Another School Shooting, time to attack Michael Moore again

[Electron #1]

With the bill ..

Manufactuers would have -No- legal resposibility

to how the weapons they sell are used. In other words

they dont have to have ANY intent in HOW ITS USED

legal

or illegal . Good or Bad. Its just another unit sold.

Thats the point in fighting this bill.

Because it deems no responsibility on the manufactuer

to

which distributor it sells the arms to even if they are known

to sell to traffikers. Exp: A Meth maker sells to a dealer

thats known to sell to kids.

Some kids die.

If this bill is to pass, then equivacably neither the Meth maker or dealer would be resposible.

The fact that the gun manufactuers are

having the NRA bring forth this legislation is INTENT

in absolving themselves of any resposibility for their own

actions.

 

[RandFan]

"[The] courts are the least suited, least equipped, and thus the least appropriate branch of government to regulate and micro-manage the manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of handguns."

-- Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, People of New York v. Sturm, Ruger (2003)

 

[Skeptic]

"Misuse"? Guns are machines which sole purpose are to wound or kill humans or other animals.

Let me explain:

1). Using gun to hunt animals with appropriate permit during hunting season = not misuse.

2). Using gun to shoot your neighbor's dog out of spite = misuse.

3). Using gun to shoot would-be burglar / robber / rapist / murderer as he attempts to burle (sp?) / rob / rape / murder you = not misuse.

4). Using gun to shoot / threathen innocent person you are robbing / raping / murdering = misuse.

5). Using gun for sport shooting in an appropriate gun range = not misuse.

6). Shooting off a loaded gun in the house for fun, hitting your spouse with shrapnel by mistake = misuse.

etc., etc.

 

[RandFan]

they dont have to have ANY intent in HOW ITS USED

But they don't INTEND for it to be used inappropriately. Welcome to jurisprudence circa 2000. To show liability or criminal culpability you must show intent.

which distributor it sells the arms to even if they are known to sell to traffikers.

Then pass and enforce laws that prohibit such activity. Currently all manufacturers are being (with the exception of Smith & Wesson) are being targeted regardless of fact and relying on the emotion of juries to hold gun manufacturers liable even when the gun manufacture has done nothing wrong.

...having the NRA bring forth this legislation is INTENT in absolving themselves of any responsibility for their own actions.

Non sequitur.

they dont have to have ANY intent in HOW ITS USED

But they don't INTEND for it to be used inappropriately. Welcome to jurisprudence circa 2000. To show liability or criminal culpability you must show intent. Edited to add: Or you must show gross negligence. The manufacturer should have known.

which distributor it sells the arms to even if they are known to sell to traffikers.

Then pass and enforce laws that prohibit such activity. Currently all manufacturers (with the exception of Smith & Wesson) are being targeted regardless of fact and relying on the emotion of juries to hold gun manufacturers liable even when the gun manufacture has done nothing wrong.

...having the NRA bring forth this legislation is INTENT in absolving themselves of any responsibility for their own actions.

Non sequitur.

 

[Tmy]

Would this bill give gun makers a special exemption that manufacturers dont have?

What about the makers of the popular child toy. "Bag o Glass". Who protects them!

 

[Electron #1]

Misuse?

Misuse? What someone used a rifle as a club?

Im simply repeating myself but , by relinquishing any

responsibility for who the machines are being sold to

and effectively how they are being used proves the

manufactuers have NO intent in HOW they are

used. Essentially saying " this is a machine for killing or

injuring you choose who or what its done to." Liberty?

Sounds more like corporate sponsored anarchy.

IF you have "THE Golden Rule Book"/ disclaimer of

responsibility of that comes with each gun purchase i

would enjoy seeing it.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Misuse?

Misuse? What someone used a rifle as a club?

Asked and answered. Are you going to argue ad nauseam when your argument has been thoroughly rebutted?

Im simply repeating myself but...

Yes you are and the argument has been advanced and you refuse to acknowledge the rebuttal arguments. You are now engaging in fallacy.

...by relinquishing any responsibility for who the machines are being sold to and effectively how they are being used proves the manufactuers have NO intent in HOW they are used.

It is up to the manufacture to follow the law.

Essentially saying " this is a machine for killing or injuring you choose who or what its done to."

Emotional appeal. Rhetorical. The manufacture is required to produce its products in accordance with the laws. If there is a law that they are breaking I would suggest they be charged.

Sounds more like corporate sponsored anarchy.

I would agree if there were no laws that regulate the sell and distribution of fire arms. If there is a problem with the laws then work to change them.

IF you have "THE Golden Rule Book"/ disclaimer of responsibility of that comes with each gun purchase i would enjoy seeing it.

Rhetorical.

 

[crimresearch]

Re: Misuse?

Misuse? What someone used a rifle as a club?

Im simply repeating myself but , by relinquishing any
responsibility for who the machines are being sold to
and effectively how they are being used proves the
manufactuers have NO intent in HOW they are
used. Essentially saying " this is a machine for killing or
injuring you choose who or what its done to." Liberty?
Sounds more like corporate sponsored anarchy.

IF you have "THE Golden Rule Book"/ disclaimer of
responsibility of that comes with each gun purchase i
would enjoy seeing it.

Last gun I purchased certainly came with a book in which the manufacturer's disclaimer appeared.

Now when was the last time you made a purchase where the manufacturer retained the ability to prevent you from misusing their product?

 

[Electron #1]

The manufactuers are INTENTionallly selling to distributors

who are know to sell to traffickers. Trafickers are known to

sale to criminals. That is what happend

in the case where the 2 police officers were shot.

With the bill the Manufactuers are attempting to escape

culpability by claiming not to be resposible for a

weapon they WILLFULLY allowed to get in the hands of

criminals. You ,Rand Fan, are essentially saying cause
a

meth maker didnt INTEND for a child to use the drugs he

created he is not responsible for the childs death.

 

[crimresearch]

The manufactuers are INTENTionallly selling to distributors

who are know to sell to traffickers. Trafickers are known to
sale to criminals. That is what happend
in the case where the 2 police officers were shot.
With the bill the Manufactuers are attempting to escape
culpability by claiming not to be resposible for a
weapon they WILLFULLY allowed to get in the hands of
criminals. You ,Rand Fan, are essentially saying cause
a meth maker didnt INTEND for a child to use the drugs he
created he is not responsible for the childs death.

I call BS...major manufaturers sell to distributors who are REQUIRED BY LAW to have federal firearms licenses.
If one of those licensed dealers commits a crime, or sells to someone who commits a crime, or sells to someone who gives to someone, who commits a crime, how did the manufacturer intend for, or cause that to happen?

And BTW, your meth lab analogy would only work if you wanted to make the people who manufacture the ingredients responsible to the misuse of their products.

 

[Electron #1]

BS?

The Distributors are sellling to traffickers.

The distriburors AND the manufactuers are AWARE of this.

THAT is criminal in of itself, but the Bill being proposed is

to prevent the manufactuer or dealer from being liable for

the action of enabling the sale to criminals.


The meth analogy stands else we would be discussing the

liabilty of manufactuers for gun barrel or triggers being

used to mop your floor or wash dishes.

 

[RandFan]

Re: BS?

The manufactuers are INTENTionallly selling to distributors who are know to sell to traffickers. Trafickers are known to sale to criminals. That is what happend in the case where the 2 police officers were shot.

According to your link it was the “dealer” who had acted improperly.

With the bill the Manufactuers are attempting to escape culpability by claiming not to be resposible for a weapon they WILLFULLY allowed to get in the hands of criminals.

So when a Bank Robber uses a Ford for his getaway then Ford is WILLFULLY allowing the car to get into the hands of a bank robber?

You ,Rand Fan, are essentially saying cause a meth maker didnt INTEND for a child to use the drugs he created he is not responsible for the childs death.

Bad analogy. Meth is illegal. By your logic Ford is responsible for the deaths of all of the children riding in the cars they built even if they did not intend for the children to die and even if the Car was used in a way that the manufacturer did not intend.

 

[Tmy]

And to think. When i was a kid, the store wouldnt even sell me eggs on Holloween. I was going to make an omelette I swear!


Is selling to a shady distributor kinda like a bar serveing an intoxicated patron who later gets into a drunk driving accident? That opens the bar to lawsuits.

 

[RandFan]

Re: BS?

Originally posted by Electron #1 The Distributors are sellling to traffickers. The distriburors AND the manufactuers are AWARE of this. THAT is criminal in of itself…

Really? How so?

…but the Bill being proposed is to prevent the manufactuer or dealer from being liable for the action of enabling the sale to criminals. The meth analogy stands…

Just because you think so does not make it so. Again, pass laws and enforce the laws.

…else we would be discussing the liabilty of manufactuers for gun barrel or triggers being used to mop your floor or wash dishes.

I don’t have a clue what this means.

 

[crimresearch]

"The Distributors are sellling to traffickers.The distriburors AND the manufactuers are AWARE of this.
THAT is criminal in of itself, but the Bill being proposed is
to prevent the manufactuer or dealer from being liable for
the action of enabling the sale to criminals."

Again you ignore the fact that the federal government has licensed, and heavily monitors these dealers, and that background checks with extensive records are required for the sales that dealers make.

That makes the original manufacturer at least a couple levels of agency removed from being legally liable.

The real purpose of this bill is to grandstand for pro-gun constituents on an issue that is a no brainer..as the courts have repeatedly recognized.

As far as a *criminal conspiracy* on the part of manufacturers to bypass that system and knowingly get guns into the hands of criminals, if you have any evidence that is occuring, I suggest you take it to the ATF immediately...otherwise, you yourself are guilty of misprion of a felony.

 

[RandFan]

And to think. When i was a kid, the store wouldnt even sell me eggs on Holloween. I was going to make an omelette I swear!

I don't think the framers of the constitution were concerned about the regulation of eggs.

Is selling to a shady distributor kinda like a bar serveing an intoxicated patron who later gets into a drunk driving accident? That opens the bar to lawsuits.

Hey, a coherent argument.

It could be, yes but I don't think that in this case that it is. See crimeresearch's post.

 

[Tmy]

I don't think the framers of the constitution were concerned about the regulation of eggs.

I dont think the framers of the constitution were concearned about lawsuits vs. gun makers either.

Even though a newspaper has freedom of press, that does not exempt them from libel suits.

 

[RandFan]

I dont think the framers of the constitution were concearned about lawsuits vs. gun makers either.

Even though a newspaper has freedom of press, that does not exempt them from libel suits.

Good argument.

I would think that if the press were suddenly inundated with many coordinated class action lawsuits funded by cities, counties and other governmental agencies with the intent to use the courts to regulate the press that congress would consider something to protect that which our framers deemed important.

 

[Tmy]

I would think that if the press were suddenly inundated with many coordinated class action lawsuits funded by cities, counties and other governmental agencies with the intent to use the courts to regulate the press that congress would consider something to protect that which our framers deemed important.

The way the press is being so reckless lately.....I think theyd have a suit like that coming to them.

 

[Tmy]

FYI. Im pro 2nd amendment. And I do think these suits are meritless.

But it worrys me when congress wants to add protection for a specific business. Sort of like when they want to limit med malpractice..