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

[Fledermaus]

Loss of human lives are NOT frivolous.

That is your own opinion because you are on the side of the gun companies. The SCOTUS has said otherwise.

Who said the loss of lives was frivolous?

No one.

 

[zsu2357]

I honestly am not familiar with that post nor that argument.

As I said I wasn't sure who said it. Wasn't blaming or saying you did.Do you recall seeing it?

 

[CLAX1911]

Treating all companies by the same standards is the OPPOSITE of unequal treatment.

Gun manufacturers need to law to make sure they are treated by the same standard otherwise we have malicious litigation.

Perhaps you can explain why you favor special protective shield laws for gun makers?

they are unfairly targeted by litigators that have political axs to grind.

 

[Rich2018]

My son when he was 16 made a functioning semi automatic pistol using the tools we have in our barn. Totally legal. (unless he tries to sell it since it has no serial number)...

From simple blocks of metal ?

I somehow doubt that..at least nothing to compare with a modern manufactured hand gun.

...as far as smuggling through a metal detector...

Oh wow, I knew the TSA on minimum wage were poor but not THAT poor

I guess the TSA would have to be improved.

They should really spot a gun on an x-ray. Hopefully searches on inbound flights are better

...yep..point? They got guns..didn't they...

Terrorist organisations tend to have international support and supply organisations

That said, a recent terrorist attack, in central London, by Islamic fanatics was carried out with knives because the couldn't get guns

...perhaps they figured that they could create more terror for longer considering that there would not be the sound of gun fire.

Ah you mean they were like Ninja terrorists.


When has a terrorist or mass shooter ever preferred a knife to an automatic rifle ?

 

[Chillfolks]

From simple blocks of metal ?

I somehow doubt that..at least nothing to compare with a modern manufactured hand gun.

Why do you find it so hard to beleive? A milling machine can be purchased for under a thousand. Then all it takes is a little knowledge, practice time, and skill. The same tooling and machinery those factors use can be bought second hand for reasonable prices. Mechanically knowledge people build all kinds of products out of backyard shops from cars, boats, airplanes, motorcycles, furniture etc.. that are mass produced in factories. Why do you think a firearm is out of peoples skills and abilities.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why do you find it so hard to beleive? A milling machine can be purchased for under a thousand. Then all it takes is a little knowledge, practice time, and skill. The same tooling and machinery those factors use can be bought second hand for reasonable prices. Mechanically knowledge people build all kinds of products out of backyard shops from cars, boats, airplanes, motorcycles, furniture etc.. that are mass produced in factories. Why do you think a firearm is out of peoples skills and abilities.

my late grandfather was a master designer and inventor of milling machines. He had a complete machine shop in his workshop where he often would work on designs that were later produced by the company he was the chief designer and later VP of. Some of the machine tools he designed were essential in WWII to make browning machine guns, M3 Grease guns, Inland MI carbines and other then state of the art small arms. He died before I really started shooting competitively but my father-also an engineer at another company-noted his father in law (my grandfather) had the all the tools necessary to make sten guns or M3 grease guns and several other submachine guns. In Pakistan, teenagers with anvils, files and a dremel type tool, turn out things like BARs or AK style fully automatic assault rifles in numerous workshops

 

[TurtleDude]

Why do you find it so hard to beleive? A milling machine can be purchased for under a thousand. Then all it takes is a little knowledge, practice time, and skill. The same tooling and machinery those factors use can be bought second hand for reasonable prices. Mechanically knowledge people build all kinds of products out of backyard shops from cars, boats, airplanes, motorcycles, furniture etc.. that are mass produced in factories. Why do you think a firearm is out of peoples skills and abilities.

Lots of people have more sophisticated machines in home workshops than what were used to make the Thompson SMG or the Maxim machine gun with. And with the aerospace industry constantly buying newer and more sophisticated CNC machine tools, the ones they cast off are becoming less and less expensive for hobbyists to obtain. Those things are far more sophisticated than what the companies that were making machine guns with in WWII

 

[Chillfolks]

Lots of people have more sophisticated machines in home workshops than what were used to make the Thompson SMG or the Maxim machine gun with. And with the aerospace industry constantly buying newer and more sophisticated CNC machine tools, the ones they cast off are becoming less and less expensive for hobbyists to obtain. Those things are far more sophisticated than what the companies that were making machine guns with in WWII

Have you ever been to the Wright Brothers museum in Kitty Hawk?
Anyway the propeller they designed was about 70 percent efficient. The propellers today with all our computing power are about 90 percent efficient. Not a huge jump IMO. Just shows how good a backyard tinkering person can be with basic tools and a little skill.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

You have presented no evidence of either. And you have presented no evidence that any other country I mentioned is any different in regards to people and these cracks you mention.

Well, it is self evident.

If you want evidence of the weakness of America's social safety net, look at our homeless population. Look at the way our long-term unemployed do not get welfare checks over a long term. Look at the number of people who still don't have good health coverage, and face bankruptcy if they get seriously ill. Look at the way mentally ill are simply dumped on the streets without treatment instead of receiving care.

That is all you do.

That is incorrect. I've provided non-cherry-picked data.

And non-cherry-picked data proves that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

The NRA is a lobbying group. They have no enforcement power.

The NRA has the power to block the passage of federal laws that violate the Second Amendment.

What specifically in that opinion piece do you think negates the situation that exists in England, Canada, Japan and the USA?

I am not claiming that it negates any situation.

What it does is establish with non-cherry-picked data that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

 

[haymarket]

Yes we do.

Explain why gun manufacturers need a separate set of laws to protect them that places them in a protected class over other companies.

 

[haymarket]

As I said I wasn't sure who said it. Wasn't blaming or saying you did.Do you recall seeing it?

no I do not.

 

[haymarket]

Gun manufacturers need to law to make sure they are treated by the same standard otherwise we have malicious litigation.

they are unfairly targeted by litigators that have political axs to grind.

Protecting them with special laws IS THE OPPOSITE of treating them by the same standard as other companies.

If the suit has no merits, it will not succeed in court.

 

[haymarket]

Well, it is self evident.

In debate, claims about statistics from other countries are NOT self evident. You have been challenged to provide them. Please do so to stop with the unfounded claims that you cannot support.

The NRA has the power to block the passage of federal laws that violate the Second Amendment.

That is NOT the same as the NRA having enforcement power over the Second Amendment. You were wrong about that claim and now are trying to move the goalposts.

What it does is establish with non-cherry-picked data that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

You are comparing apples to cinder blocks. That is intellectually dishonest as well as making for really bad pies which hurt your teeth.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

In debate, claims about statistics from other countries are NOT self evident.

I didn't make a claim about social safety net statistics. The only claim about statistics that I made was on the subject of guns verses homicides. And I provided those statistics.

You have been challenged to provide them.

I have?

Well, here you go:
U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute

That is NOT the same as the NRA having enforcement power over the Second Amendment.

It is on the federal level.

You were wrong about that claim

Not really.

and now are trying to move the goalposts.

Well, maybe I should have clarified that I was referring to federal laws. But I thought it was self evident that we were talking about federal laws.

You are comparing apples to cinder blocks.

That is incorrect. I am providing unbiased data that is not the result of cherry picking.

That is intellectually dishonest as well as making for really bad pies which hurt your teeth.

That is incorrect. Using unbiased data that has not been cherry picked is not intellectually dishonest.

 

[haymarket]

I didn't make a claim about social safety net statistics.

If you cannot be honest about what you have written or alleged - there is not point in wasting one minute with you refuting anything else you have said when your opening sentence is so false.

Here is what you said in your post 452

Our social safety net is very weak, and people slip through the cracks all of the time.

So prove it with proper evidence. Compare England and Japan and Canada - which I mentioned as first world comparisons - and show us why they are inapt comparisons.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

If you cannot be honest about what you have written or alleged - there is not point in wasting one minute with you refuting anything else you have said when your opening sentence is so false.

I am completely honest, and my opening sentence is completely true.

So prove it with proper evidence. Compare England and Japan and Canada - which I mentioned as first world comparisons - and show us why they are inapt comparisons.

Already done in my previous post.

 

[haymarket]

I am completely honest, and my opening sentence is completely true.



Already done in my previous post.

What number of post did you claim to have done this?

 

[Rich2018]

Why do you find it so hard to beleive? A milling machine can be purchased for under a thousand. Then all it takes is a little knowledge, practice time, and skill. The same tooling and machinery those factors use can be bought second hand for reasonable prices. Mechanically knowledge people build all kinds of products out of backyard shops from cars, boats, airplanes, motorcycles, furniture etc.. that are mass produced in factories. Why do you think a firearm is out of peoples skills and abilities.

You'd have to have expensive machinery to copy an existing firearm to anything like a working gun, comparable to a factory made gun.

If it were possible to make a functional home made, I think we'd see them around

This is the level we're up to:


17 Homemade guns you have to see to believe (PHOTOS)

 

[CLAX1911]

Protecting them with special laws IS THE OPPOSITE of treating them by the same standard as other companies.

they can't be treated with the same standard, they are unequally targeted by malicious litigation.

If the suit has no merits, it will not succeed in court.

malicious litigation is not about succeeding in court.

 

[haymarket]

they can't be treated with the same standard, they are unequally targeted by malicious litigation.
malicious litigation is not about succeeding in court.

That is silly. If people are more than larger targets for getting sued they first need to look at what they themselves are doing to provoke this same suits.

It is utterly stupid to adopt procedures to protect companies which might get sued more than other companies. That is just plain dumb.

 

[Chillfolks]

You'd have to have expensive machinery to copy an existing firearm to anything like a working gun, comparable to a factory made gun.

If it were possible to make a functional home made, I think we'd see them around

This is the level we're up to:


17 Homemade guns you have to see to believe (PHOTOS)

Define expensive. Just because you’re unable to read a tape measure and have no ability to work with you’re hands doesn’t mean others can’t. Those fancy machines you know nothing about just make the job easier. Unlike you some of use use our hands for other things than besides playing with ourselves. Firearms have been made with basic machinery for more years than CNC have been used. The ability to machine parts is less about the machinery and more about the skills and abilities of the operator. Your ignorance is clouding your judgement.

 

[CLAX1911]

That is silly. If people are more than larger targets for getting sued they first need to look at what they themselves are doing to provoke this same suits.

so you support malicious litigation as long as it achieves the ends? So you're one of those types of people what are the ends justify the means.

I wonder how you would feel if hundreds of thousands of people just started bringing frivolous lawsuits against something like planned Parenthood until they just went bankrupt. Would you say they just shouldn't have been providing abortions?

Or is that somehow different?

It is utterly stupid to adopt procedures to protect companies which might get sued more than other companies. That is just plain dumb.

It's dumb because it stands in the way of your ends.

That's kind of a kindergartener argument he made here Haymarket. It's dumb because you don't get what you want. because people don't get to gather up their pitchforks and run people out of town it's dumb because people other than you have liberty.

We made laws with special protections for black people during the Civil Rights movement because they weren't treated equally like gun manufacturers.

 

[Lursa]

What I have a very good idea about is your firepower versus that of the government. It is so tiny that you would be a gnat next to an elephant.

Since you so poorly comprehended what you responded to, here it is spelled out clearly. Just took awhile since I had it on my home laptop.

Everytime I read this I wonder just how short-sighted and limited some peoples' thinking is.

There are tons of books out there...fiction and some even non-fiction...that describe ways to undermine the US govt in an active violent revolution, mostly through asymmetrical warfare means. Firearms are not close to the primary weapons. I wont go into details, the books are out there.

Do we wage war, today, with firearms? Expect to win wars using them? No. We use bombs and tanks, and espionage and infiltration and sabotage and hacking communications, etc etc etc.

But...who DOES carry firearms and why? Our soldiers do...for self-defense. To protect themselves and others in carrying out the war efforts.

It's the same reason American citizens should have every right to keep and carry firearms. Not for the act of overcoming tyranny (as written, there are many, better ways to do that)....but to protect themselves and their families if they are considered 'enemy combatants' in such a conflict. Or as they carry out other acts of war/rebellion against the govt. *Just like our soldiers.*

Our firearms are not, in this era, a tool for waging war. Now they are to protect any soldiers in such a war...just like our military today. But that's why discussions about 'if they have tanks, should citizens have tanks?' are just dumb. Same with using nukes there instead of tanks.

Of course I'm not saying any such rebellion is on the horizon, I'm just writing that there are plenty of ways to engage in that conflict and firearms will not be the primary weapons.

The FFs believed that guns in the hands of citizens discourage govt tyranny, by giving the people the means to defend themselves.
​

See that last sentence? The firearms "today" arent the means for overthrowing the govt...they are for what's explicit in that sentence.

 

[TurtleDude]

Since you so poorly comprehended what you responded to, here it is spelled out clearly. Just took awhile since I had it on my home laptop.

Everytime I read this I wonder just how short-sighted and limited some peoples' thinking is.

There are tons of books out there...fiction and some even non-fiction...that describe ways to undermine the US govt in an active violent revolution, mostly through asymmetrical warfare means. Firearms are not close to the primary weapons. I wont go into details, the books are out there.

Do we wage war, today, with firearms? Expect to win wars using them? No. We use bombs and tanks, and espionage and infiltration and sabotage and hacking communications, etc etc etc.

But...who DOES carry firearms and why? Our soldiers do...for self-defense. To protect themselves and others in carrying out the war efforts.

It's the same reason American citizens should have every right to keep and carry firearms. Not for the act of overcoming tyranny (as written, there are many, better ways to do that)....but to protect themselves and their families if they are considered 'enemy combatants' in such a conflict. Or as they carry out other acts of war/rebellion against the govt. *Just like our soldiers.*

Our firearms are not, in this era, a tool for waging war. Now they are to protect any soldiers in such a war...just like our military today. But that's why discussions about 'if they have tanks, should citizens have tanks?' are just dumb. Same with using nukes there instead of tanks.

Of course I'm not saying any such rebellion is on the horizon, I'm just writing that there are plenty of ways to engage in that conflict and firearms will not be the primary weapons.

The FFs believed that guns in the hands of citizens discourage govt tyranny, by giving the people the means to defend themselves.
​

See that last sentence? The firearms "today" arent the means for overthrowing the govt...they are for what's explicit in that sentence.

I see firearms for keeping the government from being dictatorial as akin to what I call the rattlesnake scenario. Suppose you are locked in a big room. No tools no weapons, maybe nothing but your clothes. Also in that room is a 6 foot diamond back rattlesnake-a snake not known to seek confrontations with humans. And you know you are going to be in that room for several hours. you have two choices-you leave that snake alone and avoid it-and you won't get hurt. Or you can attack it. Anyone of adult size can kill a rattlesnake by stepping on its back swiftly and grinding their foot. It will break the snake's back. but there is a good chance you will be bit. You might not die, but you will suffer some serious pain and perhaps some permanent damage. So the odds favor you leaving the snake alone.

 

[haymarket]

so you support malicious litigation as long as it achieves the ends?
We made laws with special protections for black people during the Civil Rights movement because they weren't treated equally like gun manufacturers.

I support the right of a citizen to file suit in court and be entitled to all the rights under that legal action.

You have not yet even tried to support your claim about gun manufacturers needing special protections. Are you going to do that?