Good news

[Ronnie Raygun]

http://www.nolalive.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1052204290268230.xml


Ban on suing gun makers set to pass

But opponents say they'll give it their all


Tuesday May 06, 2003


By Bruce Alpert
Washington bureau

WASHINGTON -- Opponents of legislation to give gun manufacturers and dealers immunity from civil lawsuits are vowing to make a last-ditch stand to block a vote in the Senate.

But prospects for congressional passage and a presidential signature look so good that Cincinnati's city council last week dropped its year-old litigation seeking compensation for gun-related violence.

The Cincinnati lawsuit -- similar to litigation New Orleans was forced to withdraw two years ago after the Legislature adopted legislation similar to the immunity bill pending in the Senate -- sought to hold manufacturers responsible for gun-related crimes in the city.

Gun-control advocates say lawsuits are their best option for stopping the flow of cheap handguns into the hands of criminals and others who are a danger to society.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed and son was wounded by a gunman on a New York commuter train in 1993, said gun lawsuits are sometimes the only way to ensure that gun dealers and manufacturers act lawfully. She said Congress has imposed a rule that severely limits when Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents can inspect federally licensed gun stores, often leaving litigation and pretrial discovery as the only way to uncover wrongdoing.

"The gun industry should be subject to the same legal standards of conduct that govern every other industry," McCarthy said. "What makes this particular industry so special? We all know that it is the lobbyists."

Sponsors of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, including Louisiana Democratic Sens. John Breaux and Mary Landrieu, say that just as automobile manufacturers ought not to be held responsible when a drunken driver uses their product to take innocent lives, gun manufacturers should not be held liable when people use their products to kill or injure. The lawsuits, they say, would bankrupt the industry.

"I don't think you should hold gun manufacturers responsible for the wrongdoing of people who use the gun in the commission of a crime," said Landrieu, one of the bill's 52 Senate sponsors. Her support for the measure came last year during discussions with National Rifle Association representatives, who in return for her support agreed not to run the kind of opposition ads the group had aired in her first campaign.

Backers of the legislation need to pick up only eight additional votes to get the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster threatened by the measure's opponents, led by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. The bill passed the House by a 285-140 vote, and President Bush has said he would sign it into law.

But passage of the bill isn't guaranteed, at least in the form passed by the House.

Landrieu and Breaux are among lawmakers who expressed concern last week about statements from some of the bill's opponents that the legislation would block lawsuits against not only manufacturers, but also dealers who don't take the required steps to keep guns from people who shouldn't have them. That group includes convicted felons, the mentally ill and illegal immigrants.

One of the lawsuits that opponents say could be affected was filed by the widow of a Washington, D.C., bus driver killed during last fall's sniper attacks. The attacks, in which 13 people were slain, led congressional leaders to postpone a vote on the immunity legislation late last year.

In her suit, Denise Johnson alleges that her husband was killed by a rifle obtained illegally by one of the two defendants from a Tacoma, Wash., gun store with a history of lax inventory controls.

"Gun sellers and manufacturers shouldn't be above the law," Johnson wrote in a recent column offered to newspapers by gun control supporters. "If any other product injured my husband and irresponsible sellers played a part, I would be able to bring a case in court."

Under the bill, gun manufacturers and gun dealers, as well as trade associations, would be given immunity, although there is a provision that denies protection against lawsuits brought against a seller for "negligent entrustment or negligence per se." That standard, opponents of the bill say, is so high that it would make most lawsuits, including Johnson's, difficult if not impossible to pursue.

Landrieu said she will review the bill and is open to an amendment that clarifies that a lawsuit could be brought against a dealer "not living up to the law and following rules for selling weapons, and keeping appropriate inventory controls."

Breaux said a manufacturer shouldn't be held liable if a person uses one of its weapons for criminal purposes, but "it's a different story" for a gun dealer who sells a gun "for instance to someone who is talking about going out and killing someone."

Will Hart, spokesman for Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the bill's chief sponsor, said the legislation does not bar lawsuits from being filed against dealers who knowingly and willfully violate state and federal gun laws or who are clearly negligent.

"Although the bill prohibits filing certain lawsuits, the way it would actually work is that a plaintiff would file the lawsuit and the defendant would answer with a motion to dismiss -- which would have to be ruled on by a judge," Hart said. "So, in other words, a plaintiff would still actually get to make the argument that his or her case should be allowed to go forward as an exception to the ban."

Opponents said the bill would give gun manufacturers and dealers protection not available to any other business. Congress has approved exemptions from litigation in limited cases, such as for certain American Indian tribes and for the airlines whose planes were hijacked in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but this is significantly broader, said Timothy Lytton, a professor at Albany Law School who specializes in federal gun regulations.

But Rep. Chris John, D-Crowley, one of the chief sponsors of the legislation in the House, said it's not only the National Rifle Association and other groups pushing the law. He said communities dependent on gun-related jobs know that frivolous lawsuits threaten a legal industry worth billions of dollars to the national economy.

"Not only would continued frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers threaten the firearms industry, but it would have an enormous impact on many other businesses that are dependent on this industry," John said. "These lawsuits could have serious negative economic impact on the various hunting and sportsmen-related industries, which depend on safe, reliable gun manufacturing."

. . . . . . .

Bruce Alpert can be reached at bruce.alpert@newhouse.com or (202) 383-7861.

[ranxer]

"Gun sellers and manufacturers shouldn't be above the law," ...

Under the bill, gun manufacturers and gun dealers, as well as trade associations, would be given immunity

damn >:

i wish this was left to states.. then people would have a choice and comparisons to say which set of laws is better.

[punkgrrrlie10]

On the issue of whether it SHOULD be left to the states I disagree. Guns are like drugs. They hurt all citizens and traverse state lines. Places that would have little law on the purchase and sale would mean people would just order them shipped to them or buy them and truck them out to other places and sell them on the black market. Interstate commerce power of Congress my friend - plenary. This means that choice of law problems will suck ass when it comes to suing a company in another state. Also, the 2nd amendent has never been guaranteed to the states. It's in the bill of rights so it applies to the feds but has never been found to be incorporated by the 14th. At least not yet.

[CaptainBubba]

They most certainly do not hurt all citizens. That is absolutely ridiculous and a terribly ignorant remark. Where on earth did you get that idea?

[punkgrrrlie10]

Go look it up..... >:

No actually, I'm not talking directly genius. I'm speaking from a metaphysical type secondary effects position. Such as, the ready availabilty of guns to the population make it easier for those who would use them for ill-formed purposes to have them rather than having stringent safeguards which would make them at least have to pay through the nose for them. It makes it harder for retards to have them which wouldn't keep them from their kids getting them or at least teaching them how to use them. I'm not saying that everyone who has a gun goes out and shoots people.

[Ronnie Raygun]

More Guns, Less Crime

Just ask Jon Lott Jr.

[Sethomas]

I would agree that postulate CAN work, but it's miles away from being an absolute truth. I am a firm believer in the citizen's right to own a gun, but it's only sane to say that a life of crime can forfeit this right. I also believe in registration of certain types of weapons, and believe that trigger locks should be advocated with greater zeal.

As I see things at first glance, I would imagine that the lax enforcement of gun control policies would be the fault of the gun dealerships and distributors, not the makers of the guns themselves. If a gun sale takes place under unlawful terms and a death comes about, WHOEVER IS RESPONSIBLE AT THE POINT OF SALE should be held accountable. I honestly don't see how Smith and Wesson would be at fault if an ex-convict buys a gun from Grandpa Jeb's Pistol Palace, but if there is a direct line of reason therein then let me know.

I do, however, tend to think that any immunity granted in the legal system is an open invitation to abuse. I would have to see the precise language of the bill in order to really take a side on this particular issue, but I'm far too lazy.

[mburbank]

Golly, that is good news! I would hate to think that the makers and distributers of guns would be held accountable for the way they are used. I feel the same way about Heroin, which taken in moderation is a great painkiller. Why should poppy growers and heroin distributers be held accountable for the missuse of their product?

I think alll citizens should be aloowed to on and use any weapon they want, as long as they use it responsibly. When a student builds a pipe bomb in his basement, who's to say it in't a perfectlty harmless science experiment? If I want to buy and sell stinger missiles is that the governments buisness? And is it my fault if someone who buys one of those stinger missiles than uses it to shoot down a helicopter?

Am I my brother's keeper?


















Oh, crap! I just remembered. The biblical answer to that question, posed by the murderer Cain, was yes.

[VinceZeb]

We should sue letter-opener manufactures because a letter opener can be used to kill someone.

Fly your USSR flag on May Day, Max?

[mburbank]

I might be wrong, but I think the number of letter opener related deaths is still pretty much zero. If it starts climbing and the manufactores start marketing them as weapons and selling at huge, unregulated shows, I'll give your idea some thought.

[VinceZeb]

Yes, because we know guns are outlawed by the Consitution and we shouldn't posses them!

[mburbank]

I know you're being sarcastic, but you and I are on the same side here. The constitution 'allows' the right to bear arms, which is exactly why it pisses me off the government won't let me sell stinger missiles out of my garage. It's none of their damn business!

[VinceZeb]

Wow max, man you are so funny!

[mburbank]

Thanks! That's one of the things I get paid for! Seriously though, Vince, doesn't the constitution protect my right to own and sell Stinger missiles? I believe it does. If not, why not?

See, tht' the thing about comedy, it cn be an instructive tool. It's funny, AND it asks a dificult question you are in no way prepared to answer all at the same time. But don't let it get you down. No one has evr given me a decent answer as to why the constitution DOES protect my right to own a Glock and armor piercing ammunition, but does NOT protect my right to own a stinger missile, a tank, or a nuclear weapon.

[VinceZeb]

As per the Constitution, you have the right to possess it. But it can be argued why Joe Blo would need an nuke for self defense.

Of all the items in the constitution I wish the founding fathers could have been a bit clearer. But then again, who the hell would have thought then that we would create nukes.

[mburbank]

I think they would have had a hard time imagining a 450 magnum. But as long as you agree the constitution supports my right to own a nuke, we're square. No argument, no conditions, the constitution says it's my right because sadly it does not define what 'arms' are and it doesn't say 'Rifle but not cannon', so we agree the governments refual to allow me to own and sell stinger missiles is unconstitutional.

[ranxer]

Free the poppy growers!
no doubt..more so we should free the hemp growers!
man this is pretty phucked up, we can't have hemp but we can have imunity for gun manufacturers.. nice comparisons burb :)

yea punkgrrl, leaving it up to states is a bit wishful thinking but what if crossing the border meant running into a strongly different set of laws?
what if a state outlawed guns(in a democratic fashion)?
i think it would be interesting to see the results.

all we have to campare is places like japan where they are outlawed but there's too many other factors for a comparison of homicide rates.

[CaptainBubba]

go look it up (http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm)

[ranxer]

i don't know if i believe the info cited on that page, but,
i'd still rather have a kevlar suit than a gun :)

the only gun ownership reduction i'd support is by choice not law, so NRA members don't worry.. ill never campaign against the right to bear arms. hehe, and i'm a sharpshooter according to the military ;)

there's no reason for me to believe that violence is a solution for anything.. ill rely on my communication skills, defence, and juditsu first.

[CaptainBubba]

Did you by any chance notice the over 100 sources cited at the bottom of the page Mr.Unnessecarily-sceptical?

[ranxer]

it is irrelevant.. i'm not really argueing the stats but i will argue the idea that brings us to a situation where those stats can be presented/measured as such.

it is only in a society like america where the above stats make sense..

i'm a firm believer in the gun/violence perspective portrayed by 'bowling for columbine' if we compare the stats to canada they wont make sense. i will submit that the differences between the two are not included in the post you pasted.

many of my beliefs are based on experiences that cannot be found as links on the web.. sure gun ownership can lead to less crime but the foundations of that idea are based on a society that has no respect for life.. i'd like to help move society toward a respect for life .. not a fear of death.. so i'll be foreever argueing against this idea that 'armed is safer' on that principal.

[AChimp]

Hmm... I wonder what would happen if you were to acquire a nuke and then declare your property to be sovereign. :/

[CaptainBubba]

"sure gun ownership can lead to less crime but the foundations of that idea are based on a society that has no respect for life"

Its statements like these that I just fail to comprehend. The foundations of the idea are based on a society that belives in personal freedom. Where ON EARTH do you come up with ideas like that? Please for the love of god someone explain where the idea that gun ownership has a direct correlation to violence are barbarism. And don't simply say it is obvious, or "I just know". Without facts or statements defended by logical deductions you have no argument.

And don't bring up Micheal Moore. It makes you look horribly desperate for someone who speaks for you, since a great deal of his information is completely false and his documentaries are intended for shock value, not actual persuasion. (according to him in defense of his lack of credible information and fabrication of data).

Edit: The nuke analogy is completely irrelevant. This is an issue of the individual's right to defend himself. I guess women should be helpless against rape offenders, I mean, golly, if they had guns they might accidently shoot the poor guys who will have guns regardless of the laws that are passed.

Edit again: For those who wish to debate the meaning/intent of the 2nd amendment. First I would ask what YOU personally believe it means. If "the people" is under question then prepare to lose a few other rights.

If "arms" is under question then you are intentionally attempting to interpret something out of context in order to serve your own agenda. You have absolutely no credibility from this point on in my opinion if you have to do that to supplement your arguments. Arms refers specifically to firearms and the courts have said so. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment.

[ranxer]

i'm saying that there has to be a set of conditions that lead to a situation where gun ownership leads to less crime.

it's those conditions that are elusive.. i have strong opinions and a view of a better society but don't know how to get there..
one answer for some is to protect gun rights.

the answer for others is to work on community or societal ways to resolve conflict so that violence is unnecessary. call it what you like.

[CaptainBubba]

That'd be nice. But keep in mind this is the law, ergo the government we're talking about here. You cannot force communities/societies to change by means of, hey get this for ironic, violent coercion.

Is our generation really so arrogant and completely sure of our own abilities that we believe we have the ability to rid the world of violent confrontation without a means of self-defense? Human nature cannot be changed. There will always be evil in this world as long as mankind has the ability to recognize it as such.

My advice: Do your part to change your community by your own will if you so choose. Try and make one less person see violence as an answer to the world's problems. But also accept the fact that you can not possibly expect this to work even near a fraction of the time and it wouldn't be morally or logically acceptable to deny people the right to save their own life, or the lives of others if they are in danger.

[ranxer]

maybe you missed my point..
what do you mean "keep in mind this is the law, ergo the government we're talking about here. You cannot force..."??

i agreed we cannot force or enforce a morality.. i'm looking for Other ways to reduce gun violence.. that aside though..

the point i thought you commented "Where ON EARTH do you come up with ideas like that?"
was where i was trying to say that it takes a certain state of barbarism to make possesion of a gun a good thing.

ill argue with the law, ill argue over gun rights issues but i don't have much belief that outlawing guns or restricting rights will fix anything about the violence and i think bowling for columbine has a similar message.. its not about the laws.. its something about our culture that has us in this position where gun ownership can actually show a reduction in crime. of course making anyone especially a company totaly immune to accountability doesnt sound very fair.. these situations where a line of responsibility is arguably crossed need to be examined and argued.. not tossed out unconditionally.

and yepper, ive got an idealistic view but with enough faith in people to continue on a path that looks like its loosing.

[CaptainBubba]

I like to bring up the government being an operation of coercion as much as possible because once an idea is popularized everyone wants "to see it put it action". I realize you're just commenting on society, but that is the most dangerous thing to attempt and directly change.

I don't see whats barbaric about defending myself or my loved ones from an armed assailant.

The companies just produce the guns. Guns are not manufactured to be tools of evil. They save more lives than they take*. The sellers of the guns should be held responsible for any mistakes in sale regulation they make. It should have absolutely nothing to do with any crimes committed with the product. That would be placing an expectation of psychic powers on the sellers.

As long as they follow procedure they shouldn't be held any more accountable than they would be for any other sale. Which is nill. If they sell to a seventeen year old who can't speak english and has a felony on record then obviously we have an issue. But that isn't what this case is about.

*1.Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
*2.According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 40,000 deaths per year. See Accident Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.

[mburbank]

I just want my damn Stinger Missiles but the friggin liberal Justice Department won't get their Jack Boots of my constitutional rights. Why? 'Cause John Ashcroft wants to be able to round me and my militia up and put us in a friggin camp.

[CaptainBubba]

The Militia Act of 1792 specifically defines arms as military style firearms suitable for use in a militia. Other ballistics are not adressed and therefore your right to own them is not protected by the second amendment. Arms is not a term up for contention, or at least not since 1792.

Though you could just purchase a .50 sniping rifle legally for several thousand dollars cheaper that is equally effective at taking down large and small aircraft.

[mburbank]

"The Militia Act of 1792 specifically defines arms as military style firearms suitable for use in a militia."

Looked at one way, that means I have a right to a front laoding single shot rifle.

Looked at the other, suitable to a militia means to defend myself against invaders or my own government should that need arise, as it did during the revolutionary war. Since my Government is HEAVILY armed, it is suitable for me to have ordinance capable of dealing with them.

If you want something arbitrarily in the middle, you need to draw lines, which is exactly what gun control advocates suggest and what the NRA admits by not pursuing a constitutionl right to bear any and all arms.

[CaptainBubba]

"And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof, have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulation of the militia."

Who is going to draw the lines? Thats right. The gov. I hate sounding repetative but people forget so easily that these things don't happen magically; the government does it. If we allow them to restrict us the restrictions will only grow and grow. The government does not fix things by gaining more power.

Personally, and I know this sounds absolutely looney, I hope some people do keep stinger missles and other assorted heavy ballistic arms. With the recent "Patriot Acts" being passed I really have no doubts that within the next two centuries at least there will need to be a massive overtaking of the governement. Thats how the founding fathers envisioned it and why they didn't limit our possession of arms. :/

[mburbank]

I do think you're looney, but your response is at least logical and your fear of the Patriot act is a legitimate, consistant stance, espcially as compared to some so called Liberatarians who seem to think it's no big deal.

I truly do believe that the constitution supports my right to own shoulder firing anti aircraft missiles. My take is that's a problem and it points to the parger point; how do we as a society determine the drawing of lines in situations the constitution did not forsee? That's why I favor debate and contest within the adversarial system of law.

[CaptainBubba]

The only people who need to fear the genral public owning stinger missles are those in the government. Name one crime committed in the U.S by a citizen with a stinger missle.

Do you think that number would change if citizens were allowed to own stinger missles in their home? What do you honestly envision the result of legalizing stinger missle in-home ownership would do?

edit: Wow, I sound crazy. Just thought I'd confirm to everyone I'm aware how insane I sound.

[mburbank]

People shooting stinger missiles at things to make them blow up? Each other, neigbors houses, rival gangs, churches you disagree with, your estranged wifes new boyfriends trailor, any old thing you could point it at? I mean, I know, that's not precisely what they were designed for, but people sure do like to make things blow up.

I mean, if you're right, why the hell is it illegal for me to get my damn garage full of stingers? Just to piss me off?

[VinceZeb]

Max, tell me what Libertarians think that the Patriot Act is no big deal?!? My God, libertarian basic thought goes 100% against this act. It IS an act that should not be done. If we get off our PC high horse, we wouldn't need the freakin Patriot Act.

I guess it's not ok to make minorities feel "uncomfortable" but its ok to trash our Consitiution.

[mburbank]

You're such an idiot. When I said 'so called' liberatarians I was talking about YOU and your statements strongly in favor of this administration, plus your statements that you found Janet Reno far more threatening than Ashcroft. I was saying that Captain Bubba (and I have no idea at all if he's Liberatarain or not) strikes more conistently Liberatarin notes than you. I was pointing out that even in a field you cherish, you don't know shit from shinola. The Patriot act should be any serious Liberatarians foremost concern right now. if it's even of interest to you, I've missed that fact here and on your site.

And you took my post to mean the exact opposite.

Why? Because your communication disorder gives you as much difficulty with decoding English as it does Encrypting it.

[Vibecrewangel]

Vince, I think the "so called" was meant to be you.




EDIT: Dang it Max......your post went before mine. Ah well.

[mburbank]

That's all right. At least it shows what I meant was perfectly clear.

[Anonymous]

I previously thought guns should be legal. I do suffer from general paranoia and am especially distrustful of the government. After a discussion we had on here before I started to rethink things. Then I went to London on vacation and that's when I changed my opinion. It was because I felt no fear there.
It would take a very long time for america to become a gunless culture like that, even after passing a law banning guns.
Even though I have changed my mind now to be in favor of banning guns, I do not feel completely comfortable with it. This is because I have serious problems with demonizing an inanimate object. Though you could say- it is a weapon and therefore by its own definition demonizes itself..
There is really no other reason to own a gun than to hurt or kill. To have one for 'safety' would not be an issue if guns were banned. And as burbank has said, if the goverment turned on us in that manner, a gun isn't going to save us anyway.

[The_Rorschach]

"I don't see whats barbaric about defending myself or my loved ones from an armed assailant. "


You are an idiot.

"I previously thought guns should be legal. I do suffer from general paranoia and am especially distrustful of the government."

And so are you.

Bubba, I'm going to get on your back first, because you are cutting and pasting your arguments from elsewhere and have no idea what you are talking about.

" `In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined `militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a (military-style) firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . "

Sound familiar? It sould, considering it comes from http://web4.integraonline.com/~bbroadside/HR_1147_Rebuttal.html

Now lets take a look at that. In the real Militia Act of 1792, passed May 8, 1792, they deem the militia is NOT open to everyone. It was Kennedy who made the term all inclusive, it was written originally in sentence two of part 1 "(t)hat each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States" was to be included. Little different isn't it?

Nor does it say ANYWHERE military grade equipment. Point of fact, it says "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball."

Go grab your black powder rifle Bubbe, and retreat back to General Blabber. I'm afraid this topic has become your Little Big Horn.

As for you Doopa, if you don't trust the Fed Gov, you should be supporting your local chapter of the NRA, because our Second Ammendment right was written by Madison, and inspired by Jefferson, for the sole reason of supplying the citizens of this country the means by which to impliment the most final check and balance of power- The right to revolution, that any corrupt incarnation of the US might be overthrown with extreme prejudice.

[CaptainBubba]

Ror: Why did you quote me if you didn't plan at all on bringing it into your little rebuttle? Why does wishing to defend myself and my family make me an idiot? You are very eager to quote people and insult them and honestly you could've done a much better job.

I've quoted twice if I recall correctly, most certainly not "copying and pasting" my whole argument. The Militia Act refers to the standard military firearms at the time. I was indirectly paraphrasing though. If I was directly quoting I would have added a [military style] before the firearms. Oh, and I've never been to that site before but its very nice. I already posted my source. Feel free to check it out in one of my previous posts.

Doopa: London has always had a low crime rate. MUCH LOWER back when guns were legal. And please, Ror forgive me, but I find I must cite from my source again. You are twice as likely to be burglarized in Britain that in the U.S. and 1.4 times as likely to be robbed in England and Wales, and also more likely to be mugged.

"To have one for 'safety' would not be an issue if guns were banned"

Becuase criminals would go "Oh, well if owning this gun is illegal I guess I can't use it for my crimes now. Shit on a shingle... Time to get a job at Mickey Ds." When the catapult is outlawed only the outlaws will have catapults (famous Latin quote). How do you propose disarming all of those criminals? This is a common fallacy of logic that people seem to fall into so I don't really look down on you for it, I just get mad the people don't think further into it.

"as burbank has said, if the goverment turned on us in that manner, a gun isn't going to save us anyway"

You're right. A gun won't do shit. Several million citizen owned guns will do quite a bit.


[/u]

[Anonymous]

ror your responses are often too overly hostile so that they come off as being vacuous comments. Yes I am distrustful of the government, but I explained why... regardless of that... i do not support gun ownership. I don't see how people with handguns are going to take over the government.
as I see it, the situation is lose/lose. I easily understand opinions on either side of the argument. What it really comes down to is a matter of what you think is worse.

Yes it is a possibility the government might seriously turn on us Hopefully we can prevent such a situation by being mindful of who we put into office and what laws are passed. But also... it not only its own citizens, but the world our government is being watched by. Hopefully things will stay in check, yet still, as I said it's a possibility.
But, nut jobs walking around out on the streets with guns are shooting people every day. That is a reality.


bubba - i'd rather be mugged than dead.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

As for you Doopa, if you don't trust the Fed Gov, you should be supporting your local chapter of the NRA, because our Second Ammendment right was written by Madison, and inspired by Jefferson, for the sole reason of supplying the citizens of this country the means by which to impliment the most final check and balance of power- The right to revolution, that any corrupt incarnation of the US might be overthrown with extreme prejudice.

Uh, so you're saying we should revolt against the government by joining a group that is one of its largest contributors in campaign donations...? I think I'm more supportive of militias than I am the NRA. The "community service" they provide is incredibly overstated, and seems to be only reactionary. In other words, a kid accidently shoots himself with his Dad's hand gun, and then the NRA are apologetic. Why don't they stop lining the wallets of our politicians, and start reaching out to more communities, more cities, and do educational work before something happens.....?

[The_Rorschach]

"Ror: Why did you quote me if you didn't plan at all on bringing it into your little rebuttle?"

I'm sorry, I credited you with some intellegence, I see my error now. I expected you to read what I was saying to Doopa as well. Protecting your family does not necessitate ownership of firearms. Your interpretation of the Second Ammendment is selfish, ill concieved and barbaric. Yes, barbaric, for any solution which sees violence as an acceptable answer to any problem can be nothing else.


"You are very eager to quote people and insult them and honestly you could've done a much better job."

An insult is a demeaning or hurtful reproach which is generally expressed in an extreme view of reality. Like, "you are a cocksucker." What I did was comment on your character based upon the views you expressed.

". . . most certainly not "copying and pasting" my whole argument."

I was trying to be nice. In actually, what you did was lie, thieve and decieve by taking someone else's intellectual property and try to represent it as your own original thought. The only reason I even recognized it, was because I'd read those comments by the original author previously and remembered thinking he had never read the original law. Apparantly, neither have you.

"The Militia Act refers to the standard military firearms at the time."

That is a matter of opinion.

"I was indirectly paraphrasing though."

Paraphrasing requires that you summarize what you have read, not steal three sentence and post them in their entirety.

"If I was directly quoting I would have added a [military style] before the firearms."

That would not be a strong enough case to keep you from being charged guilty of copy right infringement were this a court of law and not a message board.

"Oh, and I've never been to that site before but its very nice."

Extraordinary considering you managed to quote the passage VERBATIM.

"I already posted my source. Feel free to check it out in one of my previous posts."

Oh really? You:

"In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment."

http://web4.integraonline.com/~bbroadside/HR_1147_Rebuttal.html :
" `In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined `militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a (military-style) firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . "

Now I just looked at the post I took your quote from, and I don't see any sources cited.

=-=-=-=-=-

"ror your responses are often too overly hostile so that they come off as being vacuous comments."

Noone here is worth the time it would take to work up a strong sense of frustration, let alone hostility. You have think way too much of yourself. From what I've read of your posts, you are a twit, and I mean that as nicely as possible. You hold simplistic, provincial, self-centered views. Your speciality is pipe-dreaming, not politics, and I understand that so generally I leave you alone.

"I don't see how people with handguns are going to take over the government."

Thats because you have tunnel vision. Less sophisticated weaponry than what the US citizens currently have access to managed to thwart the Soviet Army twenty years ago. Plus, you are further more assuming that should situations become dire enough that revolution truly occours, that the Armed Services will support the Government.

"I easily understand opinions on either side of the argument. What it really comes down to is a matter of what you think is worse."

If that is true, than you really don't understand at all.

=-=-=-=-=-=-

"Uh, so you're saying we should revolt against the government by joining a group that is one of its largest contributors in campaign donations...?"

Kev, things have no decaryed so far that working within the system is yet an impossibility. The NRA are only a pressure group, defending the Second Ammendment right, and though they do so badlyy, and offer every reason but the one which accounts for its very existence, they at least try. I'm not a card carrying member, but I do support some of their views. Certainly that the Second Ammendment should not be infringed upon.

[CaptainBubba]

You aren't very good at searching thorugh my posts apparently. Its the link "go look it up" on the first page. The page you've found most likely got that information from the same source that I did. I am not plagarizing. I cited my source. Give it up.

Hypothetical question: Someone breaks into your home and is armed with a pistol. What do you do to defned youself by "non-violent" means?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You pull out the M-16 with the grenade launcher and laser scope that's entitled to you in the Bill of Rights, and you blow that S.O.B. to kindom come (while probably taking out the neighbors across the street, but hey, it's their fault for building their house in front of my grenade launcher).

I'm obviously being sarcastic, but for a reason. The hypothetical "guy breaking into your house while everyones home and asleep" story does happen, but I think it has been stretched a bit by the pro-gun crowd.

How about this hypothetical: It's dark out, and a young boy loses his puppy. He happens to see his puppy roaming in your back yard, and you, being afraid of small children with flash lights, grab your gun and scream "DIE THUG! TAKE YOUR "BLING BLING" ELSEWHERE!"

You shoot the kid, the puppy stays lost, and now the guy across the street gets no sleep before work the next day, because the sirens are too loud. :(

[punkgrrrlie10]

You are twice as likely to be burglarized in Britain that in the U.S. and 1.4 times as likely to be robbed in England and Wales, and also more likely to be mugged.


and yet more than likely tol be murdered in the U.S. than in any other civilized country country and some not so civilized.

and for the love of pete: the 2nd amendment does not apply to states people.

[CaptainBubba]

Statistics Kevin, statistics (http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm). The facts are right before you. Accidents like the ones you are describing are vastly outnumbered compared to ones simmilar to my example.

You are more likely to be murdered in Britain now than you were when guns were legal there. Your deduction is based on faulty logic. "America has less gun restrictions than other countries and more murder, therefore less gun laws= more murder." Truly you can only compare cases where the variables are accounted for. In order to get accurate information it must be the same genral local with and without guns that we compare.

[Anonymous]

You have think way too much of yourself.

I have to say, that is a truly hilarious statement to make in reference to me

you are further more assuming that should situations become dire enough that revolution truly occours, that the Armed Services will support the Government.

if they didn't, why would joe guy down the block need a gun? Assuming the armed services wouldn't support the government only seems to lessen the possible need for a violent overthrow from the citizens

[Pub Lover]

You are more likely to be murdered in Britain now than you were when guns were legal there.
When were guns legal in Britain?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Statistics Kevin, statistics (http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm). The facts are right before you. Accidents like the ones you are describing are vastly outnumbered compared to ones simmilar to my example.

Courtesy of gunowners.org (sniker, snicker): "* Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).4 And readers of Newsweek learned in 1993 that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."5"

* GEORGE F. MOTHER F'N WILL!!!

Not a government resource, not census data, but from GEORGE F. WILL! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy his columns for a good chuckle, and he's a very bright man, but he certainly doesn't clasify as a solid statistical resource.

I tried finding a copy of the Newsweek article they cited from 1993, "Are we a nation of cowards?", but couldn't find it archived anywhere. I'd be interested to see what citations HE used in the article.

I'm willing to bet we could pick apart many of the "statistics" presented on this website, if anybody cared or had the time. :(

[CaptainBubba]

Till the very early 1900s people were allowed handguns I believe Pub. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Kev: Please present your superior statistics and data.

[Pub Lover]

Till the very early 1900s people were allowed handguns
You are more likely to be murdered in Britain now than you were when guns were legal there.

Bubba, I have a faint notion that you'll find that the rise in gun related deaths in the US over the last hundred years is not even slightly in proportion to that of the UK.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Kev: Please present your superior statistics and data.

How about the U.S. Department of Justice? http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

They have extensive dats on firem-arm incidents involving self-defense, mainly with hand guns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a bit of a moderate on the gun issue, but I have difficulty believing a site called "gunowners.org," who also cite a George F. Will column that you can't even find anymore.

[CaptainBubba]

I meant a superior source supporting an opposing side to my argument Kevin.

Pub: I don't believe your notion is correct and I'll put more research into it later, but for now this link will suffice to serve my point.

http://www.crpa.org/pressrls101502.html

And just a reminder to those citing the high murder rate in the U.S, please note that the murder rate in the U.S excluding gun murders is alone higher than the total murder rates in England, Canada, or Japan.*

*Erik Eckholm, "A Basic Issue: Whose Hands Should Guns Be Kept Out of?" The New York Times, 3 April 1992; and Kates, Guns, Murders, and the Constitution, at 42.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I meant a superior source supporting an opposing side to my argument Kevin.

But that's just the thing, it isn't that the numbers are wrong, it's that they can be used by one side in a slanted fashion in order to justify their claims.

For example, you yourself just said that the murder rate in America is actually higher, even when excluding the use of guns.

Also, According to the U.S. Department of Justice, "Violent crime rates Unlike the record rate of handgun crimes in 1992, the overall rates
for violent crimes were well below the 1981 peaks. (Except where
noted, this brief excludes homicides, which NCVS does not measure.)"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
(this was the most recent data the Bureau had available)

In other words, while violent crime was down, crime as a result of handgun use was UP, exceeding the national level.

But on your point about violence resulting w/o handguns, the Bureau also states that:

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

This substantiates your claim, which is dated in 1992, most likely working off the same sources I am right now. But what does this mean? With your logic, since handguns aren't the biggest indicator of injury during an assault, shouldn't we then be legislating kitchen knives, or in fact mandating that everyone have guns??

Here's another one:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987
and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime
victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who
also had a firearm.

So, doesn't this dispute the idea that gun legislation will only hurt the "good guys"?? It looks like we need to be legislating OTHER things, right CB...?

Here is my point: Like I said, I do happen to agree with the pro-gun side on frequent occassions. However, one should be cautious when using data already provided by those who have essentially filtered it, and phrased it to suit their own purposes.