I’ve long thought that municipalities were off base in trying to hold gun manufacturers liable for gun crimes. So have the courts, which rule in favor of the manufacturers. But I’m uneasy with Congress passing a bill — which President Bush plans to sign — that shields gun manufacturers from most of these lawsuits. I realize that some gun-control groups are trying to use the courts to accomplish their goals. But access to courts is a fundamental right that shouldn’t be denied lightly — and not as a result of campaign contributions and intimidation by the National Rifle Association.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
68 Comments
I think that shield laws, while unfortunate, are necessary. Gun manufacturers are supplying a Contitutionally guaranteed freedom. I think the real problem here is people have forgotten why the right to keep and bear arms is written into our Constitution.
Phillip
I find it very interesting that you mention campaign contributions and pressure only in regard to the NRA. No mention of the big money behind the lawsuits brought by cities, no mention of the big money and pressure brought by The Brady Center (funded largely by good old George Soros). The money spent by the NRA is almost exclusively raised from millions of small contributions by people like me. The money spent by The Brady Center is raised from a handfull of wealthy elite left wingers like Soros.
Remember the imortal words of Sarah Brady, spoken in a moment of rare candor….
Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.
Why does gun industries got special protection and the tobacco companies doesn’t get any? Both products kill. One in less than a second and the other one more than a second. Look like a no-brainer to me. Constitution only protect the individual to bear arms not the industries that make the arms….
Suing gun manufacturers for crimes committed by customers seems pretty unreasonable, but giving gun manufacturers a blanket immunity seems a pretty reckless solution to a problem that should be settled by the courts!
I never understood the reasons for sueing a manufacturer because somebody misused a product. If YOU point a gun at someone and YOU pull the trigger, YOU’RE responsible, not the manufaacturer. I know it’s a tired old hack, but guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Improperly used, guns are dangerous, but so is almost anything else.
I’m all for a law that stops gun manufacturers from being sued for sombody else’s stupidity or criminal intent.
For those who may be uninformed on this legislation. It does not grant immunity from lawsuits against manufacturers for selling a faulty product, nor immunity for manufacturers, wholesalers, or dealers for illegal actions.
never never EVER NEVER trust someone who speaks of legislation and does not provide the Bill # so that you can read it yourself!!!!!!
This bill was introduced as H.R. 2037 in the 107th congress. It passed the senate as S.397 and in the house as H.R. 800 ….go read it!…..Contrary to popular belief most bills are readable and understandable!
8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups, and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the legislative branch of the Government by regulating interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees, thereby threatening the separation of powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty, and comity among the several States
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109RRKucH::
The only people it effects is trial lawyers. They just stopped another outlet for them to exploit. Just as Congress also passes the Burger Bill.
Do fast food chains deserve special treatment? Or are we just trying to protect industry from sharks that want to steal all of their money.
Junk lawsuits are dispicable and are all under assult by the Republicans. The only opposition is from trial lawyers and the democrats.
Joe said ” the only people it effects is trial lawyers.”
It effects the companies who have to defend themselves against those lawsuits. None of these lawsuits made it all the way through the legal system, they were all thrown out at some point. They did however cost firearms manufacturers tens of millions of dollars to defend themselves.
They were a deliberate attempt to bankrupt the manufacturers of firearms, thus making it more expensive for Americans to purchase firearms.
Anybody ought to be able to purchase any kind of gun they want! If you want a 105mm howitzer, hey, go for it! Because, guns don’t kill people; bullets do! Ammunition shouldn’t be sold or possessed without a prescription signed by a practicing trauma surgeon, and then only with a $5000 per round tax, to be put in a fund for gunshot victims! Then, maybe, we’d find those responsible shooters the NRA wants to protect.
Jed, I’m going to make a wild guess here. You’re not a gun owner.
A question: Do you think that when some gang-banger shoots an innocent bystander, it’s the gun manufacturer’s fault?
Another question: If your neighbor gets drunk, gets in his car, and runs over your grandchild, who’s fault is it? The company that brewed the liquor? The car manufacturer?
I’m a responsible gun owner. My dad taught me to handle a gun when I was six. Since then I’ve been a hunter, and I’ve fought in a shooting war. I’m a life member of the NRA and I vote Democrat. While there are some things I don’t support, there are a lot of very good things the NRA does. Believe me, I’ve had the arguement about what the limits on gun ownership should be (Howitzers/machine guns).
I maintain that guns, or bullets for that matter don’t kill people. If you know of an instance of this ever happening, please share it with me. Otherwise, I contend that people kill people. If guns were banned, people would use knives. If knives were banned, they’d use rocks.
The only way a bullet ends up where it shouldn’t be is if somebody through stupidity or criminal intent puts it there. The same argument for banning guns or bullets could be used with cars.
Please explain your position.
XXX I am so very disappointed in you with your last post. You lend your voice to those that deceive so many.
“Damn Democrats wanna take my guns away!” How many many times I have heard that from good hard working folks (I used to associate with) who buy that lie and then on that issue alone go vote against every other interest they havefor Republicans, the NRA whipping them into the election booth all the way.
Oh Heckler? I notice you did not cite a source for your “quote” from Mrs. Brady. (whose husband and no doubt YOUR favorite PRESIDENT were injured by a gun in the hands of a lunatic) No source? I’m caling you a liar. Oh and Heckler? I would call myself a socialist. I also have a gun, ya know just in case you got some idea that the other side aint armed :) and ‘ya know, motivated.
As to this thread? I’m not surprised. NRA President LaPier said in the run up to elect Bush “We will be working out of the White House” Guess he was right. And like all the other right wing nut organizations, corporations, religious nuts, and Buisiness interests they are getting their payoff from their puppet pResident. To the detriment of us all.
XXX,No, I’m not a gun owner. Never felt the need, and I’ve lived in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in town!When I lived out in the country, I ran into some of those “responsible gun owners” who regularly put bullets through my house. Just couldn’t believe that 7.62 round didn’t stop at the squirrel! If I’d had a gun, I’d have shot back, and there’d be fewer of them. They’re worse than the gangbangers, and I’ve seen both!If a gun manufacturer willingly or negligently sells guns to people he should know not to, then he ought to be sued. If profit’s more important than people, let him lose those profits! But as a tactic to indiscriminately shut down all manufacturers, such suits should be thrown out!And yeah, if someone’s coming after me, he’ll use whatever he’s got, but I’d a lot rather duck rocks than bullets.That explain my position?
Well, I guess it kind of explains your position. But still, most guns are purchased from retailers or individuals; not the manufacturer. So if a nutcase buys a gun at a gun show, how does that make the manufacturer responsible? Again, it’s just like a car. If somebody gets drunk and kills someone with his car, by your logic, why isn’t the car maker liable?
Believe me, I sympathize with your story about careless gun owners. I lived in the country for years and dreaded opening day of phesant season. You could always depend on some twit rattling buckshot off the side of the house. But again, that’s not the fault of the manufacturer.
I think the answer lies in enforcement. Retailers are pretty well regulated. Sales at shows and by individuals are where the problem lies, and the answer may be more regulation. I just don’t see holding manufacturers liable for bad judgement or criminal intent of the end user.
XXX
How about hammer manufacturers?
{ there’s not one word about hammers in the constitution }
Get yourself bonked in da head wit one of those suckers and yo dade.
If you buy a gun, you must agree to shoot a least one lawyer pre year.
The only thing I would suggest is a federal database that links the serial number of the gun involved in a crime to the federal firearms dealer and to the weapons manufacturer.
For a gun used in a crime, the government would contact the gun manufacturer to find out to which federally licensed dealer it sold the gun. If the government notices that the particular dealer has sold more than a few guns used in the commission of crimes, it could yank his license and inform the gun manufacturers to put the guy’s name on a blackballed list.
This would work (I think) even if the gun were “re-sold” by the original purchaser in an attempt to “launder” the gun. Let’s say a felon uses someone else to buy the gun, with the licensed dealer either actively involved or just stupid. If the gun is used in a crime, it will still be tied back to the original dealer and if that dealer has sold even a couple of other guns used in crimes, his license would be revoked, at a minimum for not being cautious enough with his gun sales.
Jr, Moderator
Mod, I need a post deleted.
The Brady quote is in fact false. I had seen it attributed to a letter written by Brady to Senator Howard Metzenbaum in 1994. The quote was reported in a publication called The National Educator. Apparently Neal Knox(former NRA official)researched it extensively and concluded it was bogus. My intent was not to lie, I didnt dig deeply enough to verify this quote. Your whipping the L word out on me motivated me to dig a little deeper so I guess your life hasnt been a complete waste.
As for Democrats wanting to take our guns away, many of them do, and have said so publicly. “If it were up to me, I would tell Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them in.” Interview by Lesley Stahl with United States Senator Dianne Feinstein, on 60 Minutes (CBS television broadcast, Feb. 24, 1995), quoted in Hand Them All In, Las Vegas Rev.-J., Oct. 13, 1997, available in 1997 WL 4555338. (just one instance)
JrThe NRA gives to political candidates regardless of party. Approx. 12 percent of their campaign contributions to candidates went to Democrats in the 2004 election cycle. It’s not their fault that so many Democrats are socialist control freaks.
I don’t know, Ed. I saw a couple of carnival workers go after eachother with hammers one time. Didn’t kill either one, but it sure made a hell of a mess, LOL.
Do auto manufacturers take responsibility for drunk drivers? Same thing. Off to KC to gamble the rent money. lol
Jed,
This law does not protect gun companies, It protects the CONSTITUTION.
See it is actually YOU that wants to jam your way of life down everyones throat! This law is amied at people like you who want to legislate from the bench! There is a very defined process to change the right to keep and bear arms…..Since you know that you are in such a minority you want to sue your ideas into reality
AGAIN from the bill-” judgments and judicial decrees, thereby threatening the separation of powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty, and comity among the several States”
dr,No, it protects the the manufacturers from victims of their negligence!I don’t believe I expressed an opinion on restricting firearms, but as long as both guns and stupidity are legal, we’re in trouble! I’d prefer to outlaw stupidity, but the NRA is against that too, since it takes away most of their membership!
Jed -No, the manufacturers are NOT being protected from the victims of their negligence. Just as others have pointed out here and you seem to be ignoring, makers of cars, guns, hammers, or widgets are not responsible if some jackass misuses that product. If a gun maker sells a DEFECTIVE product, liability still applies, and the recently passed bill makes that abundantly clear. It’s the same as if Ford sells a demonstrably defective car, or Carnation sells cans of tainted tuna. And, I have to add, your last ad hominem attack on NRA members ( I’m not one ) shows a great deal more about you and your lack of skills at argument than it does about gun owners.
Read the 2nd ammendment in full.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Now ask yourself WHY, at that time in history, the people were given the right to bear arms. The main point of the ammendment had to do with “the security of a free state” and never mentions your property. The militia WAS the people. And the third ammendment goes on in the same vein.
Then again, I’m not anti-gun and wouldn’t support taking away the right to own a gun. I only ask that gun owners are responsible people. I know, that’s a lot to ask.
XXX
Guns are also an art form. If you attend a Gun Auction, you’d better bring some “heavy money” as some models will cost you plenty.
Gun owners have something in common, as we all believe in independent freedom.
Some people, especially communists, socialists, and assorted riffraff, are jealous of that.
RD, you seem to be saying that the 2A is NOT an individual right, and guns aren’t needed now like they were then. Both are untrue. King George was not trampling the rights of the state, but of individuals. And the need for a person to defend against a stronger force still exists. It doesn’t matter whether that force is a rapist, a tyrannical government, or a wildcat set on eating your grandchildren. That gun gives you the ability to say “No”. BTW, the people weren’t “given” any rights at all, at that time or any other. What was and is so special about the Constitution was that it was formal recognition by the state that the people were endowed with inalienable rights that the state must not violate. You and I both have the right to freely and openly keep and bear arms ( yes, as in carry around ), we’re just prevented from exercising that right by unjust and unconstitutional actions taken by our local, state, and federal governments.
I agree, gunnies should be responsible. A very small minority are arrogant and careless, but even that’s too many. But we should ask the same of drivers, police, doctors, and teachers. All have the capacity to do lasting damage by irresponsible action.
Clearly XXX has switched sides. I do know the type though, so in love with their pop guns and assured of their “freedom”.
I knew so many folks who let this issue lead them the wrong way in voting. My former best friend voted bush twice. When he did it the secondtime I told him he was too stupid to associate with any longer. I did care for him and suggest for him a survival stategy. I told him that when the GOP takes away your ability to put food in your mouth, perhaps he could eat his gun.
Wow Heckler you are good!. I catch you in a lie, you admit it and STILL manage to attack me! But thanks for the statistic that a WHOPPING 12% of NRA contributions went to Democrat candidates. Hmmm 12% to 88%……..
No one wants to take guns away. That is another kinard from the same right wing that warns us against predatory doctors performing FORCED abortions! But I do think it ought to be harder to get a gun than to have a garage sale, get married, install a toilet, or drive a car. I also have an instinctive distrust of folks who feel they have to not only have A gun but LOTS of guns. It’s the sort of thing that made me get a gun.Heckler and his sort scare me WAY more than any bogeyman terrorist or burglar.
Kerry,When NRA members sit on two cases of beer in the patch of trees across the road from my house, and blast away at whatever moves, up to and including my children, I tend to take it a little personally! This didn’t just happen once. it was dozens of times a year, by many different assholes, all sporting NRA bumperstickers, all trespassing. It was bad enough that much of the time, the sherriff couldn’t begin to keep up with the complaints. Not that it did much good, since the judge was an NRA member too. Our dog was killed, and the local vet did quite a business taking slugs and shot out of my neighbor’s livestock.So, I think I’m entitled to the use of the word stupid! You bastards think you’re such he-men, getting drunk as skunks and going to somebody else’s home and blasting away at anything in sight, and then packing up and leaving without any idea of the destruction you’ve caused! So yes, I hope they take your guns! Be glad if that’s all they do with ‘em!
Don’t sweat it JR, I just happen to be one of those armed liberals. I don’t support a lot of what the NRA stands for, but I do support their stand on gun safety, hunters issues, and training for young hunters. You might be surprised where the NRA stands on a lot of environmental issues. I admit I’m a lot closer to the center than you are, but I’m still a reliable vote for Democrats, lol. Condem me if you want. Doesn’t change my view or my vote.
Well X-man, it looks like you’ve arroused some ire from our liberal friends. Seems a little strange when people decry the taking of our rights in one breath, and then advocate the taking of our rights in the next.
A comment: An armed citizenry is the last brake on an out of control government. If they take the guns, what’s to stop them from doing whatever they want?
I was an NRA member for years. I quit because I didn’t want to pay the dues anymore. But I too am an armed liberal.I believe Mr X has it about right.
“When NRA members sit on two cases of beer in the patch of trees across the road from my house, and blast away at whatever moves, up to and including my children, I tend to take it a little personally!” – Jed
Jed, I can only shake my head in disgust at the behavior of the gun-owners you decribe. They shot at your children? Where did this happen? The police did nothing? The judge did nothing, and ignored assault with a deadly weapon simply because he was an NRA member? You tried to take no other action? Every single one of the offenders had NRA bumper stickers? You took no pictures of them? OK, if you say so.
I’ve got to say I’m offended Jed, no matter how bad you say your situation was. To tar all gun owners with the same brush after you’ve seen only a very few out of an estimated 80 million is, well, stupid. To call me a bastard, which at one time would have been a serious insult to me and my parents, to insist that I am an irresponsible drunkard, simply because I support the right of a free people to be armed for their own defense, is narrow-minded, self-righteous, and arrogant. I have a suggestion for you, Jed. Don’t waste any more time on forums. Start figuring out how to protect yourself and your family. You’ve seen all too plainly for yourself that the police have no duty to protect you, as the courts have ruled many times. You’ve seen that you’re powerless and afraid in the face of predators and thugs. Do something about it. And whining that everybody else should forfeit their arms serves only to make a better world for those predators and thugs.
If the government outlaws guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Jubal,If only outlaws have guns, we’ll be at least twice as safe as we are now! Well over half the people shot are shot by people who weren’t outlaws until they picked up that gun!
Kerry,And just why do you need all that firepower? Because your fellow gun owners have it?Recreation? I realize blowing away somebody’s dog is a hell of a lot of fun, but couldn’t you just pull wings off flies instead?To protect yourself from the goverment? You’re really planning to take that AK47 up against a power that has A-10’s, gunships, artillery and nuclear weapons? C’mon, that’s just a macho fantasy!Oh, it’s just the collection of an art form, and you have no intention of ever using the thing. Yeah, riiiight!You wanted to know what I did about it? I moved! I got the hell out of NRA territory, bought a house in a much safer neighborhood chock full of gangbangers, and never had to worry about flying lead again!
“No one wants to take guns away. That is another kinard (sic) from the same right wing that warns us against predatory doctors performing FORCED abortions!”
Actually, JR, a goodly number of people DO want to take guns away. See Feinstein et al for starters. I won’t bother with links, they’re easy to find and follow if you wish. Besides, I think you can see from this very thread that Jed would be ecstatic if our guns were taken.
“But I do think it ought to be harder to get a gun than to have a garage sale, get married, install a toilet, or drive a car.”
And it is harder, if you’re a law-abiding citizen. You have to pass a national instant check, plus state-level checks in some states. Since you have a gun, you probably already know that. Any felon can do the other things you mention, but not legally buy a gun. A minor can buy a toilet or drive a car, but is restricted on gun purchases.
“I also have an instinctive distrust of folks who feel they have to not only have A gun but LOTS of guns. It’s the sort of thing that made me get a gun.”
Gosh, that sounds a lot like the old “ohmygod he’s got an arsenal” schtick. Just how many is a LOT? How many guns can I own before I am magically transformed from a reasonable person to a twisted trigger-happy gun freak? How many cars does it take to change me from a responsible driver to a drunken crowd-crashing speed demon? And you got one because some folks have more than one? Sorry, I see no logic there, just an emotional response. You should get a gun because you see the reasonableness of it for sport, hunting, or self-defense, then learn how to be both responsible and proficient with it. People that aren’t interested or willing to be safe and knowledgeable about their guns are indeed those that shouldn’t have any.
Jed, virtually everything you lay at the feet of gun-owners is based on wild supposition and twisting of people’s words and intent. Nobody here has mentioned AK47s, nobody here has bragged about having or needing “all that firepower”, nobody here has given any indication that they are sadistic torturers of animals. Your purported experience notwithstanding, all of those notions are your invention. Please look up “straw man argument”. I notice you answered NONE of the questions I posed, yet you fired another volley of vitriol, sarcasm, and condescension. These are the argumentative tools of a person who has no logical or factual basis for their stated views. And they are a very strong indicator, in my experience, of a person who has absolutely no factual knowledge of an issue or interest in examining it, but merely wishes to denigrate the opponent and act smugly superior. How utterly childish. Please flame all you wish, I have an immense arsenal to stroke in a perverted manner, whilst dreaming of the day I and like-minded macho men take over the world as we pull the wings off of flies. Sheesh.
No Kerry,I have no desire to take everybody’s guns. I myself am a fair shot, having done a bit of target shooting in my time, as well as some gunsmithing. The only time I ever needed a gun was to dispatch a rabid skunk.What I’m against is allowing any yahoo with the cash, who can pass an almost laughably cursory background check, to go out and blast anything they can see, and a lot they can’t, and have the NRA back their right to do it!You say the NRA is for responsible gun ownership, but that, as far as I can tell, is just a bunch of spin for advocating anyone doing anything they want, and everyone who happens to be in the way be damned!The real problem is that the people who want guns the most are the ones that should never have them. As Freud said, the bigger the gun, the smaller the prick.
Jed said:”You’re really planning to take that AK47 up against a power that has A-10’s, gunships, artillery and nuclear weapons? C’mon, that’s just a macho fantasy!”
It seems to be working pretty well for the Iraqi insurgency.
For the life of me, I can’t find anywhere that Freud said anything compairing penis size with the size of a gun. His reference to the Phallic symbolism of guns refered to penetration, not size.
“All dream ideas which consist of three parts can mean the man’s sexual organ. Phallus is symbolically substituted with all things that are similar to it by their form, namely long things that jut out: mountains, rocks, sticks, umbrellas, poles, trees… Then objects for which the penetration in the body and harming is characteristic – weapons: knifes, daggers, lances, sabres, swords… and fire arms: guns, rifles, revolvers, cannons… Obviously, the phallus is also substituted with objects from which water runs: pipes, watering-pots, fountains… and with objects that can be lengthened: hanging lights, extensible pens, aerials… Balloons, airplanes, helicopters, rockets, etc. are symbols of erection.”
I suspect that like several other statements, this one has also been “pumped up”.
Jeez, even the Democratic Party doesn’t push gun control much any more. It loses too many votes. You can talk all you want about maintaining liberal purity, but it’s a waste of time if you don’t get elected, and gun control is a vote loser.
I’m always surprised about the argument against gun ownership. If these people were really interested making life safer they would try to outlaw cars before they got to guns. Check the Kansas numbers at the CDC, many times the number of deaths by vehicles verses the people killed by guns.
Well, ain’t this about a crock! Might know the little sissy lib whiners would be off about guns. Poor Jed is pissing in his petty-pants, and the resident unemployed socialist is having a cow, but hypocrite that he is, he owns a gun.Jed, you posted a pack of lies. A bunch of drunk NRA members shot up your place and shot at your kids on an almost daily basis and you couldn’t get anybody to do anything about it? You’re full of shit! And any judge who is a member of the NRA would have thrown the book at somebody who shot at kids on a drunk. You don’t know squat about the NRA. But that’s nothing new…there seems to be a lot you don’t know squat about.
What this country REALLY needs is an open hunting season on liars.
Yeah, I think Jed has pretty well shreaded his credibility by now.
Yeah, don’t you just love it when the anti-gun sissies get all wild-eyed?
Hey XXX? I’d like you to scroll through the company you keep of late.
Jed? You should not be saying take all guns away. You do not mean that. I know you don’t. Almost no one does. But I do think I remember someone saying something about “extremism”once. Given your personal experience, I don’t blame you your anger. I have been shot at myself. These guys wanted to hunt on my Grandfathers farm. As my Grandfather was recently deceased, My Grandmother in a nursing home, and the property leased for cattle grazing, I told them no. One of them put a 30 ought 6 round into a post less than ten feet from me.
Ya know what I see happening here? The old lie at work again. “They wanna take my GUNS!!!!!!” and an almost wetting your pants response. This issue was made to DIVIDE! Don’t you see that in these very posts? I’m even guilty of it myself. Now Jed is a very well known and respected poster here……I don’t think anyone can say that of “dr” and just who the hell is B.A?
Let me digress for a moment. I notice something about those who “flame” you know folks like B.S. errrr I mean B.A. They post anonymously. They have no connected email. Now I know that “Mr” B.A. has probably been in these blogs before under any number of assorted assumed names. B.A.? If you choose to call me a liar and call me various other names, I think you would at least have the courage to have a hot email, mine is. My name is also known here. Everything I post is honest, but it is not everything there is about me. Seems like with your ideas of an “open hunting season” on those you disagree with, you’d be all too eager to do more to confront me with anoymous rhetoric over a keyboard, without even knowing who I am.
To coin a phrase, at your service, sir. And you take that any way you like.
Apologies, I do tend to waste time debating cowards.
Gun Control is an issue that can only become a self fulfilling prophecy for the chicken littles of the world. By your very EXTREME response you only encourage further extreme response from the other side!
JR,No, I don’t want to take everybody’s guns. But I do think we need some sort of licensing, and courts that aren’t afraid to pull them on a first offense! Waiting until they kill somebody just doesn’t cut it.There was a time when hunting was the only means of putting food on the table, and population densities were low enough that the stray bullets didn’t do much damage. Those days are long gone! The subsistance hunter has been replaced by yahoos who just like to get shitfaced and shoot things, and aren’t too particular what, or whose it is, as long as they can make a lot of noise in the process, and leave their wives at home. Sure, there are responsible hunters, but there are more who shouldn’t get anywhere near a firearm, and the NRA works hard to ensure their right to mayhem, and fights even the most reasonable restrictions.So, let’s license gun owners the same way we do drivers, except when it gets pulled, it’s for life, and anyone caught with a gun and no license gets a nice long vacation in maximum security, no excuses!Isn’t perfect, but it’ll help.
PS. BA has also gone by B Augustus and a few other aliases. Check with Galahad- he’s keeping track.
JR
More of “the old lie at work again”
Nelson “Pete” Shields:”I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily –given the political realities –going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statementswill tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with halfa loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal –total control of handguns in the United States –is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of _all_handguns and _all_ handgun ammunition –except for the military, policement, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors –totally illegal.”Chairman Emeritus of Handgun Control, Inc., in “A Reporter At Large: Handguns”, The New Yorker, July26, 1976, pp.57-58
JR
More of “the old lie”
ACLU:”The Union agrees with the Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual’s right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a ‘well-regulatedmilitia’. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.”ACLU policy statement #47 (1986)
JR
More of “the old lie”
Democratic Attorney General Elliot Spitz of New York. March 2000″We have the capacity to squeeze manufacturers like a pincers and hurt them in the marketplace, We are bigger than the NRA.”
Jr
More of “the old lie”
Rosie O’Donnell, talk-show host and former Kmart spokespersonI don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say: Sorry, it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.
JR
MORE of “the old lie”
Sarah Brady:”…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.”Hearst Newspapers Special Report, Handguns in America” October 1997
JR
MORE of “the old lie”
Rep. Charles Schumer:”We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!”Press Conference, December 8, 1993
JR
I could go on but it would be lost on you.
Sigh, everyone cites the extreme positions but nobody seems to want to do anything about the apalling number of gun related deaths. Certainly some type of compromise must be available that allows gun owners and gun advocates to keep their weapons and that implements some mechanism for reducing gun related violence.
I read here that there are laws on the books to do just that, like the federal background check, some state checks, etc. I’m sorry, these are ineffective. International arms dealers have said the United States is like a candy store for weapons. You need a 50 caliber assault rifle and armor piercing ammunition? No problem. A Bosnian arms dealer on 60 Minutes demonstrated how he bought these weapons (he bought over 200 and had them shipped to the Balkans during the war) and had them shipped overseas by claiming they were for elephant hunting. One of the main problems is the fact that gun laws are not uniform across the country.
It certainly doesn’t seem that objectionable to me, for example, to require two things. First, that gun manufacturers keep records tying the serial numbers of the guns they sell to the firearms dealers they sold the weapons to (NOT the retail customer). Second, that the manufacturers have on record a spent round and casing from each gun sold. Note that I said the gun manufacturers, not the government.
If a gun is used in the commission of a crime, the government could obtain limited and specific information about the gun from its make and mode, serial number (if available), and the records kept by the gun manufacturers tying the serial number to the firearms dealer. The government should then yank the license of any dealer who has a history of more than one or two sales of guns used in criminal acts.
I believe that this, tied with the federal background check and other state laws on the books would help to stem illegal firearms purchases (and we all know they occur..felons getting “clean” people to buy guns for them is an example).
In the end, we want to preserve the rights of gun owners, but we want to try to lower the number of deaths due to firearms. By the way, automobiles may kill more people tan guns, but auto manufacturers are under government mandate to be continually improving the safety of their vehicles. That’s all that I think people are asking for…some way to continually make firearms-related deaths go down.
Brian
Much of what you mentioned is already done. The serial number on any gun is traceable from the manufacturer to wholesaler to retail dealer to first retail owner. The ATF does this all the time. BUT you have to have the gun that was used in the crime, many times the gun is never found.
As for keeping a spent round an casing for each specific gun, its been tried at great expense and only one or 2 convictions attributed to it. It was tried by one state in the northeast but I cant so for sure which one. They scrapped the idea. Barrels and firing pins can be changed or altered. Even firing a few hundred rounds through a gun can change the “signature” of the rifling,firing pin, extractor,they change with wear.
As far as deaths go, firearms accidents are at an all time low since they started keeping records around 1905, not per capita, total deaths period. Roughly half the remaining deaths are suicides, how you stop those I don’t know.If someone wants to die they’ll find a way.
Thanks, Heckler,
I was aware of the problems with the spent casings/shells, but I believe that every loophole being closed would help. Having the shell/casing information might help to identify the dealer even without the gun, for example.
So, in your opinion, what can we do? I know gun manufacturers are working on safe guns..guns with microprocessors tied to a wrist strap that the gun owner wears, for example. What other measures might you find acceptable? By the way, I like to plink paper with a Hammerli o.22 target pistol I have, so I’m not anti-gun. However, I do agree that gun ownership is relatively unencumbered. I’m not saying it should be encumbered, but I would be willing to suffer some inconvenience if it ended up helping the statistics.
Well Jr, you old communist welfare case, it’s good to hear you’ve missed me!
Jubal,”It seems to be working pretty well for the Iraqi insurgency.”
It does if you’ve got an infinite supply of cannon fodder. Last I heard, the kill ratio was about 10 to 1, in our favor, and that doesn’t include all the “collateral damage,” ie. all the innocent people caught in the middle. Oh, we’ll get them, if we have to kill everybody in Iraq to do it!Those insurgents are suffering the same delusions you are!
Oh Jed, let me tell you about body counts. They’re BS. Pure propaganda.I’ve seen first hand how body counts work, and if you believe the BS about how many of the enemy we’re killing in Iraq, you’re watching too much Faux news. Keep in mind, we’ve supposedly killed the al Queda #2 about 30 times now. The insurgency in Iraq has managed to tie down the most powerful military force on the planet for going on 3 years. You think we’re going to get them? I have serious doubts.Here’s a little something about body counts;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301273.html
Jed, you’re starting to sound like a war supporter.
Well damn, Jed. Quoting our (Republican) talking points? You’re a closet Republican! And here all this time I thought libs was too stupid to see the facts. There may be hope for you yet.
Jubal, you may be a gun owner, but I got some serious doubts about you being a member of the NRA. You’re just too much of a liberal wus! Jed’s got you, bub! We’ll eventually get all the insurgents even if it means killing everybody in Iraq.You tell em Jed!
Jubal,Apparently, there’s no dearth of applicants for that #2 position, even with it’s lack of job security! That probably says a lot about how we’ve behaved in the middle east since WWII. And yeah, I tend to believe the body counts, but I do wonder how many of ‘em joined the insurgency posthumously.And BA,I have never thought we had any business there; I was just commenting on the efficiency of our storm troops when it comes to indicriminately dealing out death! I do mourn for all the Iraqi civilians caught in the middle.
Jed, looks like you made a new friend, LOL.
WOW what a surprise from you HECKLER! Actual quotes and sources, most taken way beyond context but you get credit for trying. Do remember, I got a gun because of people like you.
B.A. How do I put this…… I really do not take seriously any derision directed at me from someone who not only is not genuine, but continually changes disguises. I am not a communist, I am not on welfare. But I think any intelligent poster in these blogs already has a fairly good sense of your credibility. Go Ahead B A change your name again. But as soon as I get who you are, you get the Heisman.
I’m done with this arguement. It, like abortion, is a TOOL of the right to get people to vote emotionally and against their own best interests.
Jr
You fail to show a single example of how any of the quotes I cited was out of context. I respond with facts, you respond with…what.
If you look at the dates on the quotes I cited and if you could see the dates on the dozens of ones I didn’t cite you would notice something rather striking. It’s hard to find any dated after about the year 2000. The Democratic party is getting its ass kicked so bad in elections over Second Amendment issues they are afraid to say anything about it anymore.
What is it about Progressives, Democratic Socialists, and Marxists that makes them feel the need to make people dependant on the government for their protection? Or do they wish to enslave them? The evidence is clear that gun control doesnt reduce crime, so there must be another reason these people continue with such freakish zeal to try to disarm the law abiding people of this nation.
There’s a simple answer to the gun debate. If you’re against gun ownership, don’t own one. There are enough gun laws on the books, they need to be enforced. If we can’t get current gun laws enforced, how is it going to do any good to pass a law against guns? The second amendment enjoys wide support. We’re not going to see guns banned.
if you want to hold manufactures responsible for the deaths related to there products it’s stupid. Why so? Thousands arew killed by auto accidents. So is it the drivers fault or the manufactuer? Now deth by a gun or a car is still the fault of the user not the product.So why is it OK to go after gun manufactures and not the auto industry? WELL?