Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2016 2:15:17 GMT
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. The current laws do not protect them from breaking the law, so the question still stands as to why Hillary needs a new law to hold them accountable for something they are already held accountable for. A law that will open them up to being held accountable for the actions of criminals using there products. Thanks for link, I'll check it out right now.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 20, 2016 2:33:23 GMT
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. The current laws do not protect them from breaking the law, so the question still stands as to why Hillary needs a new law to hold them accountable for something they are already held accountable for. A law that will open them up to being held accountable for the actions of criminals using there products. Thanks for link, I'll check it out right now. No, the current law does not hold gun manufacturers liable for selling to straw distributors. In other words, currently it isn't against the law to sell to obvious straw distributors.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2016 5:47:24 GMT
The current laws do not protect them from breaking the law, so the question still stands as to why Hillary needs a new law to hold them accountable for something they are already held accountable for. A law that will open them up to being held accountable for the actions of criminals using there products. Thanks for link, I'll check it out right now. No, the current law does not hold gun manufacturers liable for selling to straw distributors. In other words, currently it isn't against the law to sell to obvious straw distributors. Can you provide a link to where you got that information?
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Sept 20, 2016 11:27:47 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? I guess part of my concern would be that we already have a very robust legal system that allows us to address manufacture defect-if a gun malfunctions in any way, we already have a process of redress in place. We already have a process in which to sue a person who who does us harm. What purpose does it really serve to sue a gun manufacturer for how an individual uses their product? I have on more than once that I am smack dab in the middle of the gun ownership question-but in this, I completely fail to understand how expanding this law to allow a lawsuit against a third party for how an individual used their product. I know how very much we hate the gun/car analogy, but in this case, once president has been set for that third party malpractice (of a sort) can you see where that could then go?
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 20, 2016 12:56:17 GMT
No, the current law does not hold gun manufacturers liable for selling to straw distributors. In other words, currently it isn't against the law to sell to obvious straw distributors. Can you provide a link to where you got that information? All current legislation allows for the manufacturer or dealer to claim "that they didn't know" the purchaser was planning to resell or distribute the guns, even in a case where someone buys 30 guns of one type. All they have to do is say that it is for their personal use and there is no way to prosecute, even though common sense says no one will use 30 of the same gun for themselves. Only 3 states (CA, NJ & MD) and DC have laws on the books limiting purchasers to 1 firearm per 30 days. There is no federal legal limit on the number of guns one can purchase at a time. link to article on these lawsInterestingly, after it was shown that many guns purchased by straw distributors in VA were used in crimes, they passed a law limiting gun purchases to one per month. And surprise, surprise, the number of VA guns used in crimes dropped significantly. Unfortunately, in 2013 they loosened the law that anyone with a gun license can purchase as many guns as they want, only those without a license are limited to 1 per month.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 20, 2016 13:22:07 GMT
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? I guess part of my concern would be that we already have a very robust legal system that allows us to address manufacture defect-if a gun malfunctions in any way, we already have a process of redress in place. We already have a process in which to sue a person who who does us harm. What purpose does it really serve to sue a gun manufacturer for how an individual uses their product? I have on more than once that I am smack dab in the middle of the gun ownership question-but in this, I completely fail to understand how expanding this law to allow a lawsuit against a third party for how an individual used their product. I know how very much we hate the gun/car analogy, but in this case, once president has been set for that third party malpractice (of a sort) can you see where that could then go? My struggle with this issue is that no one wants to hold anyone accountable for how people - including mentally ill, terrorists, drug dealers, people engaged in criminal activity - etc - get their hands on guns. To follow the car analogy. All cars must be registered in order to be driven or even parked in public. If a car is involved in a crime, it can be traced to someone who bought and registered it. Gun owners and manufacturers refuse to support legislation that demands all guns be similarly registered by their purchaser. If all weapons which were used in crimes were registered to the people who bought them, and it had to be reported if they were stolen, then it would be easier to hold people legally responsible for putting guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. And if that were to happen, all of a sudden manufacturers and dealers would be much more diligent in running background checks and creating a trail to prove that they did their due diligence. I do think that safe gun technology should be mandated. Again, little interest from the gun industry in doing that. Car manufacturers are legally required to manufacture their products with certain safety features such as seatbelts. Since the technology exists to make guns safer - preventing accidentally firing by kids or being fired by someone who stole it - it should be required just as seatbelts are. Gun dealers and manufacturers have been allowed, under the law, to sell and make weapons that have had a huge detrimental impact on our society in terms of lives lost, with no mandate to make it possible to trace and shut down straw distributors through universal registration and background checks, nor to produce technologically enhanced weapons that would substantially cut down the possibility of accidental firing, or for criminals to use stolen guns. If they aren't willing to submit to these common sense measures, then I think they do bear partial responsibility for what gets done with their products. I don't think you should be allowed to refuse to accept and take measures to make it harder for guns to be used in criminal activity and then throw up your hands and say that you aren't responsible for how it's used.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2016 18:55:58 GMT
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? I guess part of my concern would be that we already have a very robust legal system that allows us to address manufacture defect-if a gun malfunctions in any way, we already have a process of redress in place. We already have a process in which to sue a person who who does us harm. What purpose does it really serve to sue a gun manufacturer for how an individual uses their product? I have on more than once that I am smack dab in the middle of the gun ownership question-but in this, I completely fail to understand how expanding this law to allow a lawsuit against a third party for how an individual used their product. I know how very much we hate the gun/car analogy, but in this case, once president has been set for that third party malpractice (of a sort) can you see where that could then go? Isn't that what I said?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2016 19:11:33 GMT
Can you provide a link to where you got that information? All current legislation allows for the manufacturer or dealer to claim "that they didn't know" the purchaser was planning to resell or distribute the guns, even in a case where someone buys 30 guns of one type. All they have to do is say that it is for their personal use and there is no way to prosecute, even though common sense says no one will use 30 of the same gun for themselves. Only 3 states (CA, NJ & MD) and DC have laws on the books limiting purchasers to 1 firearm per 30 days. There is no federal legal limit on the number of guns one can purchase at a time. link to article on these lawsInterestingly, after it was shown that many guns purchased by straw distributors in VA were used in crimes, they passed a law limiting gun purchases to one per month. And surprise, surprise, the number of VA guns used in crimes dropped significantly. Unfortunately, in 2013 they loosened the law that anyone with a gun license can purchase as many guns as they want, only those without a license are limited to 1 per month. I see now where the disconnect between us is. I was talking about law breaking straw purchasers being held accountable for their own actions and you were talking about the law abiding seller should be held accountable for the law breaker's actions. I disagree. If a manufacturer or shop sells to someone who passes a background check and is legally allowed to purchase, neither one (the seller nor the purchaser) is doing anything illegal. In that transaction there's nothing to be held accountable for. Now if the legal purchaser turns around and sells to someone who they know isn't legally allowed to purchase a firearm, is when they become a straw purchaser. The manufacturer or gun shop is not involved in that transaction in any way and should not be held responsible. To follow the car analogy again, you wouldn't hold a car manufacturer or dealer responsible for selling a car to someone who then turns around and sells it to someone who uses it to plow through a crowd of people. No Gun shop is going to risk their FFL to do something illegal. At that point you're not talking about fines or being sued, you're talking about being shut down. That day. Game over.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 18:43:09 GMT
So, now the question remains why does Hillary want to change the laws to open up gun manufacturers and gun shops to be held responsible for the actions of criminals if she doesn't want to hinder access to guns?
Since we know that opening up that flood gate to allow people to sue manufacturers and gun shops for the actions of criminals using their product and creating laws to hold gun shops and manufacturers legally responsible, for the actions of criminals using their products, we can follow the logic that they will not be able to afford to continue doing business here under those conditions.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 21, 2016 19:16:46 GMT
So, now the question remains why does Hillary want to change the laws to open up gun manufacturers and gun shops to be held responsible for the actions of criminals if she doesn't want to hinder access to guns? Since we know that opening up that flood gate to allow people to sue manufacturers and gun shops for the actions of criminals using their product and creating laws to hold gun shops and manufacturers legally responsible, for the actions of criminals using their products, we can follow the logic that they will not be able to afford to continue doing business here under those conditions. I answered this before a couple posts up in terms of the manufacturers - here it is again: ] The gun dealers include all gun dealers - including those who sell in venues with no background checks, such as gun shows, etc. So, similarly, until gun dealers are willing to close the gun show loophole, the whole industry is willing to enforce universal background checks and a universal registry so we can track how many guns an individual in purchasing, then yes, they bear some of the responsibility for putting guns into the hands of criminals through direct sales or straw distributors.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 19:43:35 GMT
So, now the question remains why does Hillary want to change the laws to open up gun manufacturers and gun shops to be held responsible for the actions of criminals if she doesn't want to hinder access to guns? Since we know that opening up that flood gate to allow people to sue manufacturers and gun shops for the actions of criminals using their product and creating laws to hold gun shops and manufacturers legally responsible, for the actions of criminals using their products, we can follow the logic that they will not be able to afford to continue doing business here under those conditions. I answered this before a couple posts up in terms of the manufacturers - here it is again: My struggle with this issue is that no one wants to hold anyone accountable for how people - including mentally ill, terrorists, drug dealers, people engaged in criminal activity - etc - get their hands on guns. So Hillary's response is to hold accountable those who weren't involved in any illegal activity. Under that idea, the legally mandated way of doing business (the way they HAVE to continue doing business with everyone) suddenly becomes illegal in the instance that someone who was involved in that legally mandated process, turns around and (completely separate from that first legal transaction) turns around and does something illegal with the product. And that makes sense to you?
|
|
|
Post by wezee on Sept 21, 2016 19:46:38 GMT
People are less troubled by what he says than what she has done
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 21, 2016 19:47:56 GMT
I answered this before a couple posts up in terms of the manufacturers - here it is again: My struggle with this issue is that no one wants to hold anyone accountable for how people - including mentally ill, terrorists, drug dealers, people engaged in criminal activity - etc - get their hands on guns. So Hillary's response is to hold accountable those who weren't involved in any illegal activity. Under that idea, the legally mandated way of doing business (the way they HAVE to continue doing business with everyone) suddenly becomes illegal in the instance that someone who was involved in that legally mandated process, turns around and (completely separate from that first legal transaction) turns around and does something illegal with the product. And that makes sense to you? If they aren't willing to submit to universal legislation that makes guns safer, that makes it possible to trace the purchase of every gun, that mandates universal background checks in every gun sale - or transfer - then, yes, in my mind, they are partially responsible. Just as if a car maker refused to put seat belts in their product would be responsible for deaths caused by lack of seat belts.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 2:01:55 GMT
So Hillary's response is to hold accountable those who weren't involved in any illegal activity. Under that idea, the legally mandated way of doing business (the way they HAVE to continue doing business with everyone) suddenly becomes illegal in the instance that someone who was involved in that legally mandated process, turns around and (completely separate from that first legal transaction) turns around and does something illegal with the product. And that makes sense to you? If they aren't willing to submit to universal legislation that makes guns safer, that makes it possible to trace the purchase of every gun, that mandates universal background checks in every gun sale - or transfer - then, yes, in my mind, they are partially responsible. Just as if a car maker refused to put seat belts in their product would be responsible for deaths caused by lack of seat belts. Following your car analogy, Hillary isn't planning to mandate seat belts in cars (smart guns), but what she is proposing is holding car manufacturers and car dealers at fault when a consumer does something illegal with their car. If it doesn't make sense for the automobile industry, it doesn't make sense for the firearm industry, or any other industry. So, we're still left with the question of why does Hillary want to change the laws to open up gun manufacturers and gun shops to be held responsible for the actions of criminals if she doesn't want to hinder access to guns? And we're also still left with the knowledge that opening up that flood gate to allow people to sue manufacturers and gun shops for the actions of criminals using their product and creating laws to hold gun shops and manufacturers legally responsible, for the actions of criminals using their products, we can follow the logic that they will not be able to afford to continue doing business here under those conditions. Tell me again how Hillary doesn't want to hinder access to guns?
|
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,521
Jun 26, 2014 21:55:15 GMT
|
Post by jayfab on Sept 22, 2016 2:10:26 GMT
People are less troubled by what he says than what she has done And people (his supporters) totally ignore what he has done.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 2:17:27 GMT
People are less troubled by what he says than what she has done And people (his supporters) totally ignore what he has done. Boy isn't that the truth.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 22, 2016 2:23:34 GMT
If they aren't willing to submit to universal legislation that makes guns safer, that makes it possible to trace the purchase of every gun, that mandates universal background checks in every gun sale - or transfer - then, yes, in my mind, they are partially responsible. Just as if a car maker refused to put seat belts in their product would be responsible for deaths caused by lack of seat belts. Following your car analogy, Hillary isn't planning to mandate seat belts in cars (smart guns), but what she is proposing is holding car manufacturers and car dealers at fault when a consumer does something illegal with their car. If it doesn't make sense for the automobile industry, it doesn't make sense for the firearm industry, or any other industry. So, we're still left with the question of why does Hillary want to change the laws to open up gun manufacturers and gun shops to be held responsible for the actions of criminals if she doesn't want to hinder access to guns? And we're also still left with the knowledge that opening up that flood gate to allow people to sue manufacturers and gun shops for the actions of criminals using their product and creating laws to hold gun shops and manufacturers legally responsible, for the actions of criminals using their products, we can follow the logic that they will not be able to afford to continue doing business here under those conditions. Tell me again how Hillary doesn't want to hinder access to guns? I am okay with hindering terrorists, mentally ill, criminals and the straw distributors who sell them to those people when/if the gun dealers won't. If car manufacturers don't make safe products we hold them liable. Since gun manufacturers have the technology to make guns safer but refuse to use it, they are partially liable. If gun dealers don't want a universal registration system that allows the number of weapons purchased by one person, nor universal background checks, nor national reasonable limits on the number of guns they sell to an individual per month, nor closing the gun show loophole, they are partially liable.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Sept 22, 2016 2:43:30 GMT
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? I guess part of my concern would be that we already have a very robust legal system that allows us to address manufacture defect-if a gun malfunctions in any way, we already have a process of redress in place. We already have a process in which to sue a person who who does us harm. What purpose does it really serve to sue a gun manufacturer for how an individual uses their product? I have on more than once that I am smack dab in the middle of the gun ownership question-but in this, I completely fail to understand how expanding this law to allow a lawsuit against a third party for how an individual used their product. I know how very much we hate the gun/car analogy, but in this case, once president has been set for that third party malpractice (of a sort) can you see where that could then go? It's my understanding that the case brought against Remington by several of the Sandy Hook parents is related more to the marketing of guns intended for military use to ordinary citizens. Excerpt from CNN: linkYou might ask: Since Remington did not come into direct contact with the shooter -- that happened at a gun retailer -- how would that apply? The lawsuit argues that the way in which the company sells and markets a military-style weapon to the civilian market is a form of negligent entrustment.
"Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat -- and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it," Koskoff, the attorney for the families, said. "They took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making a lot of money."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 2:58:53 GMT
I guess part of my concern would be that we already have a very robust legal system that allows us to address manufacture defect-if a gun malfunctions in any way, we already have a process of redress in place. We already have a process in which to sue a person who who does us harm. What purpose does it really serve to sue a gun manufacturer for how an individual uses their product? I have on more than once that I am smack dab in the middle of the gun ownership question-but in this, I completely fail to understand how expanding this law to allow a lawsuit against a third party for how an individual used their product. I know how very much we hate the gun/car analogy, but in this case, once president has been set for that third party malpractice (of a sort) can you see where that could then go? It's my understanding that the case brought against Remington by several of the Sandy Hook parents is related more to the marketing of guns intended for military use to ordinary citizens. Excerpt from CNN: linkYou might ask: Since Remington did not come into direct contact with the shooter -- that happened at a gun retailer -- how would that apply? The lawsuit argues that the way in which the company sells and markets a military-style weapon to the civilian market is a form of negligent entrustment.
"Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat -- and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it," Koskoff, the attorney for the families, said. "They took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making a lot of money."And I don't have a problem with this type of law suit. Not every gun manufactured should be available to John Q Public. And if our legislators can't do their job then this is another way of getting the deed done.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 3:04:46 GMT
Following your car analogy, Hillary isn't planning to mandate seat belts in cars (smart guns), but what she is proposing is holding car manufacturers and car dealers at fault when a consumer does something illegal with their car. If it doesn't make sense for the automobile industry, it doesn't make sense for the firearm industry, or any other industry. So, we're still left with the question of why does Hillary want to change the laws to open up gun manufacturers and gun shops to be held responsible for the actions of criminals if she doesn't want to hinder access to guns? And we're also still left with the knowledge that opening up that flood gate to allow people to sue manufacturers and gun shops for the actions of criminals using their product and creating laws to hold gun shops and manufacturers legally responsible, for the actions of criminals using their products, we can follow the logic that they will not be able to afford to continue doing business here under those conditions. Tell me again how Hillary doesn't want to hinder access to guns? I am okay with hindering terrorists, mentally ill, criminals and the straw distributors who sell them to those people when/if the gun dealers won't. If guns are no longer available here because of Hillary's laws, everyone will be affected. Not just terrorists, the mentally ill, criminals and the straw distributors. It's more of a "let the market decide" vs. making traditional firearms illegal, than them refusing to use it. The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 already covers that. Most gun shops and gun owners are for universal background checks. The gun show loophole is a slight exaggeration. Some call it an outright myth. Vendors at the shows are fully licensed dealers who must run the FBI check at the time of sale. What isn't covered are transactions between private individuals trading or selling their personal property. So, AGAIN, we're still left with the question of why does Hillary want to change the laws to open up gun manufacturers and gun shops to be held responsible for the actions of criminals if she doesn't want to hinder access to guns? And we're also still left with the knowledge that opening up that flood gate to allow people to sue manufacturers and gun shops for the actions of criminals using their product and creating laws to hold gun shops and manufacturers legally responsible, for the actions of criminals using their products, we can follow the logic that they will not be able to afford to continue doing business here under those conditions. I think you're running out of excuses for what Hillary is planning to do to hinder access to guns.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 3:13:54 GMT
I guess part of my concern would be that we already have a very robust legal system that allows us to address manufacture defect-if a gun malfunctions in any way, we already have a process of redress in place. We already have a process in which to sue a person who who does us harm. What purpose does it really serve to sue a gun manufacturer for how an individual uses their product? I have on more than once that I am smack dab in the middle of the gun ownership question-but in this, I completely fail to understand how expanding this law to allow a lawsuit against a third party for how an individual used their product. I know how very much we hate the gun/car analogy, but in this case, once president has been set for that third party malpractice (of a sort) can you see where that could then go? It's my understanding that the case brought against Remington by several of the Sandy Hook parents is related more to the marketing of guns intended for military use to ordinary citizens. Excerpt from CNN: linkYou might ask: Since Remington did not come into direct contact with the shooter -- that happened at a gun retailer -- how would that apply? The lawsuit argues that the way in which the company sells and markets a military-style weapon to the civilian market is a form of negligent entrustment.
"Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat -- and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it," Koskoff, the attorney for the families, said. "They took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making a lot of money."If that's their position, they will lose. That weapon is NOT a military weapon. Period. Full stop. The marketing may appeal to someone's DESIRE to own a military weapon, but it is NOT a military weapon, despite gun control activists claim that it is. It is in fact the same mechanically, as any semi-automatic hunting rifle, that everyone is okay with. It's only made to LOOK like a military weapon, cosmetically.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 22, 2016 3:14:51 GMT
I am okay with hindering terrorists, mentally ill, criminals and the straw distributors who sell them to those people when/if the gun dealers won't. If guns are no longer available here because of Hillary's laws, everyone will be affected. Not just terrorists, the mentally ill, criminals and the straw distributors. It's more of a "let the market decide" vs. making traditional firearms illegal, than them refusing to use it. The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 already covers that. Most gun shops and gun owners are for universal background checks. The gun show loophole is a slight exaggeration. Some call it an outright myth. Vendors at the shows are fully licensed dealers who must run the FBI check at the time of sale. What isn't covered are transactions between private individuals trading or selling their personal property. So, AGAIN, we're still left with the question of why does Hillary want to change the laws to open up gun manufacturers and gun shops to be held responsible for the actions of criminals if she doesn't want to hinder access to guns? And we're also still left with the knowledge that opening up that flood gate to allow people to sue manufacturers and gun shops for the actions of criminals using their product and creating laws to hold gun shops and manufacturers legally responsible, for the actions of criminals using their products, we can follow the logic that they will not be able to afford to continue doing business here under those conditions. I think you're running out of excuses for what Hillary is planning to do to hinder access to guns. No, I'm am saying the same thing over and over and over again, but you don't understand it, clearly. I'm not running out of "excuses" my reasoning is sound and I keep repeating it and will continue to until you understand. And, no one wants to abolish second amendment , especially not Hillary. If you want to believe the proven lies that the NRA (aka the public face of the cowards who run the gun industry) tells, that is your prerogative.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 3:19:50 GMT
If guns are no longer available here because of Hillary's laws, everyone will be affected. Not just terrorists, the mentally ill, criminals and the straw distributors. It's more of a "let the market decide" vs. making traditional firearms illegal, than them refusing to use it. The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 already covers that. Most gun shops and gun owners are for universal background checks. The gun show loophole is a slight exaggeration. Some call it an outright myth. Vendors at the shows are fully licensed dealers who must run the FBI check at the time of sale. What isn't covered are transactions between private individuals trading or selling their personal property. So, AGAIN, we're still left with the question of why does Hillary want to change the laws to open up gun manufacturers and gun shops to be held responsible for the actions of criminals if she doesn't want to hinder access to guns? And we're also still left with the knowledge that opening up that flood gate to allow people to sue manufacturers and gun shops for the actions of criminals using their product and creating laws to hold gun shops and manufacturers legally responsible, for the actions of criminals using their products, we can follow the logic that they will not be able to afford to continue doing business here under those conditions. I think you're running out of excuses for what Hillary is planning to do to hinder access to guns. No, I'm am saying the same thing over and over and over again, but you don't understand it, clearly. I'm not running out of "excuses" my reasoning is sound and I keep repeating it and will continue to until you understand. And, no one wants to abolish second amendment , especially not Hillary. If you want to believe the proven lies that the NRA (aka the public face of the cowards who run the gun industry) tells, that is your prerogative. The reasoning to hinder access to guns by allowing lawsuits against and punishing law abiding businesses into oblivion for the actions of criminals is not sound reasoning by any stretch of the imagination. No matter how many justifications for it you give and how many times you repeat it. I and a few others have all said (repeatedly) we're not arguing that Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd. That's nothing more than a deflection on your part.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 22, 2016 3:22:30 GMT
It's my understanding that the case brought against Remington by several of the Sandy Hook parents is related more to the marketing of guns intended for military use to ordinary citizens. Excerpt from CNN: linkYou might ask: Since Remington did not come into direct contact with the shooter -- that happened at a gun retailer -- how would that apply? The lawsuit argues that the way in which the company sells and markets a military-style weapon to the civilian market is a form of negligent entrustment.
"Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat -- and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it," Koskoff, the attorney for the families, said. "They took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making a lot of money."If that's their position, they will lose. That weapon is NOT a military weapon. Period. Full stop. The marketing may appeal to someone's DESIRE to own a military weapon, but it is NOT a military weapon, despite gun control activists claim that it is. It is in fact the same mechanically, as any semi-automatic hunting rifle, that everyone is okay with. It's only made to LOOK like a military weapon, cosmetically. And you (conveniently) forgot to add that it is/has been marketed to John Q. Public as military like weaponry for the sole purpose of selling more guns. I hope guns become less easier to get. Too many innocent people are dying and the NRA and supporters don't seem to give a shit.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 22, 2016 3:24:33 GMT
Now the question is why is the NRA paying for and advertising outright lies about what they (are lying about) Hillary is going to do?
Their ads are provable lies.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 3:36:04 GMT
If that's their position, they will lose. That weapon is NOT a military weapon. Period. Full stop. The marketing may appeal to someone's DESIRE to own a military weapon, but it is NOT a military weapon, despite gun control activists claim that it is. It is in fact the same mechanically, as any semi-automatic hunting rifle, that everyone is okay with. It's only made to LOOK like a military weapon, cosmetically. And you (conveniently) forgot to add that it is/has been marketed to John Q. Public as military like weaponry for the sole purpose of selling more guns. I hope guns become less easier to get. Too many innocent people are dying and the NRA and supporters don't seem to give a shit. Selling guns is a legal activity, despite what you hope.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 22, 2016 3:46:52 GMT
No, I'm am saying the same thing over and over and over again, but you don't understand it, clearly. I'm not running out of "excuses" my reasoning is sound and I keep repeating it and will continue to until you understand. And, no one wants to abolish second amendment , especially not Hillary. If you want to believe the proven lies that the NRA (aka the public face of the cowards who run the gun industry) tells, that is your prerogative. The reasoning to hinder access to guns by allowing lawsuits against and punishing law abiding businesses into oblivion for the actions of criminals is not sound reasoning by any stretch of the imagination. No matter how many justifications for it you give and how many times you repeat it. I and a few others have all said (repeatedly) we're not arguing that Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd. That's nothing more than a deflection on your part. That's your opinion. I don't agree with it. If gun manufacturers aren't willing to use existing technology to make safer guns that can't be fired by anyone but their one single owner, then they are partially responsible and liable, in my opinion. If gun dealers aren't willing to legalize and follow common sense control measures, such as a universal registration requirement and database, limiting numbers of guns purchased by one individual in a 30 day period, universal mandatory background checks, including closing the gun show loophole, they are partially responsible. Thank you for giving me the chance to keep saying this - it feels good.
|
|
|
Post by OntarioScrapper on Sept 28, 2016 23:51:19 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. Oh. Yeah I took it the wrong way! Thanks for explaining.
|
|