HR 4269

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

They can sue the operator of the vehicle for negligence or the manufacturer if the car has an inherently dangerous defect like the ford truck gas tanks that killed people. Car companies get sued all the time. So why not gun companies....the answer I believe is that congress can be bought for the right price and was bribed.

we're not talking about mechanical defects

[Nebe]

There could be a better process to buying a gun.

How about a mandatory gun safety class, a psych evaluation and then you get a annotation on your drivers liscence that you have a gun permit, much like getting a motorcycle liscence ? How harmful is that to the gun owner ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

There could be a better process to buying a gun.

How about a mandatory gun safety class, a psych evaluation and then you get a annotation on your drivers liscence that you have a gun permit, much like getting a motorcycle liscence ? How harmful is that to the gun owner ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes because a safety course is going to be high priority for those that are going to use a gun to kill others or themselves.
How about this , we teach gun safety in our schools, much like the NRA Eddy Eagle program. That would have an actual positive affect in preventing accidental deaths and respect of firearms .
Asking somebody to be subject to a psychiatric test , with a conclusion based on an opinion of a possibly biased doctor is not a good idea .

I could be persuaded to make drug testing part of the equation though .

Thoughts ??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[stripermaineiac]

well the one thing I learned with working in a prison for 30 yrs is that those who break laws that are there to protect us all really don't give a tinkers damn about laws . they just want to get what they want and use weapons of all and any type to acheive their personal goal. Power,control,greed or whatever selfish act drives them is all thats important to them. The fearful in our society forget that a gun in the house keeps the creeps out. Someone wanting to hurt people does it to create fear so they can control a society is crazy and enables terrorism-. Taking a persons right to protect themselves from those who wish ultimate control-totalitariunism,terrorism and dictatorships is acheived by taking weapons and the right to use them away from a society. stop letting criminals have it easy and empowering the abusers to take your right to protect yourself from you in the guise of controling gun violence.
30,000 gun deaths last year supposedly-50 percent from people killing themselves and the rest from criminals and crimes. fix those problems don't create an larger defense-less country.

[Rmarsh]

What facts do you think im wrong about? Congress did in fact pass a law in 2005 that prevents gun companies from being sued. No other companies have that protection. Im done repeating myself .....
the facts are out there on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

What facts do you think im wrong about? Congress did in fact pass a law in 2005 that prevents gun companies from being sued. No other companies have that protection. Im done repeating myself .....
the facts are out there on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your goal is to put gun companies out of business , make a bunch of lawyers rich and make people less responsible for their own actions , then work to repeal the law .
Or maybe you want to make it so that the wealthy are the only ones that can afford firearms , as repealing this law will certainly a sure a huge spike in firearm cost . An interesting strategy , especially if your conclusion is poor people commit most of the gun crimes .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by buckman

If your goal is to put gun companies out of business , make a bunch of lawyers rich and make people less responsible for their own actions , then work to repeal the law .
Or maybe you want to make it so that the wealthy are the only ones that can afford firearms , as repealing this law will certainly a sure a huge spike in firearm cost . An interesting strategy , especially if your conclusion is poor people commit most of the gun crimes .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not my goal to do any sort of thing like that. Just pointing out the fact that gun companies have a special privilege. I think a jury should decide accountability just like they do with all other commercial enterprises.
If I'm a contractor and someone gets hurt even through there own stupidity...I can be sued. My son is a bartender, if he serves someone too much alcohol he and the establishment can be sued. Doctor makes a mistake ...he gets sued....not saying it's right but that's how it is for any business.

We can all site studies that support our views I suppose... but a study found that affluent societies with more gun ownership have more homicides.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

Not my goal to do any sort of thing like that. Just pointing out the fact that gun companies have a special privilege. I think a jury should decide accountability just like they do with all other commercial enterprises.
If I'm a contractor and someone gets hurt even through there own stupidity...I can be sued. My son is a bartender, if he serves someone too much alcohol he and the establishment can be sued. Doctor makes a mistake ...he gets sued....not saying it's right but that's how it is for any business.

We can all site studies that support our views I suppose... but a study found that affluent societies with more gun ownership have more homicides.

When we're the alcohol producers sued for the damage and deaths their product causes....it's the people not the product that are to blame for illegal use.
If I use a hammer to kill someone should the manufacturer be sued for my actions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

What facts do you think im wrong about? Congress did in fact pass a law in 2005 that prevents gun companies from being sued. No other companies have that protection. I'm done repeating myself .....
the facts are out there on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you've got it exactly backwards.....you are complaining as though the firearm manufactures enjoy some special privilege.. read the facts from the 2005 law it's not nearly as simple as you state...the reason for the "exemption" as you call it was because gun manufacturers were being treated "differently" by these cities and counties...these cities would never sue a car manufacturer because drivers misused their cars....the gun manufacturers sought protection....what would you have them do?

let me sum it up


You would like to see all companies held to the same standard as every other manufacturing business in the country. they were before the law suits

Why the exception?. because they weren't, they were being held to a different standard

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

read the facts from the 2005 law it's not nearly as simple as you state...the reason for the "exemption" as you call it was because gun manufacturers were being treated "differently" by these cities and counties...these cities would never sue a car manufacturer because drivers misused their cars....the gun manufacturers sought protection....what would you have them do?

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

no, the lawsuits were bullying tactics by thugs...comply or we'll put you out of business....I can quote a couple of mayors who said essentially that, in fact...of course that was their argument as destroying them through litigation was the stated goal

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by spence

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.

Yea, but that would just make it easier to tell which shops are selling guns that find their way into cop killers hands...

Oh wait.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.

How does the serial number on a gun prevent somebody from using it illegally ? The serial number could only be used to locate an owner if the police have that gun in hand. Chances are that gun was not purchased legally anyway .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

What facts do you think im wrong about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-all-lawsuits/

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.

[Nebe]

Sex Ed. Drivers Ed. Gun Ed.
Maybe they can rope it all together and watch Smokey and the Bandit ? :
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

It is an executive action which is a lot different than an order thankfully.

God help this country from all the numb nuts who have their heads in the sand.
Keep right on believing and telling yourselves that it's those rich republicans who are the bad guys. There seems to be no understanding here anymore
Did all the liberals not take history classes in school?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

If it doesn't matter then why do you keep responding? I am not a gun person but I am all for the right to carry. Your stereotypes are wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Thank you Ross for a coherent and educated response. This thread has demonstrated that not all gun owners are reckless and also perhaps that those who choose not to exercise their privilege to carry may not be cowards who deserve to be threatened. I have to admit that I had no idea that anybody with a permit could purchase an assault rifle. I am all for an amendment to this area of the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Thank you Ross for a coherent and educated response. This thread has demonstrated that not all gun owners are reckless and also perhaps that those who choose not to exercise their privilege to carry may not be cowards who deserve to be threatened. I have to admit that I had no idea that anybody with a permit could purchase an assault rifle. I am all for an amendment to this area of the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's an assault weapon genius ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[nightfighter]

Chris, the term "assault weapon" has been bandied about and misused on both side of the argument. This bill wants to also include any semi-automatic weapon capable of accepting a magazine of more than ten rounds. This would include many/most sidearms carried by LEOs... Are they assault weapons? Semi-automatic is simply a weapon that utilizes the energy from the expended cartridge to chamber a subsequent cartridge from the magazine. Can I buy a gun now with an extended magazine? Not in Mass. Do I have magazines manufactured and possessed in state before the ban, ie. 1994? Yes. And that is my right. If the weapon meets the standards of the state and fed, meaning that it is not all tricked out( with threaded barrel for example), and has the allowed number of foreign vs. domestic parts, it passes the test. A whole slew of kits are out there to build and add on, because people want a cool looking gun. This bill's authors would have me limited to .22 pea shooters. My point is if I am ready to put my finger inside the trigger guard, I do not want to be under gunned. While this bill leaves many solid weapons on the table, it is effectively putting the law abiding citizen at a considerable disadvantage when it comes to firepower. And that is not the intention of the 2nd Amendment.

Maybe they would rather we could only have flintlock muzzle loaders......

[Sea Dangles]

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

I appreciate your honesty .
It's a made up definition used to scare people .A license for automatic weapons , if that's what you mean , is not easy to get and subject to a more thorough federal back ground check .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's a made up definition used to scare people.

I never realized that. I thought it was just a very plainspoken way to describe a gun that has features designed and intended for combat over say hunting or self defense.

[nightfighter]

Originally Posted by spence

I never realized that. I thought it was just a very plainspoken way to describe a gun that has features designed and intended for combat over say hunting or self defense.

Not exactly. My understanding is that Hitler came up with the name Sturmgewehr 44 for the new improved German battle rifle. Loosely translated it is assault weapon, as he wanted it to be used to "storm" enemy positions. One of the first to have selective fire feature, which usually means safe, single/semiautomatic, or auto with 2 or 3 round bursts more so than full auto. Full auto can melt a barrel within two or three mags....

[spence]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

My understanding is that Hitler came up with the name Sturmgewehr 44 for the new improved German battle rifle. Loosely translated it is assault weapon, as he wanted it to be used to "storm" enemy positions.

Interesting how Hitler added the pistol grip and extended round magazine to make it look more scary

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I never realized that. I thought it was just a very plainspoken way to describe a gun that has features designed and intended for combat over say hunting or self defense.

Part of the problem is that misinformation gets propagated about what AR stands for in models like the AR15.......people think it stands for assault rifle, where it actually stands for the manufacturer of the original model......ArmaLite
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[OLD GOAT]

So what happened to the five year jail term in Massachusetts for having or using a gun without a license???
To hard on the lawyers or judges???

I have thought that to be law for thirty , to fifty years.
Five years in a tent city should straighten things out

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's a made up definition used to scare people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Repeat after me.... WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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.