Gun Control thread (merged many)

Sailor Steve · 01-06-16, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

...and it has nothing to do with his being black.

So why mention it? No one else here has. Is this a problem?

01-06-16, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So why mention it? No one else here has. Is this a problem?

Yep, this.

Tchocky · 01-07-16, 05:59 AM

The spectre of a government "coming to get your guns" is one of those recurring tropes in this debate that is fanciful garbage designed to increase campaign donations and/or firearm sales.

As for the similar apocalyptic predictions of mass registration, I don't see the issue.

I have to register my car, motorbike, even my laptop. It's not beyond the realms of logic that a gun should be registered.

Sailor Steve · 01-07-16, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

It's not beyond the realms of logic that a gun should be registered.

Is it beyond the realms of logic that a knife should be registered? A baseball bat?

Cars are registered because they are a prime source of taxation. You have to be licensed to drive a car on public roads, but not if you only drive it on your own property.

Does your laptop have to be registered with the government, or just with the manufacturer?

Betonov · 01-07-16, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I have to register my car, motorbike, even my laptop. It's not beyond the realms of logic that a gun should be registered.

Laptop ??

Buddahaid · 01-07-16, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betonov

Laptop ??

Really?

Betonov · 01-07-16, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Really?

I know what a laptop is

I don't get why he has to register a laptop

Cybermat47 · 01-07-16, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betonov

I know what a laptop is

I don't get why he has to register a laptop

Well, it's because... because...

I don't get it.

Tchocky · 01-07-16, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betonov

Laptop ??

With the company for tech support etc. Yeah I probably should have kept the list at two

Quote:

you aren't familiar with the New York Safe act, or the new California "Gun Violence Restraining Order Law".

I am actually. I remember the NY law being passed. The only confiscation provisions are in case of failure to register, a disqualifying mental health diagnosis, or continued violations of the law.
California has had confiscation provisions struck down by appeals courts, and the only confiscation provision on the books is limited to 21 days and only to "high-risk" individuals.

Quote:

While the government isn't implementing these policies wholesale across the country, at the state level, their doing there Damnedest to confiscate guns.

No. No they are not. Only 4 states have seizure laws, and they are similar to the one in California I just described.

You're exaggerating.

Betonov · 01-07-16, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

With the company for tech support etc. Yeah I probably should have kept the list at two
.

Problem is I understood it as a compolsury registration like a car or motorcycle. State level.
Registration with the company for tech support and warranty is quite understandable.

Rockstar · 01-07-16, 02:49 PM

After reading the news at whitehouse.gov regarding the executive action taken by our president. I really think its nothing more other than to simply generate a bunch of political hay and bureaucracy.

There are 30,000 gun related deaths each year. Of those 61% are suicides so this just may prevent the suicidal from using a gun and jump off a building instead, but thats about it.

MaDef · 01-07-16, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

The spectre of a government "coming to get your guns" is one of those recurring tropes in this debate that is fanciful garbage designed to increase campaign donations and/or firearm sales.

you aren't familiar with the New York Safe act, or the new California "Gun Violence Restraining Order Law". While the government isn't implementing these policies wholesale across the country, at the state level, their doing there Damnedest to confiscate guns.

Mr Quatro · 01-07-16, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So why mention it? No one else here has. Is this a problem?

Moderators shouldn't laugh at people ... why did you bring it up?

Sailor Steve · 01-07-16, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Moderators shouldn't laugh at people ... why did you bring it up?

I'm not laughing, and I wasn't asking as a moderator. I was just curious. You brought it up, for no reason that I can see. Again, if his race and color have no bearing on anything, why mention it at all?

Onkel Neal · 02-22-16, 05:54 PM

A case in court to hold the manufacturer accountable in the Sandy Hook massacre.

Quote:

Wheeler and Barden are part of a potentially precedent-setting lawsuit seeking accountability from gun-maker Remington.

"Our families deserve that day in court," said Joshua Koskoff, an attorney representing nine victims' families and a teacher who survived. "We believe they should be accountable to their fair share of responsibility."

The case has the potential to make history if it goes to trial. A 2005 federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, grants gun manufacturers immunity from any lawsuit related to injuries that result from criminal misuse of their product -- in this case the AR-15 rifle.

"It's always been a big uphill battle for plaintiffs to sue the gun industry," said Georgia State University law professor Timothy Lytton. "It was even before the immunity (legislation), and it's an even bigger one now."

One exception to the immunity legislation is what's called "negligent entrustment."

"Say a gun retailer handed a gun to a visibly intoxicated person, then they're not subject to the immunity," said Lytton, who studies gun industry litigation.

You might ask: Since Remington did not come into direct contact with the shooter -- that happened at a gun retailer -- how would that apply? The lawsuit argues that the way in which the company sells and markets a military-style weapon to the civilian market is a form of negligent entrustment.

"Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat -- and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it," Koskoff, the attorney for the families, said. "They took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making a lot of money."

And it is completely legal. I can see holding a manufactuer accountable if they broke the law or took reckless action....but this is like saying a drunk driver who killed someone--quick, what make car was he driving, let's sue them.

At some point this could end up in the SC....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health...uit/index.html

01-07-16, 05:59 AM	#3
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	The spectre of a government "coming to get your guns" is one of those recurring tropes in this debate that is fanciful garbage designed to increase campaign donations and/or firearm sales. As for the similar apocalyptic predictions of mass registration, I don't see the issue. I have to register my car, motorbike, even my laptop. It's not beyond the realms of logic that a gun should be registered. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

01-07-16, 02:49 PM	#11
Rockstar In the Brig Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 12,614 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	After reading the news at whitehouse.gov regarding the executive action taken by our president. I really think its nothing more other than to simply generate a bunch of political hay and bureaucracy. There are 30,000 gun related deaths each year. Of those 61% are suicides so this just may prevent the suicidal from using a gun and jump off a building instead, but thats about it. Last edited by Rockstar; 01-07-16 at 02:56 PM.