HR 4269

[scottw]

isn't it interesting too that some will sneer at the idea that an oppressive domestic government might deny or infringe on enumerated Constitutional rights as they simultaneously argue that some individuals are currently being oppressively denied all sorts of "rights" not mentioned in the Constitution

[Rmarsh]

No industry deserves the right to act with reckless disregard for the public safety.

But that is exactly what congress did when they allow only one industry to remain immune from acts of negligence.
Gun lobby has lots of money to bribe congress.

They wont allow gun violence victims the right to go to court and be heard. Cases are dismissed based on that law. No other business has that protection. Why are they so afraid of letting juries hear the evidence.
.

I'm in favor of the right to bear arms but not for shielding
gun manufacturers and dealers from negligence.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

No industry deserves the right to act with reckless disregard for the public safety.

But that is exactly what congress did when they allow only one industry to remain immune from acts of negligence.
Gun lobby has lots of money to bribe congress.

They wont allow gun violence victims the right to go to court and be heard. Cases are dismissed based on that law. No other business has that protection. Why are they so afraid of letting juries hear the evidence.
.

I'm in favor of the right to bear arms but not for shielding
gun manufacturers and dealers from negligence.

once again

Our ruling

Clinton said the gun industry is "the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability."

Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits.

Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry.

We rate Clinton’s claim False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-all-lawsuits/

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

No industry deserves the right to act with reckless disregard for the public safety.

But that is exactly what congress did when they allow only one industry to remain immune from acts of negligence.
Gun lobby has lots of money to bribe congress.

They wont allow gun violence victims the right to go to court and be heard. Cases are dismissed based on that law. No other business has that protection. Why are they so afraid of letting juries hear the evidence.
.

I'm in favor of the right to bear arms but not for shielding
gun manufacturers and dealers from negligence.

They are not protected from act of negligence.

Curious if you're upset with all those that " bribe " or just those you don't agree with . If you have a representative that you think can be bought then you should vote them out of Congress or the Senate .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

No industry deserves the right to act with reckless disregard for the public safety.

But that is exactly what congress did when they allow only one industry to remain immune from acts of negligence.
Gun lobby has lots of money to bribe congress.

They wont allow gun violence victims the right to go to court and be heard. Cases are dismissed based on that law. No other business has that protection. Why are they so afraid of letting juries hear the evidence.
.

I'm in favor of the right to bear arms but not for shielding
gun manufacturers and dealers from negligence.

Just for you answer my previous question.
Can I sue Bic because someone used a Bic lighter to burn my house down?
Someone drowns in a tub should the tub manufacturer be held responsible?
Someone dies in a car accident should the manufacturer of the fuel be held responsible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Just for you answer my previous question.
Can I sue Bic because someone used a Bic lighter to burn my house down?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try sueing Halliburton if your well water is contaminated from fracking. They are immune and do not even have to share what chemicals they use.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raven]

Donald will Veto

[ecduzitgood]

A person driving gets distracted by texting and kills someone. Should the phone manufacturer or the carrier be held responsible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

It's a gun volume issue if you follow the 2a guys only logic that gun laws attack law abiding gun owners ? Then were are all the illegal guns com ing from? If all sales need to go through a dealer As I have stated before have as many guns as you want but they should be regerstered .. I served 22 years in the infantry and 28 years and counting as a correctional officer not a liberal past. But as it's been said by some others if the Nra keeps it's current stance as the lobby of NO! Sooner or later legislation will be Ram rodded down their throats..

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It's a gun volume issue if you follow the 2a guys only logic that gun laws attack law abiding gun owners ? Then were are all the illegal guns com ing from? If all sales need to go through a dealer As I have stated before have as many guns as you want but they should be regerstered .. I served 22 years in the infantry and 28 years and counting as a correctional officer not a liberal past. But as it's been said by some others if the Nra keeps it's current stance as the lobby of NO! Sooner or later legislation will be Ram rodded down their throats..

http://www.gunlaws.com/gunreggie.htm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

we already register guns in this state, I don't see how it will help anything at all if it is enforced acrosss the country for all existing guns. Do you think criminals are going to register their guns?
read the link above by ezduzitgood


registration is the first step the government needs to then disarm us law abiding citizens.
I don't want to see our country end up like Australia




Australian Gun Law Update;
Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts....
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria.....alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....'

You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST.
DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY.
BE ONE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON 'T STAND FOR NONSENSE
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

[buckman]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1089904]It's a gun volume issue if you follow the 2a guys only logic that gun laws attack law abiding gun owners ? Then were are all the illegal guns com ing from? If all sales need to go through a dealer As I have stated before have as many guns as you want but they should be regerstered .. I served 22 years in the infantry and 28 years and counting as a correctional officer not a liberal past. But as it's been said by some others if the Nra keeps it's current stance as the lobby of NO! Sooner or later legislation will be Ram rodded down their throats..[/QUOTE

Like I said before. If making them illegal would prevent criminals from having illegal guns then where is all the heroin coming from in this country ?
Obama's executive order will not save one life. Check 2016 stats and I will bet you , you will see no improvement
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I don't want to see our country end up like Australia

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-in-australia/

[buckman]

[QUOTE=spence;1089921]http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-in-australia/[/QUOTE

Did you write that Snopes article ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

spin numbers all you want
if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
a simple fact, check it with snopes



In Lexington of all places, there is a guy proposing a ban on certain weapons he refers to as the made up term of assault weapons.
Figures he's from Harvard University

here is what I found

Dear Fellow Town Meeting Members and other Concerned Citizens:



For all of the obvious reasons, and because Lexington has first mover advantage and responsibilities, I have submitted a Citizen’s Article to the Warrant to regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity gun magazines within the Town of Lexington. I hope that it will have your support now, and when the article comes before Town Meeting in March.



The proposed legislation will be modeled strictly on an ordinance enacted by Highland Park, IL (a suburb of Chicago) in 2013, approved in a Federal district court there, and by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. On Dec. 7, Pearl Harbor Day, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, implicitly suggesting that local town and city bans on large scale weaponry do not impinge on Second Amendment rights under the U. S. Constitution, and are permissible despite its ruling in Miller in 2014. The U.S. has a long tradition of regulating weapons at the local level – think Dodge City, Kansas, and Tombstone, Ariz., not to mention Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.



The New York Times reported that the Supreme Court’s welcome inaction in the Highland Park case was the seventieth time since 2008 that the Court has declined to consider a challenge to state or local gun regulation. “This creates a big opportunity,” it said, “for Americans to put pressure on their…local leaders.”



As Nancy Rotering, Mayor of Highland Park and candidate for Congress wrote recently, the Supreme Court’s decision encourages “other cities and villages across the nation to follow our lead and pursue assault weapons without the threat of legal action under the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.” She also wrote: “One piece of legislation is not going to prevent every gun violence tragedy, but with courageous leadership, we can take steps to protect American lives.” I hope that the passage of the proposed amended by-law in Lexington will save Lexington lives and inspire other cities and towns within the Commonwealth to follow suit in this practical and sensible matter.



My proposed amendment to Chapter 97 of the Code of Lexington (Public Conduct) would in no way affect ordinary gun or hand-gun ownership in Lexington. It would, however, prohibit the possession within town limits of assault weapons – semiautomatic rifles that have the capacity to accept large capacity magazines. (The proposed article would specify in great detail exactly what kinds of weapons and magazines were covered.) The Highland Park legislation enumerates the brands outlawed. Large capacity magazines are defined as holding ten or more rounds.



Assault weapons do not include antique weapons. Citizens of the town would still be able to bear arms, just not weapons of mass murder.



I have consulted with the Selectmen, the Town Manager (and Town Counsel), the Moderator, and the Chief of Police. Everyone has been very helpful.



I will welcome your comments, criticisms, suggestions for improvement, and so on, but, please as few NRA rants as possible. This proposal will, I hope, attract widespread support from TM voters and from citizens of the Town. It is the least we can do to try to limit harm.



Robert I. Rotberg


so if you live in Lexington, protect your constitutional rights and let your town know this should not be considered.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

spin numbers all you want
if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
a simple fact, check it with snopes



In Lexington of all places, there is a guy proposing a ban on certain weapons he refers to as the made up term of assault weapons.
Figures he's from Harvard University

here is what I found

Dear Fellow Town Meeting Members and other Concerned Citizens:



For all of the obvious reasons, and because Lexington has first mover advantage and responsibilities, I have submitted a Citizen’s Article to the Warrant to regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity gun magazines within the Town of Lexington. I hope that it will have your support now, and when the article comes before Town Meeting in March.



The proposed legislation will be modeled strictly on an ordinance enacted by Highland Park, IL (a suburb of Chicago) in 2013, approved in a Federal district court there, and by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. On Dec. 7, Pearl Harbor Day, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, implicitly suggesting that local town and city bans on large scale weaponry do not impinge on Second Amendment rights under the U. S. Constitution, and are permissible despite its ruling in Miller in 2014. The U.S. has a long tradition of regulating weapons at the local level – think Dodge City, Kansas, and Tombstone, Ariz., not to mention Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.



The New York Times reported that the Supreme Court’s welcome inaction in the Highland Park case was the seventieth time since 2008 that the Court has declined to consider a challenge to state or local gun regulation. “This creates a big opportunity,” it said, “for Americans to put pressure on their…local leaders.”



As Nancy Rotering, Mayor of Highland Park and candidate for Congress wrote recently, the Supreme Court’s decision encourages “other cities and villages across the nation to follow our lead and pursue assault weapons without the threat of legal action under the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.” She also wrote: “One piece of legislation is not going to prevent every gun violence tragedy, but with courageous leadership, we can take steps to protect American lives.” I hope that the passage of the proposed amended by-law in Lexington will save Lexington lives and inspire other cities and towns within the Commonwealth to follow suit in this practical and sensible matter.



My proposed amendment to Chapter 97 of the Code of Lexington (Public Conduct) would in no way affect ordinary gun or hand-gun ownership in Lexington. It would, however, prohibit the possession within town limits of assault weapons – semiautomatic rifles that have the capacity to accept large capacity magazines. (The proposed article would specify in great detail exactly what kinds of weapons and magazines were covered.) The Highland Park legislation enumerates the brands outlawed. Large capacity magazines are defined as holding ten or more rounds.



Assault weapons do not include antique weapons. Citizens of the town would still be able to bear arms, just not weapons of mass murder.



I have consulted with the Selectmen, the Town Manager (and Town Counsel), the Moderator, and the Chief of Police. Everyone has been very helpful.



I will welcome your comments, criticisms, suggestions for improvement, and so on, but, please as few NRA rants as possible. This proposal will, I hope, attract widespread support from TM voters and from citizens of the Town. It is the least we can do to try to limit harm.



Robert I. Rotberg


so if you live in Lexington, protect your constitutional rights and let your town know this should not be considered.

I wonder when, if ever an "assault weapon " was used to commit a murder in Lexington .
Man has that place changed in the last few hundred years .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-in-australia/

Yes, because what works in Australia, would necessarily work the same here. Because Australia is exactly like the US, Australia has just as many blacks, and shares a similar open border with Mexico, right?

We don't have a problem here in the US with Australian immigrants committing a lot of crime. Our violent crime is predominantly taking place within population cells which have no socioeconomic counterpart in Australia.

Spence, gun ownership is huge in South Dakota, yet there is almost zero gun crime. Gun ownership is very low in Chicago, yet every weekend looks like a re-enactment of D-Day at Omaha Beach.

There is one, and exactly one, reason for these facts...cultural values (or lack thereof) will ultimately determine crime rates, moreso than the existence of guns.

There's also that pesky Constitution. Despite what the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave believes, we don't get to ignore the parts of the Constitution we don't happen to like. Australia, as far as I know, isn't bound by the same constitution.

Encourage people in Chicago to behave more like people in South Dakota, and then it doesn't matter if everyone owns a machine gun. Liberal policies have the exact opposite effect, they have incentivized exactly what we are seeing in Chicago every weekend.

When you plant potatoes, you get potatoes. For reasons that I will never grasp, liberals cannot comprehend that notion.

[Sea Dangles]

Like any other topic there will be some who are for it and others who are against it. I truly believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Certainly each side can present a compelling argument on their behalf and back it up to a degree that seems sensible to them. I have to laugh and shake my head when a moron calls those who choose not to bear arms a coward,hiding behind a gun is not my idea of bravery but it is certainly an escape you are entitled to. With or without a gun does not make one a tough guy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Like any other topic there will be some who are for it and others who are against it. I truly believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Certainly each side can present a compelling argument on their behalf and back it up to a degree that seems sensible to them. I have to laugh and shake my head when a moron calls those who choose not to bear arms a coward,hiding behind a gun is not my idea of bravery but it is certainly an escape you are entitled to. With or without a gun does not make one a tough guy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Derogatory labeling of members here doesn't do much to sway a person's opinion. A little respect goes a long way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[tysdad115]

I have to laugh at people who want restrictions on something they don't even know what they are.

[nightfighter]

So here is a prime example why I do not my rights limited by this proposed bill; North Hollywood Bank of America robbery and shootout. Look it up. The bad guys illegally modified their guns to be automatic. They were using 7.65x39 ammo. Also wore body armor, which defeated the police issued 9mm and .38sp ammo. Perps were walking, driving, shooting without deterrent. Police had to commandeer AR15s from a local gun shop in order to turn the tide in the resulting shoot out!
As I once told my son, when you are in a fight that involves physical bodily damage, you don't fight fairly. You fight to win. I do not want to be outgunned. Ever. No way I am going to be without a SHTF weapon available, safely locked, but available.

[spence]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

So here is a prime example why I do not my rights limited by this proposed bill; North Hollywood Bank of America robbery and shootout. Look it up. The bad guys illegally modified their guns to be automatic. They were using 7.65x39 ammo. Also wore body armor, which defeated the police issued 9mm and .38sp ammo. Perps were walking, driving, shooting without deterrent. Police had to commandeer AR15s from a local gun shop in order to turn the tide in the resulting shoot out!
As I once told my son, when you are in a fight that involves physical bodily damage, you don't fight fairly. You fight to win. I do not want to be outgunned. Ever. No way I am going to be without a SHTF weapon available, safely locked, but available.

So what, you can engage with the bad guys as they attempt to flee? Let the SWAT team handle it, events like this are pretty rare.

[wdmso]

So where do theses gang bangers and criminals who legally cannot buy a gun.. get their guns?

Are they being supplied from? Legal owners ? or irresponsible owners? i think below gives us our answer ...


1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This number represents an estimated average of 232,400 firearms stolen each year— about 172,000 stolen during burglaries and 60,300 stolen during other property crimes.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Derogatory labeling of members here doesn't do much to sway a person's opinion. A little respect goes a long way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have read nothing posted by said moron that would come close to garnering respect. If we all walk around trying to have the biggest gun then our society is doomed. I have never met Andy but I have heard he is nice and would be happy to wet a line with him. I respect that he offers his opinion but to call somebody who chooses not to carry a coward is placing himself at the bottom of the food chain. I have been involved with a brave gun toter that decided to point it at me in a street fight,poor guy ended up peeing himself before sleepy time. Ha,another brave guy with a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I have read nothing posted by said moron that would come close to garnering respect. If we all walk around trying to have the biggest gun then our society is doomed. I have never met Andy but I have heard he is nice and would be happy to wet a line with him. I respect that he offers his opinion but to call somebody who chooses not to carry a coward is placing himself at the bottom of the food chain. I have been involved with a brave gun toter that decided to point it at me in a street fight,poor guy ended up peeing himself before sleepy time. Ha,another brave guy with a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which is dumber pulling a gun in a street fight or attacking someone with a gun pointed at you. I wonder what kept him from pulling the trigger.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Chris, he may be an A hole but he is far from being a moron

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So where do theses gang bangers and criminals who legally cannot buy a gun.. get their guns?

if we knew that, we would tell the police so they could lock them up to be prosecuted and sent to prison.

build more prisons

[nightfighter]

Spence, as I have stated in these forums previously, when I choose to carry a weapon, I do not go looking for trouble. I carry in the event trouble chooses to come to me.
I am no vigilante. Not looking to engage anything beyond a paper or steel target. The only useful statement in your post is that these events are pretty rare. True enough. My point was when trouble arises, the perps come prepared to pack a punch. Why should Obama's 124 Democratic reps think I should not have the right to punch back equally?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So what, you can engage with the bad guys as they attempt to flee? Let the SWAT team handle it, events like this are pretty rare.

Correct, these are pretty rare. What's much more common, are garden-variety shootings. Or accidents where kids get ahold of improperly stored guns.

I don't own a gun. I won't keep one in a house with little kids, that's just my belief.

But I do believe in the Constitution (even the parts I don't like), so we need to be careful here.

Liberals, as is often the case, are myopic on this subject. When it comes to the issue of gun violence, 99.99% of their effort is spent on gun control. That's part of the solution. But we also need to talk about making it easier to institutionalize the mentally ill before they hurt someone - liberals tend to be uncomfortable with this. We also need to talk about the violence we bombard our kids with - liberals tend to be uncomfortable talking about that (Hollywood gives huge $$ to Democrats, just like the NRA gives huge $$ to the GOP). And finally, we need to talk about implementing public policy that encourages (rather than undermines and mocks) traditional family values - liberals cannot stand talking about this, despite the fact that nothing would reduce violence more than this.

Part of the conversation is gun control. A small part. But liberals are fanatically fixated on this one small piece of the puzzle. Because they don't want to solve the problem if it means alienating their voting base. So they focus on gun control, and then accuse the GOP of not caring about the issue. That way, they can claim that they care, and as always, label the GOP as bloodthirsty hatemongers.

[tysdad115]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

So you're suggesting a different permit for different firearms? No thanks. I must have skipped over that part in the second amendment.

The funny part about all of this is the people who are afraid of inanimate objects are all for forcing their will on firearms enthusiasts by imposing more ridiculous laws. Take a look around at what's really wrong in this country focus on those instead.

I sincerely hope the weak are put in situations where they are forced to suffer the consequences of their cowardice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Like any other topic there will be some who are for it and others who are against it. I truly believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Certainly each side can present a compelling argument on their behalf and back it up to a degree that seems sensible to them. I have to laugh and shake my head when a moron calls those who choose not to bear arms a coward,hiding behind a gun is not my idea of bravery but it is certainly an escape you are entitled to. With or without a gun does not make one a tough guy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I have read nothing posted by said moron that would come close to garnering respect. If we all walk around trying to have the biggest gun then our society is doomed. I have never met Andy but I have heard he is nice and would be happy to wet a line with him. I respect that he offers his opinion but to call somebody who chooses not to carry a coward is placing himself at the bottom of the food chain. I have been involved with a brave gun toter that decided to point it at me in a street fight,poor guy ended up peeing himself before sleepy time. Ha,another brave guy with a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I am honestly not sure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's my responses from the thread Chris. Where do I say Your're weak if you don't own a firearm? Where does it say I hide behind a firearm? Show me where I wrote that..This is the internet we can post our own opinions and agree to disagree. You'll note I'm not the one referring to you as a moron or an idiot because you're entitled to your own opinion and if it isn't the same as mine thats fine, I don't make the assumption you are a moron because you don't agree with me.
I may indeed be a moron but at least I know what I'm talking about. I don't jump into a conversation making suggestions for something "I'm not sure" about.

Yes Bruce I am an A hole! I hear the same about Chris but it's also followed up with "But he's a good guy" which is probably what he hears about me! I don't hide behind a gun or a keyboard.