Democrats Move to Make Gun-Makers Liable for Gun Crimes

[HappyJoy]

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.

That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

The claim was that tobacco companies hid the dangers of their product, because liberal courts assumed people who smoked cigarettes had no idea it was harmful.

Everybody knows what guns do.

Does everyone? Also, by that time everyone knew what cigarettes did too.

Yes everybody knew. I started smoking as a child back in the early 70's. I was fully aware of it's addictive abilities and harmful physical effects.

You can't mean to tell me that people back then tried a cigarette, coughed their brains out, took a second puff with the same results, and said "This can't be bad for you!"

I'm just saying a company was sued by their customers who used their product correctly. I'm not for this suing of gun manufactures but the argument that people shouldn't be able to sue because they know the basic purpose of a gun isn't really a good argument. It sounds like you agree with that unless you want to change your answer now.

I was against the lawsuits in the tobacco case. It was brought forth by Al Gore. In fact, the lawyers in the case became overnight billionaire. They got a percentage of the claim. And let's not forget who trial lawyers contribute to come election time.

It's the same argument. People using the products as intended suing the manufacturer.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. There are bigger fish to fry at this point of the game. As for local gun laws, if those people are too stupid to vote out the legislators that inflicted their gun restrictions on the community, then they can live with them as far as I'm concerned, or appeal to the court system to get them removed.

On a national level though, guns have too much constitutional protections. But their rants also prove their Nazi approach, which is when they want to get around our laws or our rights, sue or tax entities into submission. It proves once again how anti-American Democrats really are.

I'm sorry Ray, I usually agree with you.
But in this case, I think you're being as naive as a Hershey Bar at a chocolate eating contest.

Our Constitution is at risk. All we need is a few elections and a few SCOTUS appointments to go the wrong way and our "Constitutional" rights can be swept away with a pen and a phone.
Have you so quickly forgotten ObamaCare and the Personal Mandate????

The US Constitution can only protect you to the extent YOU protect it" (meaning the American People).

Always remember Ray.....
"ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR EVIL MEN TO PREVAIL IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING"
Edmund Burke

And.....
"Freedom was NEVER Free, and "rights" are for those willing to make the sometimes ultimate sacrifices to EARN them."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.
That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

Show me the Amendment that guarantees your right to smoke cigarettes......waiting

Show me the amendment that guarantees you can own a gun under any condition.

Well, let's see. An assault rifle ban has been deemed to be Constitutional, so have back ground checks and not letting certain individuals own them. How did that happen?

I don't recall anybody challenging the assault weapon ban to the Supreme Court. I believe they refused to hear the case from the lower courts decision. But then again, hopefully we have a better group of justices today in the Supreme.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It's the same argument. People using the products as intended suing the manufacturer.

STUPID argument....and NO..it is not the same argument....
Here's why......

The use of a gun in a crime is not a product failure or false advertising etc.....it is a DELIBERATE HUMAN ACTION.

When a driver plows a car into a crowd, do you sue the car or the car manufacturer? NO. (You, probably)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. There are bigger fish to fry at this point of the game. As for local gun laws, if those people are too stupid to vote out the legislators that inflicted their gun restrictions on the community, then they can live with them as far as I'm concerned, or appeal to the court system to get them removed.

On a national level though, guns have too much constitutional protections. But their rants also prove their Nazi approach, which is when they want to get around our laws or our rights, sue or tax entities into submission. It proves once again how anti-American Democrats really are.

I'm sorry Ray, I usually agree with you.
But in this case, I think you're being as naive as a Hershey Bar at a chocolate eating contest.

Our Constitution is at risk. All we need is a few elections and a few SCOTUS appointments to go the wrong way and our "Constitutional" rights can be swept away with a pen and a phone.

The US Constitution can only protect you to the extent YOU protect it" (meaning the American People.

Always remember Ray.....
"ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR EVIL MEN TO PREVAIL IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING"
Edmund Burke

And.....
"Freedom was NEVER Free, and "rights" are for those willing to make the sometimes ultimate sacrifices to EARN them."

Understood, but I think the Supreme Court would rule against any serious attempt to disarm the public. We have a stronger court than we did years ago, but even years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that states have to allow CCW programs.

 

[rightwinger]

They are coo-conspirators

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I don't recall anybody challenging the assault weapon ban to the Supreme Court.

Exactly....and how pathetic was that?
Americans SHOULD have been livid that it was even up for judicial review. But....nope... not a peep as you say. So if it had gone the wrong way, what then would have been the People's weapon of choice? Muskets and handguns?

But then again, hopefully we have a better group of justices today in the Supreme.

"Hopefully" ????
"Hopefully we have a better group of Justices" ???? And what if We Do NOT?? You keep making my points precisely.

Imagine if the Founding Fathers had said "Well, hopefully the Brits will let us be" ???

With all due respect....
What exactly do you think the 2nd was all about ???

 

[rightwinger]

You make a weapon to kill people
You should be liable when it does

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Understood, but I think the Supreme Court would rule against any serious attempt to disarm the public. We have a stronger court than we did years ago, but even years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that states have to allow CCW programs.

Ray, how do we have a "stronger SCOTUS" ??

Kavanaugh has TWICE already voted against the 2nd Amendment.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You make a weapon to kill people
You should be liable when it does

WRONG...You make a gun to DEFEND INNOCENT PEOPLE.
Which was the intent of the 2nd, btw, if only you had learned any American History.

Pfffft...."you make a weapon to kill people" ?
SICK........That's the twisted thinking of the Left !

It's a weapon ONLY in War and the commission of a CRIME nitwit.

All other times is a DEFENSE TOOL...aka "Gun"

Guns can be good. Police carry them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't recall anybody challenging the assault weapon ban to the Supreme Court.

Exactly....and how pathetic was that?
Americans SHOULD have been livid that it was even up for judicial review. But....nope... not a peep as you say. So if it had gone the wrong way, what then would have been the People's weapon of choice? Muskets and handguns?

But then again, hopefully we have a better group of justices today in the Supreme.

"Hopefully" ????
"Hopefully we have a better group of Justices" ???? And what if We Do NOT?? You keep making my points precisely.

Imagine if the Founding Fathers had said "Well, hopefully the Brits will let us be" ???

With all due respect....
What exactly do you think the 2nd was all about ???

Regardless how much you protest, fight, take a stand, it all boils down to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh has been a surprising disappointment. But I'd still take a court of Kavanaugh's over a court full of Ginsburg's. To get a better court, we have to keep voting in conservative Presidents. To stop Democrats, you have to keep voting against them.

It's about all you can really do.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Regardless how much you protest, fight, take a stand, it all boils down to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh has been a surprising disappointment. But I'd still take a court of Kavanaugh's over a court full of Ginsburg's. To get a better court, we have to keep voting in conservative Presidents. To stop Democrats, you have to keep voting against them.
It's about all you can really do.

I do understand your point. Do you understand mine?

in Venezuela, they did keep voting against the "Democrats (left).....that's what happens when you're up against tyranny.
And it's exactly why we have a 2nd amendment.

What you are basically saying is that there is no need for a 2nd Amendment.....please think about it carefully.

This nation was NOT founded on a passive attitude of "Oh well" It was founded by strong men (and women) who said "No Fucking Way" PERIOD!
That seems to be missing today.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Regardless how much you protest, fight, take a stand, it all boils down to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh has been a surprising disappointment. But I'd still take a court of Kavanaugh's over a court full of Ginsburg's. To get a better court, we have to keep voting in conservative Presidents. To stop Democrats, you have to keep voting against them.
It's about all you can really do.

I do understand your point. Do you understand mine?

in Venezuela, they did keep voting against the "Democrats (left).....that's what happens when you're up against tyranny.
And it's exactly why we have a 2nd amendment.

What you are basically saying is that there is no need for a 2nd Amendment.....please think about it carefully.

This nation was NOT founded on a passive attitude of "Oh well" It was founded by strong men (and women) who said "No Fucking Way" PERIOD!
That seems to be missing today.

I never once said we don't need the second amendment. What I said is we need honest jurors to rule what the second amendment says and means. I also stated beyond that, we are pretty much helpless. We need a constitutional Supreme Court.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I never once said we don't need the second amendment. What I said is we need honest jurors to rule what the second amendment says and means. I also stated beyond that, we are pretty much helpless. We need a constitutional Supreme Court.

Yeah, Ray...you did. in essence.

We need.....we need....we need....
We NEED educated smart voters....is that what we're getting more of?
We NEED justice and no corruption....are we getting that?
We NEED Constitutional Judges.....are we getting that?

And again, you are reinforcing my point and don't realize it.

You keep saying "We Need Honest Jurors" (do you mean judges?).......but is that what we keep actually getting?

You said....."Beyond that we are pretty much helpless"
Ok, then if we are pretty much helpless, then explain in your POV why we need a 2nd Amendment and why it was even included (if we're helpless)?
"We are pretty much helpless" are those, 'We GOT em" words Dictators love to hear.

You said...."We need a Constitutional Supreme Court"
Well, yeah!! We do. But do we actually GET that? Do you really believe that as these indoctrinated young snowflakes become voters it will get better?

Here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say about it......

"Occasionally the Tree of Liberty Must Be Refreshed With the Blood of Tyrants and Patriots"
Thomas Jefferson

I'm telling you that you are advocating exactly the same thing as the Right did in Venezuela before they became a dictatorship. Passive acceptance.
They needed a LOT of things that they never got....so they eventually got a Dictator. We're on a similar path.

My overall point is that We The People are digging our own hole to continue to have faith in the corrupt system that obviously is not taking us in the right direction.
And that We The People are failing to realize that our lack of unity and action against what's happening is a dead end, similar to Venezuela.

I'm not advocating an armed uprising. I'm advocating that the American People are not doing NEAR enough and are not passionate about their freedom.
Instead, they are waiting on salvation delivered by an obviously corrupted system. A proven losing strategy.

 

[NoVote]

Holding the gun makers liable has been tried before. Stupidity needs to be tested for every so often, so they trot out things like this and count the ones who fall for it. Watch for it now that you are aware. I think the last time they used this one was in the 70's.

 

[Rustic]

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.
That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

Show me the Amendment that guarantees your right to smoke cigarettes......waiting

Show me the amendment that guarantees you can own a gun under any condition.

Lol
Firearm ownership is an god given right, Unless someone fucks it up for themselves.
No one has a right to vehicle ownership, no one has a right to alcohol consumption or cigarette purchase, No one has a right to homeownership...

Firearm ownership is an absolute right...

 

[Rustic]

Let's change that from cars to cigarettes. I believe they ponied up some money.
That being said, I'm not really for this legislation.

Show me the Amendment that guarantees your right to smoke cigarettes......waiting

Show me the amendment that guarantees you can own a gun under any condition.

Well, let's see. An assault rifle ban has been deemed to be Constitutional, so have back ground checks and not letting certain individuals own them. How did that happen?

Lol
Well, first off Nit-witted progressives obviously have no idea what an so-called called “assault rifle” is. Maybe they need to look up the word nomenclature? Accuracy is not their thing I guess…

Anyone with a speck of common sense can see ARs and the like are just sporting rifles... Nothing more nothing less.

It’s a commonsense thing… Progressives just don’t understand

 

[Rustic]

You make a weapon to kill people
You should be liable when it does

Lol
People kill people, not firearms… Dumbass

 

[Claudette]

If they can go after guns then they should be able to go after cars.

How many people are killed in car accidents every year?? Its gotta be the cars fault. Not the person driving it.

Just like guns. The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon.

They should let us all know when they can regulate and control dipshits who use guns to commit crimes.

Another load of horse shit brought to you by professional politicians who think voters are dumber than dirt.

 

[Claudette]

You make a weapon to kill people
You should be liable when it does

And you are an idiot. Without the person using it the gun is a hunk of metal. You gonna hold the gun accountable for what the person using it does?? If so you are a bigger idiot than you seen to be.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon.

Let us know when you find a way to regulate and control dipshits who use guns to commit crimes.