• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

If you like other world fantasy, you can do much better with the LORD OF THE RINGS books. They are far more entertaining and it sounds like even more reality based that this stuff which seems all right wing wet dream delusions. And it sound like JRR Tolkien is a far better writer than these whack jobs you allude to.
 
haymarket said:
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?
Click to expand...
Laws protect gun manufacturers from malicious litigation.
 
Rich2018 said:
You'd have to have expensive machinery to copy an existing firearm to anything like a working gun, comparable to a factory made gun.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, the AK-47 was designed so it could be produced with ordinary machine shop tools.

There were a few really cheap submachine guns during WWII that I think were easy to produce as well.

It would be trivially easy to clandestinely produce something equivalent to a sawed off shotgun using ordinary machine tools.
 
haymarket said:
If you like other world fantasy, you can do much better with the LORD OF THE RINGS books. They are far more entertaining and it sounds like even more reality based that this stuff which seems all right wing wet dream delusions. And it sound like JRR Tolkien is a far better writer than these whack jobs you allude to.
Click to expand...

Nice story, but zero confronting anything in my post.

Reason: it's true.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
If I recall correctly, the AK-47 was designed so it could be produced with ordinary machine shop tools.

There were a few really cheap submachine guns during WWII that I think were easy to produce as well.

It would be trivially easy to clandestinely produce something equivalent to a sawed off shotgun using ordinary machine tools.
Click to expand...

My father, a low ranking NROTC officer in WWII, spent a few months on a ship before his brother's death over Okinawa sent him back home. While he was on that ship-which was at Pearl, he spent some time in the machine shop-where he was well trained in running things like milling machines and lathes since he grew up in a family of engineers and his father ran a company that made use of many milling machines, lathes, drill presses, punch presses etc. For reasons he never explained to me, someone on the vessel had a STEN GUN and my father and a couple of equally skilled shipmates were able to make a few without much effort using the supplies and machines onboard.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Post number 489.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to this?


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

Isn't the so called poverty rate shown there based on incomes in each country and the percentage of those who are half of the average?

So is it not possible that a poor person in the USA actually makes more than a person in another country NOT listed in poverty?

And what does any of this have to do with guns and lawsuits?
 
Lursa said:
Nice story, but zero confronting anything in my post.

Reason: it's true.
Click to expand...

You don't even have the sense to know when you were dealt with and dismissed.
 
haymarket said:
You don't even have the sense to know when you were dealt with and dismissed.
Click to expand...

And you don't have the sense to realize as you're hug up on Gun manufactures being sued, Sandy Hook(Or the new school that was built on site) is as vulnerable today as it was at the time of the tragedy

Great job!
 
Luther said:
And you don't have the sense to realize as you're hug up on Gun manufactures being sued, Sandy Hook(Or the new school that was built on site) is as vulnerable today as it was at the time of the tragedy

Great job!
Click to expand...

I am not hung up on anybody being sued. I just advocate the same equal rules for everyone and no special protections for any industry because it is a right wing cash cow.
 
haymarket said:
You don't even have the sense to know when you were dealt with and dismissed.
Click to expand...

LMAO...I refute one of your arguments, and you keep posting frustration but no actual counter arguments.

If I was 'dismissed,' you wouldnt be posting to me.

And if you could demonstrate my post was wrong, you would have.

As it is, I'm happy to have post 498 stand for any to consider.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
If I recall correctly, the AK-47 was designed so it could be produced with ordinary machine shop tools....
Click to expand...

In a factory with government support


...there were a few really cheap submachine guns during WWII that I think were easy to produce as well....
Click to expand...

Like the British STEN gun produced in Royal Ordnance factories with government support


...it would be trivially easy to clandestinely produce something equivalent to a sawed off shotgun using ordinary machine tools.
Click to expand...


Or just buy a factory manufactured shotgun as allowed by even the draconian British control laws.
 
Lursa said:
LMAO...I refute one of your arguments, and you keep posting frustration but no actual counter arguments.

If I was 'dismissed,' you wouldnt be posting to me.

And if you could demonstrate my post was wrong, you would have.

As it is, I'm happy to have post 498 stand for any to consider.
Click to expand...

I already pointed out the error of your post.
 
haymarket said:
I already pointed out the error of your post.
Click to expand...

You claimed it was false. Such a nice proclamation...completely unsupported or backed up.

Your "na huh" is not a counter argument.
 
Lursa said:
You claimed it was false. Such a nice proclamation...completely unsupported or backed up.

Your "na huh" is not a counter argument.
Click to expand...

I dealt with your post in 501.

In 501 you presented opinion that is simply not reality based and in no way, shape or form negates what I previously pointed out that the government could squash you if they wanted to so the idea of needing guns to defend yourself against the government is foolish and nonsensical.
 
haymarket said:
I dealt with your post in 501.

In 501 you presented opinion that is simply not reality based and in no way, shape or form negates what I previously pointed out that the government could squash you if they wanted to so the idea of needing guns to defend yourself against the government is foolish and nonsensical.
Click to expand...

My post is 100% factual and you didnt refute a single thing in it.

And it also explains why the bold is wrong. For example, if what you wrote was true, our govt wouldnt be supplying personal firearms to our soldiers to provide for their personal self-defense when they were helping wage war with other govts.

See? Just one example of how you're wrong.
 
Lursa said:
My post is 100% factual and you didnt refute a single thing in it.
Click to expand...

It is mere opinion - to which you certainly have right to subscribe to.
 
CLAX1911 said:
To what end would I present something? You are the one stating laws sould be removed.
Click to expand...

Present the verifiable evidence that lawsuits were unfairly targeting gun manufacturers and they thus needed special protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom