Your input is requested...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

You mean the same group of folks who have rushed Bush's agenda into law despite overwhelming public opposition?
Case in point...new legislation shielding gun manufacturers/sellers from any sort of legal liability for the product they purvey.

---

This is a weird one.

Gun manufacturers should not be liable for legally selling a product that works as intended.

To say different takes away from your argument.

Now I do wonder if this legislation removes all liability of gun manufacturers....

....if I fire my gun and it backfires in my face, for instance.

I don't put it past Bush to not think this through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

I am constitutionally lazy ( in all senses of the phrase), so don't hold your breath.

---

Hmm.

I recommend a stool-softener.
















I see even more agreement, but cannot comment further as the board's controls are suffering a post-massage spasm due to Rossco's (ad)ministrations.

We are of similar schools as to the quality of our representation, as well as the sources of their various inane compulsions.

More later, if the board settles down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

This is a weird one.

Gun manufacturers should not be liable for legally selling a product that works as intended.

---

That is not the point.
What other industry enjoys such blanket immunity?
Tobacco...pharmaceuticals...automotive...um,no.
None of those products are designed/marketed to kill yet they stand naked and vulnerable on the plain of judicial redress while the manufacturers of guns- which are specifically intended to injure- just got a "get out of jail free" card compliments of the Republicans.
And this follows the lapse of the ban on military assault weapons...another Bush administration fiat and triumph of money over common sense.

How can conservative Republicans whine about the folly of "expanding" rights for gays and women while simultaneously doing that very thing for their industrial cronies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

That is not the point.
What other industry enjoys such blanket immunity?
Tobacco...pharmaceuticals...automotive...um,no.
None of those products are designed/marketed to kill yet they stand naked and vulnerable on the plain of judicial redress while the manufacturers of guns- which are specifically intended to injure- just got a "get out of jail free" card compliments of the Republicans.
And this follows the lapse of the ban on military assault weapons...another Bush administration fiat and triumph of money over common sense.

How can conservative Republicans whine about the folly of "expanding" rights for gays and women while simultaneously doing that very thing for their industrial cronies?

---

I find it odd that personal responsibility is given a pass on this plain you speak of.

Gun manufacturers in court if their products are deliberately used to injure another person?

Okay.

Auto manufacturers in court if someone injures (runs over?) another person?

No.

Drug manufacturers in court in case of an overdose?

No.

Tobacco growers in court if someone dies from lung cancer?

Yes, but only if the state and big tobacco can scratch each other's backs in the bargain.

You analogy is flawed.

I think the gun shield law is a bad example of government interference where it isn't really justified. There is also a bill called the "hamburger bill" (or some similar sounding name) to shield fast food companies from being sued by obese people who lack self control when it comes to shovelling excessive amounts of food down their throats, even if the fast food in question isn't "healthy". Does the fact that there are "silly" lawsuits mean that certain companies or special interests should be granted "special protection" by way of legislation?
lawsuits are a by-product of a free market economy are they not?
Perhaps if the gun lobby wanted protection they should be more willing to work for sensible control of who should be allowed to have guns and what type of gun is suitable for their needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

That is not the point.
What other industry enjoys such blanket immunity?
Tobacco...pharmaceuticals...automotive...um,no.
None of those products are designed/marketed to kill yet they stand naked and vulnerable on the plain of judicial redress while the manufacturers of guns- which are specifically intended to injure- just got a "get out of jail free" card compliments of the Republicans.
And this follows the lapse of the ban on military assault weapons...another Bush administration fiat and triumph of money over common sense.

How can conservative Republicans whine about the folly of "expanding" rights for gays and women while simultaneously doing that very thing for their industrial cronies?

---

Again, if this legislation stops all lawsuits then I agree with you. If it stops the frivolous ones like "he shot my son with a Smith & Wesson. Smith & Wesson's liable" then I'm all for it...as long as there wasn't a gun malfunction.

Pick your battles carefully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

lawsuits are a by-product of a free market economy are they not?

---

I have nothing against lawsuits; let the plaintiff go good for the defense's legal costs, and you've got something that'll work.

Let an attorney put his money where his mouth is, for once.

What they currently do, throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks, only enriches them, doesn't do a thing for the plaintiff, and perverts the system.

'Nuff said.

Don't get me started on lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I think the gun shield law is a bad example of government interference where it isn't really justified. There is also a bill called the "hamburger bill" (or some similar sounding name) to shield fast food companies from being sued by obese people who lack self control when it comes to shovelling excessive amounts of food down their throats, even if the fast food in question isn't "healthy". Does the fact that there are "silly" lawsuits mean that certain companies or special interests should be granted "special protection" by way of legislation?
lawsuits are a by-product of a free market economy are they not?
Perhaps if the gun lobby wanted protection they should be more willing to work for sensible control of who should be allowed to have guns and what type of gun is suitable for their needs.

---

This is what makes me angry. It's "Twisted Logic: Liberal Edition". If you don't like guns. Fine. Push for more gun control or banning. This frivolous lawsuit shit is fucking the system up and it's about time real frivolous ones be thrown the fuck out if identified as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Got fat from eatin' Mcdonald's food?

:01: :angry: STFU!!!! and GTFO!!! :angry: :01:

Don't try to sue the restaurant that YOU chose to eat at. New update: Eating two super-sized meals in one sitting is not good for you. Add to that fact you sit on your ass unless it's to run, excuse me, walk your ass to McDonalds.
McDonald's didn't put a gun to your head and MAKE you eat their food.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I have nothing against lawsuits; let the plaintiff go good for the defense's legal costs, and you've got something that'll work.
With the proviso that it is taken on a fair bases, large companies shouldn't be able to get away with something because a plaintiff with a reasonable case is too scared of losing everything going up against the huge legal might. Perhaps a pre-trial test. If a judge thinks the case is reasonable enough then an immunity could be issued, if not then it's up to the plaintiff to decide the risk.

Let an attorney put his money where his mouth is, for once.

What they currently do, throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks, only enriches them, doesn't do a thing for the plaintiff, and perverts the system.

'Nuff said.

Don't get me started on lawyers.

---

That sounds similar to the proposal Kerry/Edwards made...make the lawyers reponsible, which i recall you "poo pood" :rolleyes:

Edit: but then if guns and fastfood get protected...why not lawyers? being you are against "special treatment"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

That sounds similar to the proposal Kerry/Edwards made...make the lawyers reponsible, which i recall you "poo pood" :rolleyes:

---

Howz about when it's clearly frivolous, throw that shit out? :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Howz about when it's clearly frivolous, throw that shit out? :dry:

---

What are you getting at that wouldn't be covered by holding lawyers accountable for bringing frivolous suits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I find it odd that personal responsibility is given a pass on this plain you speak of.

Gun manufacturers in court if their products are deliberately used to injure another person?

Okay.

Auto manufacturers in court if someone injures (runs over?) another person?

No.

Drug manufacturers in court in case of an overdose?

No.

Tobacco growers in court if someone dies from lung cancer?

Yes, but only if the state and big tobacco can scratch each other's backs in the bargain.

You analogy is flawed.

---

No, it is not.
Your analysis is.
Cars and drugs are not manufactured to kill, accidents happen with both but neither is intentionally designed to be lethal.
Futhermore, drug companies, tobacco companies and car makers have all lost huge lawsuits for design malfunctions or intentional misleading of the public (tobacco) yet gun makers now have immunity for the very same thing.
The firearms industry has a long and well documented history of evading the weak and ineffectual gun control laws that somehow managed to survive their lobbying efforts, now they needn't even bother...can't be touched no matter what.

Thanks to Dubya I'm placing my order for an Apache attack helicopter tomorrow.
Personal responsibility is so much easier to exert when one has firepower to bring to the field.

I'm sure they can still be sued if their gun malfunctions due to manufacture defects etc.
As far as I can tell the shield was so they can't be sued if some nut goes on a killing spree.I'm not sure if it covers gun dealers that sell guns to unqualified purchasers.

Still I can't see why this needs to be a "special" protection

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I'm sure they can still be sued if their gun malfunctions due to manufacture defects etc.
As far as I can tell the shield was so they can't be sued if some nut goes on a killing spree.I'm not sure if it covers gun dealers that sell guns to unqualified purchasers.

Still I can't see why this needs to be a "special" protection

---

:O Vid and I agree?

Will wonders never cease?

Clocker-

Vid gets it and you don't?

Guns are meant to shoot, yes.

Knives are meant to cut.

Wusthof-Trident, Buck and Kershaw should be hauled into court?

Hammers are meant to pound nails.

Stanley should be at risk?

Table legs are meant to hold up tables, but people have been bludgeoned to death with them.

You say guns shoot high-speed projectiles ostensibly meant to kill.

This is true in some cases, but "sporting" rifles and handguns are not marketed to private citizens in order that they may be used to shoot humans, although that regretfully occurs here and there.

The fact is that countless other things can be used as well to take a life, and the wrongful taking of a life by any means (including one's bare hands) can be characterized as nothing more than mis-use of "equipment".

The only thing any of them (including guns) have in common is that they may, and have been, used to take a life.

Guns are not exceptional objects when considered this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

:O Vid and I agree?

Will wonders never cease?

---

So you think this is an unwarranted piece of legislation as well. good on you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Guns are not exceptional objects when considered this way.

---

Last time I looked, a backround check was not necessary to purchase a table leg.
Or a hammer.

If guns are not "exceptional objects" then why do they enjoy "exceptional protections"?

Background checks are a legislative and retail issue.

Again clocker, you bring up malfunctions to bolster your argument by citing drugs and cars. It is a flawed argument.

Tell me they can never have a lawsuit for any reason then you can talk.:dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

What are you getting at that wouldn't be covered by holding lawyers accountable for bringing frivolous suits?

---

Why would you hold lawyer's accountable?

I'm don't want to stop or penalize people from bringing lawsuits. If it's frivolous, it's on their dime when it's thrown out anyway.

I know what you're getting at. If lawyers are accountable they'll be less likely to bring bullshit in the court.

I believe there are certain laws that can ascertain what's frivolous and the courts can interpret when this law is to be applied.

For instance, unless McDonald's added an ingredient to purposely make people fat, fat people can fuck off and go cry to the medical field that they have an eating "disorder" that taxpayers can front the bill for.

Too much fried food + no exercise = fat ass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Background checks are a legislative and retail issue.

Again clocker, you bring up malfunctions to bolster your argument by citing drugs and cars. It is a flawed argument.

Tell me they can never have a lawsuit for any reason then you can talk.:dry:

---

I have never brought up the subject of "malfunctions". j2 brought up the fact that both cars and drugs can kill people also. I simply pointed out the fact that neither of those industries enjoyed the special protections now afforded the makers of guns.
Hell, I would be thrilled if guns "malfunctioned" all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

I have never brought up the subject of "malfunctions". j2 brought up the fact that both cars and drugs can kill people also. I simply pointed out the fact that neither of those industries enjoyed the special protections now afforded the makers of guns.
Hell, I would be thrilled if guns "malfunctioned" all the time.

---

What special protections could drug and car maker have anyway?

Guns should have that protection. Knife makers don't get sued. Why do gun makers? It's because some people simply don't like guns. That's a shit rationale for a lawsuit to target a particular weapon.

The rationale that guns are made to kill or wound people and animals and knives aren't makes no sense either. It gets a "so what".
They are both legal to own.

In this case, illegal use of a legally sold and owned apparatus is not the fault of the manufacturer.

The reason this special protection is put forth is because it is cut and dry....as it would be with a knife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Last time I looked, a backround check was not necessary to purchase a table leg.
Or a hammer.

---

What would you say if they were?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Guns should have that protection. Knife makers don't get sued. Why do gun makers? It's because some people simply don't like guns. That's a shit rationale for a lawsuit to target a particular weapon.

---

I think it's an excellent rationale personally.

@j2:
We do not disagree that anything can be used to kill/maim.
Hammers, table legs, etc.,the human mind is infinitely devious.

Tell me...now that you can legally possess an AK-47 again how much furniture have you designed around it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

I think it's an excellent rationale personally.

---

Cool then it's an excellent rationale to end the actions of those with your rationale irregardless to using the court to penalize law biding manufacturers instead of lobbying harder to change the law.....

......something that gun manufacturers look like they have almost done successfully. Nice going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Cool then it's an excellent rationale to end the actions of those with your rationale irregardless to using the court to penalize law biding manufacturers instead of lobbying harder to change the law.....

......something that gun manufacturers look like they have almost done successfully. Nice going.

---

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

---

That's cool. It was mostly English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

@j2:
We do not disagree that anything can be used to kill/maim.
Hammers, table legs, etc.,the human mind is infinitely devious.

Tell me...now that you can legally possess an AK-47 again how much furniture have you designed around it?

---

I can use it for a chair by sitting on the "butt" end of the weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

What special protections could drug and car maker have anyway?

I have no idea about the car makers but aren't they trying to cap lawsuit payouts for the medical industry? Already they can take to fed. court where payouts are generally lower.


Guns should have that protection

---

I agree but not specific legislation for them. Any legislation should be across the board. We hear complaints about "special hate crimes" like racial attacks or attacks on homosexuals saying and assault is an assault and there is no need for special protections (oddly this is mostly from the right which are mostly the ones in favour of gun manufactures protection)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I agree but not specific legislation for them. Any legislation should be across the board. We hear complaints about "special hate crimes" like racial attacks or attacks on homosexuals saying and assault is an assault and there is no need for special protections (oddly this is mostly from the right which are mostly the ones in favour of gun manufactures protection)

---

Okayyyyyyyyy.

Gun manufacturers are a different animal and is very specific.

These are cut and dry frivolous lawsuits.

Actually I think anything, barring malfunction (or claims of such) should get this protection. If it starts with gun manufacturers, so be it.