Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 23:32:26 GMT
I think I'm going to 'nevermind, it's not worth it' this post. (It was on gun taxes)
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 18, 2016 23:33:21 GMT
Okay let me ask this (again). Putting is persona aside.
Policy. He has none. He's not shown one bit of transparency on his plans, his ideas of hat would come with his presidency. He yammers on what Hillary's going to do (mostly if not all are lies by him).
Does it bother anyone that Ivanka is writing, re-writing family medical leave?
Or his sons are doing the vetting for him on people who would fill cabinets or courts or other?
Please tell me! I truly am curious!!!
|
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,947
Location: North Idaho
Jul 1, 2014 23:30:44 GMT
|
Post by Nink on Sept 18, 2016 23:37:53 GMT
People screamed that Obama was going to take them away too. It's been eight years and y'all still have your guns. When are you going to stop buying into the nonsense that the NRA is feeding you?ETA: and I come from a family of avid gun owners. My grandfather was a professional trap shooter, all my brothers are former military and hunt regularly and have many guns. Many people are going by Hillary's own words on what she plans to do. Except she has never said she is going to take away guns, in fact she has said just the opposite, that she's not going to. ETA: I just read your other responses as to why you feel she will.
|
|
|
Post by OntarioScrapper on Sept 18, 2016 23:49:01 GMT
Let me expand on the fact that in Canada we have survived without being "armed to the teeth" like the USA.
People STILL have guns. It's just not the extent that it is like in the USA. The government isn't coming for the handguns. There are checks that need to be made to get a gun. My husband has a gun liscense because he runs a theatre and if they have to use a pop gun, someone has to have a liscense who is around. That's the only reason he has a liscense for. I have relatives who own guns. I have never seen these guns and I probably don't even know all that own one or more.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 0:01:29 GMT
Many people are going by Hillary's own words on what she plans to do. Except she has never said she is going to take away guns, in fact she has said just the opposite, that she's not going to. ETA: I just read your other responses as to why you feel she will. Yes, her words saying she isn't and her plans for what she will do, are at odds with each other. So people look at her written plan and what it will accomplish, speak out about it and immediately get accused of being paranoid and lying. Despite going on her very words.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 19, 2016 0:02:00 GMT
He's not.
[snip]
It's a general, over-used, very old analogy. Again, nothing really to do with Hillary. It's the mentality. And Trump's supporters, the people he is speaking to, understand this. They know it has nothing to do with Hillary but what they don't like about what she represents. That the big people have rights and deserve to be protected and that the little people shouldn't have rights and don't deserve to be protected. That's the basic gist.
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis, much of which makes a lot of sense. However, in this case, I still find it troubling that the Republican nominee is the person using this rhetoric, especially in light of the rallies/convention where supporters chant things like "Lock her up" and "Kill the bitch." This time, it seems way more personal and way less "We don't like what she represents." Do I know any of these people? No. But their behavior and rhetoric frighten me. Increasingly it DOES seem like it has something to do with Hillary Clinton herself, instead of old conservative tropes. (So it troubles me that Mr. Trump so cavalierly stokes those flames. Whether intentional or not, I would be surprised if he has not been cautioned to be more careful.)
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 19, 2016 0:05:45 GMT
Not over-reaching or reading. Explain how the bolder part isn't insinuating that Hillary supporters are idiots. You appear to to be okay with calling people idiots, if they support Hillary, but not okay with the crayon analogy if applies to "your people." Hypocrisy in action. I did not read Kath 's words that way. I still don't understand how the statement doesn't intimate that people who believe in the right to bear arms and vote for Hillary are idiots. Mainly based on two untruths - 1) that all democrats believe in taking all guns away (I don't); and 2) that Hillary has said she will repeal the 2nd Amendment (she hasn't). If you could explain it to me another way, I'd appreciate it. Trump has talked on a couple of occasions about dating Ivanka and what a nice figure she has. So would it not be offensive to Trump supporters if I claimed that Trump wants to do away with incest laws, making it legal? And then said that one would be an idiot to be romantically involved with one's own daughter. Of course Trump's children and grandchildren deserve protection from incest. Let's not be idiots and allow Trump to make it legal for your daughters to be molested by relatives. That wouldn't be perceived by Trump supporters as knocking them for supporting him? That it only applies to Hillary supporters and says nothing about those voting for Trump? I just don't believe that to be true.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Sept 19, 2016 0:06:05 GMT
He's not. This is a common sentiment that has been thrown around for years, perhaps decades, in the gun culture, conservative talk radio, etc. It's applied to various liberals who believe in disarming or restricting gun rights and is used in analogy on liberal rich people who have bodyguards, liberal actors who have bodyguards, liberal politicians who have bodyguards who are activists for taking away gun rights. It's similar in analogy, which is often used as well, that if Obama doesn't think we should have a wall at the southern border of America, then why doesn't he take down the wall surrounding the White House? It's been said about a billion times that I have heard, used on all sorts of people, and really has nothing at all to do with Hillary but rather the bigger picture of hypocrisy, the do as I say and not as I do mentality.
His supporters, gun culture, yada, yada, understand what he is saying, but somehow the press often doesn't. Strange to me as I am so familiar with the concept and yet these people act like it's the first time it's ever been said and draw really odd conclusions and connotations from it. It's almost like there's 2 different levels of communication going on.
It's a general, over-used, very old analogy. Again, nothing really to do with Hillary. It's the mentality. And Trump's supporters, the people he is speaking to, understand this. They know it has nothing to do with Hillary but what they don't like about what she represents. That the big people have rights and deserve to be protected and that the little people shouldn't have rights and don't deserve to be protected. That's the basic gist.
The wall vs. the fence around the White House is the stupidest analogy I've heard of, thankfully I've never heard it before or I'd start wondering how stupid the American public had become. I am sorry you've had to hear it. It is akin to saying people who don't believe in welfare shouldn't be taking child credits on their tax returns. Hypocrisy and all. I have never ever heard ANYONE say, "Take her guards away AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. It will BE VERY DANGEROUS." I'd welcome a clip of anyone other than Trump saying it. Please! At at least your post will help explain to those who don't know Sarah*H when she predicted what she knew someone would say. Yes, to me the difference is that he says things like "let's see what happens then" or "it would be a really ugly day" and let's people draw their own conclusions as to what his intentions are.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 0:30:37 GMT
I see parallels in the abortion rights debate and the gun debate (but I am not going to argue the rightness or wrongness of either of those issues, just the parallel I see between them, in an effort to shine a light on why people might feel like they do.) It has been said that any restrictions/constraints put on a woman's right to choose are really just ways of effectively abolishing Roe v. Wade without actually abolishing it. I think the same can be said for the 2nd Amendment in that, any restrictions/constraints are viewed as prohibitive to the free exercise of that right. Sure, you can still get an abortion, but it'll be cost prohibitive or there will no clinics geographically close or you will have to have certain kinds of tests first or watch a video, etc. Sure, you can own a gun, but the ammo will be cost prohibitive or there will be no dealers geographically close or you will have to pass certain tests first or attend classes, etc. Both can be viewed as back-door ways of hamstringing the right, thus eliminating the right for a large number of people.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 0:49:45 GMT
oy, enough with the poodles already. So tired of abortion getting brought into every political discussion. It's like the new Godwin's law.
|
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,947
Location: North Idaho
Jul 1, 2014 23:30:44 GMT
|
Post by Nink on Sept 19, 2016 1:35:59 GMT
I see parallels in the abortion rights debate and the gun debate (but I am not going to argue the rightness or wrongness of either of those issues, just the parallel I see between them, in an effort to shine a light on why people might feel like they do.) It has been said that any restrictions/constraints put on a woman's right to choose are really just ways of effectively abolishing Roe v. Wade without actually abolishing it. I think the same can be said for the 2nd Amendment in that, any restrictions/constraints are viewed as prohibitive to the free exercise of that right. Sure, you can still get an abortion, but it'll be cost prohibitive or there will no clinics geographically close or you will have to have certain kinds of tests first or watch a video, etc. Sure, you can own a gun, but the ammo will be cost prohibitive or there will be no dealers geographically close or you will have to pass certain tests first or attend classes, etc. Both can be viewed as back-door ways of hamstringing the right, thus eliminating the right for a large number of people. I'm not sure how you can even compare the two. A woman wanting an abortion isn't taking out 49 other people with her.
|
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,947
Location: North Idaho
Jul 1, 2014 23:30:44 GMT
|
Post by Nink on Sept 19, 2016 1:39:49 GMT
Let me expand on the fact that in Canada we have survived without being "armed to the teeth" like the USA. People STILL have guns. It's just not the extent that it is like in the USA. The government isn't coming for the handguns. There are checks that need to be made to get a gun. My husband has a gun liscense because he runs a theatre and if they have to use a pop gun, someone has to have a liscense who is around. That's the only reason he has a liscense for. I have relatives who own guns. I have never seen these guns and I probably don't even know all that own one or more. After re-reading my post, I realized that it didn't come across very clearly. It could have been interpreted to seem like "how can you people survive without being armed!" Rather than "these people have managed to survive with out all the guns, why can't we" which was my intent. I hope that's how you understood it, if not I apologize.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 1:48:52 GMT
I see parallels in the abortion rights debate and the gun debate (but I am not going to argue the rightness or wrongness of either of those issues, just the parallel I see between them, in an effort to shine a light on why people might feel like they do.) It has been said that any restrictions/constraints put on a woman's right to choose are really just ways of effectively abolishing Roe v. Wade without actually abolishing it. I think the same can be said for the 2nd Amendment in that, any restrictions/constraints are viewed as prohibitive to the free exercise of that right. Sure, you can still get an abortion, but it'll be cost prohibitive or there will no clinics geographically close or you will have to have certain kinds of tests first or watch a video, etc. Sure, you can own a gun, but the ammo will be cost prohibitive or there will be no dealers geographically close or you will have to pass certain tests first or attend classes, etc. Both can be viewed as back-door ways of hamstringing the right, thus eliminating the right for a large number of people. I'm not sure how you can even compare the two. A woman wanting an abortion isn't taking out 49 other people with her. Neither are hundreds of millions of gun owners.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 1:57:08 GMT
I see parallels in the abortion rights debate and the gun debate (but I am not going to argue the rightness or wrongness of either of those issues, just the parallel I see between them, in an effort to shine a light on why people might feel like they do.) It has been said that any restrictions/constraints put on a woman's right to choose are really just ways of effectively abolishing Roe v. Wade without actually abolishing it. I think the same can be said for the 2nd Amendment in that, any restrictions/constraints are viewed as prohibitive to the free exercise of that right. Sure, you can still get an abortion, but it'll be cost prohibitive or there will no clinics geographically close or you will have to have certain kinds of tests first or watch a video, etc. Sure, you can own a gun, but the ammo will be cost prohibitive or there will be no dealers geographically close or you will have to pass certain tests first or attend classes, etc. Both can be viewed as back-door ways of hamstringing the right, thus eliminating the right for a large number of people. I'm not sure how you can even compare the two. A woman wanting an abortion isn't taking out 49 other people with her. If you read that as me comparing a woman getting an abortion to a mass murderer, I can see why you're confused. As I stated in the post, I am pointing out the parallel in the debate not the specific issues in order to illustrate how some people view ways in which they feel their rights are being infringed upon. To further clarify, it's not about abortion or guns. Save
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 19, 2016 1:58:40 GMT
I'm not sure how you can even compare the two. A woman wanting an abortion isn't taking out 49 other people with her. Neither are hundreds of millions of gun owners. No one wants to take their guns away. They just want sensible gun control. On the other hand, many people would love to take away a woman's right to an abortion, and will tell you all about it. On this board, even. They are really proud of their stance.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 2:14:05 GMT
Neither are hundreds of millions of gun owners. No one wants to take their guns away. They just want sensible gun control. On the other hand, many people would love to take away a woman's right to an abortion, and will tell you all about it. On this board, even. They are really proud of their stance. Hillary's plans for gun shops and manufacturers paints a very different picture.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 19, 2016 2:46:02 GMT
No one wants to take their guns away. They just want sensible gun control. On the other hand, many people would love to take away a woman's right to an abortion, and will tell you all about it. On this board, even. They are really proud of their stance. Hillary's plans for gun shops and manufacturers paints a very different picture. Gun manufacturers will do just fine, even if sued. It may even be the motivation they need to make guns only fireable by their owners - fingerprint locks, etc. The technology is already out there, they just aren't interested in using it to protect innocent lives. Putting those safeguards in place will make them much less liable. And, if you read what she has said, she's not interested in licensed gun stores, but "distributors" who aren't licensed gun sellers who buy large numbers of one type of firearm, more than an individual could ever personally use, to then sell on the black market. So, the gun shop thing is hooey. The gun manufacturers will continue to pump out guns, but safer ones.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Sept 19, 2016 2:58:57 GMT
I think trump was saying exactly what people are accusing him of saying. I think it is different when a candidate is saYing it.
I also think the other sentiment is stupid. Even the liberals arent yelling to take away guns from law enforcement or security guards. Let's say they shut down the ability the obtain guns...security and cops would still have them.
I am sick of things people don't agree with being taxed and not used for the group they are taxing. For instance, cigarette tax...if they used it toward health care and prevention only, then cool, but they use it for a lot of other things.
You want to tax ammo and/or guns, then you use it to build safe places to shoot. You use it for education, for free safety...but we all know this isn't where the money will go.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 19, 2016 3:27:29 GMT
I think trump was saying exactly what people are accusing him of saying. I think it is different when a candidate is saYing it. I also think the other sentiment is stupid. Even the liberals arent yelling to take away guns from law enforcement or security guards. Let's say they shut down the ability the obtain guns...security and cops would still have them. I am sick of things people don't agree with being taxed and not used for the group they are taxing. For instance, cigarette tax...if they used it toward health care and prevention only, then cool, but they use it for a lot of other things. You want to tax ammo and/or guns, then you use it to build safe places to shoot. You use it for education, for free safety...but we all know this isn't where the money will go. It is the states who spend the tobacco tax and settlement money on a variety of things, not the federal government. The federal government spends its portion of cigarette taxes on the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). If you (general you) have an issue with how your state is using its taxes, that is something to bring up with your state government. This is an example of how state governments don't necessarily make better decisions than the federal government. A federally controlled tobacco tax might actually yield results that are better for society, rather than leaving it up to the states. Now, how gun and ammo taxes would be spent will depend on who controls the money - individual states or the federal government.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Sept 19, 2016 3:32:59 GMT
I think trump was saying exactly what people are accusing him of saying. I think it is different when a candidate is saYing it. I also think the other sentiment is stupid. Even the liberals arent yelling to take away guns from law enforcement or security guards. Let's say they shut down the ability the obtain guns...security and cops would still have them. I am sick of things people don't agree with being taxed and not used for the group they are taxing. For instance, cigarette tax...if they used it toward health care and prevention only, then cool, but they use it for a lot of other things. You want to tax ammo and/or guns, then you use it to build safe places to shoot. You use it for education, for free safety...but we all know this isn't where the money will go. It is the states who spend the tobacco tax and settlement money on a variety of things, not the federal government. The federal government spends its portion of cigarette taxes on the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). If you (general you) have an issue with how your state is using its taxes, that is something to bring up with your state government. This is an example of how state governments don't necessarily make better decisions than the federal government. A federally controlled tobacco tax might actually yield results that are better for society, rather than leaving it up to the states. Now, how gun and ammo taxes would be spent will depend on who controls the money - individual states or the federal government. I last read that the taxes Colorado was supposed to get for weed dwindled down to 40 million and was a small fraction of what the people were told it would be receiving. The $ needed just to govern the selling of it was huge.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Sept 19, 2016 4:38:54 GMT
I'm not sure how you can even compare the two. A woman wanting an abortion isn't taking out 49 other people with her. Neither are hundreds of millions of gun owners. There aren't hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 5:00:21 GMT
Neither are hundreds of millions of gun owners. There aren't hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country. Sorry. Tens of millions of gun owners aren't taking out 49 other people with their guns. Better?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 5:11:23 GMT
I think trump was saying exactly what people are accusing him of saying. I think it is different when a candidate is saYing it. I also think the other sentiment is stupid. Even the liberals arent yelling to take away guns from law enforcement or security guards. Let's say they shut down the ability the obtain guns...security and cops would still have them. I am sick of things people don't agree with being taxed and not used for the group they are taxing. For instance, cigarette tax...if they used it toward health care and prevention only, then cool, but they use it for a lot of other things. You want to tax ammo and/or guns, then you use it to build safe places to shoot. You use it for education, for free safety...but we all know this isn't where the money will go. link
I read what you thought taxes on guns and ammo should go toward and I was reminded of an article I read sometime back about costs associated with gun violence. The attached article gives you an idea of what the dollar cost of gun violence. I looked at several and they pretty much say the same thing within a couple of billion dollars. Edited to add. That is what the taxes should go toward the real costs of gun violence.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 5:39:00 GMT
Hillary's plans for gun shops and manufacturers paints a very different picture. Gun manufacturers will do just fine, even if sued. It may even be the motivation they need to make guns only fireable by their owners - fingerprint locks, etc. The technology is already out there, they just aren't interested in using it to protect innocent lives. Putting those safeguards in place will make them much less liable. And, if you read what she has said, she's not interested in licensed gun stores, but "distributors" who aren't licensed gun sellers who buy large numbers of one type of firearm, more than an individual could ever personally use, to then sell on the black market. So, the gun shop thing is hooey. The gun manufacturers will continue to pump out guns, but safer ones. If people are allowed to sue gun stores and manufacturers for violence perpetrated with their guns they will not be just fine. What other industry would you be willing to hold accountable for violence perpetrated with their product? It's absurd and absurd to think any industry will be able to survive repeated law suits and losing those suits. Once she allows that they'll become a target for suits against any and all wrongdoing with their product and once they lose any suits they'll be seen as an easy payday. As far as not wanting the technology, I can guarantee it isn't because they aren't interested in protecting lives. That's nothing more than pure and simple hyperbole. There are plenty of valid reasons why some will want it and some won't. It shouldn't be mandated to go to nothing but smart guns. What happens to the non-smart guns that already exist? I didn't see where Hillary differentiated between stores and black market sellers, would you mind pointing out where she made that distinction?
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 19, 2016 11:25:45 GMT
Gun manufacturers will do just fine, even if sued. It may even be the motivation they need to make guns only fireable by their owners - fingerprint locks, etc. The technology is already out there, they just aren't interested in using it to protect innocent lives. Putting those safeguards in place will make them much less liable. And, if you read what she has said, she's not interested in licensed gun stores, but "distributors" who aren't licensed gun sellers who buy large numbers of one type of firearm, more than an individual could ever personally use, to then sell on the black market. So, the gun shop thing is hooey. The gun manufacturers will continue to pump out guns, but safer ones. If people are allowed to sue gun stores and manufacturers for violence perpetrated with their guns they will not be just fine. What other industry would you be willing to hold accountable for violence perpetrated with their product? It's absurd and absurd to think any industry will be able to survive repeated law suits and losing those suits. Once she allows that they'll become a target for suits against any and all wrongdoing with their product and once they lose any suits they'll be seen as an easy payday. As far as not wanting the technology, I can guarantee it isn't because they aren't interested in protecting lives. That's nothing more than pure and simple hyperbole. There are plenty of valid reasons why some will want it and some won't. It shouldn't be mandated to go to nothing but smart guns. What happens to the non-smart guns that already exist? I didn't see where Hillary differentiated between stores and black market sellers, would you mind pointing out where she made that distinction? I don't care that people don't want smart guns - they protect lives. If guns manufacturers place what gun owners "want" as their primary focus, rather than what is safe, they don't care about saving lives. Not hyperbole. People didn't want seat belts, but all cars must be manufactured with them and people must use them. The guns that have already been manufactured can be grandfathered in. Common sense. The public shouldn't bear the costs in both lives lost and health care of those injured by guns if known safety features could have prevented a number of the deaths and injuries. As as to the distinction, it is actually in the Bill the democrats have tried to get through Congress:
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 19, 2016 11:36:31 GMT
From The Washington Post:
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2016 0:17:14 GMT
If people are allowed to sue gun stores and manufacturers for violence perpetrated with their guns they will not be just fine. What other industry would you be willing to hold accountable for violence perpetrated with their product? It's absurd and absurd to think any industry will be able to survive repeated law suits and losing those suits. Once she allows that they'll become a target for suits against any and all wrongdoing with their product and once they lose any suits they'll be seen as an easy payday. As far as not wanting the technology, I can guarantee it isn't because they aren't interested in protecting lives. That's nothing more than pure and simple hyperbole. There are plenty of valid reasons why some will want it and some won't. It shouldn't be mandated to go to nothing but smart guns. What happens to the non-smart guns that already exist? I didn't see where Hillary differentiated between stores and black market sellers, would you mind pointing out where she made that distinction? I don't care that people don't want smart guns - they protect lives. If guns manufacturers place what gun owners "want" as their primary focus, rather than what is safe, they don't care about saving lives. Not hyperbole. People didn't want seat belts, but all cars must be manufactured with them and people must use them. The guns that have already been manufactured can be grandfathered in. Common sense. The public shouldn't bear the costs in both lives lost and health care of those injured by guns if known safety features could have prevented a number of the deaths and injuries. As as to the distinction, it is actually in the Bill the democrats have tried to get through Congress: Some might want to use that technology, some might not have any need for it. Some would be willing to rely on electronics in a life threatening situation and some would rather rely on physics. What happens to the lives lost due to electronic failures? Do those lives matter? Why not let the market decide, don't legislate it as the only choice. As far as making it law to rely on electronics over physics in a life threatening situation, there has already been legislation on the books to ban traditional guns 3 years after the electronic ones are introduced, so don't count on any grandfathering in of any traditional guns you currently own. As to the second part, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is making an argument about manufacturers being held accountable for deaths resulting from faulty product, liquor stores being held accountable for breaking the law and comparing that to holding gun shops and manufacturers responsible for the consumer breaking the law. Those don't compare whatsoever and it's absurd to attempt to. As for claiming we need the law to punish straw purchasers, we already have laws that cover that. So, why would we need to take away the protection offered to gun manufacturers and shops from being sued for a citizen's behavior with their product in order to punish straw purchasers?
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 20, 2016 0:35:01 GMT
I don't care that people don't want smart guns - they protect lives. If guns manufacturers place what gun owners "want" as their primary focus, rather than what is safe, they don't care about saving lives. Not hyperbole. People didn't want seat belts, but all cars must be manufactured with them and people must use them. The guns that have already been manufactured can be grandfathered in. Common sense. The public shouldn't bear the costs in both lives lost and health care of those injured by guns if known safety features could have prevented a number of the deaths and injuries. As as to the distinction, it is actually in the Bill the democrats have tried to get through Congress: Some might want to use that technology, some might not have any need for it. Some would be willing to rely on electronics in a life threatening situation and some would rather rely on physics. What happens to the lives lost due to electronic failures? Do those lives matter? Why not let the market decide, don't legislate it as the only choice. As far as making it law to rely on electronics over physics in a life threatening situation, there has already been legislation on the books to ban traditional guns 3 years after the electronic ones are introduced, so don't count on any grandfathering in of any traditional guns you currently own. As to the second part, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is making an argument about manufacturers being held accountable for deaths resulting from faulty product, liquor stores being held accountable for breaking the law and comparing that to holding gun shops and manufacturers responsible for the consumer breaking the law. Those don't compare whatsoever and it's absurd to attempt to. As for claiming we need the law to punish straw purchasers, we already have laws that cover that. So, why would we need to take away the protection offered to gun manufacturers and shops from being sued for a citizen's behavior with their product in order to punish straw purchasers? If their guns don't function correctly, that is on the gun manufacturers, not on the people wanting safer guns. And isn't it all about "guns don't kill people, people kill people?" So, the gun and how it works has nothing to do with it, it is simply the fault of the "bad guy." Guns can malfunction for a variety of reasons, why aren't people whining about all of them? I don't care that some don't want fingerprint locks, as I said before many people didn't and don't want seatbelts, but manufacturers have to put them in and people have to wear them so that society doesn't have to pay the costs in lives and money that are avoided by using seat belts. And guess what? Some people have died, tragically, due to not being able to get out of their seatbelt in a crash. Their lives matter. And it is awful. But those percentage-wise few cases don't trump the better good for the overwhelming majority. If you are so worried about the financial health of the manufacturers, it might worth a look into how much money they funnel into the NRA, whose majority of funding now comes from them, not from individual users and their membership dues. link to the story in Business Insider
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 19:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2016 1:53:50 GMT
Some might want to use that technology, some might not have any need for it. Some would be willing to rely on electronics in a life threatening situation and some would rather rely on physics. What happens to the lives lost due to electronic failures? Do those lives matter? Why not let the market decide, don't legislate it as the only choice. As far as making it law to rely on electronics over physics in a life threatening situation, there has already been legislation on the books to ban traditional guns 3 years after the electronic ones are introduced, so don't count on any grandfathering in of any traditional guns you currently own. As to the second part, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is making an argument about manufacturers being held accountable for deaths resulting from faulty product, liquor stores being held accountable for breaking the law and comparing that to holding gun shops and manufacturers responsible for the consumer breaking the law. Those don't compare whatsoever and it's absurd to attempt to. As for claiming we need the law to punish straw purchasers, we already have laws that cover that. So, why would we need to take away the protection offered to gun manufacturers and shops from being sued for a citizen's behavior with their product in order to punish straw purchasers? If their guns don't function correctly, that is on the gun manufacturers, not on the people wanting safer guns. And isn't it all about "guns don't kill people, people kill people?" So, the gun and how it works has nothing to do with it, it is simply the fault of the "bad guy." Guns can malfunction for a variety of reasons, why aren't people whining about all of them? I don't care that some don't want fingerprint locks, as I said before many people didn't and don't want seatbelts, but manufacturers have to put them in and people have to wear them so that society doesn't have to pay the costs in lives and money that are avoided by using seat belts. And guess what? Some people have died, tragically, due to not being able to get out of their seatbelt in a crash. Their lives matter. And it is awful. But those percentage-wise few cases don't trump the better good for the overwhelming majority. If you are so worried about the financial health of the manufacturers, it might worth a look into how much money they funnel into the NRA, whose majority of funding now comes from them, not from individual users and their membership dues. link to the story in Business Insider Your link goes to Business Insider's page but not to the article. I couldn't find the article would you mind linking directly to it? Personally, I'd focus less on whining and more on answering the question, "why add MORE possibilities for it to malfunction?" In your first article, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was making an argument about manufacturers being held accountable for deaths resulting from faulty product, liquor stores being held accountable for breaking the law and comparing those to holding gun shops and manufacturers responsible for the consumer breaking the law. Those don't compare whatsoever and it's absurd to attempt to. And your new article attempts to do the same thing, only with a different industry. And the million dollar question was never answered: As for claiming we need the law to punish straw purchasers, we already have laws that cover that. So, why would Hillary need to take away the protection offered to gun manufacturers and shops from being sued for a citizen's behavior with their product, in order to punish straw purchasers?
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 20, 2016 2:06:04 GMT
If their guns don't function correctly, that is on the gun manufacturers, not on the people wanting safer guns. And isn't it all about "guns don't kill people, people kill people?" So, the gun and how it works has nothing to do with it, it is simply the fault of the "bad guy." Guns can malfunction for a variety of reasons, why aren't people whining about all of them? I don't care that some don't want fingerprint locks, as I said before many people didn't and don't want seatbelts, but manufacturers have to put them in and people have to wear them so that society doesn't have to pay the costs in lives and money that are avoided by using seat belts. And guess what? Some people have died, tragically, due to not being able to get out of their seatbelt in a crash. Their lives matter. And it is awful. But those percentage-wise few cases don't trump the better good for the overwhelming majority. If you are so worried about the financial health of the manufacturers, it might worth a look into how much money they funnel into the NRA, whose majority of funding now comes from them, not from individual users and their membership dues. link to the story in Business Insider Your link goes to Business Insider's page but not to the article. I couldn't find the article would you mind linking directly to it? Personally, I'd focus less on whining and more on answering the question, "why add MORE possibilities for it to malfunction?" In your first article, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was making an argument about manufacturers being held accountable for deaths resulting from faulty product, liquor stores being held accountable for breaking the law and comparing those to holding gun shops and manufacturers responsible for the consumer breaking the law. Those don't compare whatsoever and it's absurd to attempt to. And your new article attempts to do the same thing, only with a different industry. And the million dollar question was never answered: As for claiming we need the law to punish straw purchasers, we already have laws that cover that. So, why would Hillary need to take away the protection offered to gun manufacturers and shops from being sued for a citizen's behavior with their product, in order to punish straw purchasers? Try this link
You can also search on "How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA" When gun manufacturers knowingly sell to straw distributors THEY - the gun manufacturers - should be held liable and responsible, under the law, too. If gun manufacturers risk being prosecuted, rather than stupidly protected under the law for just about anything, they may actually run checks on the people they sell to. Common sense, really.
|
|