should be fair game. Let the gun clubs encourage (and offer their own) anger management education, DV violence counselling, some non-violent alternative training, whatever...to educate and re-score, and re-prsent failed gun applicants, and subtly discourage kooks with guns, basically.

 

Gun clubs could become part of the solution by employing standards of gun moderation and good civic behavior, not these many shades of patriotic insurrectionism...with AW's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you ARE advocating that joining a gun club is mandatory in order to exercise your 2A rights, correct? Let me guess, those guns that we are told "shall not be infringed" will be required to be stored at the gun club, right?

 

Sounds like the UK. No thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And a manufacturer has not been negligent just because one person failed to learn how to use his gun. Ignorance of how to use your gun is your fault, not anyone else's.

 

Even though there was a previous frivlolous lawsuit. The previous lawsuit is part of the pattern of these lawsuits that are intended to effect the goals of gun controllers without the hassle of actually winning elections.

 

 

WTF? Are you anti-safety?

 

The manufacturer was negligent, for not employing a caution about a dangerous gun feature (i.e. that a round may remain in the chamber even after the magazine is ejected). There was a reason it promised to do so.

...

 

No, I'm pro-responsibility.

 

The manufacturer was not negligent because the "dangerous" feature is as common as dirt and is what gun buyers overwhelmingly want.

 

What was dangerous was the kid aiming the gun at his friend and pulling the trigger, at which point the gun funcitoned perfectly and in the expected manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<SNIP>

WTF? Are you anti-safety?

 

The manufacturer was negligent, for not employing a caution about a dangerous gun feature (i.e. that a round may remain in the chamber even after the magazine is ejected). There was a reason it promised to do so.

Winning elections is okay, but judicial and legislative pressure is also fair game.

In fairness here, the fact that the political arena is $lanted puts more pressure on civil cases, does it not?

Just like MADD, the gun controversy is becoming a battle of how Americans see the acceptance of guns.

What do guns themselves represent in the hearts and minds of the public?

Do the positive aspects of guns out-weigh the carnage, and what seems to be a deterioration of social values?

 

 

You can't be this stupid - there's nothing at all that any magazine fed weapon can do to eject a round in the chamber when the magazine is ejected. Clearing the chamber after you drop the magazine is part of the procedure, and the fact that the pistol doesn't do this automatically isn't a safety issue or a design flaw.

 

Of course, reason and logic have no place in an emotional hand-wringer's discussion. it's for the CHILDREN!!!!

 

 

PS - Soylent green is made from people - RENEW!

 

Your oh-so-superior mechanical objections notwithstanding, many folks die assuming an ejected magazine means an unloaded gun. Many such individuals are showing off with the deadly thing, eh?

A caution from the manufacturer about this, a "heads up" if you will, seems like a step towards safety. A lack of such a caution would understandably seem like negligence to some.

 

"Emotional hand wringing":

Confiscation fears are emotional hand-wringing.

Fear of armed criminals is emotional hand-wringing, too.

Suggesting guns to prevent roaming rapists is emotional hand-wringing.

Suggesting guns as a remedy for inevitable tyrants is emotional hand-wringing.

Jocal is coming for r guns is hand-wringing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you ARE advocating that joining a gun club is mandatory in order to exercise your 2A rights, correct? Let me guess, those guns that we are told "shall not be infringed" will be required to be stored at the gun club, right?

 

Sounds like the UK. No thanks.

 

You are just making up a position for another person, again.

You assign someone some straw man position you have fabricated, then you shoot it down.

Your net gain in this effort is what?

 

The idea, again, is that gun clubs can step up here, to deal with and isolate the extremist element.

The gun culture could mature to apply positive pressure and discourage loose cannon mentality, for the sake gun ownership.

 

Usually, healthy discussion would occur (and evolve) in trade magazines, but guys like Dick Metcalf get Zumbo'ed.

 

Intolerance of guns will not be tolerated: The ballad of Dick Metcalf

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/08/intolerance-of-guns-will-not-be-tolerated-the-ballad-of-dick-metcalf/>

 

‘Zumbo’ed’: The Word for What Happens When a Gun Journalist Steps Out of Line

"Next thing you know,” says an ex-writer for an NRA magazine, “you’re a communist, socialist, anti-American who hates the Constitution.”

<http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/zumboed-the-word-for-what-happens-when-a-gun-journalist-steps-out-of-line/>

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

<SNIP>

WTF? Are you anti-safety?

The manufacturer was negligent, for not employing a caution about a dangerous gun feature (i.e. that a round may remain in the chamber even after the magazine is ejected). There was a reason it promised to do so.

Winning elections is okay, but judicial and legislative pressure is also fair game.

In fairness here, the fact that the political arena is $lanted puts more pressure on civil cases, does it not?

Just like MADD, the gun controversy is becoming a battle of how Americans see the acceptance of guns.

What do guns themselves represent in the hearts and minds of the public?

Do the positive aspects of guns out-weigh the carnage, and what seems to be a deterioration of social values?

 

You can't be this stupid - there's nothing at all that any magazine fed weapon can do to eject a round in the chamber when the magazine is ejected. Clearing the chamber after you drop the magazine is part of the procedure, and the fact that the pistol doesn't do this automatically isn't a safety issue or a design flaw.

 

Of course, reason and logic have no place in an emotional hand-wringer's discussion. it's for the CHILDREN!!!!

 

 

PS - Soylent green is made from people - RENEW!

Your oh-so-superior mechanical objections notwithstanding, many folks die assuming an ejected magazine means an unloaded gun. Many such individuals are showing off with the deadly thing, eh?

A caution from the manufacturer about this, a "heads up" if you will, seems like a step towards safety. A lack of such a caution would understandably seem like negligence to some.

"Emotional hand wringing":

Confiscation fears are emotional hand-wringing.

Fear of armed criminals is emotional hand-wringing, too.

Suggesting guns to prevent roaming rapists is emotional hand-wringing.

Suggesting guns as a remedy for inevitable tyrants is emotional hand-wringing.

Jocal is coming for r guns is hand-wringing.

People who kill themselves thinking an ejected mag is an unloaded gun is just good Darwinism at work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And a manufacturer has not been negligent just because one person failed to learn how to use his gun. Ignorance of how to use your gun is your fault, not anyone else's.

Remember they did a survey. nearly 40% of people were unsure or wrong.

Including the police officer owner of this gun, and the shooter.

 

When Beretta agreed in court that the behaviour was a safety/education issue and undertook to mention it in their materials, they were unbelievably stupid not to do so.

Even though there was a previous frivlolous lawsuit. The previous lawsuit is part of the pattern of these lawsuits that are intended to effect the goals of gun controllers without the hassle of actually winning elections.

As I have said, frivolous lawsuits are a good thing to clamp down on.

I don't think bequeathing invulnerability to industries with particularly effective lobby groups is the right approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think bequeathing invulnerability to industries with particularly effective lobby groups is the right approach.

Imagine if that were the case. IMAGINE!

 

Special protections then.

By your response I gather you are a proponent of frivolous lawsuits?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And a manufacturer has not been negligent just because one person failed to learn how to use his gun. Ignorance of how to use your gun is your fault, not anyone else's.

Remember they did a survey. nearly 40% of people were unsure or wrong.

Including the police officer owner of this gun, and the shooter.

 

When Beretta agreed in court that the behaviour was a safety/education issue and undertook to mention it in their materials, they were unbelievably stupid not to do so.

Even though there was a previous frivlolous lawsuit. The previous lawsuit is part of the pattern of these lawsuits that are intended to effect the goals of gun controllers without the hassle of actually winning elections.

As I have said, frivolous lawsuits are a good thing to clamp down on.

I don't think bequeathing invulnerability to industries with particularly effective lobby groups is the right approach.

 

 

You earlier said "it was found that the users did not understand how their guns worked" but the survey was general, not specific to "users" of semi-auto's. There are lots of people in the population at large who are ignorant about how guns work but I suspect the number would be much smaller if you surveyed people who have actually shot one.

 

As for invulnerability, you challenged us to show someone who was claiming that and I did. Now I can do it again. Go find a mirror.

 

I see you have now backed it down to "special protections" and my answer is that special frivolous attacks justify them. If we considered pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger to be a crime in all circumstances, the law would have protected Beretta in the case we're talking about.

 

Do you think the kid who shot his friend committed a crime?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You earlier said "it was found that the users did not understand how their guns worked" but the survey was general, not specific to "users" of semi-auto's. There are lots of people in the population at large who are ignorant about how guns work but I suspect the number would be much smaller if you surveyed people who have actually shot one.

If the lawyers felt this would have had any baring on the case, I'm sure they would have brought up your perfectly valid criticisms at the time.

I note that they didn't.

As for invulnerability, you challenged us to show someone who was claiming that and I did. Now I can do it again. Go find a mirror.

I felt it was clear I was not referring to the ravings of irrelevant people on an internet forum, but people in positions of responsibility who appeared to know what they were talking about.

I see you have now backed it down to "special protections" and my answer is that special frivolous attacks justify them. If we considered pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger to be a crime in all circumstances, the law would have protected Beretta in the case we're talking about.

But, then all that syg stuff goes out the window because isn't it supposed to save people a trip to court when the police think it's obvious?

Do you think the kid who shot his friend committed a crime?

Society gives children lots of leeway to do stupid shit because we judge they are not good at thinking things through until they reach some arbitrary age at which they become enlightened.

This kid wasn't charged with anything, and from what I have read I think that was appropriate.

 

In my opinion the father committed a crime. The police thought so too, and he was prosecuted (unsuccessfully).

I have asked many times, but noone has yet managed to turn up a court record explaining how he got off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't view "enlightenment" as an on/off switch. More of a process.

 

And by the time you're a teenager in that process, you should darn well know not to point guns at people and pull the trigger. The kid did something wrong, whether or not we call it a crime.

 

The PLCAA was intended to protect manufacturers from lawsuits resulting from criminal misuse of guns. I'd expand it to wrongful misuse so that it covers kids.

 

His dad did something wrong long before he committed any crime. He insulated his kid from guns instead of teaching him about them. That's like having a swimming pool and not teaching your kid to swim in my book.

 

The reports conflict on whether he left the gun accessible but even if we assume he's telling the truth about locking it up, a keyed lock is not much of a barrier to a teen who can find the key.

 

I suspect he got off because no one could prove whether he locked up the gun and locking it up would be considered OK under the law. It's not OK to me. Should have been preceded by training and should have been a lock that is not so easy to defeat.

 

But the fact that the dad and kid both did things wrong doesn't mean the manufacturer is responsible for their misdeeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the fact that the dad and kid both did things wrong doesn't mean the manufacturer is responsible for their misdeeds.

The manufacturer wasn't found to be responsible.

They were found to have contributed by negligently failing to warn their users about a feature of the weapon which they had acknowledged in a previous case was confusing and potentially dangerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But the fact that the dad and kid both did things wrong doesn't mean the manufacturer is responsible for their misdeeds.

The manufacturer wasn't found to be responsible.

They were found to have contributed by negligently failing to warn their users about a feature of the weapon which they had acknowledged in a previous case was confusing and potentially dangerous.

 

 

Most semi-auto's function in that same "confusing and dangerous" way and the ones that manufacturers have offered that are NOT "confusing and dangerous" tend to flop in the marketplace because people don't want them and police forces won't buy them. Exactly where did Beretta acknowledge that normal guns are "confusing and dangerous" anyway?

 

That previous case, like this one, was a frivolous attempt to use the legal system to cost gun manufacturers money because they deliver what gun buyers want and expect: guns that actually fire when they have a round in the chamber. These cases are exactly why the PLCAA was passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites