Kurt Schlichter proposes a reasoned compromise on gun control with the democrats.........

[Rigby5]

I've told you my idea.

Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued. You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.

Nonsense.
Gun sellers do nothing remotely illegal, can get sued or prosecuted if they do, and have very strict regulations and record keeping.
The only laws protecting anyone is gun makers, which is because they have nothing to do with individual sales, so there is no way they could possibly be liable for anything there.

 

[Rigby5]

Negligence. They sold a dangerous product to an unstable person.

And how are they supposed to know that a person is unstable?
They do the FBI background check, and if that is clear, they can sued if they don't sell.

 

[Rigby5]

Prosecutors are elected, and unless you want to pay your whole salary in taxes to lock up everyone, some people are going to get released.

We have 100 million people with police records. Do we lock them all up?

If we ended the illegal War on Drugs, then 50 million of them would never have been listed as criminals in the first place.

 

[Rigby5]

Uh, sorry. The courts have already ruled the police are under no obligation to protect you, personally.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia - 1981

Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I guess the question is, why are you guys so invested in mass shooters being able to do mass shootings?

You see, when I go to the airport, I have to get my shoes x-rayed and I have to go through a body scanner. I know damned well I have no intention of hijacking that aircraft, but it's a reasonable comprimise to make sure no one else does.

I find it annoying when I open a pill bottle and have to remove THREE safety seals, but I am also relieved that

When I applied for my last home loan, I really didn't like all the paperwork I had to submit, forgetting that this is the Sixth time I've gone through the mortgage process with my third home, and I haven't missed a payment in 35 years. But I like the security that they aren't going to have another bank collapse because they gave loans to people who shouldn't have had them.

But you tell a gun owner that, hey, maybe we are going to make sure we give you some extra scrutiny to make sure you aren't a nut who is going to shoot up a school, and listen to you guys howl.

You miss the whole point.
It is NOT that they do background checks.
No one complains about that.
But it is NOT supposed to be the feds.
That is illegal, as they have NOT been granted any jurisdiction over firearms in the Constitution.
And the feds are distant, corrupt, inaccessible, impossible to sue unless you are a millionaire, and unreliable.
If it was the local police, as with a concealed carry permit, there would be no problem at all.
No one minds local licensing and registration.
It is the federal bureaucracy and corruption they do not like.

 

[Rigby5]

You can already sue a bar for overserving someone who later gets into a drunk driving accident.

As for cars, I would have no problem handling guns like cars. Which means they should be licensed, registered, insured, and inspected on a regular basis.

View attachment 654507
"but, but, but...the founding fathers said I can have guns...."

Insurance is fraud.
Whenever you have to prepay, you lose all control over quality or cost.
Car insurance should be illegal, but they claim cars are a privilege instead of a right.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've told you my idea.

Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued. You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.

...shall not be infringed

 

[Rigby5]

The US has about the highest crime rate in the world, and we all know what causes crime.
It is injustice, lack of opportunity, like no public health care, unaffordable tuition, jobs all being offshored, no unions, a corrupt government with illegal things like the War on Drug, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, 3 strikes, etc.

 

[JoeB131]

We know what you think a woman's “damned place” is—as a disposable fucktoy to be used and discarded. You have never given any indication of being able to imagine more value in a female companion than that.

The very worst distortions that you come up with of what view you try to attribute to me of a woman's value as a companion are far better than yours, and my true view of my wife's value to me are very far past your capability to imagine.

Quite the contrary, I think she should be able to have any career she wants, to have control over her own body, and not be subjected to bad treatment at work... all things your party vehemently opposes.

I just don't believe in handing over half of my property to someone who is more than capable of earning her own property in a modern world.

 

[JoeB131]

...shall not be infringed

How would that infringe on your right to own a gun.

You will still be able to own a gun if someone is foolish enough to sell you one.
just if they sell it to you and you go off and slaughter a schoolroom of preschoolers, they should be held responsible.

 

[JoeB131]

You have no idea what you are talking about! An AR-15 is about as military grade as Cheerios showing up on a steakhouse menu!

I've seen an AR-15, and DAMN, it is identical to the M-16A1 that I carried when I was in the army.

I wonder if I could still field strip an M-16... It's been about 30 years.

 

[Blues Man]

I've seen an AR-15, and DAMN, it is identical to the M-16A1 that I carried when I was in the army.

I wonder if I could still field strip an M-16... It's been about 30 years.

OOHH it looks like the same gun but it doesn't PERFORM the same

The AR 15 is no fucking different than the Mini 14 but you all dont think those rifles are scary

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Quite the contrary, I think she should be able to have any career she wants, to have control over her own body, and not be subjected to bad treatment at work... all things your party vehemently opposes.

By “have control over her own body”, of course, what you mean is that you think she should have the right to murder her own child in cold blood.

Other than that, neither I, nor any mainstream part of Republicans/conservatives hold the views that you are trying to attribute to us.

As is nearly always the case, with you, you're flat-out lying, you know that you're lying, you know that we know that you're lying.

 

[JoeB131]

Nonsense.
Gun sellers do nothing remotely illegal, can get sued or prosecuted if they do, and have very strict regulations and record keeping.
The only laws protecting anyone is gun makers, which is because they have nothing to do with individual sales, so there is no way they could possibly be liable for anything there.

Bullshit.

Let's review WHY Congress passed that law. Congress passed that law in the aftermath of the DC Sniper shootings. The DC Snipers NEVER should have been allowed to buy guns. One of them was a minor, the other was a convicted felon, but the gun stores sold them guns and ammo anyway. Except instead of being slapped with a meaningless fine like the ATF normally does, the victims of these two guys sued the gun store and maker for negligence. AFTER that, Congress passed a law immunizing gun sellers and makers from liability.

Johnson v. Bull's Eye | Brady

We need common-sense gun safety policies to lay the groundwork for a future free from the fear of gun violence.

www.bradyunited.org

The snipers obtained their gun, a Bushmaster XM-15, from Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply, a gun store run in such a grossly negligent manner that guns routinely left the store without a record of the sale. Bull’s Eye claimed that it had no record of selling the snipers’ XM-15 when federal agents requested its sale documents

LAWSUIT​

On January 16, 2003, Brady filed suit against the snipers, Bull’s Eye, and Bushmaster. The lawsuit alleged that the store was responsible for the shootings due to its grossly negligent sales practices, which allowed the shooters to acquire the weapon. The suit also alleged that Bushmaster was accountable for continuing to supply the store despite years of audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) that found egregious violations. Lastly, the suit claimed that the defendants created a public nuisance by distributing and selling guns in such a grossly negligent manner.
After the trial court held that the dealer and manufacturer could be held liable for the shootings, the parties agreed to a settlement in a pre-trial mediation session: Bull’s Eye would pay $2 million to the families, and Bushmaster would pay $568,000 out of its insurance policy. As part of the settlement, Bushmaster agreed to reform its distribution practices and stated that it supported laws requiring licensing and ATF monitoring for firearms dealers. ATF later revoked Bull’s Eye’s license to sell guns.

Insurance is fraud.
Whenever you have to prepay, you lose all control over quality or cost.
Car insurance should be illegal, but they claim cars are a privilege instead of a right.

Uh, guy, I WANT the other guy to have insurance.

Now, I've had a run of bad luck, in that I've been in a couple of fender benders, and I am DAMNED glad I had insurance.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I just don't believe in handing over half of my property to someone who is more than capable of earning her own property in a modern world.

You want a prostitute, but you don't want to pay for it.

You've never given any indication that you think of companionship with women about anything other than sexual services and a financial burden. The true value of a wife, of a female companion and helpmate, is far beyond your capacity to imagine.

 

[JoeB131]

By “have control over her own body”, of course, what you mean is that you think she should have the right to murder her own child in cold blood.

Other than that, neither I, nor any mainstream part of Republicans/conservatives hold the views that you are trying to attribute to us.

Fetuses aren't people, and yes, you want to legislate what women do with their own bodies.

As for the others.

Your side opposed the Violence Against Women Act
Your side opposed the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act
your side opposed expansion of sexual harassment laws.

 

[JoeB131]

You want a prostitute, but you don't want to pay for it.

You've never given any indication that you think of companionship with women about anything other than sexual services and a financial burden. The true value of a wife, of a female companion and helpmate, is far beyond your capacity to imagine.

Yes, if you belong to a cult that regulates them to second class status, I guess.

Me, I looked at all the senior NCO's whose "companions" cheated on them when they were on deployment and then sued for divorce and got hooks into half their pensions.

Hard pass.

Frankly, marriage is an obsolete patriarchal institution, which is why half of them end in divorce.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Fetuses aren't people…

You can repeat that lie as loudly and as often as you will, but it will always be a lie.

…and yes, you want to legislate what women do with their own bodies.

If abortion was about the woman's own body, then she would be the one to die from it, and not her innocent child.

 

[JoeB131]

You can repeat that lie as loudly and as often as you will, but it will always be a lie.

Actually, it will always be a reality.

We don't hold funerals for miscarriages, we don't arrest women for smoking while pregnant... if we took your logic to it's conclusion, that fetuses are people, then they are people who have more rights than the other people they are inside, and frankly, that's just not workable.

If abortion was about the woman's own body, then she would be the one to die from it, and not her innocent child.

But that was the point, women DID die from abortions when they were illegal, which is why they were legalized. Because people who don't belong to crazy cults didn't think a woman should die for the sake of a kidney-bean sized lump of tissue that can be easily removed in an outpatient service.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes, if you belong to a cult that regulates them to second class status, I guess.

It's a good thing, then, that I do not have any association with any cult that takes any such position.

Frankly, marriage is an obsolete patriarchal institution, which is why half of them end in divorce.

Spoken as a pathetic nearly-sixty-year-old incel who doesn't have the capacity to imagine what it would like to be in a relationship with a woman as anything other than a disposable whore; and who, from that position keeps trying to paint me as a misogynist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How would that infringe on your right to own a gun.

You will still be able to own a gun if someone is foolish enough to sell you one.
just if they sell it to you and you go off and slaughter a schoolroom of preschoolers, they should be held responsible.

2A is the only thing holding back our homicidal Progressives, so, no thanks

...shall not be infringed