Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
patton#22
()
Date: December 17, 2012 01:01AM
Go to Wikipedia, type in assult weapon ban, scroll down to effects of said laws. It is a band-aid, knee jerk reacation to a horrible event.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
BigK
()
Date: December 17, 2012 01:22PM
It is a start. What do you suggest, nothing be done as in the past? Yep, that has made things better.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
ParkPlace
()
Date: December 17, 2012 01:44PM
BigK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is a start. What do you suggest, nothing be
> done as in the past? Yep, that has made things
> better.
Arm the teachers like they're doing in Texas. DC schools should have done years ago.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is a start. What do you suggest, nothing be
> done as in the past? Yep, that has made things
> better.
Arm the teachers like they're doing in Texas. DC schools should have done years ago.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
ParkPlace
()
Date: December 17, 2012 01:46PM
patton#22 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go to Wikipedia, type in assult weapon ban, scroll
> down to effects of said laws. It is a band-aid,
> knee jerk reacation to a horrible event.
I'ts all about opportunity and exploitation.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go to Wikipedia, type in assult weapon ban, scroll
> down to effects of said laws. It is a band-aid,
> knee jerk reacation to a horrible event.
I'ts all about opportunity and exploitation.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
BigK
()
Date: December 17, 2012 01:50PM
Arming the teachers is crazy. It is one small school with 110 kids in grades k thru 12 that is talking about doing this in Texas. Not the answer. Maybe putting an armed police officer in every school would help.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
BB*X
()
Date: December 17, 2012 02:20PM
"What do you suggest, nothing be done as in the past? Yep, that has made things better."
I suggest that we hold people accountable for their actions and stop blaming the gun manufacturer, the company that made the magazine, or the company who's ammo was used.
I don't see why anyone in Fairfax needs a machete, this is not a jungle, but I don't want to ban them. Maybe there is a good reason to have one and I don't understand, I'm not going to suggest we ban all machetes just becasue I don't like them and I see no reason why you should have one.
I suggest that we hold people accountable for their actions and stop blaming the gun manufacturer, the company that made the magazine, or the company who's ammo was used.
I don't see why anyone in Fairfax needs a machete, this is not a jungle, but I don't want to ban them. Maybe there is a good reason to have one and I don't understand, I'm not going to suggest we ban all machetes just becasue I don't like them and I see no reason why you should have one.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
BB*X
()
Date: December 17, 2012 02:28PM
I agree that arming the teachers is just a bad idea, I know some teachers that I would not want anywhere near a firearm. Putting an armed officer in the school sounds good in theory but I wonder if that would not make the officer a target? If someone is intent on shooting up a school and that school has an armed officer I think the officer would be the first target.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
BigK
()
Date: December 17, 2012 02:36PM
OK.....sounds like we continue as in the past and do nothing and let this happen again and again. I have notice how all te prayers have helped. Assault weapons and high capacity automatic handguns should be controlled like full automatic weapons are controlled today. Nobody NEEDS these weapons...period.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
what-ev
()
Date: December 17, 2012 02:48PM
easy solution. Keep your fucking guns locked up.
Also, get your head out of the sand and denial and realize your kid just might be a bit screwed in the head. Behind a vast majority of phycos is a enabiling parent
Its fucking weird when I go into a house and a teenager is playing grand theft auto with a smile on his face. Think thats not a problem? Turn off the games that de-sensatize "johnnys" mind.
Bitch at the health care industry when mental health treatment is hard to get or too expensive for the vast majority of people.
The leftist lib always moans and groans about guns and not the person behind it.
Also, get your head out of the sand and denial and realize your kid just might be a bit screwed in the head. Behind a vast majority of phycos is a enabiling parent
Its fucking weird when I go into a house and a teenager is playing grand theft auto with a smile on his face. Think thats not a problem? Turn off the games that de-sensatize "johnnys" mind.
Bitch at the health care industry when mental health treatment is hard to get or too expensive for the vast majority of people.
The leftist lib always moans and groans about guns and not the person behind it.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
not a damn thing
()
Date: December 17, 2012 02:58PM
THe assualt weapon ban is on the books as it pertains to this shooting. An assault weapons ban would have done absolutely NOTHING. Repeat; NOTHING.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
texas hold em
()
Date: December 17, 2012 03:42PM
During the last assault weapons ban it was a joke as this one will be. On certain rifles the bayonet lug was ground off it thus it was no longer an assault weapon.
Go ahead and limit the mag capacity to ten rounds. I can carry three mags and switch them out in seconds thus putting out just as many rounds as the thirty round mag but not as quick but with the same results.
Go ahead and limit the mag capacity to ten rounds. I can carry three mags and switch them out in seconds thus putting out just as many rounds as the thirty round mag but not as quick but with the same results.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
pokey
()
Date: December 17, 2012 03:43PM
BigK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK.....sounds like we continue as in the past and
> do nothing and let this happen again and again. I
> have notice how all te prayers have helped.
> Assault weapons and high capacity automatic
> handguns should be controlled like full automatic
> weapons are controlled today. Nobody NEEDS these
> weapons...period.
Just curious what do you define as high capacity?
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK.....sounds like we continue as in the past and
> do nothing and let this happen again and again. I
> have notice how all te prayers have helped.
> Assault weapons and high capacity automatic
> handguns should be controlled like full automatic
> weapons are controlled today. Nobody NEEDS these
> weapons...period.
Just curious what do you define as high capacity?
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
texas hold em
()
Date: December 17, 2012 03:50PM
texas hold em Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> During the last assault weapons ban it was a joke
> as this one will be. On certain rifles the bayonet
> lug was ground off it thus it was no longer an
> assault weapon.
>
> Go ahead and limit the mag capacity to ten rounds.
> I can carry three mags and switch them out in
> seconds thus putting out just as many rounds as
> the thirty round mag but not as quick but with the
> same results.
I am showing that there are always ways around these so called bans. Too many loopholes. They were found the last time they will be found again. That is what happens when you rush through legislation without thinking.
I agree that I do not see a civilian use for the AR knockoffs with thirty round mags. No hunter of any reputation would use them. A farmer who uses them for varmants would probably go with a .22 cheaper ammo and reliable.
Rather than rushing things take the time to draft real legislation that will protect the right to own guns but be reasonable about what type can be owned.
-------------------------------------------------------
> During the last assault weapons ban it was a joke
> as this one will be. On certain rifles the bayonet
> lug was ground off it thus it was no longer an
> assault weapon.
>
> Go ahead and limit the mag capacity to ten rounds.
> I can carry three mags and switch them out in
> seconds thus putting out just as many rounds as
> the thirty round mag but not as quick but with the
> same results.
I am showing that there are always ways around these so called bans. Too many loopholes. They were found the last time they will be found again. That is what happens when you rush through legislation without thinking.
I agree that I do not see a civilian use for the AR knockoffs with thirty round mags. No hunter of any reputation would use them. A farmer who uses them for varmants would probably go with a .22 cheaper ammo and reliable.
Rather than rushing things take the time to draft real legislation that will protect the right to own guns but be reasonable about what type can be owned.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
Reagan4US
()
Date: December 17, 2012 04:19PM
ParkPlace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BigK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It is a start. What do you suggest, nothing be
> > done as in the past? Yep, that has made things
> > better.
>
> Arm the teachers like they're doing in Texas. DC
> schools should have done years ago.
I can just see it now. Some poor kid is going to shot when a teachers gun goes off by accident. Kids and guns don't mix well.
-------------------------------------------------------
> BigK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It is a start. What do you suggest, nothing be
> > done as in the past? Yep, that has made things
> > better.
>
> Arm the teachers like they're doing in Texas. DC
> schools should have done years ago.
I can just see it now. Some poor kid is going to shot when a teachers gun goes off by accident. Kids and guns don't mix well.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
LiverLips
()
Date: December 17, 2012 04:20PM
BigK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is a start. What do you suggest, nothing be
> done as in the past? Yep, that has made things
> better.
No ban is certainly doing wonders for mass killing in the US.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is a start. What do you suggest, nothing be
> done as in the past? Yep, that has made things
> better.
No ban is certainly doing wonders for mass killing in the US.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
Reality Check 4 U
()
Date: December 17, 2012 04:22PM
If a certain type of bus was killing students we would ban it in a second. The same should be true of guns.
I hope the parents sue the shit out of the gun manufactures who made the guns.
I hope the parents sue the shit out of the gun manufactures who made the guns.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
that's cruel
()
Date: December 17, 2012 04:39PM
Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope the parents sue the shit out of the gun
> manufactures who made the guns.
That is cruel. Why would you want to put them through more harm? After losing a child, why would you want to bankrupt them by having them file a frivilous lawsuit?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope the parents sue the shit out of the gun
> manufactures who made the guns.
That is cruel. Why would you want to put them through more harm? After losing a child, why would you want to bankrupt them by having them file a frivilous lawsuit?
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
Get the Led Out!
()
Date: December 17, 2012 04:48PM
And the way it usual goes the owner of the guns was killed by their own guns.
Weapon-loving Nancy Lanza regularly took her awkward loner-son Adam to shooting ranges, where the painfully shy boy — who suffered from the autism-related Asperger’s syndrome — blasted away targets using his mom’s small arsenal of guns.”
Weapon-loving Nancy Lanza regularly took her awkward loner-son Adam to shooting ranges, where the painfully shy boy — who suffered from the autism-related Asperger’s syndrome — blasted away targets using his mom’s small arsenal of guns.”
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
FACT CHECKER.
()
Date: December 17, 2012 04:52PM
Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a certain type of bus was killing students we
> would ban it in a second. The same should be true
> of guns.
>
> I hope the parents sue the shit out of the gun
> manufactures who made the guns.
Before you fill this thread with drivel you might want to check up on the facts reality check 4 u. On average there are 140 cases of school bus fatalitys per year in the USA as opposed to 50 gun related deaths in a schools per year. Nice straw man attempt lib.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a certain type of bus was killing students we
> would ban it in a second. The same should be true
> of guns.
>
> I hope the parents sue the shit out of the gun
> manufactures who made the guns.
Before you fill this thread with drivel you might want to check up on the facts reality check 4 u. On average there are 140 cases of school bus fatalitys per year in the USA as opposed to 50 gun related deaths in a schools per year. Nice straw man attempt lib.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
Knower of Things.
()
Date: December 17, 2012 05:01PM
that's cruel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I hope the parents sue the shit out of the gun
> > manufactures who made the guns.
>
>
> That is cruel. Why would you want to put them
> through more harm? After losing a child, why
> would you want to bankrupt them by having them
> file a frivilous lawsuit?
There will be a line of shysters a mile long willing to take the cases of these families on a contingency basis. It won't cost the families a dime.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I hope the parents sue the shit out of the gun
> > manufactures who made the guns.
>
>
> That is cruel. Why would you want to put them
> through more harm? After losing a child, why
> would you want to bankrupt them by having them
> file a frivilous lawsuit?
There will be a line of shysters a mile long willing to take the cases of these families on a contingency basis. It won't cost the families a dime.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
Reality Check 4 U
()
Date: December 17, 2012 05:06PM
FACT CHECKER. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If a certain type of bus was killing students
> we
> > would ban it in a second. The same should be
> true
> > of guns.
> >
> > I hope the parents sue the shit out of the gun
> > manufactures who made the guns.
>
>
> Before you fill this thread with drivel you might
> want to check up on the facts reality check 4 u.
> On average there are 140 cases of school bus
> fatalitys per year in the USA as opposed to 50 gun
> related deaths in a schools per year. Nice straw
> man attempt lib.
Only 50 people were killed by guns?
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If a certain type of bus was killing students
> we
> > would ban it in a second. The same should be
> true
> > of guns.
> >
> > I hope the parents sue the shit out of the gun
> > manufactures who made the guns.
>
>
> Before you fill this thread with drivel you might
> want to check up on the facts reality check 4 u.
> On average there are 140 cases of school bus
> fatalitys per year in the USA as opposed to 50 gun
> related deaths in a schools per year. Nice straw
> man attempt lib.
Only 50 people were killed by guns?
Attachments:
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
Reading is Fundamental
()
Date: December 17, 2012 05:11PM
Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FACT CHECKER. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If a certain type of bus was killing students
> > we
> > > would ban it in a second. The same should be
> > true
> > > of guns.
> > >
> > > I hope the parents sue the shit out of the
> gun
> > > manufactures who made the guns.
> >
> >
> > Before you fill this thread with drivel you
> might
> > want to check up on the facts reality check 4
> u.
> > On average there are 140 cases of school bus
> > fatalitys per year in the USA as opposed to 50
> gun
> > related deaths in a schools per year. Nice
> straw
> > man attempt lib.
>
> Only 50 people were killed by guns?
Reading comprehension 4 U = Fail.
-------------------------------------------------------
> FACT CHECKER. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If a certain type of bus was killing students
> > we
> > > would ban it in a second. The same should be
> > true
> > > of guns.
> > >
> > > I hope the parents sue the shit out of the
> gun
> > > manufactures who made the guns.
> >
> >
> > Before you fill this thread with drivel you
> might
> > want to check up on the facts reality check 4
> u.
> > On average there are 140 cases of school bus
> > fatalitys per year in the USA as opposed to 50
> gun
> > related deaths in a schools per year. Nice
> straw
> > man attempt lib.
>
> Only 50 people were killed by guns?
Reading comprehension 4 U = Fail.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
FACT CHECKER.
()
Date: December 17, 2012 05:12PM
look it up. But from a lib such as yourself you would be too lazy to do so. Now go ban some school busses and move along
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
texas hold em
()
Date: December 17, 2012 05:13PM
I read one article where the shooters mother was always talking about how much money she had and never having to work. I have a feeling that will change soon.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
SoylentGreen
()
Date: December 17, 2012 06:12PM
texas hold em Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read one article where the shooters mother was
> always talking about how much money she had and
> never having to work. I have a feeling that will
> change soon.
Are you saying that just because her son shot her in the head and killed her before heading off to the school that she's not going to get any more money?
That's just not right.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read one article where the shooters mother was
> always talking about how much money she had and
> never having to work. I have a feeling that will
> change soon.
Are you saying that just because her son shot her in the head and killed her before heading off to the school that she's not going to get any more money?
That's just not right.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
LegalEagle
()
Date: December 17, 2012 07:49PM
Knower of Things. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that's cruel Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > I hope the parents sue the shit out of the
> gun
> > > manufactures who made the guns.
> >
> >
> > That is cruel. Why would you want to put them
> > through more harm? After losing a child, why
> > would you want to bankrupt them by having them
> > file a frivilous lawsuit?
>
> There will be a line of shysters a mile long
> willing to take the cases of these families on a
> contingency basis. It won't cost the families a
> dime.
That may well be true, except the Bush administration along with a Republican Congress passed legislation in 2005 which effectively holds the gun manufacturers and dealers harmless for the actions of their customers and products. This had been an NRA priority for years.
Repealing this law would probably be the most effective solution to this national problem, from an American perspective. First, it places no restrictions on 2nd amendment rights. Second, it uses a potent tool of capitalism, financial pain, to ensure responsible behavior. Third, it's just so satisfying.
The families of the CT massacre should be able to sue the gun manufacturers for failing to ensure that dealers took reasonable precautions with respect to the usage and storage of their products. The dealers should be liable for failing to ensure that the buyers were responsible and law biding. What? You say that Ms. Lanza was law biding and responsible. Evidently not, as she allowed an individual she had stated had issues full and unfettered access to a significant stockpile of weapons. How is this different from a bartender who knowingly (or should have known) sells alcohol to a inebriated customer who then leaves drunk and commits vehicular homocide?
When Bush signed this law into effect, he praised it as stemming "frivolous lawsuits". In reality, manufacturers and dealers were facing significant lawsuits at the time, and the NRA, the gun manufacturers' lobby, pressured Bush and Congress to save their asses.
If a gun of any type is used in the commission of a crime, then the owner should be liable. If the user is a criminal and the gun is stolen, the owner should still be liable, as he/she did not adequately secure the weapon when he/she wasn't actually using it.
Big Tobacco was held accountable and forced to pay the States for their future smoking related health costs. Several successful multi-billion dollar lawsuits and the ever present threat of more should bring about very responsible behavior and self-enforcement by the gun industry. We won't need to ban assault weapons, the manufacturers will stop making them and selling them to dealers because the risk will be too great.
-------------------------------------------------------
> that's cruel Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > I hope the parents sue the shit out of the
> gun
> > > manufactures who made the guns.
> >
> >
> > That is cruel. Why would you want to put them
> > through more harm? After losing a child, why
> > would you want to bankrupt them by having them
> > file a frivilous lawsuit?
>
> There will be a line of shysters a mile long
> willing to take the cases of these families on a
> contingency basis. It won't cost the families a
> dime.
That may well be true, except the Bush administration along with a Republican Congress passed legislation in 2005 which effectively holds the gun manufacturers and dealers harmless for the actions of their customers and products. This had been an NRA priority for years.
Repealing this law would probably be the most effective solution to this national problem, from an American perspective. First, it places no restrictions on 2nd amendment rights. Second, it uses a potent tool of capitalism, financial pain, to ensure responsible behavior. Third, it's just so satisfying.
The families of the CT massacre should be able to sue the gun manufacturers for failing to ensure that dealers took reasonable precautions with respect to the usage and storage of their products. The dealers should be liable for failing to ensure that the buyers were responsible and law biding. What? You say that Ms. Lanza was law biding and responsible. Evidently not, as she allowed an individual she had stated had issues full and unfettered access to a significant stockpile of weapons. How is this different from a bartender who knowingly (or should have known) sells alcohol to a inebriated customer who then leaves drunk and commits vehicular homocide?
When Bush signed this law into effect, he praised it as stemming "frivolous lawsuits". In reality, manufacturers and dealers were facing significant lawsuits at the time, and the NRA, the gun manufacturers' lobby, pressured Bush and Congress to save their asses.
If a gun of any type is used in the commission of a crime, then the owner should be liable. If the user is a criminal and the gun is stolen, the owner should still be liable, as he/she did not adequately secure the weapon when he/she wasn't actually using it.
Big Tobacco was held accountable and forced to pay the States for their future smoking related health costs. Several successful multi-billion dollar lawsuits and the ever present threat of more should bring about very responsible behavior and self-enforcement by the gun industry. We won't need to ban assault weapons, the manufacturers will stop making them and selling them to dealers because the risk will be too great.
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
down the line
()
Date: December 17, 2012 08:20PM
LegalEagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knower of Things. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > that's cruel Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > I hope the parents sue the shit out of the
> > gun
> > > > manufactures who made the guns.
> > >
> > >
> > > That is cruel. Why would you want to put
> them
> > > through more harm? After losing a child, why
> > > would you want to bankrupt them by having
> them
> > > file a frivilous lawsuit?
> >
> > There will be a line of shysters a mile long
> > willing to take the cases of these families on
> a
> > contingency basis. It won't cost the families
> a
> > dime.
>
> That may well be true, except the Bush
> administration along with a Republican Congress
> passed legislation in 2005 which effectively holds
> the gun manufacturers and dealers harmless for the
> actions of their customers and products. This had
> been an NRA priority for years.
>
> Repealing this law would probably be the most
> effective solution to this national problem, from
> an American perspective. First, it places no
> restrictions on 2nd amendment rights. Second, it
> uses a potent tool of capitalism, financial pain,
> to ensure responsible behavior. Third, it's just
> so satisfying.
>
> The families of the CT massacre should be able to
> sue the gun manufacturers for failing to ensure
> that dealers took reasonable precautions with
> respect to the usage and storage of their
> products. The dealers should be liable for
> failing to ensure that the buyers were responsible
> and law biding. What? You say that Ms. Lanza was
> law biding and responsible. Evidently not, as she
> allowed an individual she had stated had issues
> full and unfettered access to a significant
> stockpile of weapons. How is this different from
> a bartender who knowingly (or should have known)
> sells alcohol to a inebriated customer who then
> leaves drunk and commits vehicular homocide?
>
> When Bush signed this law into effect, he praised
> it as stemming "frivolous lawsuits". In reality,
> manufacturers and dealers were facing significant
> lawsuits at the time, and the NRA, the gun
> manufacturers' lobby, pressured Bush and Congress
> to save their asses.
>
> If a gun of any type is used in the commission of
> a crime, then the owner should be liable. If the
> user is a criminal and the gun is stolen, the
> owner should still be liable, as he/she did not
> adequately secure the weapon when he/she wasn't
> actually using it.
>
> Big Tobacco was held accountable and forced to pay
> the States for their future smoking related health
> costs. Several successful multi-billion dollar
> lawsuits and the ever present threat of more
> should bring about very responsible behavior and
> self-enforcement by the gun industry. We won't
> need to ban assault weapons, the manufacturers
> will stop making them and selling them to dealers
> because the risk will be too great.
^^^ FUCK YOU!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knower of Things. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > that's cruel Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > I hope the parents sue the shit out of the
> > gun
> > > > manufactures who made the guns.
> > >
> > >
> > > That is cruel. Why would you want to put
> them
> > > through more harm? After losing a child, why
> > > would you want to bankrupt them by having
> them
> > > file a frivilous lawsuit?
> >
> > There will be a line of shysters a mile long
> > willing to take the cases of these families on
> a
> > contingency basis. It won't cost the families
> a
> > dime.
>
> That may well be true, except the Bush
> administration along with a Republican Congress
> passed legislation in 2005 which effectively holds
> the gun manufacturers and dealers harmless for the
> actions of their customers and products. This had
> been an NRA priority for years.
>
> Repealing this law would probably be the most
> effective solution to this national problem, from
> an American perspective. First, it places no
> restrictions on 2nd amendment rights. Second, it
> uses a potent tool of capitalism, financial pain,
> to ensure responsible behavior. Third, it's just
> so satisfying.
>
> The families of the CT massacre should be able to
> sue the gun manufacturers for failing to ensure
> that dealers took reasonable precautions with
> respect to the usage and storage of their
> products. The dealers should be liable for
> failing to ensure that the buyers were responsible
> and law biding. What? You say that Ms. Lanza was
> law biding and responsible. Evidently not, as she
> allowed an individual she had stated had issues
> full and unfettered access to a significant
> stockpile of weapons. How is this different from
> a bartender who knowingly (or should have known)
> sells alcohol to a inebriated customer who then
> leaves drunk and commits vehicular homocide?
>
> When Bush signed this law into effect, he praised
> it as stemming "frivolous lawsuits". In reality,
> manufacturers and dealers were facing significant
> lawsuits at the time, and the NRA, the gun
> manufacturers' lobby, pressured Bush and Congress
> to save their asses.
>
> If a gun of any type is used in the commission of
> a crime, then the owner should be liable. If the
> user is a criminal and the gun is stolen, the
> owner should still be liable, as he/she did not
> adequately secure the weapon when he/she wasn't
> actually using it.
>
> Big Tobacco was held accountable and forced to pay
> the States for their future smoking related health
> costs. Several successful multi-billion dollar
> lawsuits and the ever present threat of more
> should bring about very responsible behavior and
> self-enforcement by the gun industry. We won't
> need to ban assault weapons, the manufacturers
> will stop making them and selling them to dealers
> because the risk will be too great.
^^^ FUCK YOU!
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
not the same
()
Date: December 17, 2012 08:51PM
Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a certain type of bus was killing students we
> would ban it in a second. The same should be true
> of guns.
>
> I hope the parents sue the shit out of the gun
> manufactures who made the guns.
Can you point out the constitutional amendment that protects the right to own buses? I must have missed that one
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a certain type of bus was killing students we
> would ban it in a second. The same should be true
> of guns.
>
> I hope the parents sue the shit out of the gun
> manufactures who made the guns.
Can you point out the constitutional amendment that protects the right to own buses? I must have missed that one
Re: Assault weapon ban
Posted by:
John Edwards Esq.
()
Date: December 17, 2012 09:24PM
LegalEagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knower of Things. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > that's cruel Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > I hope the parents sue the shit out of the
> > gun
> > > > manufactures who made the guns.
> > >
> > >
> > > That is cruel. Why would you want to put
> them
> > > through more harm? After losing a child, why
> > > would you want to bankrupt them by having
> them
> > > file a frivilous lawsuit?
> >
> > There will be a line of shysters a mile long
> > willing to take the cases of these families on
> a
> > contingency basis. It won't cost the families
> a
> > dime.
>
> That may well be true, except the Bush
> administration along with a Republican Congress
> passed legislation in 2005 which effectively holds
> the gun manufacturers and dealers harmless for the
> actions of their customers and products. This had
> been an NRA priority for years.
>
> Repealing this law would probably be the most
> effective solution to this national problem, from
> an American perspective. First, it places no
> restrictions on 2nd amendment rights. Second, it
> uses a potent tool of capitalism, financial pain,
> to ensure responsible behavior. Third, it's just
> so satisfying.
>
> The families of the CT massacre should be able to
> sue the gun manufacturers for failing to ensure
> that dealers took reasonable precautions with
> respect to the usage and storage of their
> products. The dealers should be liable for
> failing to ensure that the buyers were responsible
> and law biding. What? You say that Ms. Lanza was
> law biding and responsible. Evidently not, as she
> allowed an individual she had stated had issues
> full and unfettered access to a significant
> stockpile of weapons. How is this different from
> a bartender who knowingly (or should have known)
> sells alcohol to a inebriated customer who then
> leaves drunk and commits vehicular homocide?
>
> When Bush signed this law into effect, he praised
> it as stemming "frivolous lawsuits". In reality,
> manufacturers and dealers were facing significant
> lawsuits at the time, and the NRA, the gun
> manufacturers' lobby, pressured Bush and Congress
> to save their asses.
>
> If a gun of any type is used in the commission of
> a crime, then the owner should be liable. If the
> user is a criminal and the gun is stolen, the
> owner should still be liable, as he/she did not
> adequately secure the weapon when he/she wasn't
> actually using it.
>
> Big Tobacco was held accountable and forced to pay
> the States for their future smoking related health
> costs. Several successful multi-billion dollar
> lawsuits and the ever present threat of more
> should bring about very responsible behavior and
> self-enforcement by the gun industry. We won't
> need to ban assault weapons, the manufacturers
> will stop making them and selling them to dealers
> because the risk will be too great.
This message brought to you by Trial Lawyers for Obama.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knower of Things. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > that's cruel Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > I hope the parents sue the shit out of the
> > gun
> > > > manufactures who made the guns.
> > >
> > >
> > > That is cruel. Why would you want to put
> them
> > > through more harm? After losing a child, why
> > > would you want to bankrupt them by having
> them
> > > file a frivilous lawsuit?
> >
> > There will be a line of shysters a mile long
> > willing to take the cases of these families on
> a
> > contingency basis. It won't cost the families
> a
> > dime.
>
> That may well be true, except the Bush
> administration along with a Republican Congress
> passed legislation in 2005 which effectively holds
> the gun manufacturers and dealers harmless for the
> actions of their customers and products. This had
> been an NRA priority for years.
>
> Repealing this law would probably be the most
> effective solution to this national problem, from
> an American perspective. First, it places no
> restrictions on 2nd amendment rights. Second, it
> uses a potent tool of capitalism, financial pain,
> to ensure responsible behavior. Third, it's just
> so satisfying.
>
> The families of the CT massacre should be able to
> sue the gun manufacturers for failing to ensure
> that dealers took reasonable precautions with
> respect to the usage and storage of their
> products. The dealers should be liable for
> failing to ensure that the buyers were responsible
> and law biding. What? You say that Ms. Lanza was
> law biding and responsible. Evidently not, as she
> allowed an individual she had stated had issues
> full and unfettered access to a significant
> stockpile of weapons. How is this different from
> a bartender who knowingly (or should have known)
> sells alcohol to a inebriated customer who then
> leaves drunk and commits vehicular homocide?
>
> When Bush signed this law into effect, he praised
> it as stemming "frivolous lawsuits". In reality,
> manufacturers and dealers were facing significant
> lawsuits at the time, and the NRA, the gun
> manufacturers' lobby, pressured Bush and Congress
> to save their asses.
>
> If a gun of any type is used in the commission of
> a crime, then the owner should be liable. If the
> user is a criminal and the gun is stolen, the
> owner should still be liable, as he/she did not
> adequately secure the weapon when he/she wasn't
> actually using it.
>
> Big Tobacco was held accountable and forced to pay
> the States for their future smoking related health
> costs. Several successful multi-billion dollar
> lawsuits and the ever present threat of more
> should bring about very responsible behavior and
> self-enforcement by the gun industry. We won't
> need to ban assault weapons, the manufacturers
> will stop making them and selling them to dealers
> because the risk will be too great.
This message brought to you by Trial Lawyers for Obama.