Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun maker can move forward.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I can easily imagine societies where it could be so.

Agreed — hunter-gatherer societies. The USA is not such a society, though. I doubt whether even the Inuit of Alaska qualify.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I distrust guns because I distrust the people who wield them. It's not even that I expect malice, that I expect gun holders to be crazed criminals. What I expect is incompetence.

Well said. And the statistics bear you out. As I said earlier, the social experiment has gone on long enough. The conclusions are in. Private citizens cannot be trusted with firearms.

It is impossible to tell in advance which gun owners are incompetent, which are malicious and which are criminally insane. We only find out these things after some horrible incident has taken place. Yes, most gun owners go for years without shooting anyone. But this could change at any moment. Gun owners can’t be trusted, so we must take their guns away.

I suppose this is the moment for some desperate addict to spout the ‘cold, dead fingers’ line. To which I reply, ‘yes, if that is the way it has to be.’ Though preferably not.

The choice, though, is up to the addict. Cold turkey doesn’t have to be dead turkey.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

The primary argument on the part of the arms maker is one that has been around for a long time, and that is how do you control what a person does with a product once it is purchased? If they use it in ways it is not supposed to be used, who is at fault, the manufacture or the person using it? There are several cases to this point: Drunk drivers and Sirgiorgio Clardy.

This is a weak defence, though. That is why you see all those legal disclaimers on electrical appliances and so forth.

An end to private gun ownership in America is probably less than two Congressional terms away.

a reply to: Astyanax


You are so right about those primitive "founders".

Who needs gun rights in modern times, pfft, that's so 250 years ago.

Just like expecting a trial or not having your property searched without a warrant. Who thinks like that any more?

Right to assemble, what a bunch of bumpkins.......

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Raxoxane

If the average law abiding citizens of the USA used their guns for self'gratifying violence we would not be on this thread

What else do they use it for?

Not self-protection, surely; there is a wealth of studies showing that owning a gun makes people more likely to die by violence.

Guns are drugs. All gun owners are addicts.

No exceptions.

I normally enjoy your commentary on anything you talk about, Astyanax. This is one of those rare exceptions.

Your posts on this topic have been asinine.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Well said. And the statistics bear you out. As I said earlier, the social experiment has gone on long enough. The conclusions are in. Private citizens cannot be trusted with firearms.

There are more firearms than people in the USA. We aren't a homicide nation. We aren't the wild west. We are in fact a majority responsible nation.

It is impossible to tell in advance which gun owners are incompetent, which are malicious and which are criminally insane. We only find out these things after some horrible incident has taken place. Yes, most gun owners go for years without shooting anyone. But this could change at any moment. Gun owners can’t be trusted, so we must take their guns away.

We can't tell when anyone is going to club someone upside the head with a bat, or stab them, or run them over with a car, or any of the other means to kill people that exceed gun related homicides by legal firearm owners* in the USA. So by your argument we need to prohibit sticks, knves, cars, etc from American citizens. We just can't be trusted.

*Yes, I said legal gun owners. Because criminals are not the same as legal, responsible gun owners. Suicides are not in scope.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I’m happy to have provided you with pleasure in the past. Thank you very much for letting me know.

If my posts are asinine, then surely one of the many people opposing the views expressed in them should have been able to make that perfectly clear by now. I began posting on Page 1 of the thread. Where are we now? Page 7. And not one of the proud defenders of the glorious Second Amendment has been able to defeat my arguments. That is not to my credit; it is simply due to the fact that any attempt to justify the private ownership of lethal weapons is doomed to fail, because the premise is quite simply unjustifiable.

The palaver about ‘rights’ demonstrates this clearly. There are no such things as natural and inalienable rights; we have only the freedoms allowed us by the societies in which we live. The rest is self-deceiving cant. To attempt to justify gun ownership by talking about ‘rights’ is to admit that there is no justification for it. One day, when Americans have recovered their senses, all this will be clearly understood.

Oh, and if anyone wishes to demonstrate in detail how asinine I am being, well, I’m still here.

a reply to: Astyanax

Two Congressional terms...twelve years? ...and private ownership, muchless the right to buy will be gone?

You do realize what that will take, don't you? Congress won't do it. Because odds are that that sort of party control that would be required will not exist. ...and a President who signs that particular legislation into law has signed his/her political death sentence...right along side the congressmen/women who voted for it. As an example, in 2013, two Colorado legislators were recalled for voting for the very thing you're advocating...

Colorado recall.

The outcry would be, well, loud and very angry. We're only four generations removed from a Civil War fought over states rights, this might just trigger another, not by itself, no, but as something like the straw that broke the camels back. Americans, in general, are growing rather displeased with our govt., and it's seeming insistence upon heading down a road toward a "nanny-state", or tyranny of the "majority". Eventually, many Americans are going to begin to push back. Including gun-addicts like myself.

There is a reason it's the Second Amendment and not the "And oh, by the way, it's OK to have arms" Amendment. After only the First Amendment it is the most important of the ten that make up the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment allows the alarm to be sounded. The Second allows for the means to do something about it to be at hand.

An armed and aroused population is not something any govt. wants against it...and you're smart enough to know this.

Being as I'm what you so tellingly call an "addict", I'm fairly certain that you'll utilize your very real skills at sophistry to deny the reality.

Gun control of the sort you are predicting will not happen in twelve years, or what ever span of time you're referencing. There are too many folks like myself who will fight tooth and nail in the halls of power to prevent that.

...and should it happen, well there will be portions of these United States that will be not so united any longer.

a reply to: KingKelson

This is like the Mcdonalds coffee lawsuit. This will be great now we can all get together and just sue any company we like. Let's all work together here and get a nice list going. Here is a quick list to start. Just think of anything that could cause any harm at all. Cars, silverware, sporting goods, pet stores, cleaning supplies, home builders, booze, etc.

Pretty silly if you ask me.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Come on its from the land that a lady sued mcds for burning herself while drinking coffee, i wouldn't expect anything else.

Hey just wanted to mention not to disrespect your opinion but i think that story made me angrier than anyone else in the country. It was to me, like to u, the epitome of BS lawsuits.

Then I was scrolling some movies and saw a documentary on the event. Good golly talk about sleazy reporting by US media outlets. The MSM had us believe a lady got hot coffee, drove off with it between her legs, and popped the top. The truth not only was nothing like that, it was a circumstance where idiots were so guilty of severe neglect that id have understood if mcdonalds went bankrupt.

Mcd has a range coffee can be. Up to like 210 or something I forget. This particular mcdomalds machine had been broken all year putrung out 270-300 degree coffee and in the month alone the lady was hurt, this store received 24 formal complaints (as ten ppl were already injured) made officially through a corporate liaison and the store was told to cut the coffee til fixed. Well drugged up manager there says people dont want brkfst with no coffee and kept serving. There was no between legs she said which doctors confirmed it was dropped on her and were honestly talking coffee from a machine so broke you (if u r like me) had no idea the following was possible...it was so hot like lava it burned her flesh off to the bare bone. She had to have the remainder of her vagina and thighs removed, her urinary tract is routed with plastic to her side where theres a urine bag on her wheelchair, I dont even want to go further but it gets a lot worse and im too disturbed remembering.

So u have your opinion but if you haven't heard the story told NOT trying to shield McDonald by creating nationwide disdain for this woman, I suggest watch but it is sad. You see over forty min doc a wonderful woman life ruined all because a lowly employee didnt think headquarters telling him STOP YOUR COFFEE was serious esp if it was hitting his $$ quotas to meet.

a reply to: Winstonian

Also for you then read above post

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Teikiatsu

And not one of the proud defenders of the glorious Second Amendment has been able to defeat my arguments.

Asty, you are fantasizing. What arguments have you made? You have stated your opinions with great emotion but I saw no compelling arguments. The complete removal of firearms from private ownership is much like the complete removal of anything else from private ownership. What would your plan be for such an undertaking? How would you keep people from making more of the evil machines? The genie is out of the bottle and it is a useful genie.

As has been said before, you are confusing the tool with human nature.

a reply to: pteridine

He/She isn't confusing the tool with human nature, they do not trust humans with the tool because of that human nature, and that is why they desire a total ban.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: pteridine

He/She isn't confusing the tool with human nature, they do not trust humans with the tool because of that human nature, and that is why they desire a total ban.

The question may then be asked about which tools she trusts humans with? Are knives, hammers, and golf clubs too deadly. Homicidal humans are not to be trusted with a tool or without. Boxers will have to turn in their fists. All rocks less than 20 pounds will be serialized and registered. Hammers would be banned because they could produce projectile sized rocks. Nylon line can be used to make a sling, one of the easiest and most efficient weapons to produce, so all line would be sold in lengths of one foot [knots would be illegal.] Trees can make clubs, so care must be taken not to have any unaccounted for trees. Lumber would be illegal. Metal would be illegal. Flint would be illegal.

It would be interesting to see what process she would propose.

a reply to: Astyanax

You do realize all countries disarmed suffered tyrants that wiped out populations. If you do not like it here leave.
Most of good Americans do not want your communist ideology. Back in the 50's and 60's kids had guns in the back of pick up trucks. No violence. Why don't you and your antidepressant culture question that. It is the pharmaceutical companies driving craziness.
Saying no exceptions to your rule about gun ownership makes you sound uneducated at best. Did you take logic in school? I know I am wasting my time here but know this. You want the guns? Come on and try and take them!! LOL
You and your leftists buddies will be in for a very difficult surprise!!

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I'm afraid you are repeating yourself. It has already been explained why the 'then ban bats' argument is spurious. There's really no point trotting it out again.

Perhaps, as you say, the majority of gun owners are responsible. Pity you can't tell which ones aren't until after the awful fact. Sure, any gun owner is responsible -- until they cease to be. This is in fact a further argument for disarming everybody.

a reply to: seagull

Gun control of the sort you are predicting will not happen in twelve years, or what ever span of time you're referencing. There are too many folks like myself who will fight tooth and nail in the halls of power to prevent that.

Sooner or later something so horrible will happen that an undeniable majority of people will demand they be banned. I reckon that will happen within the time stated. It's a guess, but it's a projection not a prophecy.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

yet, (s)he has a point which is certainly not asinine.

Owning a gun paves the way to use it not just for self protection, but in an act of violence.
Out of anger, for whatever reason, loony in the head, maybe they feel like being in power due to having guns, they get a big mouth and overconfident.

a reply to: pteridine

What arguments have you made?

Premise 1: there is a long, bloody trail of evidence to show that guns are too dangerous to allow private individuals to own and use them.

Premise 2: guns are habit-forming, and addictive. This addiction is so widespread in America that it forecloses rational understanding of the problem -- that is why the rest of the civilised world looks on in appalled incomprehension while you argue over the obvious.

Premise 3: the situation, like much else in the world nowadays, is unsustainable. Very soon there will be a huge reaction -- an overreaction, if you prefer -- and private gun ownership in America will be history.

Mark my words.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

He/She isn't confusing the tool with human nature, they do not trust humans with the tool because of that human nature, and that is why they desire a total ban.

Absolutely right.