Jump to content

Hillary being a cunt on gun control


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Can anyone give me a readers digest version of what specifically the marketing was that supposedly caused newtown retard boy to kill kids? 

was it the “man card revoked” one or something else?

I think the answer is not just "something else" but "everything else."

From the majority opinion linked by CLEAN:

Quote

the plaintiffs allege that the defendants illegally marketed the XM15-E2S by promoting its criminal use for offensive civilian assaults

The part I bolded is, to me, a load of crap, but it does tie in nicely to the idea from a certain, unnamed half of our Duopoly that anyone who would buy or sell something deemed an "assault" weapon must like murdering kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 453
  • 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

On 11/13/2019 at 5:00 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I just don’t see this case being successful except for getting Remington to settle. 

That seems unlikely to me, as the line of people seeking a similar settlement would wind up being more expensive than fighting the case and winning.

Yeah, they might lose, but...
 

Quote

 

The plaintiffs still have to prove that Remington's marketing was not only "unfair or deceptive" under CUTPA but also, per the PLCAA, "a proximate cause" of the Sandy Hook massacre. The Connecticut Supreme Court also applies a proximity requirement to CUTPA claims.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up this case, notes that the plaintiffs have not offered any evidence that Lanza or his mother, who bought the rifle he used, was "influenced in any way by any advertisement," let alone that advertising precipitated the mass shooting or made it deadlier. As the Connecticut Supreme Court itself observed while allowing the lawsuit to proceed, "proving such a causal link at trial may prove to be a Herculean task."

 

"We don't have any evidence, but the company ran an ad so it must have precipitated this crime" seems a pretty weak claim to me. That's the claim that will now be heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

"We don't have any evidence, but the company ran an ad so it must have precipitated this crime" seems a pretty weak claim to me. That's the claim that will now be heard.

Why were the gun companies marketing battlefield firepower to citizens? I only ask because the four corners of their PR image was unhealthy. It was sick, not well, IMO.

As for non-wanker, non-imaginary "militias", Tim McVeigh slept on real militia couches, inside real  militia homes. The same figures are connected to bank robberies. Source: wiki.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 6:31 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I just don't think marketing "inspired" the murderer to kill his mother, take her gun, and kill a bunch of kids. Maybe other mind-readers can more clearly see into an obviously disturbed mind and do believe that the marketing was responsible.

If Bushmaster/Remington get found guilty, it will be interesting to see how long before the 1st lawsuit following the same path is filed against a sportscar manufacturer..

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

.
 

"We don't have any evidence, but the company ran an ad so it must have precipitated this crime" seems a pretty weak claim to me. That's the claim that will now be heard.

That's not how expert witnesses work though Tom.  You understand how a trial works, right?  I can sent you a primer if you like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 5:56 PM, bpm57 said:

Huh, I don't see any commentary in the order list, so why quote the CT SC ruling as if that is the reason SCOTUS didn't take it?

when a Court of Final Appeal doesn't take a case, the lower court's ruling is the law.  That's why I quoted it, you fucking dolt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 6:31 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

 

First, Administratrix is a funny word.

 

 

I had to draft a contract today for acquisition of a swiss company.  It was to be signed by a woman whose title was 'Directrice'

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

hen a Court of Final Appeal doesn't take a case, the lower court's ruling is the law.

No shit. Yet what you said was.

On 11/12/2019 at 1:02 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

It turns on the meaning of the word 'applicable' in the Federal statute.

You are saying that the court agrees with the CT SC, and that is why it was denied.

“A simple order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari is not designed to reflect the Court’s views either as to the merits of the case or as to its jurisdiction” Supreme Court Practice and Procedure 10ed

"The denial means that this Court has refused to take the case. It means nothing else."-Frankfurter, J., dissenting in Darr v. BurFord

25 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

That's why I quoted it, you fucking dolt.

Oh look, its more of what passes for adult debate among the echo chamber.

29 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

lol.  people are marrying dogs now too, dontcha know.

I'm never surprised when I read about what happens in SF

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

 

"The denial means that this Court has refused to take the case. It means nothing else."-Frankfurter, J., dissenting in Darr v. BurFord

You just cited dissent to prove something.  Do you realize what is wrong with that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:
13 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

.
 

"We don't have any evidence, but the company ran an ad so it must have precipitated this crime" seems a pretty weak claim to me. That's the claim that will now be heard.

That's not how expert witnesses work though Tom.  You understand how a trial works, right?  I can sent you a primer if you like.

Sure, send it along.

But without evidence that any ads were seen, let alone that they had the effect of precipitating a crime, it seems to me that they'll have to get an expert to say, essentially, "We don't have any evidence, but the company ran an ad so it must have precipitated this crime."

Maybe an expert can make is sound less stupid or more convincing. I doubt it but am happy to learn how you think one might.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Now i'm confused. I thought there was no trial yet?

Then how can the ruling in a non-trial be "the law?"

10 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

when a Court of Final Appeal doesn't take a case, the lower court's ruling is the law.

Anyway, the plaintiffs have taken opportunities to present the claims they wish to make in the lawsuit.

From last March:
 

Quote

 

The plantiffs cite these examples of "unethical and irresponsible marketing practices":

The defendants unethically promoted their assault weapons for offensive, military style missions by publishing advertisements and distributing product catalogs that (1) promote the AR-15 as "the uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission adaptable as you are," (2) depict soldiers moving on patrol through jungles, armed with Bushmaster rifles, (3) feature the slogan "[w]hen you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers," superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag, (4) tout the "military proven performance" of firearms like the XM15-E2S, (5) promote civilian rifles as "the ultimate combat weapons system," (6) invoke the unparalleled destructive power of their AR-15 rifles, (7) claim that the most elite branches of the United States military, including the United States Navy SEALs, the United States Army Green Berets and Army Rangers, and other special forces, have used the AR-15, and (8) depict a close-up of an AR-15 with the following slogan: "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

The lawsuit argues that such messages would appeal to a troubled young man like Lanza, that they may have influenced him to choose the XM15 from among his mother's guns when he attacked the elementary school, and that the attack would have been less deadly if he had used a different gun. All of those claims are questionable, and it is hard to see how a reasonable jury, even if it found the Bushmaster ads distasteful, could conclude that they were "a proximate cause" of mass murder. But thanks to this ruling, the plaintiffs will have a chance to make that case.

The legal theory that the court rejected, which aimed to take advantage of another exception to the PLCAA's protection, was potentially much more threatening to the gun industry. The plaintiffs argued that supplying military-style rifles to civilians in itself qualifies as negligent entrustment, a cause of action that involves transferring a "dangerous instrumentality" to someone whom the defendant knows or should know is apt to cause harm with it. According to the lawsuit, the business of selling "modern sporting rifles" to the general public is one giant tort, even though these guns are very rarely used to commit crimes.

 

"Would appeal." Not "did appeal and we can prove it."

They have to prove that the ads were SO UNFAIR and also that they caused the crime. I doubt they can prove either of those ridiculous claims. Do you think they can?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Then how can the ruling in a non-trial be "the law?"

Anyway, the plaintiffs have taken opportunities to present the claims they wish to make in the lawsuit.

From last March:
 

"Would appeal." Not "did appeal and we can prove it."

They have to prove that the ads were SO UNFAIR and also that they caused the crime. I doubt they can prove either of those ridiculous claims. Do you think they can?

You are confusing “the law” with “the facts,” which are established at trial. 
 

I don’t know that you are correctly spelling out the elements of the claim though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to spell them out sarcastically.

Anyway, this part of the ruling might be of interest to some...

Quote

Subsequently, just a few years before Congress began considering predecessor legislation to PLCAA, the FTC entered into a new consent decree addressing wrongful advertising. In In re Beck’s North America, Inc., Docket No. C-3859, 1999 FTC LEXIS 40 (F.T.C. March 25, 1999),the commission prohibited the publication of advertisements that portrayed young adult passengers consuming alcohol while sailing, in a manner that was unsafe and depicted activities that ‘‘may also violate federal and state boating safety laws.’’ Id., *2. The consent decree prohibited the ‘‘future dissemination . . . of any . . . advertisement that . . . depicts activities that would violate [federal laws that make] it illegal to operate a vessel under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs.’’ (Citations omitted.)In re Beck’s North America,Inc., File No. 982-3092, 1998 FTC LEXIS 83, *15–16(F.T.C. August 6, 1998). More generally, the FTC cautioned that it ‘‘ha[d] substantial concern about advertising that depicts conduct that poses a high risk to health and safety. As a result, the [FTC] will closely scrutinize such advertisements in the future.’’

Oh dear. People actually drink and use illegal drugs on sailboats? The horror.

I want to see the ads in question.

I'm trying to think of a kind of racing that does NOT pose a high risk to health and safety. Boats, bikes, cars, planes are all out. And that's if the participants are sober!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2019 at 10:55 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

You are confusing “the law” with “the facts,” which are established at trial. 
 

I don’t know that you are correctly spelling out the elements of the claim though. 

Is being confused about the facts a problem for you?

I ask because this is still incorrect:

On 3/29/2019 at 11:19 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Oh c'mon you know that guns are the one thing in the world that's exempt from us consumer safety law.

As noted above, though Biden continues to repeat the same lie you did, it's still a lie.

On 10/31/2019 at 7:15 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Senator Biden voted Nay on the liability protection for aircraft makers. I guess he didn't notice or forgot that it passed and was signed by President Clinton anyway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Biden Being A Cunt On Gun Control
 

Quote

 

...This weekend Uncle Joe reached all the way back to 2005 when Sanders was still in the House of Representatives, bringing up his vote in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That’s the law that protects firearms manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.

...

 

Hillary already did that last time around, prompting this thread, and Bernie folded like a cheap umbrella in a breeze.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Biden Being A Cunt On Gun Control
 

Hillary already did that last time around, prompting this thread, and Bernie folded like a cheap umbrella in a breeze.

Bernie folded, once exposed. his words became babble— he began to dissemble, like clipped Dogballs.


The PLCAA is at the core of the evil shit. It sits first among the targets of the well-informed elk.

Tom has called @Mr. CLEAN a liar over the terms of the PLCA.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 6:05 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

stupid, floppy, empty, dogballs. the cornpuffs of intellectual thought.

Tom features many, many Cocoa Puffs of intellectual thought 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

...

Tom has called @Mr. CLEAN a liar over the terms of the PLCA. 

 

Actually, readers know that it is the terms of the similar liability exemption for the aircraft industry, not the gun industry, that made Clean's and Biden's statements incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Actually, readers know that it is the terms of the similar liability exemption for the aircraft industry, not the gun industry, that made Clean's and Biden's statements incorrect.

o let us bow to the dogballs

dogballs, he define what is correct 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Retarded readers, maybe.  Or maybe really old ones whose brains are a little feeble.

Well, OK, let's see a link to the law and a quote of the section that you believe makes guns "the one thing in the world that's exempt from us consumer safety law."

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 3:02 PM, Fakenews said:

July 27th (2018) a day that will forever be memorialized  on PA.  Much like the day Malarkey’s Yoo Ho thread turned to gold.

On this page, DAY OF THE DOGBALLS  

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need some help backing up what you said, Clean, perhaps you can build on badlat's earlier work?

On 4/20/2015 at 9:34 PM, Jim M said:

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still a lie. You can sue a manufacturer over a defective gun. Readers know about the part badlat edited out.

But you can't always sue an aircraft manufacturer...

General Aviation Revitalization Act

Quote

GARA is a statute of repose generally shielding most manufacturers of aircraft (carrying fewer than 20 passengers), and aircraft parts, from liability for most accidents (including injury or fatality accidents) involving their products that are 18 years old or older (at the time of the accident), even if manufacturer negligence was a cause. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Just a side note: this forum has weird censorship standards. This one survived Jeff's booting but LONQR did not? That was a fun thread. Sad it's gone.

What happened with Cunfinder the Great?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I don't know. Take it to GA. Try not to piss off Zapata again.

Zapata  was kind to me; I got a one-week time out. It was the same week that the newspaper headlines looked at the Presidential race-baiting.

Zapata, ever hardy and true, wouldn't allow your signature race-baiting to expand to the Trail Cam thread. We will deal with it here on PA, as we celebrate five years of your race baiter skilz, in twelve forms.

Quote

let's play WHEEL OF RACE-BAITING with our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray

 

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  1. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  1. Gangstas dealing drugs, sheer scapegoating,  and the NAACP; 
  2. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  3. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  4. Judge Taney is coming, thirty times. the NAACP;
  5. Dred Scott fifteen times, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  6. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple epidemics of violence), the NAACP;
  7. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  8. Did I mention the NAACP… for more than 125 mentions?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Jeffreaux is gone?  WTH did he do? 

I feel a bit sad.  He was an asshole but he was our asshole and a hell of a lot better here than Malarkey Dog and the Joke.

He's here as a Guest.

That's weird.

Maybe he's undercover.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Fuck that guy.

Jeff was part of the fabric here. He added texture. Jeff could take a hit.

 

 

Booth and Jefffie, NRA members.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

He's (Jeffie is) here as a Guest.

That's weird.

Maybe he's undercover.

Get a new name already?

"Guest" has been responding to my posts. Jeff's nomenclature was banned, not his posts,

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2016 at 8:57 PM, Battlecheese said:

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

why because gun owners are such corwards , and they cry too much , if you even mention back round checks they fright out,

To be it's a catch 22, if you own a gun you must be crazy , but they need a gun to kill other gun owners?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg being a cunt on gun control

Quote

 

...

Sanders tried to brush off the criticism during an earlier debate, noting he represents a rural state where gun owners hold sway – and Bloomberg’s team used video of his defense in their own ad.

‘In 2005, I signed a local law allowing New Yorkers to sue gun manufacturers for criminal negligence. That same year, Bernie voted to give gun manufacturers IMMUNITY — overriding my efforts to make NYers safer. Care to explain, Bernie?’ Bloomberg tweeted Monday – kicking off a series of attacks.

Then he went after Sanders’ integrity. ‘The NRA paved the road to Washington for Bernie Sanders. He spent the next three decades making sure they got a return on their investment. We deserve a president who is not beholden to the gun lobby,’ Bloomberg wrote.

...

 

A quick look at the cosponsors of the current Senate bill to ban (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) shows Bernie's name, among other Presidential contenders.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I carried a gun when I was being threatened by proven sociopaths.

I'm glad that most people at the watering hole aren't packing.

We survive our fights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Bernie's time in the barrel, about gunz. His PLCA track record caught up with him. The unique (and deadly) consumer protections within the PLCA are inexcusable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2020 at 7:10 AM, jocal505 said:

Bernie's time in the barrel, about gunz. His PLCA track record caught up with him. The unique (and deadly) consumer protections within the PLCA are inexcusable. 

But he flip flopped on that issue back in 2016.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

But he flip flopped on that issue back in 2016.

 

So what? If a person gets the picture here, the PLCA is a policy from hades. Bad ju ju. Bernie's motive (the protection of local gun vendors) showed he was either clueless or compromised on the he gun situation. Hillary was better advised.

 

''

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 6/2/2018 at 1:29 PM, Mark K said:

Not really. Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

 22_223a.jpg

 

...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness. Perhaps someone who has been horribly brain-washed, I dare not guess.  I think it best to leave such in the hands of professionals.    

B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

A state court in Pennsylvania has ruled that federal gun industry protection, aka the 2005 act called the PLCA, is unconstitutional.  @ Cacapathetic Tom. @Cacoethesic Tom

Quote

After a child's accidental shooting death, Pennsylvania appeals court rules federal gun industry protection law unconstitutional

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/29/us/pennsylvania-court-gun-industry-protection-law-unconstitutional/index.html

And I once heard that PA is "second amendment friendly."  @LenP

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

A state court in Pennsylvania has ruled that federal gun industry protection, aka the 2005 act called the PLCA, is unconstitutional. @LenP

Anyone wanna place bets on the likelihood that SCOTUS lets an attack on the Dormant Commerce Claus stand?  Constitutional lawyers are making popcorn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LenP said:

Fuck off Jocal. 

There's nothing to be sore about, Len. This deal, this gun issue, is a journey, during which the cream will rise to the top.

Pay attention. The common cell phone is finding victory over police Glocks... and even racebaiter types have to do some reflection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The central claim seems to be that guns are defective if a round can be fired without a magazine inserted. By that measure, I've only fired defective guns all my life.

The opinion on page 43 says,

Quote

Once PLCAA immunity attaches to a qualified product under Section 7903(4), that immunity lasts into perpetuity, evenif the product has ceased its transportation, injures someone who never entered any commercial transaction,and never again returns to interstate commerce.

This and other parts of the opinion suggest that a product that is not "in commerce" can't be regulated under the commerce power.

The judge references lots of commerce clause cases but omits a very significant one on that point.

Thomas, dissenting in Gonzalez v Raich

Quote

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

I think Thomas is right on that point, but that's different from thinking his was the majority opinion. It was joined by no other Justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

By that measure, I've only fired defective guns all my life.

You are firing off the super-violence, with your mind, and your keyboard. You are firing off ill-baked, defective, short-sighted, white-boy policies. These ideas come from  Goldwater and reason.com.

And now the PLCA is under fire, in a dark moment of American history.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Why do you think they 'omitted' a dissent, Tom?

I think Thomas got the issue right in dissent but they omitted any mention of the majority opinion in that case too, possibly because it was inconvenient.

Quote

Once PLCAA immunity attaches to a qualified product under Section 7903(4), that immunity lasts into perpetuity, evenif the product has ceased its transportation, injures someone who never entered any commercial transaction,and never again returns to interstate commerce.

The majority in Raich said that homegrown cannabis plants for personal use were subject to regulation under the commerce power. They "never entered any commercial transaction,and never again returned to interstate commerce" but were still within the commerce power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Interrupting the  asininity :


Absolutely nothing about US Gun laws will be changes in the next decade. 
Nothing!!

End hijack 

Please resume your display of absolute ignorance 

I'd be happy to bet twenty bucks that you're wrong. We've seen lots of changes over the past decade and will continue to see more of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2020 at 7:29 AM, Gouvernail said:

Absolutely nothing about US Gun laws will be changes in the next decade. 
Nothing!!

End hijack 

Please resume your display of absolute ignorance 

Going by the last ten years, I dunno where you get that idea.

I emplore you to not ignore Kolbe, and Highland Park, and the NY SAFE Act. 

You may be ignoring the 92% success rate of gun legislation, after Scalia.

You may be ignoring the rare but thorough historical review that was Peruta II. Outdoor guns have no historical protection.

 This is a hot button issue, in this decade dude, since the D.C circuit could not fight off must issue.

Given the upheaval that was Heller, it will take some time to sort Larry Pratt out. The time is now, innit?

Meanwhile, the bright side is that Heller guidelines nixed M-16's and the like.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...