• 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!

SCOTUS Allos Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms to Proceed

Lursa said:
To who?
Click to expand...

Above my paygrade, but I'd limit it first through a real background check with real teeth, like going to jail for lying on the application.
 
mrjurrs said:
Above my paygrade, but I'd limit it first through a real background check with real teeth, like going to jail for lying on the application.
Click to expand...

What's the background check looking for, that's not already being covered?

And many states, including mine, have that penalty...for even applying for a background check for a purchase...but it's rarely enforced.

We have plenty of gun laws....IMO we need to actually enforce the ones we have before making more.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You seem to be ignoring that the killing of those school children was also illegal. Keep on playing your ignorant word games.
Click to expand...

Killing the students is the crime, not firing the gun.
 
Lursa said:
And someone that uses a firearm to murder is breaking the law, and liable.

You made no distinction.
Click to expand...

Murder is the crime, not the firing of the gun.
 
zsu2357 said:
And if the driver of the vehicle kills someone do any surviving family members get too sue the manufacturer? We'll assume the drivers insurance lapsed or he didn't have any. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

I don't see that the car manufacturer is responsible if the car is being used as designed. The drivers lack of means has no impact on the car makers liability. Care to try again?
 
Lursa said:
It is necessary. Are you claiming that no one will ever attack me, my family, or someone near me in public?

Personal violence perpetrated against the innocent is an established fact.
Click to expand...

Guns are "necessary" only because of the existence of other guns. Other cultures do very nicely without them and have much lower murder and crime rates as a result.

If you want a gun for self defense, I support your right to have one because the US Constitution provides you with that right.
 
mrjurrs said:
Above my paygrade, but I'd limit it first through a real background check with real teeth, like going to jail for lying on the application.
Click to expand...

that already is the law right now. It just isn't enforced. every gun store I have been in, and at gun shows I have attended, have posters that say Don't lie for the other guy which warns against straw purchasers. And the Form 4473 is a federal affidavit-if you lie on it by claiming you are not a prohibited person-and you are-you are subject to felony perjury

“Don’t Lie for the Other Guy” is a Tool Box for Retailers, Not a Hammer to be Used Against Them • NSSF

images-2.jpeg
 
Lursa said:
How is that an answer to this conversation? It's not, it's merely a diversion.

The reality is, that design for killing is intended to save lives, protect people, provide food. Misuse is in the hands of the operator...and that is not something the manufacturer is responsible for.
Click to expand...

Saving lives from others who have a gun or might have a gun.
 
Fledermaus said:
Did the Pinto explode by design?

No.

So what did the rifle do that would be covered under liability laws?
Click to expand...

The Pinto's design was bad, it was therefore working as designed. Bad design equals product liability.
 
mrjurrs said:
I don't see that the car manufacturer is responsible if the car is being used as designed. The drivers lack of means has no impact on the car makers liability. Care to try again?
Click to expand...

we all agree that Mrs Lanza bought the rifle legally after a background check etc. What exactly did Bushmaster do that suggests any malfeasance on its part given it sold the rifle to a licensed dealer pursuant to federal and state laws
 
mrjurrs said:
Not quite, a vehicle moving at above posted speeds is breaking a law. That changes who is liable, thanks for playing.
Click to expand...
mrjurrs said:
Murder is the crime, not the firing of the gun.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And thus neither car nor gun manufacturers should be held liable when someone uses their products to commit a crime.
 
haymarket said:
Guns are "necessary" only because of the existence of other guns. Other cultures do very nicely without them and have much lower murder and crime rates as a result.

If you want a gun for self defense, I support your right to have one because the US Constitution provides you with that right.
Click to expand...

Still wrong. People in all other cultures are innocent victims of personal crimes, you even acknowledge this. Many fewer of them have guns to protect themselves or their families and personally owned guns by law abiding citizens dont add to the crime rate.

It doesnt mean that the attacks and harm dont occur, that's ridiculous.
 
haymarket said:
Saving lives from others who have a gun or might have a gun.
Click to expand...

Or who might have a baseball bat or be about to rape them or have knife or.....................:roll:
 
haymarket said:
Which line are you referring to? Simply provide it.
Click to expand...

Obviously you are just avoiding it. If you cant identify the last sentence in a post, you would also be incapable of even being on the Internet.
 
mrjurrs said:
Killing the students is the crime, not firing the gun.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so a company making a gun which fires (a requirement to get folks to buy one) has nothing to do with the decision of any person to commit murder.
 
chuckiechan said:
I see a wider lawsuit application in the way cars are advertised, morphing from formula one racers to you the buyer in your new whatever becoming a Grand Prix badass flying through town.

Are movies next?
Click to expand...

True, and that's why I want to see what happens here.

I am all for corporate accountability, but where does this sort of thing end?
 
Lursa said:
All guns have that potential.

As for misleading advertising, I think it's been pointed out that at its most basic, the 2A is about using firearms in a military capacity...to protect citizens from govts out of control.

However I did read that there are specific laws in CT regarding this and I cant speak to those since I dont know them. I do know tho, that even tho CT might have some specific laws, they may not stand up to Constitutional (federal) scrutiny.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the law plaintiffs are using doesn't deal with guns specifically, but is using a law that protects consumers from deceptive advertising. That would mean that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with this case.
 
mrjurrs said:
It is my understanding that the law plaintiffs are using doesn't deal with guns specifically, but is using a law that protects consumers from deceptive advertising. That would mean that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with this case.
Click to expand...

since the shooter did not obtain the gun through normal sales, the deceptive advertising angle is bogus
 
Lursa said:
What's the background check looking for, that's not already being covered?

And many states, including mine, have that penalty...for even applying for a background check for a purchase...but it's rarely enforced.

We have plenty of gun laws....IMO we need to actually enforce the ones we have before making more.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest that the gun laws we have are not working and we need to take a new tact. The first thing I'd do is change the background check to being finished when all the information is gathered, not some short deadline that favors the gun purchaser. I'd also deny guns to anyone with a domestic violence incident in their past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom