Why do commie Dems want gun manufacturers held liable when a murderer uses their product
but they don't wand Ford to be held liable when a scumbag drives his F-250 while drunk and murders a family of 5?
Replies to: Why do commie Dems want gun manufacturers held liable when a murderer uses their product
Because it's political to them. If NRA was PP-like Dem donor/supporter, they would be pro 2nd Amend
(no message)
Like Moscow Mitch?
(no message)
Maybe gov't should fund NRA firearms training. NRA can promise to keep money separate.
This model has worked for Planned Parenthood. Shouldn't every citizen be able to access firearms training to that gun use is legal, rare and effective?
I didn't know that Planned Parenthood was involved in Firearms Training.
(no message)
You’re operating at about 3 levels below the conversation.
(no message)
Good one. Get that from an Orange tweet?
(no message)
No firearms necessary to mutilate a baby in the womb.
PP has different blood on its hands, to continue with this line of rhetoric.
Interesting they trust Trump to take guns away. Maybe they don't actually think Trump is a dictator.
Personally, I think a pussy hat or a KKK-like antifa mask is a red flag.
Your point re hypocrisy:Why doesn't Left see ID for guns as racist, black gun owner suppression?
I liked that one a lot. Strong point.
So guns are a black thing.
(no message)
Must be the case for you. Otherwise, why would you propose a solution which relies on IDs?
(no message)
I don't recall proposing a "solution". Please enlighten.
(no message)
That's your tact? You are going to dissociate yourself from Dem proposals? Good for you.
(no message)
Check out all of his unimaginative [NT] posts in just this thread. Not worth the time.
If he’d just try in his posts (I’m not expecting much because I know his limitations) to express any ideas rather than just posting childish disruptions, I’d be happy.
Why wouldn’t it be the same solution for both things for Dems? Hmmmm.
(no message)
Indeed. Why do the Dems want to disarm African-Americans by requiring an ID to buy arms.
African-Americans should ask themselves that.
I think most Dems would prefer no guns whatsoever. The most interesting point here is...
the one you imply with your question, namely that liberals tend to assume that black people are less able to handle rudimentary, customary responsibilities, like obtaining IDs. The underlying assumption, when you get past the rhetoric, is precisely that: black people won't be able to navigate the procedures necessary to obtain identification.
Did you happen to see any articles on a recent study done about language and political beliefs? The researchers found that while moderates and conservatives generally speak the same to members of minority groups the same way they speak to whites, liberals tend to adjust their language "down" when speaking to them. You've probably experienced this before. I certainly have. Many times. The ones that stand out were examples in college. Occasions in which black students misstated facts, mispronounced words, or made points that were obvious and added nothing to the discussion, which then were left uncorrected or were not constructively criticized . Now, it might be explained that the professor and the other students did not speak up out of fear of being labeled "prejudiced," but I don't think that fully explains it. There is an underlying, paternalistic belief that members of minority groups can't be expected to do the same things as most whites can do. Like using proper terminology or diction. Like find the DMV or figure out a way to get there when they're poor. Unsurprisingly, these ideas seem to be much more prevalent among people in the intelligentsia and higher socioecnomic strata, rather than among working class whites. It turns out that assuming a belief system that you believe is most compassionate towards black people doesn't produce a great affinity with actual black people, nor does it provide you with a better understanding of their lives.
You have hit the nail on the head.
That is exactly correct
With the same swiftness that views re gay marriage changed, same happening re gun reform.
All civilizations decay.,, it isn't actually "progressive" at all..
"Views" come and go. The Romans allowed infanticide and the Greeks pederasty. Oh! And in the 1940's the highly cultured Germans committed industrial genocide. Unfortunately, one man's gun reform is another's abridgment of freedom. These are your "views" and they are so so fickle.
Let’s see pederasty, infanticide, mass murder, and restrictions on guns. Which doesn’t go with the
others?
None! They are all interconnected deep in the human unconscious.
And driven by castration anxiety... evolution's incest prevention mechanism.
If you say so.
(no message)
Rights aren't subject to vote. Glad we have a civil rights organization like the NRA protecting us.
(no message)
Be honest... the NRA suffer from serious castration anxiety... and are terrified of threats...
to their phalluses.
That is a little dramatic. It is more simple than that.
They are a single issue organization. They have a job to do to protect that issue. Some people don't like it that they do that job well. Others like it that they do that job well.
The are also the 3rd largest membership organization in the United States, behind AAA and AARP. That makes them pretty effective at what they do...which is (i) train people (including LEOs) in firearms use, and (ii) protect the right to defense from aggression of others.
I don't think we have to engage in any Freudian analysis. Their goals are simply stated by them (and referenced in the Constitution, no less), and they pursue those goals tirelessly.
“civil rights organization.” You understand its purpose, alright.
(no message)
I always thought a combination of the ACLU & NRA would make the perfrect civil rights organization.
At least the NRA is staying true to the rights it was formed to protect. Various ACLU chapters are starting to abandon free speech rights and freedom of religion rights, among others. They've lost their appetite for defending many "unsavory" (in their opinion) defendants, which is sad.
Dont worry ACLU absolutism is also alive and well. Take Charlottesville.
The City wanted to move the rally to another park away from the congested downtown. The ACLU convinced a federal judge to issue an injunction. Perhaps the street fighting and car death would have been avoided if the City had been able to have forced the rally elsewhere.
The NRA was not established to protect rights, Ned.
It was created as - and remains - a lobbying organization designed to protect the financial interests of the gun manufacturers.
It’s like the Tobacco Institute.
I don't want to embarrass you, Chris, but you are outside your area of expertise on this.
It was formed in 1871 for marksmanship. Then it moved to rights protection...which is actually now the domain of the NRA-ILA, not the NRA. NRA is about responsible use of rights; NRA-ILA is for the actual protection of rights being abridged by the government.
Interestingly, even if you are right (which you are not), my point still stands. You didn't actually refute me, Chris.
If you guys are going to try to keep blacks from getting firearms by requiring IDs for purchases, you should probably try to inform yourself of your opposition.
You’re simply wrong
It is a lobbying organization, registered as such.
Its primary funders are gun manufacturers.
It sells itself as a gun-rights organization, but it is first-and-foremost a lobbying org, representing he gun industry, not gun owners.
I respect that you recognize your earlier post is wrong, so you changed. But, you're still wrong.
The NRA is the 3rd largest membership organization in the United States behind AAA and AARP. You can't pretend that its power doesn't come from the people.
Membership is irrelevant. It is a lobbying org for gun manufacturers.
(no message)
Membership, especially of that magnitude, makes all the difference. You are wrong, Chris.
(no message)
It was initially a sportsman’s group. No lobbying and they didn’t give two shits about handguns.
That only changed in the mid 70’s with the rise of the new conservatives.
And supported several kinds of gun control they oppose today.
(no message)
Yep. Now it’s essentially a group run by lawyers and lobbyists who take the most extreme positions.
Both Chris and Ned are wrong.
It was not formed as a lobbying group for gun manufacturers. It also wasn’t formed to lobby and advocate for second amendment rights.
Call it what you will. They do necessary work that many people don't appreciate. Like ACLU of old.
Remember when the ACLU defended Nazis? They were actually defending freedom of speech for all of us, but I get that most people don't see these issues that deeply.
And like the ACLU of old they often take extreme positions. The ACLU constantly fought even
reasonable time, place and manner speech restrictions. They have taken ridiculous extreme positions on the Establishment clause as well. All absolutists are goofy in my view and the NRA fits that bill pretty well.
The NRA has accepted and supported many reasonable limits. For example, the ban on automatic weapons
(no message)
Back then they were a sportsman’s group. Of course they weren’t in favor of full military weapons.
They were fine with handgun bans back then as well.
They have changed their tune dramatically.
And they still are not in favor of civilian ownership of full military weapons like M-16s.
And, they just supported the ban of bump stocks, which seek to make an AR act like a military rifle. Without a bump stock, it does not act like that. It acts like any .223 rifle.
Such things are accepted in sophisticated countries like Switzerland, but the NRA is not radical.
Well that sure shows reasonableness. I take it they are against bazookas and BAR’s also?
What other reasonable regulations are they in favor of, magazine restrictions, universal background checks?
Yes, they do oppose machine guns. As I said, they are far more limiting than Switzerland.
(no message)
Very reasonable folks.
You also must have edited that post to add Switzerland.
Love how you cherry pick the laws and systems of Europe when they suit your purpose.
The NRA. On some things I do. On their reasonableness, I don’t.
(no message)
Responds to Ned below.
(no message)
Does it hurt you to know that you agree with them?
(no message)
Yep, my father had been a member since his childhood.
He left and wrote them a letter when they chose to fight restrictions on ARs and such.
AR's are the types of guns most protected by the 2nd Amendment. Others are secondary.
(no message)
So, he became a communist gun-grabber?
(no message)
Still have my grand dad’s card from the late 30’s.
(no message)
Since when is the Second Amendment an unlimited right?
(no message)
You think constitutional rights can be limited based on popularity at any one point in time?!
(no message)
“Popularity” is the wrong term. The Supreme Court has relied on evolving social science.
DUI Roadblocks
Airport Security
Sexual Orientation
Constitutional rights are always balanced through the prism of “reasonableness.”
Mass shootings tend to change viewpoints and jurisprudence re what are “reasonable” government limits to the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court does not cling to the political dialogue, but they do pay attention to the world we live in.
Surely you wouldn't use the limit on shouting fire in a theater to limit political speech?
That is basically what you are preparing to argue here with the 2nd Amendment, even though I assume (correct me if I am wrong) you would never make that argument with the 1st Amendment.
Then again, maybe you are ok with limiting "hate speech" (which is to say, political speech you don't like) as opposed to merely limiting directly inciting speech.
I thought we (you and I) at least agreed on free speech. No new limits. Allow hate speech...so we know where all the assholes are.
Are you seriously equating mass shootings via high capacity firearms with political speech?
No idea what point you are trying to make re gun control legislation and the Second Amendment.
Actually, that is what your side does: equate speech with violence. I'm not doing that.
There are reasonable limits on all rights. Agreed?
There are abrogations or violations of rights. Agreed?
The two are different. Agreed?
But the former can be used as cover for the latter. "We aren't violating rights, we are just reasonably limiting them."
For the 1st Amendment, the Left uses the former (the reasonable limits) as cover to try to stop traditionally protected speech. Substantive political speech becomes "hate speech" and so can now be stopped as if only a reasonable limit is being applied.
I'm comparing that attempt, that everyone sees happening, to what you are preparing to argue regarding the 2nd Amendment. The similarity is the use of cover of reasonable limits to hide or justify the abrogation of rights.
That is the analogy which you appear to have missed.
The US Supreme Court decides the boundaries of constitutional rights.
Not the Democrats.
Not the Republicans.
Not the media.
So, if you are frustrated or concerned over the media and Democrats calling out Trump’s “hate speech,” then relax. A newspaper OpEd is not a binding precedent impacting the First Amendment.
Trump can tweet away. It is protected speech.
You miss my point. Intentionally I assume. But, you understand it, since you stopped arguing yours.
(no message)
My point is backed by Supreme Court case law. Your point is lost on even yourself.
(no message)
Your new point? I wasn't arguing that.
(no message)
My belief is the SCOTUS should interpret our laws, not rewrite them. That was how it was set up.
This is really a classic disagreement between liberal and conservatives. When Amy Barret replaces RBG we’ll see if you still invest so much power into the SCOTUS.
Are you aware that the Supreme Court’s primary role is to interpret the US Constitution?
Hence, they do not write or rewrite legislation.
They sometimes interpret statutes in which there is no constitutional question in play. In other words, they are settling a legal dispute interpreting a federal statute raised in a civil or criminal case.
However, they are often interpreting a constitutional question that a state or federal statute implicates.
But, as to Second Amendment, the Court has already made clear that it is not an absolute right, and is subject to limitations. What those boundaries will be, has yet to be tested.
That is a more controversial statement than you indicate.
The Constitution does not state that. The Supreme Court stated that, and assumed the responsibility. Most scholars grant it (that they have the power, not that it is their primary duty). But some do not. Also, your point does not refute Baron's point.
Actually, your point is an extension of what the Left is doing with speech, and wants to do with guns. You want to extend "normal limits" (for the amendments) and "interpretation" (for SCOTUS), both of which are generally accepted by both sides, to substantive limits on the Bill of RIghts and activist creation of law through radical "interpretation" which is actually legislation.
You will sit here and say they are just interpreting, or using reasonable limits. But, you are actually trying to legislate and establish substantive limits.
Only controversial for the 5% right wing whack jobs.
(no message)
We've ever seen you this deep in a thread before. And not relying on links! Good for you!
(no message)
Hmm. Perhaps since free speech was an unlimited right...and freedom of religion. Why ask me that?
(no message)
Exception being a woman's right to choose, eh Ned.
(no message)
Conor is curious: Since when has any person's right to choose to act been an unlimited right?
None of us have the right to choose to kill someone, 521. Don't you agree?
Our rights have always ended where another person's rights begin. You can swing your fist until it starts to approach my face. You can cut with your knife until it starts to cut another human being who hasn't consented to your acts.
They are subject to regulation though and the mood in the nation is shifting. There will be more of
these tragedies, that’s inevitable and at some point there will be a groundswell.
I agree: The nature of gov't is to limit rights, & the gov't has almost infinite attempts to do so.
That means that rights will necessarily decrease over time until the government is reset. All we can hope to do is slow the transgressions against human rights by government (thereby lengthening the life of government, ironically). We can never hope to stop the government from violating human rights altogether.
Struggling to reconcile your 'commie' comment with your bootlicking of a cowardly Russian asset.
(no message)
Guess you are a clueless struggling nitwit
(no message)
Struggling to reconcile your post with the fact that you are doing the Russian's bidding...
...in trying to make sure that the POTUS is weakened as much as possible. You, sir, are a Russian asset.
Yeah, right. You should try Deep Breathing for relaxation.
(no message)
You can't deny that you serve Russia's interests by trying to weaken an elected US president.
Whether intentional or not, you serve their interests.
Weird that you can accuse a person of X, but when I accuse a person of X, I need deep breathing. Either we both need deep breathing for relaxation, or neither of us does. Do you agree?
Orange doesn't need my "help" in serving Russia's interests.
He has that more than well-covered.
And yet, you insist on doing Putie's bidding. Go figure.
(no message)
Heh.
(no message)
I read 'Deep State Breathing', still laughing.
(no message)
