myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Gun Nuts
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 74, 75, 76 ... 118, 119, 120  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1247

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I'm unable to understand about all those who continually claim that gun proliferation and training among the general populace will reduce killings, is their apparent lack of understanding of basic human nature!

They argue that because they would have the means and ability to defend themselves, that they wouldn't successfully be confronted. Well of course not. They'd be shot from behind, or from concealment, as was that girl in Chicago, when least expected. They'd be killed without knowing anything about it!

Criminals and a heavily armed underclass don't 'play' to a code of ethics. They adapt their methods to their advantage, and will always ramp up the ante in their favour.

Perhaps some sane person could attempt to explain the logic behind the reasoning that if all are armed, murders will somehow decrease?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13282

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you paying attention to the Colorado bill, passed by its senate, making gun sellers and manufacturers responsible for crimes committed with those guns ... forever? It almost makes Crazyfornia seem sane by comparison.

By precedent and implication, that would make automobile makers, cell phone companies, box knife makers, machete forgers, etc. liable for any criminal deaths they cause.

But why not, now that small ... but easily lethal ... knives are again legal on passenger planes?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1849

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This bill did NOT pass the Colo Senate. It was advanced for full Senate debate tomorrow by a COMMITTEE.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3021

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why does a person whose statements are entirely wrong every time continue to make a fool of himself?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1849

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the actual bill.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/28EB8FECB7D3F79387257B03007B8F72?Open&file=196_01.pdf

My summary: (Not Faux News or scream radio)

1. Applicable to semi auto rifles only (handguns, shotguns, bolt actions exempted)
2. Exempted in home defense. ("Make my Day Law" intact)
3. Exempted if gun is stolen (properly stored) and reported stolen
4. Manuf, dealers and owners are only liable IF they sell the guns illegally by not following background checks as required in other legislation or do not take reasonable precautions to safe-guard the weapons.
5. Assigns liability for damages that are caused using the weapon outside of the home.

I am against the bill because of the vague language on the precautions for keeping the gun secure. The rest of the bill makes a bit more sense. It establishes liability if you do not follow the rules in transferring a firearm to another owner or lending it to someone of questionable mental capacity. However, the bill does not, adequately, describe legal methods for transferring the firearm by private individuals. The law also attempts to define that there is no legitimate use for "assualt weapons".

It is a poorly written law, in my opinion. One is liable, anyway, for damages caused by negligent use of any weapon (or auto, or bike, or windsurfer).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CB--you continue to post sensible things, unlike the riot from Richland. One problem with requiring that guns in the home be secured is the Supreme Court Decision on the Washington DC gun law, which explicitly ruled that government could not mandate trigger locks.

I do support your steady theme that legislation needs to be well thought through, subject to hearings and debate. Like in a democracy. Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1889
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
Are you paying attention to the Colorado bill, passed by its senate, making gun sellers and manufacturers responsible for crimes committed with those guns ... forever? It almost makes Crazyfornia seem sane by comparison.

By precedent and implication, that would make automobile makers, cell phone companies, box knife makers, machete forgers, etc. liable for any criminal deaths they cause.

But why not, now that small ... but easily lethal ... knives are again legal on passenger planes?


Not so. If a car maker installed James Bond gadgets at the request of the buyer knowing that the only intended use for those gadgets was to break the law, then liability of the criminal could be imputed to the car manufacturer.

We're not at this point yet with all weapons conceived, designed and tested to be used only to kill people but increasingly so. I would see little problem with imputing liability to a gun maker who had reason to know such a gun was purchased with a high likelihood of being used in a violent crime.

To be clear, cars are not designed to injure or kill and lack the nexus between intend purpose and actual use. A drunk driver who kills another therefore cannot cause liability to be imputed to the manufacturer simply because the car was used in a way expressly not intended. Some guns involved in crime, however, are being used specifically as conceived, designed and intended. I see a decent argument in that limited circumstance to hold gun manufactures liable for personal injury or death when the gun is used in a crime.

_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
617.259.0411
www.USWindsurfing.org

www.konaone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13282

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
A. (Not Faux News or scream radio)

B. Here is the actual bill.

C.
1. Applicable to semi auto rifles only (handguns, shotguns, bolt actions exempted)
2. Exempted in home defense. ("Make my Day Law" intact)
3. Exempted if gun is stolen (properly stored) and reported stolen
4. Manuf, dealers and owners are only liable IF they sell the guns illegally by not following background checks as required in other legislation or do not take reasonable precautions to safe-guard the weapons.
5. Assigns liability for damages that are caused using the weapon outside of the home.

I am against the bill because of the vague language on the precautions for keeping the gun secure. The rest of the bill makes a bit more sense. It establishes liability if you do not follow the rules in transferring a firearm to another owner or lending it to someone of questionable mental capacity. However, the bill does not, adequately, describe legal methods for transferring the firearm by private individuals. The law also attempts to define that there is no legitimate use for "assualt weapons".

It is a poorly written law, in my opinion. One is liable, anyway, for damages caused by negligent use of any weapon (or auto, or bike, or windsurfer).

A. WSJ.
Besides, the only media sources of many important news stories is often Fox and/or talk radio. The rest of the media ignore or even lie about many such stories for days to weeks, until embarrassed, scooped, or forced by Fox/TR to discuss them honestly, if only briefly. And oddly enough, that applies to stories detrimental to the GOP, such as McCaine's so-called amnesty proposition years ago.

B. This is just one of least 3, maybe 8, different current gun control bills in the CO legislature, according to the WSJ.

C. Thanks for listing this particular bill's details. Others reportedly differ, but it's still ludicrous grandstanding to:
• extend liability to an owner if his gun was stolen while not "properly stored" in his own home (what part of "in his castle" is not "properly stored", and of what use is a gun in a safe separated from its ammunition?) • or if the gun is subsequently used by a burglar.
• allow the manufacturer to be sued for anything other than gross mechanical negligence leading to a malfunction.
• Concentrate the law on so-called assault weapons, which has proved over and over to achieve nothing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1325
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's official now, DiFi's brain officially is on fire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sen. Feinstein Makes Wild Claim to Push Gun Control at Senate Committee Hearing
Mar. 8, 2013 3:54pm Jason Howerton

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun control Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) shot down a proposed amendment to her “assault weapons” ban that would exempt military veterans from the gun ban. She also made some questionable claims.

Pushing a ban on high-capacity magazines, Feinstein argued that it is “legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.”

Here’s her dubious rationale:

“The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”


During the same hearing, she also argued that a military veteran could be mentally ill and suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), therefore should be prevented from buying the semi-automatic weapons that would be banned in her bill.

The California Democrat also made the bizarre claim that the “advent of PTSD” is a “new phenomenon” and a “product of the Iraq war.”

Here’s exactly what she said in context: “The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/08/sen-feinstein-makes-bizarre-claim-to-push-gun-control-at-hearing-its-legal-to-hunt-humans-with-high-capacity-magazines/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
She must have read that book "How to influence your Enemies, and Loose Your Friends".
I'm sure the vets just love her now.
"PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon", ROFLMAO!!!

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW--you are pretty loose with the English language. Does that mean you are a looser?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 74, 75, 76 ... 118, 119, 120  Next
Page 75 of 120

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group