Your input is requested...

[j2k4]

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?

[clocker]

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?

[Busyman]

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.

[clocker]

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.

[Busyman]

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

That's cool. It was mostly English.

[j2k4]

@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.

[vidcc]

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)

[Busyman]

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.