Imagine this: since many medications used for anesthesia and pain control go to illegal markets, we try to make pharmaceutical companies responsible for it. I'm afraid, that will raise the prices and make the meds simply inavailible for those who need them, because of too many regulations, precautions, etc. However, illegal markets will have them anyways. In both cases, there is only one solution: eliminate illegal users, period.
Which is exactly the goal of the gun-banners.
I didn't read the case first of all (and really dont care too, there is more interesting cases like DC v. Heller), and no the manufacturer shouldn't be responsible for a gang banger stealing a glock. The firearms manufacturers should be responsible as to the first hand they go to. The second hand person should make reasonable measures to prevent theft. The gangbanger will be held accountable, hes in possession of a handgun illegally, and that it is also stolen.
I could care less what you believe and what you don't, apparently not many people you have met have integrity.
You have ignored every other part of my post as to regards to solutions. All you come here to do is rant and rave yet you provide no viable solution to things like high crime rates in urban areas.
As for the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed, yes but all rights are not without restrictions as free speech ie. perjury, slander...
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
well it may be appealed to the US Supreme court... the difference between firearms and such things as matches and little plastic baggies (which by the way their is a reason those pictures of the choking babies is on them) is because firearms primary purpose is to propel a deadly projectile. I do think gun manufacturers should be responsible as to where the firearms go, in particular handguns because of their conceal-ability. I don't believe in handgun bans in cities... and i have an LTC ALP so im def not against guns.
-Instead of making mass amounts of firearms why not make them as they are demanded. A somewhat market problem but a system could be implemented where you might have to wait a few days in which your background check could be investigated.
-Relax and make expections for privacy protection laws for persons applying for firearms permits and make a more vigorous process. (People with chronic mental health problems)