Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Unfettered access to guns? - Sounds like the middle east!
So you define our current state of laws with the national firearms act of 1934, the gun control act of 1968, the fopa of 1986, the brady bill, the Lautenberg amendment, and several thousand state gun laws, as unfettered?
Wow, you're more of an extremist than I realized.
I'm sorry you don't want to discuss this topic with a solution in mind.
I'm sorry you don't want to discuss solutions with reality in mind.
AK47
OK - I say they are useless for sport - you say let people decide.
Sounds like a referendum on a local ballot.
One possible solution here.
OK - I say they are useless for sport - you say let people decide.
Sounds like a referendum on a local ballot.
One possible solution here.
Ah. No. Banning semi-automatic rifles is a non-starter. My rights are not subject to popular vote:
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943
So I can use my 30-30 rounds in my AK47?
Ammo is expensive, so I can save some money?
There is no good reason to keep a AR15, AK47 or any possibly automatic weapon.
(protect you from the government you say? if they can drone bomb people halfway around the world, then they'll be by to take your gun from your cold dead hands, when they're ready)
Ammo is expensive, so I can save some money?
There is no good reason to keep a AR15, AK47 or any possibly automatic weapon.
(protect you from the government you say? if they can drone bomb people halfway around the world, then they'll be by to take your gun from your cold dead hands, when they're ready)
The discussion about so called "assault weapons" is about civilian legal semi-auto weapons, not fully automatic weapons.
Banning semi-autos is a non-starter.
Those laws need updated desperately or at least amended.
Examples?
When people stop killing other people, then we can stop talking about additional gun control.
The function of law is generally to punish an act after the fact. I question the value of law in prevention. And I reject the notion that my rights should be on the chopping block because a tiny percentage of a percentage of people misuse guns resulting in them killing others.
Maybe its not through the gun control laws but maybe through the DMV when you get your drivers license and they submit you to a mental evaluation to drive a car and possess a firearm (at the same time).
First, I've been to the DMV in several states numerous times. I've never seen given any mental exam for driving.
Second, your comparison is apples and oranges. One of these things is not like the other - a constitutionally protected civil right.
Besides that, one can possess a car without the DMV just fine and legal. And drive it too, on private property.
However, I am more than willing to come to the middle and discuss how we can rationally resolve the opposing sides.
That sounds so nice...on the surface. It almost sounds like you want to "compromise", but you don't.
If you want your guns, so be it, but we need to agree upon a way to filter out some of the bad people.
You might try focusing on the bad people instead of the guns, theres a whole lot less of them.
When will the NRA set up a fund for the people injured/killed by firearms?
When will ford set up a fund for people injured/killed by cars?
When a product is dangerous in the USA, and it kills someone, the companies involved typically take steps to improve the product to make it safer.
That's true in the case of malfunction, and less than sound design.
Nobody is suing GM because the corvette or camaro are too fast, handle and brake too well, have too large a fuel tank, or look like a race car.
Nor should they in a free society.
Guns are made for killing, yet the gun industry is protected by US law from being sued.
Is this not a little odd to you?
Is this not a little odd to you?
No, not when the intention of the suits in question was to sidestep the second amendment and sidestep congress and bankrupt an entire industry.
Its not unprecedented:
I am pleased to sign into law S. 1458, the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994." It is before me today as a result of bipartisan support in the Congress, and the hard work of many who have labored long to achieve passage of such legislation. The result is legislation that accommodates the need to revitalize our general aviation industry, while preserving the legal rights of passengers and pilots. This limited measure is intended to give manufacturers of general aviation aircraft and related component parts some protection from lawsuits alleging defective design or manufacture after an aircraft has established a lengthy record of operational safety.
In 1978, U.S. general aviation manufacturers produced 18,000 of these aircraft for domestic use and for export around the world. Our manufacturers were the world leaders in the production of general aviation aircraft. By 1993, production had dwindled to only 555 aircraft. As a result, in the last decade over 100,000 wellpaying jobs were lost in general aviation manufacturing. An innovative and productive American industry has been pushed to the edge of extinction. This Act will allow manufacturers to supply new basic aircraft for flight training, business use, and recreational flying.
The Act establishes an 18-year statute of repose for general aviation aircraft and component parts beyond which the manufacturer will not be liable in lawsuits alleging defective manufacture or design. It is limited to aircraft having a seating capacity of fewer than 20 passengers, which are not engaged in scheduled passengercarrying operations.
In its report to me and to the Congress last August, the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry recommended the enactment of a statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. The report indicated that the enactment of such legislation would "help regenerate a once-healthy industry and help create thousands of jobs." I agree with this assessment; this is a job-creating and jobrestoring measure that will bring good jobs and economic growth back to this industry. It will also help U.S. companies restore our Nation to the status of the premier supplier of general aviation aircraft to the world, favorably affecting our balance of trade. Therefore, as I sign into law the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994," I am pleased to acknowledge the bipartisan work done by the Congress and by all the supporters of the general aviation industry.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House, August 17, 1994
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=48984
In 1978, U.S. general aviation manufacturers produced 18,000 of these aircraft for domestic use and for export around the world. Our manufacturers were the world leaders in the production of general aviation aircraft. By 1993, production had dwindled to only 555 aircraft. As a result, in the last decade over 100,000 wellpaying jobs were lost in general aviation manufacturing. An innovative and productive American industry has been pushed to the edge of extinction. This Act will allow manufacturers to supply new basic aircraft for flight training, business use, and recreational flying.
The Act establishes an 18-year statute of repose for general aviation aircraft and component parts beyond which the manufacturer will not be liable in lawsuits alleging defective manufacture or design. It is limited to aircraft having a seating capacity of fewer than 20 passengers, which are not engaged in scheduled passengercarrying operations.
In its report to me and to the Congress last August, the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry recommended the enactment of a statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. The report indicated that the enactment of such legislation would "help regenerate a once-healthy industry and help create thousands of jobs." I agree with this assessment; this is a job-creating and jobrestoring measure that will bring good jobs and economic growth back to this industry. It will also help U.S. companies restore our Nation to the status of the premier supplier of general aviation aircraft to the world, favorably affecting our balance of trade. Therefore, as I sign into law the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994," I am pleased to acknowledge the bipartisan work done by the Congress and by all the supporters of the general aviation industry.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House, August 17, 1994
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=48984
To quote another poster:
Anyone with a shred of honesty in their body, knows that the real purpose of these blizzards of lawsuits with tobacco, guns or whatever is to force an end to something that some people hate.
An end to a thing that the Prohibitionists can not achieve by direct means in Legislatures who are elected by the people. Rather by indirect means through the Courts, where the Judges and Justices in most cases are not elected, rather appointed, with little fear of being removed for making poor decisions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=64825
An end to a thing that the Prohibitionists can not achieve by direct means in Legislatures who are elected by the people. Rather by indirect means through the Courts, where the Judges and Justices in most cases are not elected, rather appointed, with little fear of being removed for making poor decisions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=64825
People can sue an automobile company for using a car as a weapon...
What a ridiculous thing to do. I wouldn't support such nonsense. Would you?
but can't sue the gun companies or at least make them liable to provide free training to all gun customers?
And how far will you take that? Guns? Knives? Plastic cutlery and utensils?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read