Your input is requested...

**Busyman** · 10-23-2005, 02:37 PM

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.

**j2k4** · 10-23-2005, 03:51 PM

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.

**clocker** · 10-23-2005, 06:53 PM

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?

**j2k4** · 10-23-2005, 07:07 PM

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.

**vidcc** · 10-23-2005, 07:34 PM

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.

**Busyman** · 10-23-2005, 07:36 PM

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.

**j2k4** · 10-23-2005, 07:44 PM

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.

**Busyman** · 10-23-2005, 07:51 PM

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.

Originally Posted by Busyman

Got fat from eatin' Mcdonald's food?

STFU!!!! and GTFO!!!

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.

**vidcc** · 10-23-2005, 07:55 PM

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"