Holding gun makers accountable

[moon]

Guns are legal to manufacture. Once it leaves the manufacture's hands/plant/distribution -what happens is not the fault of manufacturers.

That's the current law that needs changing. Manufacturers that deliberately make and market guns specifically designed to kill people must bear responsibility for ensuing deaths.

They are not protected by the Second Amendment. They are protected by the shabby 2005 Act.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Sorry- but you just can't have your own fully-armed attack helicopter. It's a ' freedom ' you're going to have to live without- for the sake of everybody else's.

can you explain how my possession of a fully armed attack helicopter interferes with your freedom and rights?

Unconstitutional ? I don't think so. See above.

according to the very specific words of the framers and commentators of the bill of rights, it is indeed unconstitutional. fancy lawyer tricks and judges words don't change that. it just makes it a right denied.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Sorry- but you just can't have your own fully-armed attack helicopter. It's a ' freedom ' you're going to have to live without- for the sake of everybody else's.



Unconstitutional ? I don't think so. See above.

Read U.S. v. Miller.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Nevermind, I forgot you don't read well. I'll spell it out for you...

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

Thus it is unequivocally stated, all weapons of military utility are protected.

 

[moon]

Nevermind, I forgot you don't read well. I'll spell it out for you...

Thus it is unequivocally stated, all weapons of military utility are protected.

Not by what you've pasted here- and certainly not under the Second Amendment. Oh, I forgot- you can't think well.

And no, you can't have an attack helicopter either- thank god.

 

[moon]

can you explain how my possession of a fully armed attack helicopter interferes with your freedom and rights?

Sure- your possession of such lethal equipment would be illegal- and people's freedom and rights are dependent upon the maintenance of law.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Sure- your possession of such lethal equipment would be illegal- and people's freedom and rights are dependent upon the maintenance of law.

so other than a bullshit 'letter of the law' excuse, you have no reason to fear me possessing an attack helicopter. Because if you were really concerned about the maintenance of law, you'd be demanding that the government also follow the letter of the law and I don't see you doing that at all.

 

[cawacko]

Guns are legal to manufacture. Once it leaves the manufacture's hands/plant/distribution -what happens is not the fault of manufacturers.

Much as I'd be happy not to see any guns in anyone's hands...it's all legal and protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Hillary is pandering *shocking*

So there's really no chance of these type of lawsuits succeeding?

From a political perspective I understand Hillary is moving to the left to beat Bernie but how does she walk back a position like this to the 'middle'? Seems pretty hard to say you support the right of people to own guns while holding this position as well.

 

[anatta]

So there's really no chance of these type of lawsuits succeeding?

From a political perspective I understand Hillary is moving to the left to beat Bernie but how does she walk back a position like this to the 'middle'? Seems pretty hard to say you support the right of people to own guns while holding this position as well.

the problem with the laws/suits is the 2nd amendment - can it be crafted around -I don't pretend to know..

Hillary is a shape-shifting panderbear, she counts on the relative low information voter with the attention span of a gnat.

 

[moon]

so other than a bullshit 'letter of the law' excuse, you have no reason to fear me possessing an attack helicopter

You got it. Remember, laws have basis. They tend towards civilised behavior Why would that be, do you think ?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You got it. Remember, laws have basis. They tend towards civilised behavior Why would that be, do you think ?

laws have biases, not basis. they tend towards authoritarian behavior to mollify the fears of the ignorant and cowardly in direct contradiction of the words of the constitution and bill of rights.

 

[moon]

laws have biases, not basis. they tend towards authoritarian behavior to mollify the fears of the ignorant and cowardly in direct contradiction of the words of the constitution and bill of rights.

You mean that laws protect the weak ? Absurd ! The weak should be eaten. Not.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You mean that laws protect the weak ? Absurd ! The weak should be eaten. Not.

laws do not provide protection for the weak, they provide protection for the wealthy. as it stands, laws only punish those who abuse the weak, who are left defenseless by those very laws.

 

[moon]

OK, let's eat the rich.

Wait a minute.........there's a law.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Not by what you've pasted here- and certainly not under the Second Amendment. Oh, I forgot- you can't think well.

And no, you can't have an attack helicopter either- thank god.

You failed to read and understand what was quoted directly for you. I'm sorry, but there isn't a picture book to describe it any simpler.

You have some awfully strong opinions for something you are, by your own admission, ignorant about.

 

[moon]

You failed to read and understand what was quoted directly for you. I'm sorry, but there isn't a picture book to describe it any simpler.

You have some awfully strong opinions for something you are, by your own admission, ignorant about.

It's true that I don't know a great deal about gun law- but I'm sane. On the other hand you claim to be very knowledgeable - and think you're entitled to a sawn-off shotgun, a machine gun and an attack helicopter.

 

[Abatis]

I don't know much about gun laws, admittedly, but I'm very interested in human rights. I see gun possession as obstructing human rights, not enabling them- and so I'll do my best to oppose the possession of assault weapons by the public.

I appreciate the admission of ignorance of the 2nd Amendment / gun laws; it will inform my exchanges with you in the future. Problem is you suffer from a profound deficiency in understanding what rights are and how they are enforced as well. Your theory about this being a human rights concern is a sound byte smokescreen for utter BS. Your characterization is an insult to the cause or real human rights.

Federal law strictly regulates machine guns (firearms that fire many rounds of ammunition, without manual reloading, with a single pull of the trigger).

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm
How does that equate with your Second Amendment interpretation ?

Well, the National Firearms Act of 1934 does not ban machine guns, all it does is demand a $200 tax be paid when the firearm is transferred between private citizens.

Back in 1934, Congress understood it could not ban any class of military useful arm that could be fired /crewed by a single soldier, now some people argue it can (you for instance). How did that shift happen? Was the Constitution amended to grant Congress new powers?

It is indisputable that the NFA-34 implicates arms that according to US v Miller are 2nd Amendment protected arms. The Congressional power to tax (as opposed to simply "regulate" arms, claiming powers under the commerce clause) is given special deference and has thus far withstood challenge on 2nd Amendment grounds. No serious challenge has been brought since DC v Heller (2008) though, which re-affirmed that the 2nd secures an individual right thus invalidating the various "collective right" interpretations hatched in the lower federal courts in 1942.

So, right now it's a, "we'll see".


.

 

[tinfoil]

Can someone sue toilet paper manufacturers because they didn't wipe their ass properly? How is a manufacturer responsible when their product is misused?

 

[Abatis]

Manufacturers that deliberately make and market guns specifically designed to kill people must bear responsibility for ensuing deaths.

OK but just to be fair, I think that gun manufacturers should be rewarded, perhaps $100 a gun, every 5 years, for every gun they have made that is not used in a criminal homicide.

Deal?

 

[tinfoil]

The government orders guns specifically designed to kill people... you know, for the army and stuff.