Holding gun makers accountable

[SmarterthanYou]

No, I can ' effectively defend myself ' against most unarmed people. Of course, I'm at a disadvantage if you're armed- and that's how you'd prefer it, no doubt.

why would you need to defend yourself from me? do you assume that i'm inevitably going to assault you because I have a gun?

 

[The Dude]

So Hillary went all in during the debate last night saying gun makers should be held liable and should be able to be sued. Kind of shockingly Bernie said he disagreed and said it would end up essentially eliminating all gun makers in America. Hillary accused him of using a NRA talking point.

Maybe I'm wrong but I see it exactly as Bernie describes. Can anyone articulate to me how gun makers could be held liable yet not have all U.S. gun makers eliminated?

Bad ass Hillary
Fucking ehy

 

[moon]

why would you need to defend yourself from me? do you assume that i'm inevitably going to assault you because I have a gun?

It's wise to assume so, yes. It's an offensive weapon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-popovic/nra-chicago-newsroom_b_2744523.html

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Oh, uhhhhh, OK . . .



The laws that prohibit the simple possession of a firearm do not protect the rights of any citizen; they only make those in power more comfortable by restricting the rights of citizens. I have no problem with laws criminalizing actual behavior like brandishing a firearm or threatening someone with it or actually shooting at someone when there's no threat to your or others life or limb and of course, the laws against murder I support.



The claim of a "right" means that someone is accountable for its violation. You are throwing around the term in a way that denigrates the real meaning and frustrates the actual protection of rights. You've read Chicken-Little as a child no?

My ownership of a gun and my use of the gun within the criminal law as I mentioned above - IS NOT VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF ANYONE ELSE.

Your heaping of blame and derision of law-abiding gun owners works only to absolve and give cover to real criminals and rights abusers.



And until those events take place, the lawful possession and use of firearms is to be respected.



Your self-aggrandizement is hilarious and frightening at the same time. Typical leftist authoritarian; you know what's best for everyone and you are going to give it to us whether we want it or not (ironically, all at the point of a gun).

Simple question, DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE SAFE?



Just because I recognize, understand and accept the nature, scope and enforcement of rights certainly does not mean I hold them in contempt. Your misunderstanding is what nurtures and maintains your contempt for your fellow man that is so evident in your hyperbolic descriptions of people who simply have an oppositional opinion. Your attitude towards gun owners belies your disgustingly fake claims of cherishing rights . . . It is very evident that you would be enthusiastically herding people like me, at the point of a gun, into cattle cars for the good of society.

You are a menace and a sworn enemy of freedom and liberty and rights, not a protector.



Your assumption is that I must be wrong simply because, in your admitted present state of ignorance, you feel I'm wrong.

Your self-assigned task is not to reverse your ignorance and learn, but simply to find "authoritative" (LOL) confirmation of your ignorant opinion.

Well, I wish you luck.

Be sure to come back all full of piss and vinegar when you think you got it.

There are those who probably think this is illegal to own.

 

[The Dude]

Fuck liberal gun owners. They should have disarmed at those gun exchanges a few years ago.

Fuck NRA terrorist

 

[The Dude]

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.

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 ?

Word

 

[moon]

There are those who probably think this is illegal to own.

Is that your colonic irrigation tool ?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

why would you need to defend yourself from me? do you assume that i'm inevitably going to assault you because I have a gun?

Looks like a great number of JPP liberals see no reason to have a fire extinguisher in their home.

 

[The Dude]

Looks like a great number of JPP liberals see no reason to have a fire extinguisher in their home.

Looks like a hole lot of liberals know you are uneducated

 

[cancel2 2022]

that is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

The second amendment is an anachronism that is exploited by gun nuts.

 

[cancel2 2022]

yes there is. it's called the 'security of a free state'.

The US military currently spends around $700 billion a year isn't that enough?

that is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

It's wise to assume so, yes. It's an offensive weapon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-popovic/nra-chicago-newsroom_b_2744523.html

Then why aren't they used offensively more than defensively? Why is it that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides?

 

[Airstrip One]

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

Like the 18th Amendment?

 

[Airstrip One]

The second amendment is an anachronism that is exploited by gun nuts.

The US Constitution is a document not enjoyed by British subjects.

 

[moon]

Then why aren't they used offensively more than defensively?

Can you show any data for ' defensive ' gun use ?

Why is it that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides?

I don't know that they are. Still, is the use of a gun for suicide an offensive or a defensive usage ?
Shooting yourself- as far as I'm aware- is legal.

 

[moon]

Like the 18th Amendment?

Well, the authors thought that banning alcohol was a ' civilised ' act. They were right in some aspects, wrong in others- but imo the basis was towards - perceived - civilised behavior, yes.

 

[Airstrip One]

Well, the authors thought that banning alcohol was a ' civilised ' act. They were right in some aspects, wrong in others- but the basis was towards - perceived - civilised behavior, yes.

Perceived, but not actual.

 

[moon]

Perceived, but not actual.

That depends upon the quantity of alcohol consumed.

 

[Abatis]

If you're a Constitutional lawyer then say so.

My knowledge base isn't an issue here; it is your unique thought process where you pontificating upon a subject that you admittingly know little to nothing about isn't defined as demonstrating ignorance.

They make the unarmed populace more comfortable too - and they have a right to enjoy life .

There is no enforceable right to "enjoy life". When you are miserable, what government entity are you going to bring action upon to remedy the situation?

Again, you have no understanding what rights are, their action and how they are enforced.

Of course. That's the nature of civilisation.

You missed the point; that's how the right to arms is balanced with the rights of your fellow man.

Well, if you were to keep it within the confines of your own property then it would only be a threat to yourself, your family and visitors. In a public place I believe that it does affect the rights of others

Simple possession of arms and their lawful carriage (e.g., a concealed weapons permit or open carry) does not impact the rights of others.

and I'd like to see the movement of lethal weapons restricted by law. Maybe it already is.

There are tens of thousands of gun laws that impact the manufacture, distribution, sale, possession and use of guns. You see the people who obey the law as a threat; you have a serious and very dangerous complex.

As a case in point I once sat sunning myself beneath a tree and a passing moron blasted a bird out of it. You might not think that my ' rights ' were impinged- but I do.

I can't imagine any place in the USA where he would not have broken a law. If he were in an area open to hunting and obtained all necessary licenses and permits, he was especially responsible for responsible use and danger / harm inflicted down range. You swearing out a complaint and the proper prosecution of this person would have been the recourse for his breach of the hunting code and perhaps local laws (not necessarily what you perceive to be your right to sun yourself under a tree).

Taking my gun away because of the actions of this moron is not a proper enforcement of your rights; it is a violation of mine.

As an aside, if you were in an area open to hunting it is always a good idea to wear some hunter orange when you are out and about. My property abuts a very large tract of land open to public hunting and whenever I am in those woods during hunting seasons I wear safety orange.

To my mind the division isn't all that well marked- and it's a line that's easily crossed.

There are 80,000,000 gun owners in the USA; your need to label them a threat and danger to you speaks more to your mental state than to the actual level of threat from them. I feel sorry for you.

In some instances, I agree. However , like millions of other people I'm opposed to civilian ownership of military weapons.

Oh well. As I said in my earlier post:

Except that of any type of gun out there, military style "assault weapons" meet the 2nd Amendment protection criteria on all points:

For the possession and use of a type of gun to be protected (which means that any power claimed by government to restrict its possession and use must be invalidated) the gun must be of a type that is "part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" or that it is, "of the kind in common use [by the citizens] at the time".

That "assault weapons" are utilized in mass killings isn't a reason to ban them or allow them to be sued out of availability; the effectiveness of a gun in killing people is a prong of the protection criteria established by SCOTUS some 77 years ago.

Well, you and others like you scare my kids. Me too.

Well then, I would argue you have failed as a parent and a citizen of the USA (which, the more I read, the more I think you are a British subject).

It's my duty to try to turn the legal tables in favor of the unarmed population. Keep it at home.

Except it's not your "duty".

Neither is it within your prerogative to utilize the political process to forcibly disarm citizens, unless you are intent on inflicting your prejudices and hate and violating the rights of others:

"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections."

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD of EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)​

Arms are property, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and the citizens possession and use of arms is a long recognized liberty.

So, tough shit, you have no right, duty or power to restrict my rights . . . That you endeavor to do so while claiming to cherish rights just demonstrates how much you detest the foundational principles of the US Constitution. That I said earlier that you are arguing out of ignorance was being much too kind; ignorance can be resolved. Your beliefs are instilled, immutable and immune to any reason . . . What's that old saying? You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

You are just dangerous.

I believe so, yes.

Well, again you are wrong. Who is liable when your "right to be safe" is violated? Local, state and federal governments have, either through legislation or the courts, indemnified themselves from any action brought by any person for being harmed by a criminal. No government entity is responsible for your safety, no duty to protect you exists even if you are under imminent death threat or have a court order of "protection" (LOL).

California's Government Code §845 is quite typical:

"Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service. "​

So, the truth is, the police are not there to keep you "safe", except in the most general sense. The only exception, when government agents are responsible for the safety of a citizen is if that person is in their direct care or custody (because the citizen's ability to act in their own defense is limited by government action, i.e., handcuffs)
.
The Supreme Court has held:

"The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means. "

DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)​

You know what that means?
It means you have no claimable "right to be safe".
You are on your own.
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY -- AKA "SELF DEFENSE".

The government can not have it both ways -- it can not absolve itself from any responsibility to make or keep you "safe" and then turn around and prohibit or restrict a citizen's ability to defend himself. Self defense is the most foundational of rights and the thought that you think you have the power or right to remove it is just mind boggling.

I think that talk like that verges on extremism. You wouldn't pass my test on gun ownership.

All the more reason why I cherish and will defend with my last breath, the Constitution of the USA which frustrates the agendas of liberty hating people like you.

You're a prime candidate for disarming, no doubt about that.

The proper response to speech you disagree with is a more persuasive opposing argument, not threats to remove the rights of those who think differently.

You're currently supported by bad law and that's open to challenge. It won't change tomorrow- but I think that change will come.

I sure hope you are patient.

That's how laymen go about fighting for what they feel is right. Quite often they win.

No, that's how people intent on overthrowing a system act. You recognize that no aspect of your agenda meshes with the Constitution so you endeavor to dismantle it brick by brick. You don't think there is any benefit in learning anything about something you hate with every fiber in your body.

.

 

[Abatis]

The second amendment is an anachronism that is exploited by gun nuts.

Too funny.

Another moonbat lefty using his ignorance of foundational Constitutional principles to advance his hate for liberty . . .and falling flat on his face.

The right to arms is not granted, given, created or established by 2nd Amendment so, 1) altering or removing the 2nd Amendment won't impact the right to arms, and 2), there is noting to exploit because since the right does not emanate from the Constitution, the right is not "in any manner dependent"* upon the Constitution for its existence. Since I don't claim any right as emanating from the 2nd Amendment I can't "exploit" the 2nd Amendment can I?

That's a very important principle to understand because "[not] in any manner dependent"* means that your side can't exploit and pervert and misrepresent the words of the Amendment to restrict the right . . . It is illegitimate to invent conditions and qualifications on the right by "interpreting" words that the right does not depend upon (e.g., "well regulated" or "free state").

Neither can the right be argued to be contingent upon one's attachment with the organized militia, an entity and structure which is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (remember, "in any manner dependent"*).


*

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [in this case, that of individual armed self-defense in public from the KKK by ex-slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”​