Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This law firm alliance could very easily backfire on the anti 2a crowd. The people are fed up to the gills with blood sucking, bottom feeding lawyers and leftist biased courts legislating from courtrooms and judges chambers. Trying to utilize the same suits and robes that further and allow violent criminals to be released on affirmative defenses and technicalities in total disregard of victims and families, and now sending them out to litigate our right to defend ourselves from those criminals?
More and more people every day who had never before considered arming and training for defense against violent crime are doing just that. The police themselves are not any safer than citizens when it comes to being victims these days, so folks are seeing actual common sense in that being armed and as prepared as possible just can't be a bad idea.
It's not to much of a mental challenge to see that being armed in the face of violent attack is a few full grades better than relying on 911. Nor is it to taxing to see that disarming honest citizens isn't going to solve any issues with armed criminals. It solves the criminals issues with concern over being shot whilst plying their trade, and it doesn't require an advanced degree to see that as a bit...counterproductive.
Fleets of scumbag lawyers bloviating about disarming us citizens with the current climate of opinion about self defense being what it is will blow up in the grabbers faces. It will be just like hooking their proverbial explosive device straight to the battery circuit. Oops! Never saw THAT coming! Folks are ready to start running lawyers out of town on a rail with a coat of tar and feathers. Personally, I'm more than up to the gills with lawyers and their legal speak coating of dairy farm dung pile definitions of "justice." And I know I'm far from alone in this.
So the (D)'s were correct in not voting for it. It's not OK to preserve our rights to "some degree".
They didn't vote for it because they voted for their own bill that had no 3 day limit. The Republican bill was a sensible compromise that would have suspended someone's rights for 3 days and required the government to get a judge to agree to it beyond that. What probably would have occurred is they would of created another list of people that were to be immediately arrested if they attempted to buy a gun.
Last edited by thecoalman; 12-26-2016 at 12:08 PM..
They didn't vote for it because they voted for their own bill that had no 3 day limit. The Republican bill was a sensible compromise that would have suspended someone's rights for 3 days and required the government to get a judge to agree to it beyond that. What probably would have occurred is they would of created another list of people that were to be immediately arrested if they attempted to buy a gun.
Again, there should be NO compromise of our rights.
This law firm alliance could very easily backfire on the anti 2a crowd. The people are fed up to the gills with blood sucking, bottom feeding lawyers and leftist biased courts legislating from courtrooms and judges chambers. Trying to utilize the same suits and robes that further and allow violent criminals to be released on affirmative defenses and technicalities in total disregard of victims and families, and now sending them out to litigate our right to defend ourselves from those criminals?
More and more people every day who had never before considered arming and training for defense against violent crime are doing just that. The police themselves are not any safer than citizens when it comes to being victims these days, so folks are seeing actual common sense in that being armed and as prepared as possible just can't be a bad idea.
It's not to much of a mental challenge to see that being armed in the face of violent attack is a few full grades better than relying on 911. Nor is it to taxing to see that disarming honest citizens isn't going to solve any issues with armed criminals. It solves the criminals issues with concern over being shot whilst plying their trade, and it doesn't require an advanced degree to see that as a bit...counterproductive.
Fleets of scumbag lawyers bloviating about disarming us citizens with the current climate of opinion about self defense being what it is will blow up in the grabbers faces. It will be just like hooking their proverbial explosive device straight to the battery circuit. Oops! Never saw THAT coming! Folks are ready to start running lawyers out of town on a rail with a coat of tar and feathers. Personally, I'm more than up to the gills with lawyers and their legal speak coating of dairy farm dung pile definitions of "justice." And I know I'm far from alone in this.
Many democrats own guns. They just want more gun control. What's wrong with that
What's wrong is most if not all of gun laws proposed by the left are either unconstitutional, doesn't work, or not enforced. Another thing that's wrong is that time and time again gun control led to complete disarmament or bans in one form or another.
Without the ability to shoot 80 people in a movie theater or a couple dozen second graders, we wouldn`t have our "freedoms". Got it.
The NRA loves the black market gun sales. That`s why they cry like babies when a state tries to pass a law requiring a person to report their stolen guns. No one does more for criminals, crazies and terror suspects than the gun/criminal lobby.
Did you know more people died from pistols than so called assault rifles? Did you know that pistols are used in more mass shootings than the so called assault rifle? Did you know that the second largest shooting in America was done with pistols and ten round magazines? Did you know more people died from a truck plowing into a crowd than someone who passed two background checks and was a security guard who got a so called assault rifle and killed 50?
This will have an impact but it's a tough road with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in place to shield the gun manufacturers and dealers.
I don't know what you have against lawful commerce.....?
If a company follows the law, why is it that you think they should be held accountable when a nut case uses their product illegally? By this standard, Ford and Budweiser could be held accountable every time some drunk plows their pickup in to a family in a minivan. Do you think that's fair?
Or, you could drop the façade and just be honest about what this is really about.... You want the PLCAA to be repealed so that any victim of gun violence can bring suit against the gun industry, which will inevitably bankrupt them. Short of that, lawsuits could be used as leverage against the gun industry to get concessions. Gun control groups could get the gun industry to quit selling handguns, or "assault weapons" to the public, or anything else they wanted as part of a settlement agreement, which amounts to an end run around congress, the courts, and the Constitution.
That's what this is really all about.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 12-28-2016 at 01:25 AM..
I only heard one sentence about "Gun Control" in the debates.
Gun Control means using both hands.
And with our new President, no more stupid gun attempts will be made........
LOL, you're a lot more confident than I am.
#1, Trump only holds a political position until that position becomes inconvenient for him. As soon as it becomes inconvenient, he drops it like a hot potatoe.
#2. He's also an extreme narcissist with a huge ego who craves popularity and approval. If there is another Sandy Hook style shooting and he finds himself under extreme pressure to pass gun control, I'm not convinced in the least that he wouldn't crack under it.
#3. Trump's an authoritarian. Taking guns away from the common man has been a hallmark of authoritarians throughout history.
I don't know what you have against lawful commerce.....?
If a company follows the law, why is it that you think they should be held accountable when a nut case uses their product illegally? By this standard, Ford and Budweiser could be held accountable every time some drunk plows their pickup in to a family in a minivan. Do you think that's fair?
Or, you could drop the façade and just be honest about what this is really about.... You want the PLCAA to be repealed so that any victim of gun violence can bring suit against the gun industry, which will inevitably bankrupt them. Short of that, lawsuits could be used as leverage against the gun industry to get concessions. Gun control groups could get the gun industry to quit selling handguns, or "assault weapons" to the public, or anything else they wanted as part of a settlement agreement, which amounts to an end run around congress, the courts, and the Constitution.
That's what this is really all about.
Well you need to wonder why gun manufacturers are singled out for protection like no other company. Why shouldn't a plaintiff have their day in court like any other industry, they still need to prove their case and it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that the can win.
The gun industry has come a long way since the Saturday night special, their advertising has served them well.
Why should anyone be held accountable for something they may not even know occurred? Of course YOU would think it makes sense.
I don't inventory my collection twice a day like clearing a cash register
The law that was proposed in my state would not criminalize a person who was unaware that his guns were stolen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oops! Never saw THAT coming! Folks are ready to start running lawyers out of town on a rail with a coat of tar and feathers. Personally, I'm more than up to the gills with lawyers and their legal speak coating of dairy farm dung pile definitions of "justice." And I know I'm far from alone in this.
