Another victory for gun manufacturers

[Garys]

Here ya go.

Thanks. Who can add that to the smiley list?

Gary

 

[packingungal]

What is meant by "illegal users" as stated by one poster, and what is meant by "responsible as to where the firearms go" by another one. The definitions are not presented, and we are left to draw conclusions.

Manufacturers of any items are meeting demand by consumers. They are in it to make money and that is free enterprise.

Illegal users - what the hell does that mean?

 

[Scrivener]

A) Who cares about the first part i already said its fine as long as their [sic] are responsible, just because their [sic] are laws and agencies doesn't mean corporations don't do things to make profits outside the law.

Abandoned all pretense of logic, have you? You made no such assertion; hence the quote of your own inane assertions. Further, if the gun manufacturers are, as you now claim, flooding our inner cities with somehow-hidden guns, why is there no evidence of such practice when the BATFE does a crime-gun trace?

B) Restrictions or penalties, technically both apply, you are restricted from say slander but you are free to disobey the restriction and thus ensue penalties.

More specious drivel.

There is no "restriction" on slander as there is nothing requiring permission for speech (or writing). You can neither spell not punctuate; grasp syntax or logic. Take your (imaginary) LTC and go back to the DU - whether Ducks Unlimited or Democratic Underground, you'll feel far more welcome.

 

[goodoldxelos]

Which is exactly the goal of the gun-banners.

Oh, dear me... did I strike a nerve?

As for your first point, please see your quote below and tell me where I misinterpreted it. As for ignoring your call for solutions... well, you didn't ask. And I've certainly made my position clear in previous posts. Enforce the laws against assault, murder, rape, etc, put the perpetrators in prison, and LEAVE THEM THERE for the duration of their term. It worked well in the 90's, it should work well now.

Your suggestions are classic "solutions" that the Brady Bunch, AHSA, etc, want to see implemented because they limit the availability of guns to ALL people and do NOTHING to fight crime.

Build on demand? That's merely fancy talk for a waiting period. Not to mention it would drive the cost of purchasing a gun well beyond many people's means.

Waiting period? Tell that to the woman who's ex is threatening her, or the shopkeeper faced with mass riots when he needs to defend his livelihood (Remember the LA riots)?

As for restrictions... Good grief, here we go again. Sir, in order to exercise your right to post your gun-banning suggestions on the Internet, you must go to your local police department and pay $100 for a License To Post. There are two classes: A and B. B only lets you post on non-controversial subjects like cooking and gardening. A lets you post on all subjects, but only if your COP finds you to be a "suitable" person. If at any time your COP deems you unsuitable - for ANY REASON - your License to Post will be revoked and your computer confiscated.

You need to submit your fingerprints, two references and your REASON for wanting to post. The COP shall issue your LTP or deny you your LTP no less than 40 days later, but there is no penalty for him not doing so. It may take you up to 9 months. If he denies you your LTP, you do NOT get your $100 back. And your LTP is only good for 6 years.

Those sound like reasonable restrictions to YOU???

Ross

No nerve struck at all,
-Discretion of LE to issue LTC is something i dont agree with, it should have a set of qualification and disqualifications (ie. felonies, chronic mental health problems) and if they meet those requirements then you get an LTC.
-Remove waiting periods with automatic computer checks
-Build on demand was simply an idea
Well how about for the person who gets their firearm stolen they can be charged with a tougher criminal sentence, so maybe Mr/Mrs Doe wont lock his glock in his glovebox or in his dresser.
-Why not put to death rapists, child molesters/rapists (Kennedy v. Louisiana) soon to be decided, if their is extra evidence including DNA. (should have more evidence to put someone to death)
-Jails are expensive and with privatization its becoming worse! Why not provide good jobs so people wont turn to crime (of course some will anyways).

 

[goodoldxelos]

Abandoned all pretense of logic, have you? You made no such assertion; hence the quote of your own inane assertions. Further, if the gun manufacturers are, as you now claim, flooding our inner cities with somehow-hidden guns, why is there no evidence of such practice when the BATFE does a crime-gun trace?



More specious drivel.

There is no "restriction" on slander as there is nothing requiring permission for speech (or writing). You can neither spell not punctuate; grasp syntax or logic. Take your (imaginary) LTC and go back to the DU - whether Ducks Unlimited or Democratic Underground, you'll feel far more welcome.

When did i claim that gun manufacturers are "flooding" inner cities. I just said corporations are out for 1 purpose, wealth maximization.

No offense sir but your spelling & grammer lacks much to be desired as well, I'm not writing an Amicus brief.

 

[Pilgrim]

just because their are laws and agencies doesn't mean corporations don't do things to make profits outside the law.

So more laws/regulations will help, how?

 

[goodoldxelos]

So more laws/regulations will help, how?

You don't suppose we should let corporations do what they would like just to make a buck do you? Not unnecessarily more laws/regulations but enforce some of the ones we have.

 

[squirt]

Why are you guys even continuing to engage this member. He is obviously a troll, just ignore him and he will go away. I am new to this forum but have been a member in many others and anytime we have a troll like this anywhere, we ignore them and move on, not worth the energy to educate him/her.

 

[goodoldxelos]

Why are you guys even continuing to engage this member. He is obviously a troll, just ignore him and he will go away. I am new to this forum but have been a member in many others and anytime we have a troll like this anywhere, we ignore them and move on, not worth the energy to educate him/her.

Its called a debate about a certain topic. Would you rather have us all think exactly the same way?

 

[dwarven1]

You have a point, squirt, but I will engage this "fearsome" once more (Hey, what can I say? I'm re-reading The Return Of The King... again).

Well how about for the person who gets their firearm stolen they can be charged with a tougher criminal sentence, so maybe Mr/Mrs Doe wont lock his glock in his glovebox or in his dresser.

Are you out of your mind? What kind of a gun owner ARE you? (if, indeed, you really are). You are now talking about punishing the VICTIM. You belong in Stalinist Russia... or perhaps in Saudi Arabia. I understand that they stone rape victims to death there. Which is what you're proposing. Hate to tell you this, but it's only in high-crime states like MA where law-abiding citizens are forced under penalty of law to keep their guns locked up so that the criminals don't get hurt. Go check and see how the crime rate has gone up in MA to see how well THAT works.

-Why not put to death rapists, child molesters/rapists (Kennedy v. Louisiana) soon to be decided, if their is extra evidence including DNA. (should have more evidence to put someone to death)

Well, finally... something that makes sense out of your keyboard.

-Jails are expensive and with privatization its becoming worse! Why not provide good jobs so people wont turn to crime (of course some will anyways).

And pray tell, who is supposed to "provide good jobs"? Nanny State?

Begone, . Go back to your [Democratic] underground lair.

 

[theGringo]

Its called a debate about a certain topic. Would you rather have us all think exactly the same way?

You might find THIS sort of argument more "suitable" to your debating style:

http://monty.python.videowall.sytes...XJndW1lbnQgQ2xpbmljIC0gTW9udHkgUHl0aG9uGXgbGQ

 

[Martlet]

Its called a debate about a certain topic. Would you rather have us all think exactly the same way?

If by "exactly the same way" you mean freedom through strict adherence to the Constitution, then yes. I'd rather that.

 

[theGringo]

More specious "reasoning." What you incorrectly describe as "restrictions" are actually penalties for abuse of those freedoms; NOT a priori limitations on them.

I love it when you say "a priori"!

 

[RKG]

*******
Can the gun manufacturers sue Bloomberg for legal fees that they spent defending themselves against his frivolous lawsuits?

No.

 

[LoginName]

YES! This is quite an achievement.

The New York circuit was chosen because it is THE "business circuit" of the entire system. To have the lawsuit thrown out by the gun-grabbers' circuit of choice bodes well for how other circuits will decide other such vampire lawsuits.

Three words... Judge Jack Weinstein...

Judge Jack Weinstein has been criticized for being sympathetic towards plaintiffs in litigation against the tobacco and firearm industries.[5] An investigation by the New York Sun found that big lawsuits with billions of dollars at stake tend to get assigned to Judge Weinstein.[6] According to the newspaper, some plaintiffs, particularly in tobacco and firearms cases state at filing time that their cases are related to other cases that are or have been before Judge Weinstein. This results in their cases being assigned to him as well. Judge Weinstein has been criticized for this practice by other judges including Judge George Pratt and Judge José Cabranes of the 2nd Circuit.[6] Defense attorneys for the firearm and tobacco industries have alleged judge shopping and have long tried to get their cases reassigned away from Judge Weinstein's courtroom, with mixed results.

The article reports that on Dec 6, 2007, John Renzulli, a firearms industry attorney will ask Judge Weinstein to recuse himself from City of New York v. A-1 Jewelry & Pawn, et al.[7], a firearms lawsuit brought by New York City against out-of-state gun dealers, arguing that "the assignment of this entire chain of firearms cases to Your Honor can only be characterized as a poisonous tree".

The Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights organization has called upon Judge Weinstein to step down from the bench or step aside from hearing any further gun industry lawsuit cases, arguing that the judge has become known more for activism than judicial neutrality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_B._Weinstein

The exact litigants of the case eludes me right now (it did involve NYC though), but in a underhanded move, the plaintiffs (read The Brady Campaign), dropped Beretta USA from the original lawsuit so that case could be heard in Weinsteins jurisdiction.

Had Beretta not been dropped from the lawsuit, the case would have been heard in a court less favorable to the Bradys and their ilk.

As for the rest of this thread... I think I'll just kick back and