Guns for Terrorists

[billvon 3,116]

>What about innocent till proven guilty?

The Patriot Act did away with that.

>What is the national interest? In this case it seems removing guns
>from people who are innocent.

I think it is absurd that we would be willing to lock up hundreds of innocent people we think might harm us, but allow those same people to buy guns. Letting them remain free but unarmed is much less a violation of their civil rights.

Recently, a poster here on this board had his weapon confiscated because of a domestic quarrel. It's absurd that he should lose a gun over that, but a man on a terrorism watch list can still buy them in large quantities.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Could you elaborate. What are they exempted from so that congress is now considering a bill to exempt them from?

They were persecuted by the anti gun lobby in anti gun areas that allowed people to sue gun makers for criminals using a weapon to commit a crime.

It would be as one other poster put it like suing the maker of a baseball bat for a murder that a bat was used as the weapon.

That is wrong.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

How many manufacturers have been sued because someone got the shit beaten out of them with a baseball bat?

Why the hell not? People sue over hot coffee. That's my point. The problem is not the application of the liability laws to guns, its the ridiculous laws as written. Congress wants to exempt gun makers, GWB is pushing to limit their application against doctors. Sooner or later people have to tell the pols to dig their heads out of their asses and deal with the problem wholesale.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Why the hell not? People sue over hot coffee.

You must not know the true details of that particular case (other than what the media chose to report). I suggest you read about it, as it makes sense, and is pretty interesting.

Quote

That's my point. The problem is not the application of the liability laws to guns, its the ridiculous laws as written.

Are you talking about the general liability laws, or gun laws?

Quote

Sooner or later people have to tell the pols to dig their heads out of their asses and deal with the problem wholesale.

There are alot of problems they need to deal with. Instead they choose to argue over steriods in baseball and the teri shiavo case.

[Ron 10]

Quote

>What about innocent till proven guilty?

The Patriot Act did away with that.

The PA did no such thing. you say it did does not make it so. The PA was not the greatist piece of legislation passed, but BOTH sides voted for it...Even those that voted against it later.

If you are innocent you are STILL innocent.

Quote

>What is the national interest? In this case it seems removing guns
>from people who are innocent.

I think it is absurd that we would be willing to lock up hundreds of innocent people we think might harm us, but allow those same people to buy guns. Letting them remain free but unarmed is much less a violation of their civil rights.

I think its absurd to assume that I want to lock up innocent people...Show me where *I* locked someone up that was innocent, or where I said that we should lock up innocent people. I have no problem QUESTIONING someone...I have no problem WATCHING someone. But I never said to jail a suspect.

So you only support some civil rights? That is only the ones that fit what you deem OK. What other right do you want to remove?

Quote

Recently, a poster here on this board had his weapon confiscated because of a domestic quarrel. It's absurd that he should lose a gun over that, but a man on a terrorism watch list can still buy them in large quantities.

Nope, I AGREE with a guy that was charged with Domestic Violence having his weapons taken away.
Actually Id rather they not take them away. But, what would the liberals say if they didn't take it away and he killed his ex with it? They and YOU would be up in arms about it. Of course you would blame the weapon not the shooter

The fact that this person had a hard time getting them back after he was PROVEN INNOCENT was BS.

I like how you want to remove peoples rights when you don't like the rights in the first place.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Most domestic hamsters in the US can be traced to a single mating pair imported from Syria.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Most domestic hamsters in the US can be traced to a single mating pair imported from Syria.

Is that true? If so, thats kinda cool.

Anyway, I realise you don't like gun threads....But you don't help any by doing this.

If you don't like them feel free to stay out of them, or even the whole part of DZ.com known as SC.

But posting neat (if true) however useless stuff is not anything but more noise.

Why just add noise, why not just butt out?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,116]

>The PA did no such thing.

Google "Jose Padilla."

>If you are innocent you are STILL innocent.

Then why are there hundreds of people in Gitmo who will be there essentially forever with no trial?

>Nope, I AGREE with a guy that was charged with Domestic Violence
>having his weapons taken away.

So you agree that someone who is charged with a crime, but not convicted of it, should be denied certain rights. No problem. I think that's OK as long as the rights denied are kept to a minimum and make sense. In the domestic-violence case, removal of the gun helps prevent gun violence against the person who was attacked. (Note I did not say prevent - I said help prevent.)

Given that, someone accused of terrorism should be treated the same way. Once he goes to trial and is cleared, then he gets all his rights back.

>The fact that this person had a hard time getting them back after he
>was PROVEN INNOCENT was BS.

I think it is too. Once proven innocent you get all your rights back.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Given that, someone accused of terrorism should be treated the same way. Once he goes to trial and is cleared, then he gets all his rights back.

But Bill, the people in question have not been charged with anything... they are just suspected... if they had charges pending, it would have shown up on the background check, and they would not have been able to get the gun until cleared of the charge.

I have said before that I disagree with the treatment of Padilla and the Gitmo detainees... charge them, give them a trial, or let them go (send them back to where ever they were picked up in the case of the Gitmo folks)

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Hummusx 0]

Quote

>The PA did no such thing.

Google "Jose Padilla."

>If you are innocent you are STILL innocent.

Then why are there hundreds of people in Gitmo who will be there essentially forever with no trial?

>Nope, I AGREE with a guy that was charged with Domestic Violence
>having his weapons taken away.

So you agree that someone who is charged with a crime, but not convicted of it, should be denied certain rights. No problem. I think that's OK as long as the rights denied are kept to a minimum and make sense. In the domestic-violence case, removal of the gun helps prevent gun violence against the person who was attacked. (Note I did not say prevent - I said help prevent.)

Given that, someone accused of terrorism should be treated the same way. Once he goes to trial and is cleared, then he gets all his rights back.

>The fact that this person had a hard time getting them back after he
>was PROVEN INNOCENT was BS.

I think it is too. Once proven innocent you get all your rights back.

How many of those in Gitmo are american citizens? Anyone that is NOT a citizen would not be particularly pertinent to the current discussion.

____________________________________
It’s like selling a million grills all at the same time…with extended warranties. -Hank Hill

[Ron 10]

Quote

Google "Jose Padilla."

I did

Quote

Still, authorities had some evidence linking Padilla to the terrorist network that had attacked America. Investigators had found a photograph of Padilla in an al Qaeda safe house in Pakistan and found lingering evidence on a hard drive on a computer in the house that showed that someone, most likely Padilla, had been cruising the Internet searching for labs and universities in the U.S. that might unwittingly be able to provide the low-grade radioactive waste needed to manufacture a dirty bomb. Then, of course, there were the statements investigators had been given by Abu Zabaydah, a high-ranking al Qaeda chief who was picked up last fall after a gun battle in Pakistan.

Ok enough to question him I think.

More on your "Good Boy"

Quote

Jose Padilla is the poster boy for just about everything that can go wrong with America's youth. As a teenage gang member in Chicago, he cast himself as the perfect extra in some tedious Charles Bronson revenge flick. After a string of arrests for petty crime, he was arrested at the age of 14 for taking part in a group assault, robbery and murderous stabbing that was notable for its simple-minded brutality.

He spent his teen years in juvenile hall. Young adulthood didn't suit him much better. His series of petty crimes continued unrelentingly. He didn't learn from experience, fighting with and fleeing cops virtually every single time he was arrested, despite the fact that fleeing clearly wasn't his forte.

When his family moved to Florida, he came along for the ride, perhaps in the hopes that a warmer climate would mellow his disposition. No such luck. In 1991, he was stopped after firing a gun at another driver in a road rage incident. He resisted arrest, of course, and spent 10 months in jail.

Great Kid. And he DID go to Karachi, Pakistan looking to replace his passport.

Nothing illegal about that, but add in how a guy just like him was named as a terrorist and HIS picture was found in an AQ safehouse.....

Wow..You think this guy is INNOCENT?

I will admit I'd like to see him at least have an attorney. But the current rules don't require it.

Quote

>If you are innocent you are STILL innocent.

Then why are there hundreds of people in Gitmo who will be there essentially forever with no trial?

No one will be there forever...In fact some of them have been released and then killed fighting US troops.

Quote

So you agree that someone who is charged with a crime, but not convicted of it, should be denied certain rights.

No, I think it might be prudent

Quote

Nope, I AGREE with a guy that was charged with Domestic Violence having his weapons taken away.
Actually Id rather they not take them away. But, what would the liberals say if they didn't take it away and he killed his ex with it? They and YOU would be up in arms about it. Of course you would blame the weapon not the shooter

So in the choice of letting him be and there being a risk (even you will admit that if you want to kill someone any old bat will do) I don't see the need to take away a guys gun, OTHER than making the anti-gun folks happy...Remember he could still kill her with a kitchen knife.

Quote

Given that, someone accused of terrorism should be treated the same way. Once he goes to trial and is cleared, then he gets all his rights back.

so you support a domestic Violence accused guy having his weapons taken away. You support not allowing an accused terrorist a weapon, but you oppose holding someone who has a stack of evidence against him?

I really don't follow that.

Quote

I think it is too. Once proven innocent you get all your rights back.

This we agree.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If the general liability laws leave the firearm manufacturers vulnerable, isn't the problem with the general laws. Why do gun makers get a special exemption?

Because that's an industry that is under unwarranted attack with frivolous, baseless lawsuits, in an effort to sue them out of business with legal expenses. Since the anti-gun folks can't get what they want from the legislature, they are trying to do it in the courts. Even though they have lost every single case, eventually, it has cost the gun industry millions to defend themselves. And they don't have that much money to spare for this kind of stuff. If they don't get immunity, they ought to at least get to recover their defense costs when the plaintiff loses.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Recently, a poster here on this board had his weapon confiscated because of a domestic quarrel. It's absurd that he should lose a gun over that, but a man on a terrorism watch list can still buy them in large quantities.

Then the solution is not to brand all of the nation's gun laws as absurd, as this anti-gun press release does (and which the liberal media so eagerly picked-up and regurgitated for the public). The solution is to pass a law that says if you are on a terrorism watch list, then this is a disqualifying item for a gun purchase. And the FBI will add those names to their database, along with former felons and such.

But then all you critics of the Patriot Act will need to think long and hard about how rights are being denied to people who haven't been convicted of any crime... Do you really want to start down that slippery slope?

This is all about bullshit anti-gun fear-mongering. Nothing more.

[Kennedy 0]

OK, ignoring the titlte of the thread...

Let's examine your idea that gun makers are somehow responsible for gun crimes.

Are Ford and Anheuser-Busch responsible for a drunk in an F150 killing a pedestrian?

You need to understand that the chain of legal liability is broken by an illegal act.

The gun manufacturers will still be subject to normal product liability laws. If they make a faulty gun and it hurts someone, they'll be sued and have to pay up. However, once the bill passes, they will no longer be sued fro engaging in lawful practices. Every gun sold by a manufacturer is directly watched and approved by the FBI and BATFE. Unless you want to claim the FBI and ATF are allowing crime to go unpunished, you can't claim the manufacturers are doing anything wrong.

This law is not changing the law, it's simply stating that you can't win a lawsuit against the gun industry when you sue them for acting according to the law. It does nothing more than codify hundreds years of jurisprudence.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Because that's an industry that is under unwarranted attack with frivolous, baseless lawsuits, in an effort to sue them out of business with legal expenses. Since the anti-gun folks can't get what they want from the legislature, they are trying to do it in the courts.

If the liability laws as written allow this then they should be rewritten, not patched haphazardly like a Microsoft product.

Quote

Even though they have lost every single case, eventually, it has cost the gun industry millions to defend themselves. And they don't have that much money to spare for this kind of stuff. If they don't get immunity, they ought to at least get to recover their defense costs when the plaintiff loses.

I agree. Loser pays all costs is the best way to stop this type of hijacking of the judicial system for political ends without creating a regime where the rules are specifically different for those with lobbying power. Abandoning the concept of strict liability is another.

[dorbie 0]

Sigh, if they're not bitching that you're taking someone's rights away by sending them to Guantanamo, they're bitching because you're not not taking someone else's rights away by allowing them to buy a gun.

Just shows you. You can't win with some people, especially if they think some rights are more important than others.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

OK, ignoring the titlte of the thread...

Let's examine your idea that gun makers are somehow responsible for gun crimes.

I give up. Learn how to read

Quote

You need to understand that the chain of legal liability is broken by an illegal act.

If that is true, there is no need for further legislation.

[Kennedy 0]

Quotes from legal scholars

Text of HR 800 - Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

NSSF Lawsuit Summary page

US Chamber of Commerce supports PLCAA

National Association of Manufacturers supports PLCAA

Letter from Manufacturers to CT newspaper

Quote

Arms Bill Protects Staffers, Consumers
April 2, 2005

The old adage "look before you leap" can be applied to The Courant's March 23 editorial "No Immunity For Gun Dealers." Apparently, no one looked - as in having read the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - before leaping to criticize this common-sense legal-reform measure.

We Connecticut-based firearm manufacturers support this bill because it takes careful aim at junk lawsuits that are threatening to bankrupt our businesses and industry, and throw several hundred tax-paying Connecticut workers on the unemployment line.

Ours is the most heavily regulated industry in the United States. Junk lawsuits that blame us for the criminal misuse of our lawfully sold products, as in Bridgeport's failed case, have cost us more than $200 million to defend. These suits amount to blaming the Ford Motor Co. for drunken-driving accidents. This is why both organized labor, such as the United Auto Workers representing Colt's factory workers, and business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, support the bill.

The legislation does not close the courthouse door to truly injured parties to bring legitimate cases, such as for defective products, or to sue a gun dealer who negligently transfers a firearm or violates any state or federal law.

Contrary to The Courant's claim, Congress has repeatedly acted to protect specific industries from unwarranted lawsuits. Examples range from Amtrak to the computer industry for damages arising out of Y2K.

We thank Rep. Rob Simmons for being a proud co-sponsor of this bill, along with 199 fellow members of Congress from both parties. All members of Connecticut's congressional delegation should support Connecticut jobs and industry. Why doesn't The Courant?

Stephen L. Sanetti
President and COO
Sturm, Ruger and Co.
Southport

Carlton S. Chen
Vice President
General Counsel and Secretary
Colt's Manufacturing Co.
West Hartford

This letter was also signed by the presidents of the Marlin Firearms Co. of North Haven and Winchester Firearms of New Haven; and the CEO of O.F. Mossberg and Sons Inc. of North Haven.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Excellent references, Kennedy. Thanks for taking the time to dig up the facts for everyone.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

What about guns for kittens? Can we arm kittens? Especially this one: http://templedamon.com/cattery-kitten-sale2.jpg

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

What about guns for kittens? Can we arm kittens?

As long as you realize that it'll be harder for you to kill kittens then...

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

As long as you realize that it'll be harder for you to kill kittens then...

Not a chance! I kill kittens by the dozen!

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

Keeping terror suspects from buying guns seems like an issue the entire nation can rally around. But the National Rifle Association is, as usual, fighting even the most reasonable regulation of gun purchases.

I'm an NRA member and definitely pro-second-amendment. I think you are very wrong in saying that the NRA fights even the most reasonable regulation of gun purchases.

There are few, if any industries in the U.S. that are more heavily regulated than the firearms industry. The NRA is about holding people accountable for their actions using existing laws.

The problem with taking away the rights of people that the government doesn't like is that you are putting a great deal of trust in an entity that, in my opinion, has not proved itself worthy of that level of trust.

What if the government decides it doesn't like Libertarians? Or Democrats? Or skydivers, for that matter?

As one close friend put it, "I don't trust any government that doesn't trust me to have a gun." Amen!

Quote

Unfortunately, the N.R.A. - rather than the national interest - is too often the driving force on gun policy in Congress, particularly since last November's election.

Is the national interest served by taking away citizens' access to means to defend themselves, their families, and their homes because of their political leanings? I don't think so.

Quote

Even after the G.A.O.'s disturbing revelations, the Senate has continued its work on a dangerous bill to insulate manufacturers and sellers from liability when guns harm people. If it passes, as seems increasingly likely, it will remove any fear a seller might have of being held legally responsible if he provides a gun used in a terrorist attack."

The bill to insulate gun manufacturers and sellers comes from attempts by the anti-gunners to put the industry out of business by filing frivolous lawsuits. These people are abusing our legal system in attempt to take away your rights.

Quote

Thoughts?

I just ordered some t-shirts that I really like. The shirt says, "All in favor of gun control raise your right hand", and has a drawing of Hitler giving the sieg heil salute.

I do not equate anti-gunners with Hitler, but they are seriously misguided people that don't seem to live in the real world. For example, a lot of left-wing celebrities wholeheartedly endorse gun control, while they surround themselves with electrified fences and armed guards. I don't think they have any clue what is best for the rest of the world.

The whole problem with gun control is that it is a "slippery slope" that, in my opinion, would be very foolish to tread on, and the type of law you are talking about is a very thinly-veiled version of gun control. I hope you will re-think your views.

Walt

[Tonto 1]

Quote

I think you are very wrong in saying

I didn't say that. I posted a newspaper article that did.

Quote

I hope you will re-think your views.

You don't know my views. If you use the search function on this forum, you'll find my active and positive participation in threads related to marksmanship at above 1000m range.

Once you've read those, ask again whether you think I should rethink anything. I posted a newspaper article, and only the word "Thoughts?" was my own.

You clearly did not think before you went off half cocked.
Looks like you just had an Accidental discharge in this thread.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

You clearly did not think before you went off half cocked.
Looks like you just had an Accidental discharge in this thread.

I'm guilty as charged. 2nd Amendment rights are obviously a hot button for me! Fortunately, I've only got one other hot button.

Walt