Want ONE simple law to help curb mass-shootings?

[Auld Phart]

Actually, we should always follow what lobbyists push (aka, BRIBE) congress to do (and in some instance, NOT to do) when searching for legislation to curb an abuse of the common welfare and good.

Regarding mass murders, we know that gun manufacturers (and their bought puppet, the NRA) fought and won the right to NOT be sued for the misuse of their deadly products.

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

You are dumb as the come! Regardless of the rhetoric of the right, guns are made and designed to be a deadly weapon. Regardless if it is used in self-defense, a gun is designed to kill a living target or cause damage to a non-living target! It is simple as that. This is a great law. Without it douches like the ACLU would have simply "litigated" away the second amendment or they would have done what Germany does, only allow the RICH to own guns! So you answer is complete gun control. So just admit it.


Again both sides in the gun control debate are wrong. Some things should be done:
(1) In Illinois there is background check, registry and issuance of a FOID card. This should be at the Federal level.
(2) End gun shows. Oh the humanity, PLEASE, guns are deadly weapons and should be treated as such.
(3) The FOID system should be actively linked to doctor records, psyche ward records and admittance to mental wards, ER or mental wards. HIPAA/HITECH have exceptions for the sharing or Personal Health Information to law enforcement bodies in accordance with Federal regulation.
(4) Every sale must go through a background check.
(5) Make owners vicarious liable for crimes committed via the use of their guns.

This is just a brainstormed listed, but we need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

This is just a brainstormed listed, but we need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

Never happen.

Won't be able to keep them out of the hands of criminals either.

At least, not until the 2nd Amendment is repealed

 

[LOki]

Again both sides in the gun control debate are wrong. Some things should be done:
(1) In Illinois there is background check, registry and issuance of a FOID card. This should be at the Federal level.

Why?

1. Background checks are ineffective for OBVIOUS reasons.
2. Gun owner registration is ineffective AND unconstitutional for OBVIOUS reasons.
3. Requiring folks to identify themselves as gun owners is ineffective AND unconstitutional AND morally repugnant for OBVIOUS reasons.

Why should ANY of these steps be taken?

(2) End gun shows. Oh the humanity, PLEASE, guns are deadly weapons and should be treated as such.

Why? You object to the 2nd Amendment, now you object to the first,... what other natural, civil, and/or constitutionally protected rights do you object to? Fair and speedy trial? Seems so. Protection against unreasonable search and seizure? Seems likely. Due process? Seems so. How about protection from cruel and unusual punishment? Are you going to object to that? How about quartering soldiers in time of peace?

(3) The FOID system should be actively linked to doctor records, psyche ward records and admittance to mental wards, ER or mental wards. HIPAA/HITECH have exceptions for the sharing or Personal Health Information to law enforcement bodies in accordance with Federal regulation.

Ah well, there goes due process. Why not just treat all gun owners as State criminals; tatoo serial numbers on them, require them to wear a big scarlet 2 on their State issued uniform (specially designed to prevent concealment of arms), and send them to the ovens to satisfy your particular final solution?

(4) Every sale must go through a background check.

Why? What possible effect could this have on the black market for guns? Be specific.

(5) Make owners vicarious liable for crimes committed via the use of their guns.

Why?

Why not make them responsible for earthquakes, rush hour traffic, and stale popcorn while you're at it?

This is just a brainstormed listed, but we need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

Brainstorm? Try Brainfart, Pumpkin.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, we should always follow what lobbyists push (aka, BRIBE) congress to do (and in some instance, NOT to do) when searching for legislation to curb an abuse of the common welfare and good.

Regarding mass murders, we know that gun manufacturers (and their bought puppet, the NRA) fought and won the right to NOT be sued for the misuse of their deadly products.

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

Well, when you get done with the first draft of your Constitutional Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment, do post it for us to peruse.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And if you sell your car to some clown who later drives drunk and kills someone, the victim's family should be able to sue YOU for millions in damages, right???

Pretty dumb response (as always)......Name another manufacturer...beside gun ones......who CANNOT be sued by consumers?

Name the manufacturer who can be sued, not for products that are defective, but for products that are subsequently used by people to break laws. We'll wait.

 

[2aguy]

Actually, we should always follow what lobbyists push (aka, BRIBE) congress to do (and in some instance, NOT to do) when searching for legislation to curb an abuse of the common welfare and good.

Regarding mass murders, we know that gun manufacturers (and their bought puppet, the NRA) fought and won the right to NOT be sued for the misuse of their deadly products.

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

You are dumb as the come! Regardless of the rhetoric of the right, guns are made and designed to be a deadly weapon. Regardless if it is used in self-defense, a gun is designed to kill a living target or cause damage to a non-living target! It is simple as that. This is a great law. Without it douches like the ACLU would have simply "litigated" away the second amendment or they would have done what Germany does, only allow the RICH to own guns! So you answer is complete gun control. So just admit it.


Again both sides in the gun control debate are wrong. Some things should be done:
(1) In Illinois there is background check, registry and issuance of a FOID card. This should be at the Federal level.
(2) End gun shows. Oh the humanity, PLEASE, guns are deadly weapons and should be treated as such.
(3) The FOID system should be actively linked to doctor records, psyche ward records and admittance to mental wards, ER or mental wards. HIPAA/HITECH have exceptions for the sharing or Personal Health Information to law enforcement bodies in accordance with Federal regulation.
(4) Every sale must go through a background check.
(5) Make owners vicarious liable for crimes committed via the use of their guns.

This is just a brainstormed listed, but we need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

1) Sorry, Illinois does have background checks and the foid...and the gun murder rate in chicago is through the roof....they don't stop criminals from getting guns.

2) Gun shows are not the problem...stop listening to anti gun extremists....gun shows count for about 1% of all illegal gun transactions....

3) no...the FOID should not be linked to the mental health system...we need to actually think about how to do this or the anti gunners will force any gun owners to get cleared by a doctor before they get a gun....and the anti gunners will use any mental health issue, including seein a grief counselor or insomnia to ban gun ownership

4) Please explain how background checks actually work....criminals get their guns by stealing them...bypassing background checks......using someone with a clean record to buy the gun for them...bypassing background checks....or buying them from another criminal who has already gotten them illegally.....bypassing background checks..

Background checks only affect normal gun owners...and normal gun owners aren't shooting people....

5) owners already are...if they shoot the wrong person they can be sued and can often be held criminally liable....

Please....I know you just hear the words "Background Checks" and think that means something important...please explain how they stop criminals...I have already told you how they don't.....can you explain why we need them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Booze manufacturers for providing alcohol to drunk drivers.

Under “dram shop” laws, a bar, restaurant, liquor store, or other licensed vendor of alcohol may find itself facing a civil lawsuit for damages if they sell alcohol to someone who goes on to injure a third party in an alcohol-related accident.

IF that person was impaired and served anyway. Simply selling a sober person a beer and then having them get into a wreck because they were texting or switching the radio or just a shitty driver isn't enough.

 

[2aguy]

Again...the best way to ensure felons can't buy guns anywhere, gun shows, gun stores or through private sales....put a tattoo on their shoulder...it is an immediate way to tell if a buyer can buy the gun, requires no paperwork, no permanent record, no manpower, no extra fees.......

And at a private sale or gun show.....when you go to sell a gun...you just ask to see the buyers shoulder...if he has the tat....he doesn't get the gun...

See how easy that is......

 

[Cecilie1200]

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

So you want to prosecute people who have obeyed the law and done nothing wrong?

Thanks for demonstrating why liberal fanatics such as yourself should never be elected to office.

Well, you ALSO want abortion clinics prosecuted for FOLLOWING the law, isn't it so???

Nope. We want them not to be funded by tax dollars. We want them investigated for allegations of NOT following the law. And we want, ultimately, for what they do to not be legal.

No one's suggesting suing them for performing legal abortions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's not a solution. How would being able to sue gun manufacturers stop idiots from killing people with guns?

Do you actually think they would stop and say "huh, I better not do this or Glock will be sued"?

NO, that is not the point......My point is that gun manufacturers who are peddling assault weapons NOT for the sake of sport but for the profit regardless of the consequences, SHOULD be sued for negligence.....BUT, they passed a special law to protect themselves EXPECTING that such would happen.

You can sue virtually everyone else BUT gun companies.

Dude are you really this ******* stupid?

You have been told what an assault weapon is and yet you still misuse the term.

Do you think Rawlings manufacturers footballs for the sport of it or for profit?

They (NRA) didn't pass any laws you stupid ****!

How would having the ability to sue prevent what happened in Oregon?

Asshole....Of course the NRA didn't pass the law.......A BRIBED congress did AFTER the NRA told them waht to do....

How would the ability to be sued would have helped Oregon's incident...Simple, after paying out millions, the gun manufacturers would stop peddling all those products that are SIMPLY meant to kill people.

You said, "they passed a special law to protect themselves", in reference to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

You're living in lala land.

YES....the law is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)....

In WA state, a lawsuit made gun manufacturers pay $2.5 million....and they did NOT like it.

So, after the law was passed (thanks to GWB) Wayne La Pierre stated "its a historic piece of legislation and a significant victory for the gun lobby."

It only gives them the same protections other companies already had. Gun manufacturers SHOULD have had it under existing laws, but thanks to "the law is what I say it is . . . today!" leftists, they couldn't count on their legal rights to be respected.

 

[Cecilie1200]

BTW. the law...in an unprecedented way...ALSO dismissed all pending lawsuits against the gun manufacturers...Cute, isn't it....A law that was bought with the blood of victims and their families.

Ehrmagerd, the FEELZ!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Right wingers may not like MY suggestion.....and that is perfectly OK...

However, not ONE of these nitwits could suggest some idea of their own on how to curb the slaughter of children and innocent adults, except for maybe arming even their grandmothers

The law doesn't like your suggestion, either. And I wish you lots of luck convincing the American people that they want to live in your "guns are for criminals" world. So far, you're not doing so well.

 

[Rustic]

Actually, we should always follow what lobbyists push (aka, BRIBE) congress to do (and in some instance, NOT to do) when searching for legislation to curb an abuse of the common welfare and good.

Regarding mass murders, we know that gun manufacturers (and their bought puppet, the NRA) fought and won the right to NOT be sued for the misuse of their deadly products.

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

You are dumb as the come! Regardless of the rhetoric of the right, guns are made and designed to be a deadly weapon. Regardless if it is used in self-defense, a gun is designed to kill a living target or cause damage to a non-living target! It is simple as that. This is a great law. Without it douches like the ACLU would have simply "litigated" away the second amendment or they would have done what Germany does, only allow the RICH to own guns! So you answer is complete gun control. So just admit it.


Again both sides in the gun control debate are wrong. Some things should be done:
(1) In Illinois there is background check, registry and issuance of a FOID card. This should be at the Federal level.
(2) End gun shows. Oh the humanity, PLEASE, guns are deadly weapons and should be treated as such.
(3) The FOID system should be actively linked to doctor records, psyche ward records and admittance to mental wards, ER or mental wards. HIPAA/HITECH have exceptions for the sharing or Personal Health Information to law enforcement bodies in accordance with Federal regulation.
(4) Every sale must go through a background check.
(5) Make owners vicarious liable for crimes committed via the use of their guns.

This is just a brainstormed listed, but we need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

Everything you listed is unconstitutional, absolutely.
Your stupid in the head...

.... Now go hide

 

[Cecilie1200]

od to see you understand that your idea has no merit.

That "conclusion" had to come out from some orifice of yours where the sun seldom shines.....

You realize that you have yet to justify your idiotic claims that suing gun manufacturers is the solution Your only response seems to be to capitalize "IDIOT".

Yogurt nothing little boy....

Never stated that my idea was the answer to all the carnage.....(In case you need a dictionary, THAT is why I stated on the title the term "CURB")

But, as I can easily see, you have NOTHING to suggest....just spewing hate-filled stupidities.

Nice hairsplitting.

You mean to tell me that you pranced in here, set up this whole thread bragging about your plan, and in all these pages, you STILL haven't told us HOW it will effect positive change?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am certainly hoping that in Connecticut, the slaughter of babies will yield a HUGE settlement from the gun manufacturer...so that these PEDDLERS OF DEATH stop selling products that are only meant to cause anguish for profit.

Oh sweet Jesus.. cry me a river. Peddlers of death? Do you realize how many people die from drugs, cigarettes and alcohol each year? Your premise is as flawed as one can be.

Yes, I realize that you're echoing what Jeb-baby stated....."Hey, shit happens...too bad."

However drugs and cigarettes companies ARE being sued constantly...BUT, gun manufacturers "bought" themselves a law to prevent lawsuits....

Hopefully, the CT lawsuit is challneging that "special privilege."

Cigarette companies are sued on the basis that they lied about the potential effects of their products and deliberately manipulated them to cause more harm.

As to drug companies, without something more than this vague allegation, it's impossible to address. Drug companies get sued for all sorts of things. Which suit did you have in "mind"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's not a solution. How would being able to sue gun manufacturers stop idiots from killing people with guns?

Do you actually think they would stop and say "huh, I better not do this or Glock will be sued"?

FINE.....let's hear YOURS to curb the slaughter of babies like at Sandy Hook......

Quit being afraid to tell your loved one or coworker or friend that they need professional mental help.

Too often someone comes up , after the fact, and says "We could tell something was bothering him"

We've become scared to death of saying something that might bother someone that we can't even call Crazy by its real name

Hell, it's nearly impossible to involuntarily commit someone for mental care. They pretty much have to be waving a weapon and making threats.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From this post, I now hope the families not only lose but have to pay the legal fees of the innocent company they are attacking.....

What a **** head you must be...

"Oh, parents....here's a casket of your 7 year old...and, yes, here's a bill for the legal fees for DARING to go after those sweethearts who made the weapon that ripped your child apart in 14 pieces................"

Oh my God, do you have ANY ability to make a sound argument based in reason and logic, rather than appealing to glandular reactions?

It is the ability to think that separates men from beasts. Why are you so enamored of acting like a caveman?

 

[LOki]

The easiest way to stop gun crime is to go to the voter roles, find all the democrats and disarm them...they do the majority of the gun murders in the country and kill a lot of people.......

That's good.

Let's try this on for size: When you vote, there's an instant background check to see if you're eligible to vote. Everyone seems to be mostly fine with the arrangement and it's effectiveness.

Felons are not allowed to vote; which makes sense--you don't want those of criminal mind and criminal intent to have ANY say in how the government uses its power to initiate the use of coercive force (read: guns) upon society. Because the criminal use of guns individually or through (elected) proxy is still the criminal use of guns, and we don't want a bunch of criminal retards in charge of guns. Right?

It seems that the same moral deficiency is valid cause to deny (on narrowly defined criteria) an individual's constitutionally protected right in both cases.

From what I hear, voter fraud is a myth... so this background check must also be pretty good.

So.... anyone who is disqualified from keeping and bearing ANY firearm should also be disqualified from voting... for the same (valid) reasons.

If implemented, all registered voters are automatically licensed gun owners--and no one is any more obligated to own a gun than they are obligated to vote, yet they are still fully qualified to do both.

The Fed could issue licenses: One side of the ideological aisle would get the "universal" gun owner license it so desperately wants, and the other side would get the "voter ID" card that it so desperately wants. There would be national reciprocity, and no "due process" violations cause by a patchwork quilt of local regulations regarding gun ownership or voter eligibility. Seems like a win-win.

I'm just interested how the dynamics of "Rock the Vote" and other voter registration efforts would change.

I'm all in favor of that plan....Good job.

I doubt that if you actually understood it, you would be in favor of it. But thanks anyway!

 

[Cecilie1200]

And if you sell your car to some clown who later drives drunk and kills someone, the victim's family should be able to sue YOU for millions in damages, right???

Pretty dumb response (as always)......Name another manufacturer...beside gun ones......who CANNOT be sued by consumers?

"No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."

I recall that was passed because the alternative was NO vaccines being available...companies simply would not produce them for liability reasons.

And what do we suppose Nat's ultimate plan is here? Hmmmm.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One last parting thought for this thread (I think we've exhausted the topic) .....

I knew darn well that my original suggestion would evoke all sorts of derision from right wingers, BUT we can't go on with these incidents of mass murders and simply shrug and (as Jeb Bush stated...paraphrased), "Well, shit happens,"

We also can't go with the liberal plan of "Do anything to feel powerful, never mind if it helps".

 

[nat4900]

Well, when you get done with the first draft of your Constitutional Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment, do post it for us to peruse.

The above was written by a militia member???....and exactly where in the Constitution is it written that you could own an assault weapon that ripped apart some of those babies at Sandy Hook into FOURTEEN separate parts?