Welfare Bad Except for Gun Makers

[subgenius]

Congress plans to aid gun makers
...
After a pause because of the concern over the Washington sniper shootings, Congressional Republicans have renewed their efforts to pass a bill that will grant gun companies immunity from prosecution in the courts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2918291.stm

A worthy issue in these troubled economic times. I can stand to see poverty and injustice among ordinary people but the sight of some corporate officers begging in the streets would break my heart. Good thing we have an administration looking out for the interests of the wealthy and privileged.

[Tony]

What does this have to do with welfare?

[Tony]

This is a good thing. People should not be allowed to sue Smith & Wesson because the murderer killed thier loved one with a Smith & Wesson.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by subgenius
Re: Welfare Bad Except for Gun Makers

Congress plans to aid gun makers
...
After a pause because of the concern over the Washington sniper shootings, Congressional Republicans have renewed their efforts to pass a bill that will grant gun companies immunity from prosecution in the courts.

Ummm... Does that bill really count as welfare? (Maybe I misread it, but I didn't see anything about the government giving money to manufacturers.)

I don't really know if that bill should be passed, but I can certainly see how self-interest groups or gung-ho protestors could use the courts to 'force' gun control by simply launching many legal challenges. ("Hey, if we can't pass a law banning X, we will launch a bunch of lawsuits against X; even if they fail, the people will go broke defending themselves.")

Of course, perhaps the same protection should be applied to book publishers (who may print material which might cause people to engage in violence), or restaurants (who may sell food which could damage people's health).

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by subgenius
Re: Welfare Bad Except for Gun Makers

Congress plans to aid gun makers
...
After a pause because of the concern over the Washington sniper shootings, Congressional Republicans have renewed their efforts to pass a bill that will grant gun companies immunity from prosecution in the courts.

Ummm... Does that bill really count as welfare? (Maybe I misread it, but I didn't see anything about the government giving money to manufacturers.)

I don't really know if that bill should be passed, but I can certainly see how self-interest groups or gung-ho protestors could use the courts to 'force' gun control by simply launching many legal challenges. ("Hey, if we can't pass a law banning X, we will launch a bunch of lawsuits against X; even if they fail, the people will go broke defending themselves.")

Of course, perhaps the same protection should be applied to book publishers (who may print material which might cause people to engage in violence), or restaurants (who may sell food which could damage people's health).

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by subgenius
Re: Welfare Bad Except for Gun Makers

Congress plans to aid gun makers
...
After a pause because of the concern over the Washington sniper shootings, Congressional Republicans have renewed their efforts to pass a bill that will grant gun companies immunity from prosecution in the courts.

Ummm... Does that bill really count as welfare? (Maybe I misread it, but I didn't see anything about the government giving money to manufacturers.)

I don't really know if that bill should be passed, but I can certainly see how self-interest groups or gung-ho protestors could use the courts to 'force' gun control by simply launching many legal challenges. ("Hey, if we can't pass a law banning X, we will launch a bunch of lawsuits against X; even if they fail, the people will go broke defending themselves.")

Of course, perhaps the same protection should be applied to book publishers (who may print material which might cause people to engage in violence), or restaurants (who may sell food which could damage people's health).

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius
Congress plans to aid gun makers
...
After a pause because of the concern over the Washington sniper shootings, Congressional Republicans have renewed their efforts to pass a bill that will grant gun companies immunity from prosecution in the courts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2918291.stm

A worthy issue in these troubled economic times. I can stand to see poverty and injustice among ordinary people but the sight of some corporate officers begging in the streets would break my heart. Good thing we have an administration looking out for the interests of the wealthy and privileged.

Why should a gun maker be responsible for the actions of a murderous, terrorist crack-dealer who used guns unlawfully?

Did the gun maker pull the trigger or do the terrorist crack-heads pull the trigger?

That is what the new bill is all about. With the sheer level of leftist extortion and corruption going on in the courts, laws have to be passed to protect American business from that extortion.

Take the guy for example who was robbing a house and got trapped in the garage for a week because the homeowner was on vacation. The robber ate dogfood to stay alive for the week and then sued the homeowner for $500,000 and won! That is extortion and corruption.

Or the fat weasel who burned her fat-lard lips on a cheeseburger pickle and sued for that. Totally unbelievable.

It is sad when Congress has to pass laws to protect hard-working people from the criminals operating under the guise of the courts.

JK

[corplinx]

The problem is cities like Chicago who are trying to sue the gun companies for dough. Many of the best gun makers are smaller shops who can easily be run out of business once the frivolous lawsuits pile up.


The sad thing is that they have a to pass a law against this. You would think the cities would have more sense than to do something so brainless.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
What does this have to do with welfare?

It's corporate welfare.

This is a perfect example of the difference between Republicans and Libertarians. Republicans would subsidize them (while continuing to tax and control them). Libertarians would just leave them alone.

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek


It's corporate welfare.

This is a perfect example of the difference between Republicans and Libertarians. Republicans would subsidize them (while continuing to tax and control them). Libertarians would just leave them alone.

I didnt read anything in the article about the gov. subsidizing gun makers.

[schplurg]

One of the biggest problems in the USA is the growing belief that people are not responsible for their own actions. We have fat people suing McDonald's because they are fat. We have people suing gun manufacturers because some people use guns to kill others. Burglars getting injured while robbing a house can sue the owners, as mentioned above. Right now, the lawyers rule in this nation, and I'm sick of it. AAAARGHHH!!!! :mad:

So now we actually have to pass laws like this to force people to account for their own actions. On one hand, I agree with this new law mentioned. On the other hand, these types of laws should not be necessary.

Is this non-willingness to accept responsibility for one's own actions a result of the "politically correct" movement? Any ideas why this is such a big problem, especially in the last 10 - 15 years?

Incidentally, I like a lot of the Libertarian views on these issues and others, although I must admit I'm still learning about them. They seem to stand for smaller government and individual responsibility and accountability, which in turn provides more freedom of choice.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by shanek
It's corporate welfare.

In what way?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony


I didnt read anything in the article about the gov. subsidizing gun makers.

Please pardon me; I misread the article.

[Thumper]

Add to your list of truly stupid court decisions:

The rulings against tobacco firms. Smokers knew cigarettes were bad for them, they just want someone to blame for their actions.

[Supercharts]

Kimber.
The choice of the L.A. SWAT Teams.
.45 calibre no less.
That's gotta hurt!

[Richard G]

These lawsuits against gun manufacturers have nothing to do liability. Its a subversive, underhanded attack on gunrights. The local city goverments bringing up these lawsuits in court (all of them demon-rat liberals) can't outright ban the purchase of firearms, so they attack the legitimate, legal buisnesses that make them.

The Congress has seen through this thinnly veiled lie, and are upholding their oath to defend, and protect the Constitution by outlawing this foolishness.

[subgenius]

If they have no merit they should be dismissed. If they aren't dismissed, then fix what's broke.
Gun makers aren't entitled to more privilege than you or me.
The lawsuits are many and varied and not just what you think.

[corplinx]

Sub, "fixing" whats broke sounds good. Short of that I'll take a bandaid like this since I doubt the politicians have the balls to actually fix the tort system.

[subgenius]

You'll take whatever they're selling at the moment.
How bout immunity for you and me?

[Richard G]

A firearm that has operated correctly is not "broke". Smashing my thumb with a hammer does not mean the hammer is broken. It operated exactly as advertised.

I can assure you from first hand experience, most firearm manufacturers will promptly fix any defect with your firearm, many times free of charge.

This is nothing new. All of these lawsuits have been getting tossed out on their heads.

[subgenius]

Let's just do away with the tort system entirely?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Richard G
A firearm that has operated correctly is not "broke". Smashing my thumb with a hammer does not mean the hammer is broken. It operated exactly as advertised.

I can assure you from first hand experience, most firearm manufacturers will promptly fix any defect with your firearm, many times free of charge.

This is nothing new. All of these lawsuits have been getting tossed out on their heads.

What happens in the "system" of "tort" is that when there is harm, right or wrong, the extortionists go after the deepest pockets and then the "shakedown" begins.

Add to that the rabid anti-gun anti-American lobby, and you have true terror.

Think about it. A crack-dealer guns down some kid somewhere and the starving lawyers know they can't go after the guy who is responsible. They can't say: "It is the crack dealer's fault." If they lay blame on the crack-head terrorist predator, then they assign fault.

So the crack-head terrorist is then portrayed as a "victim of society". Society forced him to deal that crack. The 15 people the crack-head guns down are just "collateral damage" after the fact.

So then the lawyers go after the gun makers because they have deep pockets, with their anti-gun anti-American allies there for moral support.

The anti-gun crowd simply loves a certain level of killing done by the terrorist crack-dealer so they can approach the public and say: "Gosh, wouldn't we all be safer if there were no guns? Crack dealers are proving that Americans shouldn't be allowed the right to bear arms." Also, the anti-gun crowd celebrates it when the gun-toting terrorist felon crack dealer isn't prosecuted for his gun crime. That makes it even better--so prosecutions for those terrorist crack dealers are loosened on purpose.

It is a sophisticated subversive anti-American campaign. You have people shaking down every corporation they can get so they can steal the corporation's wealth...and in this case try to put them out of business entirely. They know the terrorist crack-dealers aren't very bright and will always carry guns illegally. They simply formed an extortionist niche to profit from the terrorist crack dealer's behavior.

Tort reform is desperately needed, and then the 2nd Bn 75th Ranger Regiment needs to sweep through American cities and take care of the terrorist crack dealer problem. It really is a minor problem if the right solutions are applied to it.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Take the guy for example who was robbing a house and got trapped in the garage for a week because the homeowner was on vacation. The robber ate dogfood to stay alive for the week and then sued the homeowner for $500,000 and won! That is extortion and corruption.

JK
Bzzzzt.......repeating urban legend as fact, loose 2 points.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool

Bzzzzt.......repeating urban legend as fact, loose 2 points.

No, unbelievably it is true. This moron who was robbing this guy's house got trapped in his garage and had to eat dog food to stay alive for a week.

He sued for "mental anguish" and won $500,000.

Not an urban legend. I wish it was though because it is shameful extortion against law-abiding Americans. 4th world type tort, something you would see in Nicaragua and Mexico, not the USA.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


terror.
terrorist
terrorist
terrorist
terrorist
terrorist
terrorist
terrorist
terrorist

JK

Used 9 times in a single post on a topic unrelated to terrorism, a personal best and new Jref record.:)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool

Bzzzzt.......repeating urban legend as fact, loose 2 points.

Oh, and the next time you come to America and go to a fast food restaurant and order a cheeseburger, don't be surprised if the pickles have ice on them.

The reason?

A fat lard-ass weasel sued because a pickle "burned" her lip.

I wish these cases were an urban legend.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool


Used 9 times in a single post on a topic unrelated to terrorism, a personal best and new Jref record.:)

Hey thnx.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No, unbelievably it is true.

JK
No, unbelievably it is false. go check snopes.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey thnx.

JK
no probs. Have you seen those keyboards with configurable keys? You could give yourself a couple of custom keys, like a "terrorist" key and maybe a "Communist" or "feminazi" key....
what do you think????;)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool

no probs. Have you seen those keyboards with configurable keys? You could give yourself a couple of custom keys, like a "terrorist" key and maybe a "Communist" or "feminazi" key....
what do you think????;)

lol

JK

[subgenius]

I was going to say:
terrorist terrorist terrorist....
but somebody beat me to it.
_____________
Live your life in fear of shadows. Never learn truth.
__________________
"I will drop in from time to time but will no longer contribute to the forum. I am off to pursue a forum where there is less hate and hopefully more people who share my views and beliefs.

Jedi "There is a God" Knight 11-12-02


There are no "battered" women in America, only men.

JK 3-26-03"
________________
Intimate partner violence made up 20% of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001.

1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner in 2000.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/statistics.htm

Think everyone forgets history?
Take a look: this is what your thinking leads to:

http://tarotcanada.tripod.com/Abuse.html
___
Please do everyone/yourself a favor .....go find a forum which shares your views and beliefs.
What's the matter, couldn't find one? Thank your god.
______________
Edited to delete edited expletive and redundant random insult.

[subgenius]

Immunity from lawsuits is welfare because its a direct savings of the costs of doing business, putting them on an unequal footing with other businesses who aren't so lucky to have high paid lobbyists whoring out the legislature.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by subgenius
Immunity from lawsuits is welfare because its a direct savings of the costs of doing business, putting them on an unequal footing with other businesses who aren't so lucky to have high paid lobbyists whoring out the legislature.
That's quite a stretch of the word "subsidy". Name another business that's being sued by by just about every big-city mayor w/ an anti-gun agenda. This is not really about liability, it's about forcing a company out of business through the attrition of legal fees. Hey, if you can't make it illegal just sue them over and over until they go broke. These cities know the cases can't win on their merits. Change the tort system? Fat chance, w/ nearly every politician being a lawyer by trade. Maybe the only way would be if judges were banned from belonging to a political party (crazy talk, I know). BTW, spray paint is banned in Chicago - how long until Mayor Daley starts suing spray paint companies for graffitti damage?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by subgenius
Immunity from lawsuits is welfare because its a direct savings of the costs of doing business, putting them on an unequal footing with other businesses who aren't so lucky to have high paid lobbyists whoring out the legislature.

So the lobbyists think that the citizen is to be refused the right to take a common law claim to court eh?

Refer them to the Magna Carta of 1215 provision 40

40. " to no one will we sell, to no one refuse or delay, right or justice"...... .....that'll show em!

er, oops, wrong legal system :D

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by subgenius
Immunity from lawsuits is welfare because its a direct savings of the costs of doing business, putting them on an unequal footing with other businesses who aren't so lucky to have high paid lobbyists whoring out the legislature.

Your statement is disingenuous.

Frivolous lawsuits which seek to hold the manufacturer responsible for criminal misuse of a legitimate product and liable for huge sums of money in an attempt to recoup costs of crime can in no way be linked to "the cost of doing business."

It's important to realize that firearms manufacturers will not be immune to all legal action should this legislation go through -- it solely seeks to stamp out these attempts to make the manufacturers liable for illegal use of their products.

That does not constitute "welfare" whatsoever.

The real "whoring" taking place is being perpetrated by those filing these ridiculous suits, attempting to legislate a gun control agenda via our judicial system.

[gnome]

On the issue of homeowners sued by intruders... I believe it is the result of media distortion effect. I would bet money that most intruders that attempt to sue homeowners get nothing but Jack and s**t. The unusual cases are the ones that get reported by the media, precisely because they happen so rarely. In fact, they usually get reported badly... leaving the impression that the court ruled that the homeowner was responsible for the intruder's safety, when in fact the court ruling was on an entirely different basis.

I usually do a bit of research about any "frivolous lawsuit" reported by the media. Many are based on legal reasoning that was not reported. Many get reduced to peanuts on appeal.

I suspect the problem is not as large as generally believed, and to "close the courtroom door" too hastily would do more damage than the problem.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius
Immunity from lawsuits is welfare because its a direct savings of the costs of doing business, putting them on an unequal footing with other businesses who aren't so lucky to have high paid lobbyists whoring out the legislature.

That is laughable. Do automakers get sued for people that drink and drive?

How can a gun manufacturer get sued for a crack-head gunning down someone in a leftist-inspired drug deal?

It used to be that lawyers could use just their signature to get things done--now the system is so corrupt with so many corrupt lawyers that they are looked upon even worse than the criminal crack-head drug dealers. Lawyers have the worst rep ever. There are hundreds of lawyers per year that get disbarred for suspect and criminal behavior. It is so common now that you can almost open a newspaper everyday and read about some crooked, criminal lawyer getting hammered by the FBI or some state's attorney general.

Judges who go along with the shakedown of legitimate businesses or legislate from the bench need to be impeached. Instead of passing laws protecting businesses from these predators, Congress should start impeaching judges. Lawyers have already taken the law profession into the gutter--there is no way to fix that sinking ship anytime soon except with federal law-enforcement. But the judges, they can be dealt with in Congress.

Stealing is wrong. It is wrong. Suing a gun manufacturer for the behavior of criminals who shouldn't even have a gun because they knew before they pulled the trigger that they weren't even supposed to have one is attempted theft of the gun-manufacturer's assets. It is criminal and turns America from a nation of laws into a nation of thieves.

JK

[subgenius]

There are other lawsuits besides the extreme ones cited.
The remedy for bad lawsuits is in the court, not granting privileges based on politics.
Of course the response is that the courts are bad. Then fix the problem instead of creating new ones. If the courts are bad then they're bad for other too. There are frivolous lawsuits against others besides gun makers. Why don't individuals get immunity?
Why don't toy makers? Why not do away with the tort system entirely?
The more that corporations can buy legislation and elections the less your vote means anything. You are throwing away the only power against the state that you have.

[Skeptic]

After a pause because of the concern over the Washington sniper shootings, Congressional Republicans have renewed their efforts to pass a bill that will grant gun companies immunity from prosecution in the courts.

This doesn't sound like welfare to me. It sounds like an attempt to limit the number of frivolous lawsuits by victims of crimes or accidents against "deep pocket" corporations. The same is seen when victims of road accidents sue: almost always the car maker is sued as well as somehow "responsible" for the accident, no matter if it was totally the driver's fault. Or when McDonald is sued for making people fat, etc.

It is one thing to demand justice from the courts if you are a victim of crime. It's quite another to sue anybody in sight who has money, just in case you can parlay your tragedy into a money-making enterprise.

[Skeptic]

That is laughable. Do automakers get sued for people that drink and drive?

As a matter of fact, they often ARE, "just in case", since they've got the money.

How can a gun manufacturer get sued for a crack-head gunning down someone in a leftist-inspired drug deal?

Er, yeah... drug use is what Marx and Stalin were all about... if you say so.

It used to be that lawyers could use just their signature to get things done--now the system is so corrupt with so many corrupt lawyers that they are looked upon even worse than the criminal crack-head drug dealers.

Ohmigod, lawyers are NOT POPULAR with people! The horror! The horror!

A leftist conspiracy of some sort, no doubt.

Stealing is wrong. It is wrong. Suing a gun manufacturer for the behavior of criminals who shouldn't even have a gun because they knew before they pulled the trigger that they weren't even supposed to have one is attempted theft of the gun-manufacturer's assets. It is criminal and turns America from a nation of laws into a nation of thieves.

All too true, I am afraid. It is like the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon:

Calvin: "Hobbes, do you have any money?"
Hobbes: "No. Do you."
Calvin: "No."

(silence)

Calvin: "Do you know anybody we can sue?"

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Why should a gun maker be responsible for the actions of a murderous, terrorist crack-dealer who used guns unlawfully?

Did the gun maker pull the trigger or do the terrorist crack-heads pull the trigger?

That is what the new bill is all about. With the sheer level of leftist extortion and corruption going on in the courts, laws have to be passed to protect American business from that extortion.

Take the guy for example who was robbing a house and got trapped in the garage for a week because the homeowner was on vacation. The robber ate dogfood to stay alive for the week and then sued the homeowner for $500,000 and won! That is extortion and corruption.

Or the fat weasel who burned her fat-lard lips on a cheeseburger pickle and sued for that. Totally unbelievable.

It is sad when Congress has to pass laws to protect hard-working people from the criminals operating under the guise of the courts.

JK

Hey, waddya know! Here's a subject on which I completely agree with you.

[subgenius]

An insurance company recently sued because a "Pop Tart" -like breakfast treat caught on fire.

Calling people fat weasel and fat lard-lips shows only prejudice and hatred. What does her appearance have to do with anything?

Nothing but name calling and labeling. We can easily imagine all the other slurs you use in private.

Let's see a picture of you so we can make fun. Bet you're one good looking guy huh?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius
An insurance company recently sued because a "Pop Tart" -like breakfast treat caught on fire.

Calling people fat weasel and fat lard-lips shows only prejudice and hatred. What does her appearance have to do with anything?

Nothing but name calling and labeling. We can easily imagine all the other slurs you use in private.

Let's see a picture of you so we can make fun. Bet you're one good looking guy huh?

I am a great looking man. I don't like to brag, but it is true.

Now, if someone sues McDonald's or some other fast food restaurant because their fat lips got burned on a pickle, that is pretty stupid. You mean to tell me that a person who eats a hamburger isn't smart enough to check it to make sure the pickles don't burn their fat weasel lips?

BTW, I got the "fat weasel" from Don Imus. Don got it right. Remind me to order one of his 'Fat Weasel' hats so I can wear it to fast food restaurants.

JK

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by subgenius
Nothing but name calling and labeling.

subgenius,

You've resorted to the same behavior on a regular basis.

I especially like how you chose to remove your earlier statement telling JK "go f*ck yourself" on this thread, and now this.

Way to take the high ground...

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wolverine


subgenius,

You've resorted to the same behavior on a regular basis.

I especially like how you chose to remove your earlier statement telling JK "go f*ck yourself" on this thread, and now this.

Way to take the high ground...

He actually said that?

JK

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
He actually said that?

Yes, in this post:


Originally posted by subgenius
I was going to say:
terrorist terrorist terrorist....
but somebody beat me to it.
_____________
Live your life in fear of shadows. Never learn truth.
__________________
"I will drop in from time to time but will no longer contribute to the forum. I am off to pursue a forum where there is less hate and hopefully more people who share my views and beliefs.

Jedi "There is a God" Knight 11-12-02


There are no "battered" women in America, only men.

JK 3-26-03"
________________
Intimate partner violence made up 20% of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001.

1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner in 2000.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/statistics.htm

Think everyone forgets history?
Take a look: this is what your thinking leads to:

http://tarotcanada.tripod.com/Abuse.html
___
Please do everyone/yourself a favor .....go find a forum which shares your views and beliefs.
What's the matter, couldn't find one? Thank your god.
______________
Edited to delete edited expletive and redundant random insult.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Yes, in this post:



No one likes a snitch.
Plus I edited it out.
And its not name calling.
Anger over someone so dense as to deny the reality of violence.
And anyone who doesn't believe there's abuse can go ........do themselves.
What does calling someone a fat weasel have to do with this? I don't care where you got it from, didn't your mama teach you that just because someone else does it that doesn't make it right?

[Wolverine]

Perhaps it would behoove you to keep your emotions in check when posting. Think things through more carefully before clicking "submit" -- especially if you can't abide by the same approach you seem to expect from others.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Perhaps it would behoove you to keep your emotions in check when posting. Think things through more carefully before clicking "submit" -- especially if you can't abide by the same approach you seem to expect from others.
Thank you for the lecture St. Wolverine.
Where did I not abide an approach that I seem to expect from others, whatever that means.
Get a little perspective. I don't see you preaching to one who calls people names in every post and preaches violence and hatred.
But thanks for sharing. You the new moderator?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Skeptic
How can a gun manufacturer get sued for a crack-head gunning down someone in a leftist-inspired drug deal?

Er, yeah... drug use is what Marx and Stalin were all about... if you say so.

It's so true! Marx said religion is the opiate of the people, therefore crackheads are stealing for God!!!

:eek:

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by subgenius

Thank you for the lecture St. Wolverine.
Where did I not abide an approach that I seem to expect from others, whatever that means.
Get a little perspective. I don't see you preaching to one who calls people names in every post and preaches violence and hatred.
But thanks for sharing. You the new moderator?

You singled out JK for "namecalling and labeling" -- but use those same tactics with individuals you don't care for.
In plain English, your remarks are utterly hypocritical.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Wolverine


You singled out JK for "namecalling and labeling" -- but use those same tactics with individuals you don't care for.
In plain English, your remarks are utterly hypocritical.
Name two.

[Wolverine]

Sure thing. Off the top of my head...

1) President G.W. Bush
2) Justice A. Scalia

If you'd like, I'll compile a more thorough list.

[Tmy]

Your missing the big question..........HOW THE HELL DOES SOMEONE GET BURNED BY A PICKLE?????

If this did happen I have no problem with them suing. Why would it be frivolous to sue after being burned by a searing hot veggie? Should I expect to fuind hot coals in my burger???


Is anyone suring the bullet manufacturers??? Bullets kill not guns......unless you hit someone with the gun, really hard.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is anyone suring the bullet manufacturers???

I've often wondered why nobody's gone after the ammo manufacturers in the same way they've pursued the likes of Ruger, Colt, Smith & Wesson, et al.

Shhhh! Don't give 'em any ideas. :)

I do recall some proposed legislation on a state level that would have placed rather ridiculous taxes on ammunition and/or its components, which would have effectively doubled or tripled the price, but am not aware of anything that's made it onto the books.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Sure thing. Off the top of my head...

1) President G.W. Bush
2) Justice A. Scalia

If you'd like, I'll compile a more thorough list.
Knock yourself out if you need something to do. And if you go to all that trouble, post the quotes, in context and let's see what I said, that would be fun.
Maybe you should start a whole new thread.

[Brown]

"Welfare" is when the government gives money to a particular group.

This is not welfare.

It is "sweetheart legislation," a different thing. Sweetheart legislation is legislation that protects one particular group (especially one that donates a whole lot of dollars to re-election committees) even though other groups arguably need the same protection.

Gun companies already have protection against frivolous suits. In particular, they have the same protection that everyone else has.

But apparently that's not satisfactory for them. They want "immunity from suit," meaning that they cannot be sued at all, even if the suit is meritorious.

Man, I'd LOVE to have immunity from being sued!! There are a lot of businesses out there who would love to have it as well, and arguably need it more than the gun businesses do. But it's the gun businesses that have the best chance of getting it.

Not welfare. Sweeheart legislation. And it stinks.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Brown
But apparently that's not satisfactory for them. They want "immunity from suit," meaning that they cannot be sued at all, even if the suit is meritorious.

That's not what H.R. 1036 stipulates whatsoever.

[Richard G]

H.R. 1036 is a "common sense" bill. As such, many will not understand it.

[Tony]

This bill is a bill that will protect the constitution and civil liberties, I dont see why any person that respects the constitution would be against it.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Wolverine
That's not what H.R. 1036 stipulates whatsoever. No, that is exactly what it stipulates.

Immunity from suit does not mean that the suit cannot be won. It means that suit cannot be brought at all, regardless of merit. This is what makes immunity from suit so desirable.

Section 3 of HR 1036 provides:SEC. 3.
(a) IN GENERAL- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

(b) DISMISSAL OF PENDING ACTIONS- A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be dismissed immediately by the court in which the action was brought.There it is: immunity from suit. The suit cannot be brought, period. If a suit was brought already, it is dismissed without a hearing on the merits, period.

Section 5 defines a "qualified civil liability action."(A) IN GENERAL- The term 'qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party...There are five listed exceptions. The exceptions are based upon the nature of the claims, not the merits of the claims.

One should not conclude from the above discussion that I am somehow opposed to tort reform or gun rights. What I am opposed to is legislation that gives special, extremely valuable rights to one group, but not to others. Basically, I think that gun businesses ought to have to play by the same rules that everybody else has to play by.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tony
This bill is a bill that will protect the constitution and civil liberties, I dont see why any person that respects the constitution would be against it.
Your love of the second amendment is being manipulated to grant unequal status to large corporations, and to deny a persons access to the judicial system to seek damages. The bill does not protect the constitution, it diminishes it. It does not protect civil liberties it restricts them. You can be for the right to bear arms and be against this bill.
Once again if there is a problem with frivolous lawsuits that problem can be addressed without granting preferred status to special interests over the common people.

[schplurg]

(A) IN GENERAL- The term 'qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party...
So if I fire a gun that is defective and blows up in my face, I can sue the manufacturer...correct?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius

Your love of the second amendment is being manipulated to grant unequal status to large corporations, and to deny a persons access to the judicial system to seek damages. The bill does not protect the constitution, it diminishes it. It does not protect civil liberties it restricts them. You can be for the right to bear arms and be against this bill.
Once again if there is a problem with frivolous lawsuits that problem can be addressed without granting preferred status to special interests over the common people.

Do you even understand the law? Seriously. How is a corporation who is making a lawful product wrong when criminal extortionists sue them just to steal their profits with no just cause? How?

If a crack-dealing thug from an inner city somewhere guns down another crack-dealing thug, how is it possible for it to be the gun manufacturer's fault?

How?!?

Stealing is wrong. That is why Congress passed that law--to stop the illegitimate theft of corporate wealth. Perhaps what needs to happen is the prosecution of dangerous criminals who use guns illegally, rather than stealing from the corporations that make them for the law-abiding.

JK

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

How can a gun manufacturer get sued for a crack-head gunning down someone in a leftist-inspired drug deal?
JK

ROFL!

Many posts on this forum lean so far to the left, I have to use the rotation feature of my monitor just to read them. I can always count on you, Jedi, to give a balancing perspective.

Let 'em have our guns, we can just get chemical weapons and the world will rally behind our cause ;) Oh yeah, and then when we use those chemical weapons, we can sue the international corporation who sold them to us.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


ROFL!

Many posts on this forum lean so far to the left, I have to use the rotation feature of my monitor just to read them. I can always count on you, Jedi, to give a balancing perspective.

Let 'em have our guns, we can just get chemical weapons and the world will rally behind our cause ;) Oh yeah, and then when we use those chemical weapons, we can sue the international corporation who sold them to us.

Hey, thnx ;)

I look at any form of gun-control as latent antisemitism. All you have to do is look at Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia to see what happens to disarmed civilian populations. America does not need to revisit that experience and the founders understood the importance of a moral internal population acquiring arms and ammunition. It is pure America. Only the unpure want gun-control.

JK

[gnome]

Granted, this is a hypothetical... but I would like to consider the situation:

A neighborhood of a large American city begins to have a particular problem with violence and drug-related crimes. A gun dealer says: "Aha, lots of people want to shoot each other here, I could make some money." and opens a store in the area, making a killing (so to speak) selling weapons to residents that he knew (in fact, counted on) would be shooting each other with them.

Is this legal? Probably... unless there are some distribution laws I am unaware of. But is it desirable? Responsible? Moral? I am illustrating the possibility here that it is possible to do wrong (morally at least) by the choice of time and place to sell something completely legal.

Perhaps some of you believe this should be allowed anyway, as a necessary by-product of our freedoms. Or perhaps the solution is legislative, and not judicial.

But I wouldn't be terribly sympathetic towards the dealer in this case.

[Tony]

Originally posted by gnome

A neighborhood of a large American city begins to have a particular problem with violence and drug-related crimes. A gun dealer says: "Aha, lots of people want to shoot each other here, I could make some money." and opens a store in the area, making a killing (so to speak) selling weapons to residents that he knew (in fact, counted on) would be shooting each other with them.



People in these kind of neighborhoods would not want to be thier guns on the legit (assuming they would pass the background check).

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by gnome
Is this legal?

Absolutely not.

18 U.S.C. 924(h):
Whoever knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both.

Additional legal penalties for a licensed dealer of firearms could also be imposed (also on a state level -- this is just the Federal statute); since your hypothetical doesn't go into specifics, however, it's not really necessary to add anything else. :)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by schplurg
So if I fire a gun that is defective and blows up in my face, I can sue the manufacturer...correct?

(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended.

Correct.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
That is why Congress passed that law...

If you're referring to the legislation we're dicussing here, it hasn't been passed by Congress -- only approved by the House Judiciary Committee.

I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm just sitting here on Capitol Hill... ;)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Brown
There it is: immunity from suit. The suit cannot be brought, period.

"Immunity" connotates complete exemption from suit. That is not the case here.

If a suit was brought already, it is dismissed without a hearing on the merits, period.

Frivolous lawsuits seeking to hold the manufacturer of a legitimate product liable for the criminal misuse of same product have no merit. I'm trying to imagine a legitimate complaint against a firearms manufacturer which somehow wouldn't be allowed under Section 4 of this bill, but am unable to. Can you think of anything?

Basically, I think that gun businesses ought to have to play by the same rules that everybody else has to play by.

The firearms manufacturers have been playing by the rules. The problem is that those with gun control agendas are seeking to exploit the judicial system to push their cause forward where they have been unsuccessful legislatively.

Personally, I feel that manufacturers of other products should be equally entitled to such protections (e.g. attempts to hold them liable for criminal misuse), so I do understand your point and agree to an extent. This, however, is the only significant product I can think of which ties in specifically to our 2nd Amendment rights -- since it is somewhat of a unique situation, I have no problem with the bill whatsoever, and would be hard-pressed to offer a more suitable alternative.

In Texas, law has already been established in this area:
A municipality, county or other subdivision of the state may not bring suit against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or seller for recovery of damages resulting from, or injunctive relief or abatement of a nuisance relating to, the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public.
I forget which other states have passed similar measures.

[Brown]

I think it may be useful to define a few terms.

A "frivoulous" suit is one that is unsupported by fact or law. A court makes a determination about whether a case is frivolous or not by considering the facts (i.e., the evidence) and the law.

There is already legal protection in place for gun businesses against frivolous suits. This protection is the same protection that everyone else has.

Not satisfied with the protection that everyone else has, gun businesses want to be protected from all suits in a particular category, even if the suits are supported by law and fact. This is what immunity from suit does.

It is not correct to say that "immunity" means complete exemption from suit. A party can be immune from some kinds of lawsuits and not immune from others. This bill, if enacted, would grant immunity from suit for certain kinds of lawsuits, even if the lawsuits are supported by fact and are supported by law.

[Wolverine]

Thanks for the clarifications, Brown -- I stand corrected on the proper usage of said terminology.
(Jeez, what are ya, a lawyer? ;) )

As an avid firearms enthusiast and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I confess I still find this bill appealing. Thanks to your insight though, I now have a more thorough understanding of its ramifications, and concede that you raise compelling points, which I'm still pondering.

I honestly don't have any sort of confidence in the courts to handle these matters objectively -- for example, Hamilton v. Accu-tek:

On February 11, 1999, after six days of deliberation, the jury in the Hamilton case rendered its verdict. In what jury members admitted was a tortuous compromise, for the first time ever a jury held some gun manufacturers liable for shooting injuries on the basis of negligent marketing and distribution practices. Although post-trial interviews revealed that eight of the 11 jurors opposed finding either negligence or liability, the jury found 15 of the 25 manufacturers at least partially to blame for three of the seven shootings in question and awarded damages in one. It found six companies negligent but decided that their negligence did not contribute to any of the plaintiffs' injuries. It found six companies negligent and liable but did not require them to pay damages. And it found three companies negligent and liable in one case and ordered them to split $500,000 in damages - despite the absence of evidence linking the companies' products to the plaintiff's injuries. The jury found no negligence or liability for the other 10 manufacturers.

On several occasions during the deliberations the jury informed Judge Weinstein that it was hopelessly deadlocked - in one instance members even indicated that tempers were flaring. Judge Weinstein refused to allow a hung jury and declare a mistrial. In post-trial interviews members of the jury stated that they came to a compromise verdict simply to get the trial over with. The jurors indicated that they rejected the plaintiffs' contention that gun makers oversupplied to states with lax laws guns that were then illegally sold by black marketers in states with more stringent laws. Instead, they determined that gun makers who did not forbid their distributors from dealing with retailers who sold guns at gun shows were negligent in their distribution practices.
Source. (http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223.html)

Argh.

So what to do? Keep an even field of play on the corporate front by voting down measures like H.R. 1036, or unduly penalize manufacturers (and allow further erosion of 2nd Amendment rights) via the judiciary? There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

What's a plausible solution which will not stifle claims that may have merit being filed against firearms manufacturers, but will prevent them from being held liable for incidents where they're obviously not at fault and protect our constitutional right to keep and bear?

[gnome]

Originally posted by Wolverine

What's a plausible solution which will not stifle claims that may have merit being filed against firearms manufacturers, but will prevent them from being held liable for incidents where they're obviously not at fault and protect our constitutional right to keep and bear?

I propose the most plausible solution is to clarify the liability laws across the board without targeting any one specific industry. Surely that's possible?

[Wolverine]

Well, the legislation passed (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030410-646144.htm) the House.

Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican, said yesterday the House was acting to end frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry.

"Congress must do what it can to stop the slide down this slippery slope," he said, pointing to lawsuits against the fast-food industry. "It's time for Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty and exercise its authority under the commerce clause to prevent a few state courts from bankrupting the national firearms industry and denying all Americans their fundamental right to bear arms."

A companion bill is pending in the Senate and although it is not on the schedule, it does have a majority of the chamber — 52 members — listed as co-sponsors.

[Tony]

The anti-gun groups are a disgrace to the constitution.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tony
The anti-gun groups are a disgrace to the constitution. These fascists need to be killed.

:rolleyes: If you insist on continually advocating the killing of others, would you do me a favor and change your avatar?
In all honesty, I'd prefer readers not associate your ridiculous statements with the Lone Star State.

[Wolverine]

Neat article (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/aw20030409.shtml).

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wolverine


:rolleyes: If you insist on continually advocating the killing of others, would you do me a favor and change your avatar?
In all honesty, I'd prefer readers not associate your ridiculous statements with the Lone Star State.

Sorry, I cleaned it up. I just pisses me off that these people seek to strip us of one of our fundamental constitutional rights.

If these fascists want to live in a gun free paradise, they need to move to cuba or china.

[subgenius]

"These fascists need to be killed."-some Texan named Tony.

Giving gun control advocates all the "ammo" they need.

[NullPointerException]

The twisted thing is that in Florida people are dieing/receiving substandard care because doctors are quitting because of ridiculous malpractice insurance costs. Of course, to remedy this they immediately create a no fault gun law!

[Tony]

Originally posted by subgenius
"These fascists need to be killed."-some Texan named Tony.

Giving gun control advocates all the "ammo" they need.

How does that give them ammo?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tony


How does that give them ammo?
Think harder.

[Tony]

Originally posted by subgenius

Think harder.

Answer the question.

[Wolverine]

Tony, your extreme statements do not paint a nice picture of the pro-gun crowd. By advocating the shooting and/or killing of those you disagree with, you send a message that people tend to associate with ALL pro-gunners. I strongly object to your statements, and wish you'd tone down such rhetoric. It's anything but productive.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Tony, your extreme statements do not paint a nice picture of the pro-gun crowd. By advocating the shooting and/or killing of those you disagree with, you send a message that people tend to associate with ALL pro-gunners. I strongly object to your statements, and wish you'd tone down such rhetoric. It's anything but productive.

I did tone it down. And this isnt about people who disagree with me, its about people who want to take away my constitutional right(s).

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tony
And this isnt about people who disagree with me...

Hmm...

Originally posted by Tony
Hopefully, next time they will use real bullets.

... sure looks that way to me...

Originally posted by Tony
... its about people who want to take away my constitutional right(s).

... and that's still no justification to advocate shooting/killing people. They have constitutional rights also.

Attack issues, not people.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Tony, your extreme statements do not paint a nice picture of the pro-gun crowd. By advocating the shooting and/or killing of those you disagree with, you send a message that people tend to associate with ALL pro-gunners. I strongly object to your statements, and wish you'd tone down such rhetoric. It's anything but productive.
Couldn't have been said better.
Its people who harbor and express such thoughts and have guns that scare everybody on either side of the issue. I'm sure your fellow Texan will backtrack but its simply a bad mindset as you succinctly point out.

[Tony]

Hopefully, next time they will use real bullets.


I was talking about violent protesters trying to sabotage the shipment of supplies to our troops in Iraq. It was justified.

They have constitutional rights also.

They have the constitutional right to take away my constitutional rights? I dont think so.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tony
They have the constitutional right to take away my constitutional rights? I dont think so.

I never stated such. They have a right to express opinions which you disagree with, and that's no reason to talk about shooting them.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wolverine


I never stated such. They have a right to express opinions which you disagree with, and that's no reason to talk about shooting them.

The anti-gun fascists are not merely expressing an opinion. They are trying to take away our constitutional rights, do you disagree?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tony
The anti-gun fascists are not merely expressing an opinion. They are trying to take away our constitutional rights, do you disagree?

Not all people opposed to firearms ownership are "facists." That's a substantial generalization.

When I stated earlier that "they have constitutional rights also," my point was that people have the right to express their opinions, be it in opposition to the war, or guns, and that does not serve as justification to discuss shooting/killing them for having contrary views.

I do not deny that there are groups dedicated to eroding our 2nd Amendment rights, and I participate actively to block those efforts. Not all people opposed to firearms ownership are committed to removing our right to keep and bear arms.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Not all people opposed to firearms ownership are "facists." That's a substantial generalization.



Im not talking about the whole movement, Im talking about the group spearheading the lawsuits against the gun industry.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tony
Im not talking about the whole movement, Im talking about the group spearheading the lawsuits against the gun industry.

Which one?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tony


Im not talking about the whole movement, Im talking about the group spearheading the lawsuits against the gun industry.

The radical left knows they will get a certain level of killing against people if they are disarmed because only criminals will have guns in disarmed populations. The left wants that certain level of killing so they can fuel their agenda. Then the left will use that to further attacks on the 2nd Amendment by telling the law-abiding they can be protected even further by completely disarming.

JK

[Tony]

http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislativ e%20Action&url=http://www.nraila.org

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6261285%255E3462,00.html

The Tasmanian legislation tabled on Tuesday is in line with national changes initiated after the fatal Monash University shooting in October.

National Coalition for Gun Control chairman Roland Browne said the amendments were a spectacular failure in removing handguns from the hands of civilians.

The group wants all high-powered, semi-automatic handguns banned.