Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun Control

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MAL
    replied
    Originally posted by oldpioneer View Post
    You know I was just thinking. Whenever law-abiding gun owners hear about regulations they freak out. It would seem to me if I am a law-abiding gun owners I would want bad Gordon owners to be restricted more. That way they are kept in the hand of the good guys.

    For example, I collect classic guitars and I assume gun owners have the same affinity that I have. Now the best place to go to bike guitars is a guitar show. They have them all laid out in a huge place and you can walk around and buy them with cash. Let’s say they made me write the serial number down on the guitar when I purchase it to make sure that I’m not buying or selling stolen ones... I would love that! Because in a guitar show anyone with Cash can buy the guitars. If I needed to show her state ID or some sort of card to show up on the up and up, That would drive down the prices and More guitars for me. Again, no one is trying to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding gun owners.

    actually a buddy of mine has over 50 of them. And he even said that the reason they’re so damn expensive is Rich tycoons who have no intention of keeping them come to the shows buy them all up at top dollar and sell them overseas. Hey I want everyone to play guitar, But let them come over here and buy them themselves. Just a thought.

    And then if my guitar was stolen instead of kissing you goodbye I could hope that one day someone would read the serial number after I reported it stolen and say hey, come to the station and pick up your guitar we found it.
    Duh' We want the laws on the books to be enforced...heavy penalties for breaking gun laws...regulate the hell out of criminals.

    Guns do have serial numbers.

    You can't buy a gun at a gun show with out a back ground check. If you do it's illegal and should be punished. How would you do the back ground check with out showing an ID?

    Leave a comment:


  • MAL
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post

    .

    .

    Are those the adds that are say they are designed to murder? Can you read?

    Leave a comment:


  • oldpioneer
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post
    That makes a lot of sense, old pioneer.

    I don't think that guitars are especially deadly if they are used in the manner intended by their manufacturers. But then I remembered Quick Draw McGraw:



    You're not planning an all-night "kabonger" rampage, are you?
    actually, we are rehearsing for a gig at a coffee shop in plainfield. Black Dog Cafe, they sell records and such, a buddy of mine owns it, and our band practices often turn into Kabongers!!!! btw, I voice texted that this morning and I am on break at work right now and found so many errors I would have flagged it if it was turned in by one of my students!!! Peace all, op

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefIllini1
    replied
    Point out the warnings you see in the gun advertisements above. Also, Purdue Pharma has been successfully sued although people realize that that **** is addictive. Cigarette manufacturers were sued for deaths that occurred after they started putting warnings on their labels.

    Gun manufacturers only tell people about how to get their "Man Card," or about the many lovely "missions" their guns can go on (but neglect to tell the consumer that some of those missions will include suicide, murder, injury, or the theft and use of your gun in a crime).

    And many jurisdictions tax products or uses that can cause harm so as to reimburse the government for costs associated with using those products: gasoline, tobacco, tollways, etc.

    If there's no case, why so worried? If you really owned an actual Man Card, you'd say, "BRING IT ON!"

    Leave a comment:


  • dadudaman4
    replied
    As I have said before, you cannot sue a product manufacturer simply because it manufactures a product that can injure a consumer. You can sue them for failing to adequately warn of any dangers inherent in its proper use, or if it is manufactured defectively and causes injury. The tobacco companies were sued because they failed to properly warn of the dangers of smoking they knew about, and also knowingly introduced a substance, nicotine, that was high addictive. Pretty much the same issue with asbestos manufacturers in that they failed to warn foreseeable users about the dangers they knew of inhaling asbestos fibers. Trampoline manufacturers have faced the same liability issues in that they failed to properly warn consumers about the significant injury risks of using their products. Now, their trampolines are covered with warnings advising everyone not to attempt certain maneuvers or tricks. Based on your non-existent rationale, you could sue an alcohol manufacturer for causing people to get drunk, drive drunk and kill people, not to mention for the long term damage from chronic drinking and associated medical costs.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefIllini1
    replied
    That makes a lot of sense, old pioneer.

    I don't think that guitars are especially deadly if they are used in the manner intended by their manufacturers. But then I remembered Quick Draw McGraw:

    In certain cases, Quick Draw would also assume the identity of the masked vigilante El Kabong (a spoof of Zorro).[11] His introduction went as follows – "Of all the heroes in legend and song, there's none as brave as El Kabong". As El Kabong, Quick Draw would attack his foes by swooping down on a rope with the war cry "OLÉ!" and hitting them on the head with an acoustic guitar (after shouting "KABOOOOOONG!"), which is always referred to as a "kabonger", producing a distinctive kabong sound and usually destroying the guitar in the process. The "guitar" was usually drawn as a four strung quatro.
    You're not planning an all-night "kabonger" rampage, are you?

    Leave a comment:


  • oldpioneer
    replied
    You know I was just thinking. Whenever law-abiding gun owners hear about regulations they freak out. It would seem to me if I am a law-abiding gun owners I would want bad Gordon owners to be restricted more. That way they are kept in the hand of the good guys.

    For example, I collect classic guitars and I assume gun owners have the same affinity that I have. Now the best place to go to bike guitars is a guitar show. They have them all laid out in a huge place and you can walk around and buy them with cash. Let’s say they made me write the serial number down on the guitar when I purchase it to make sure that I’m not buying or selling stolen ones... I would love that! Because in a guitar show anyone with Cash can buy the guitars. If I needed to show her state ID or some sort of card to show up on the up and up, That would drive down the prices and More guitars for me. Again, no one is trying to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding gun owners.

    actually a buddy of mine has over 50 of them. And he even said that the reason they’re so damn expensive is Rich tycoons who have no intention of keeping them come to the shows buy them all up at top dollar and sell them overseas. Hey I want everyone to play guitar, But let them come over here and buy them themselves. Just a thought.

    And then if my guitar was stolen instead of kissing you goodbye I could hope that one day someone would read the serial number after I reported it stolen and say hey, come to the station and pick up your guitar we found it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefIllini1
    replied

    .

    .

    Leave a comment:


  • MAL
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post
    [SIZE=16px]We need to have the right to file individual lawsuits and class action civil suits against gun manufacturers, suppliers and dealers.
    Show me the law that gives the fire arm industry immunity. You have every right to sue the above mentioned if they harm you, but you don't have is the right to sue the manufacture if someone uses their product to commit a crime. You cant sue Estwing if someone kills their victim with a hammer.

    You don't care about guns, you care about power.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefIllini1
    replied
    We need to have the right to file individual lawsuits and class action civil suits against gun manufacturers, suppliers and dealers. The right to sue for redress is in the actual Constitution--Article III--and not in some afterthought amendment. Yet, Republican legislators have stolen this fundamental Constitutional right from us when it comes to gun manufacturers and dealers.

    What reason was there to give gun manufacturers and dealers immunity? Were they going extinct? Was it not profitable?

    Or was it a nice side benefit to give to your donors, the gun lobby and other merchants of death? You and I have a Constitutional right to go into court and seek redress if any person or corporation harms us, but God help you if you or a loved one were harmed by a gun. Then, there are limits.

    And what about States' Attorneys? Why don't they have a right to sue the manufacturers and dealers? Republicans are big on State's Rights, my Brothers and Sisters, until they aren't. In this case, they've stripped the States of the ability to seek redress for the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS they have to spend in the healthcare and legal systems because of gun violence and suicides. Additionally, States can't even allow their own state courts to hear the cases because that is a State Right that Republicans don't believe in.

    States should have the right to seek compensation from gun manufacturers and distributors who knowingly make instruments of death. Just like States were allowed to do that when it came to Asbestos and Tobacco.

    .
    .

    Leave a comment:


  • MAL
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post

    Lawsuit liability would be on a case-by-case basis, just like every other company in America has to face. In addition, though, there would be liability similar to that faced by the cigarette and asbestos manufacturers.

    As for you simple fallacy about countries with restrictive gun laws, these are the strictest:

    .

    .
    Your fantasy really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is the actual reality:
    .

    .
    This is reality. This is the company that the United States of America is keeping. Makes you kinda wish we were more like the U.K. or Australia or Japan, right? This is the reality of where we stand in the world when it comes to gun violence (note that this is the very bottom of a long chart):
    .

    .
    And Mal, try to keep up. I was quoting you. You wrote this: "Suing a company for making a product that works as advertised would be a bad precedent...." you proposed suing gun manufactures because the gun goes bang when you pull the trigger...now if the gun could somehow pull its own trigger, go ahead and sue the manufacturer.
    Show me the methodology of your studies and I will show you how they are deceiving you. "Gun related deaths" is very inclusive...It usually includes suicides, accidental, justified homicide and even the shooter himself when ends his attack with his last bullet to his head. The vast majority of gun related deaths are suicide. 60% of gun related deaths are suicide. About 35% of gun related deaths are murder. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/1...ricans-know-it

    So unless you can prove that the suicide by gun "statics" would be alive today, and not taken their life with another method, your chart is very deceptive at best. America's murder rate is between 5 and 6 per 100,000...below the Global average...not by enough...but we are statistically safer here than the rest of the world combined.
    Last edited by MAL; 04-20-2021, 09:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefIllini1
    replied
    Originally posted by dadudaman4 View Post
    Your post makes no sense regarding gun manufacturer liability. What legal theory would you propose to sue them under? I know that you would like nothing better than to have guns outlawed, but the Constitution gets in the way. To cheer you up, here's the list of countries around the world where restrictive policies are in place that make it illegal or extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to own a gun. It's quite a group. Those nations are:
    Lawsuit liability would be on a case-by-case basis, just like every other company in America has to face. In addition, though, there would be liability similar to that faced by the cigarette and asbestos manufacturers.

    As for you simple fallacy about countries with restrictive gun laws, these are the strictest:

    .
    .
    Your fantasy really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is the actual reality:
    .
    .
    This is reality. This is the company that the United States of America is keeping. Makes you kinda wish we were more like the U.K. or Australia or Japan, right? This is the reality of where we stand in the world when it comes to gun violence (note that this is the very bottom of a long chart):
    .
    .
    And Mal, try to keep up. I was quoting you. You wrote this: "Suing a company for making a product that works as advertised would be a bad precedent...."

    Leave a comment:


  • MAL
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post

    [SIZE=16px]These assault rifles are advertised as murder weapons?

    Show me the add...you wont...because it doesn't exist. You are either ignorant or a liar...I guess both are likely to be true.

    Leave a comment:


  • MAL
    replied
    Black Guns Matter.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo80D42DxUM

    Leave a comment:


  • dadudaman4
    replied
    Your post makes no sense regarding gun manufacturer liability. What legal theory would you propose to sue them under? I know that you would like nothing better than to have guns outlawed, but the Constitution gets in the way. To cheer you up, here's the list of countries around the world where restrictive policies are in place that make it illegal or extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to own a gun. It's quite a group. Those nations are:

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X