• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturer Remington, lower court ruling overturned

ataraxia said:
I understand. Such visceral feelings are often cultural.
Click to expand...

I said philosophically, not emotionally. When you've a basic understanding of the Enlightenment and natural rights, perhaps you will be able to see my position.
 
ataraxia said:
Yeah I know. The subject changed a little. We even started talking about free speech and whether it's OK to have federal restrictions on it up above. It got a little ADD.

As far as the suing, I would look to see what happened to the tobacco industry. They were peddling tobacco to the public even after it was shown to be unsafe. Public health studies have been showing the same about assault weapons, and yet the gun lobby keeps marketing and pushing that stuff on the public. Should they be liable for marketing and selling something shown to be a public health hazard?

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.
Click to expand...

The tobacco industry was sued for deliberately lying to cover the risks. The gun industry isn't doing that.
 
ecofarm said:
I didn't click on the videos, but I'm gonna tell you what well regulated means. It means when one is dying in place to hold a line, one is trained and equipped and educated enough to believe in their cause and execute their duty with deadly efficiency until the last breath.

Well regulated means holds a line even when it is overrun. Well regulated does not break.
Click to expand...

Well, historically, the year after the ratification of the Second Amendment, Congress passed the militia acts of 1792. These Drew strict regulations on what well-regulated meant. It was passed by the same Congress that ratified the Second Amendment. They specified that all males between the ages of 18 and 45 wete to report for training twice a year, and specified exactly what kind of weapons and ammo they were to purchase. The militias were placed under the responsibility of the state legislature for training, and their ultimate command was under the commander in chief, the President of the United States. Those failing to show up for training, or follow orders, could be court-martialed.

It was not long before George Washington used his power as commander-in-chief to draw up the militias to put down a tax rebellion in Pennsylvania.

That’s well regulated.
 
ataraxia said:
Well, historically, the year after the ratification of the Second Amendment, Congress passed the militia acts of 1792. These Drew strict regulations on what well-regulated meant. It was passed by the same Congress that ratified the Second Amendment. They specified that all males between the ages of 18 and 45 wete to report for training twice a year, and specified exactly what kind of weapons and ammo they were to purchase. The militias were placed under the responsibility of the state legislature for training, and their ultimate command was under the commander in chief, the President of the United States. Those failing to show up for training, or follow orders, could be court-martialed.

It was not long before George Washington used his power as commander-in-chief to draw up the militias to put down a tax rebellion in Pennsylvania.

That’s well regulated.
Click to expand...

Laughable.

I tried to reach you. I've been cordial. Good day.
 
Maccabee said:
The tobacco industry was sued for deliberately lying to cover the risks. The gun industry isn't doing that.
Click to expand...

The tobacco industry was trying to cover up the science to sell a product. The gun dentistry is claiming their guns make us safe, which is not it all supported by the science, and even contradicted by most of it. They know this, and keep pushing misinformation about the product anyway.
 
ataraxia said:
The tobacco industry was trying to cover up the science to sell a product. The gun dentistry is claiming their guns make us safe, which is not it all supported by the science, and even contradicted by most of it. They know this, and keep pushing misinformation about the product anyway.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Firearms are used successfully in self defense at least 500,000 times a year and that is supported by the CDC. Victims of attempted violent crimes are less likely to be hurt if they have a firearm than those without a firearm.
 
ataraxia said:
Yeah sure. But I wouldn't use the Constitution to argue for such restrictions.

It's clear you are OK with certain restrictions. It's OK on the right to infringe on some rights to arms. Just not the ones you personally like. Am I right?
Click to expand...

NOpe, its not ok to infringe on the ones the founders protected with the second amendment and under the tenth amendment, most other federal bans are suspect though weapons that have international or interstate implications clearly create federal jurisdiction.
 
Maccabee said:
I disagree. Firearms are used successfully in self defense at least 500,000 times a year and that is supported by the CDC. Victims of attempted violent crimes are less likely to be hurt if they have a firearm than those without a firearm.
Click to expand...

The doctors and others trying to ban cigarettes are not smokers nor are the government regulators issued cigarettes.
 
ataraxia said:
Firearms? Nukes are not on sale at your local Walmart. That is not because of state law.

Free speech? There are numerous federal restrictions on free speech, including:



(cont'd on next post)
Click to expand...

those are ACTIONS that harm others. I am not prohibited from calling say a child molester a "child molester" (in other words I POSSESS that ability) even though if I call someone a child molester when I have no reasonable basis to say that, I can be liable to the person I defamed or slandered.
 
ataraxia said:
Gun manufacturers are marketing the slogan that you need guns to keep you safe. The studies on it have not shown that, and if anything, have shown quite the opposite: the more guns, the more violent crime.

So they are deliberately peddling misinformation and confusion to sell a product. Seems to me that's not that different from the tobacco industry after all.
Click to expand...

You're wrong because I stopped a mugging with a firearm-a firearm did keep me safe. As they have in millions of cases over the years. Cigarettes on the other hand, harm those who use them
 
TurtleDude said:
You're wrong because I stopped a mugging with a firearm-a firearm did keep me safe. As they have in millions of cases over the years. Cigarettes on the other hand, harm those who use them
Click to expand...

There are lots and lots of guns and they are used defensively in war zones too. Doesn’t mean that people are safer there.

The studies were showing that the more guns there are, the more of a gun culture, and the more violence. There are lots of reasons this happens. One, for example, is that many men who have a gun have a Rise in testosterone levels and aggressive behavior. Put a whole lot of them together, and you can imagine the result.

There’s a reason why the NRA lobbied to ban further research in this area, and was placing gag orders on physicians to keep them from discussing the results.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
There are lots and lots of guns and they are used defensively in war zones too. Doesn’t mean that people are safer there.

The studies were showing that the more guns there are, the more of a gun culture, and the more violence. There are lots of reasons this happens. One, for example, is that many men who have a gun have a Rise in testosterone levels and aggressive behavior. Put a whole lot of them together, and you can imagine the result.

There’s a reason why the NRA lobbied to ban further research in this area, and was placing gag orders on physicians to keep them from discussing the results.
Click to expand...

you are confusing a macro and micro issue. The NRA lobbied to ban our tax dollars being used for PROPAGANDA.
 
Maccabee said:
Then to use your logic, car makers make their cars to break the speed limit and thus are liable if someone decides to go 100 mph in a residential street.




How am I changing the subject?
Click to expand...
Because you are talking about cars when the subject is guns.
 
daeler said:
It doesn't matter what they are made for, it matters that the company follow regulations when making the item. What it is made for should not enter in to the discussion.

Our Society could function without gasoline, they are already making all electric cars and trucks. electric lawnmowers, electric motorcycles. Gasoline is not necessary any longer. It might be bad for the ozone layer.

Guns as made by legal manufacturers are not intended to kill people in a building as a legitimate use of the product. That is illegal and should be the fault of the perpetrator not the person who made the tool following federal regulations.

My comparison was not off unless it made too much sense and you just want it to be.

if someone makes a tool following all the federal regulations are they at fault if someone else commits a crime with that tool?
Click to expand...

Gun manufacturers make a gun that fires a bullet. That is what guns do when they work properly.

Guns are completely intended to kill people. That is one of their intended uses.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
We’re getting far away from the central conversation. You assert that PLCAA grants special protections to firearms manufacturers, and I say that PLCAA does not grant special protections to firearms manufacturers.

We’ve both spent a (more than) a fair amount of time defending our positions and neither of us is budging, which is fine. We generally do see eye to eye on most of the discussions here and maintained mutual respect during this debate. Can’t ask for more than that. I recommend we allow this dead horse be allowed to Rest In Peace and move on. :cheers:
Click to expand...

You have a good evening my friend.
 
haymarket said:
Because you are talking about cars when the subject is guns.
Click to expand...

I'm using cars as analogy to illustrate the logic, or lack thereof, of your argument. There's nothing wrong with that.
 
Maccabee said:
I'm using cars as analogy to illustrate the logic, or lack thereof, of your argument. There's nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Which is wrong as they are two different things and the subject is guns.
 
haymarket said:
Which is wrong as they are two different things and the subject is guns.
Click to expand...

That's kinda the point. by using a different item for my analogy, I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic when applied to other things. If you don't like it, feel free to not respond to me because I will continue to use the analogy.
 
Maccabee said:
That's kinda the point. by using a different item for my analogy, I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic when applied to other things. If you don't like it, feel free to not respond to me because I will continue to use the analogy.
Click to expand...

It has already been pointed out why the analogy fails. Please go back and read.

You see, its not LIKE anything. They are two different things. Guns and carfare not the same. They are very different. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that they are similar because they are not.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are confusing a macro and micro issue. The NRA lobbied to ban our tax dollars being used for PROPAGANDA.
Click to expand...

Why is it “propaganda”? Because you didn’t like the results?
 
haymarket said:
Gun manufacturers make a gun that fires a bullet. That is what guns do when they work properly.

Guns are completely intended to kill people. That is one of their intended uses.
Click to expand...

In a lawsuit that doesn't matter.
 
daeler said:
In a lawsuit that doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Not after the federal law in 2005 it doesn't matter. You can thank Bush and Congress for that.
 
ataraxia said:
Trying to decide where to draw the line at what kind of arms a civilian populace can have, whether the line is drawn at semiautomatic, full autos, artillery, or nuclear weapons, is not oppression.
Click to expand...

It is if its done without the consent of the states according to the law. You cant just ignore it when its inconvenient. And doing so allows all sort of other illegal activities by the federal govt, like banning weed, droning american citizens, speech zones, seizure of property to build malls, and on and on.
 
haymarket said:
Not after the federal law in 2005 it doesn't matter. You can thank Bush and Congress for that.
Click to expand...

Again, That law just took emotion out of the lawsuits. Lawsuits should be about logic not emotion.

You wouldn't sue a car company for the car driving at 120 mph.

If you don't like the laws work on changing those because if you try to circumvent them then others will do the same thing in ways that cause problems for you.
 
jonny5 said:
It is if its done without the consent of the states according to the law. You cant just ignore it when its inconvenient. And doing so allows all sort of other illegal activities by the federal govt, like banning weed, droning american citizens, speech zones, seizure of property to build malls, and on and on.
Click to expand...

OK, I’ll buy that. But the idea that you can’t ever do anything because it would be unconstitutional is clearly not valid either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom