FarenHYPE 9/11

[Marksist]

Is that you Rat.....??

Rat?

[Marksist]

yep and all of the money going into the system is a bottomless pit... Throwing money at public schools does not fix them.

Do you have a source for the claim that increasing funding to public schools is bad?

[Darth Wong]

It was a source for his voting record .. not my opinion....

How does this change the fact that you used a "liberal voting record" as proof that you shouldn't vote for Kerry even though you admit that it's possible for you to agree with liberals on an issue?

Going back to read all of the bill

Would have been nice if you did that before using it as proof that you shouldn't vote for the man. That's precisely what I'm talking about when I say that you're a knee-jerker.

So you are a red neck if you believe that the flag means something... I am sure there are some Military people and lots of others that would disagree with you

So "the flag means something" = "the Constitution should be altered to criminalize flag-burning"? Look up "non sequitur", dumb-ass. Yes, it's redneck-ism. For a lot of people, the Bible "means something" too; I guess we'd better make it illegal to deface that too, right?

Death penalty appeals last the longest and cost the most...

Totally irrelevant to the question of whether a fair trial and appeals process is a right. It's either a right or it isn't.

So you would vote yes on a cap without even knowing the details of this particular proposal? Talk about a rush to judgement

Yes it is .. Cap them all

More proof that you're a knee-jerker. If your objective was to prove me right about you, you're succeeding brilliantly.

yep and all of the money going into the system is a bottomless pit... Throwing money at public schools does not fix them.

And you figure pulling money out of them will?

are you going to prove your envorimental damage??? or just toss shit around...

Desperation delay tactic on your part. It is patently self-evident that opening up a wildlife refuge for industrial use is not good for it.

Nice evasion. Too bad it doesn't even begin to address the problem. Why should the gun industry have special protection that other industries don't enjoy?

Do you sue car companies for accidents... Not unless the product is defective..

Totally false. You can sue a car company for not doing enough to make their product safe or prevent unsafe use of the product even if it's not actually defective. As an engineer, I have to be more aware of product liability law than you. So I repeat the query: why do you think gun manufacturers should get special protection under the law that other industries do not enjoy?

Appeal to Motive fallacy.

either you believe Kerry that .. that his reason or you don't

Are you trying to make yourself look stupid? His motive is irrelevant; the point is that you have failed to show why the action in question is wrong.

Au contraire, you're acting as expected.

Yep.. dragging my knuckles back to the cave

You're doing a fine job of making yourself look foolish by proudly upholding fallacies, admitting to knee-jerk reactionary decision-making, and demonstrating ignorance of subjects under discussion which you nevertheless try to use as proof of your point.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

About the gun manufacturer lawsuits, the ones I'm aware of are not "let's sue the gun makers because guns kill people" as the conservative establishment has successfully portrayed them, but rather about many manufacturers continuing to supply weapons to stores that were selling them to gang-bangers and felons, despite being repeatedly informed which stores were doing this.

[Glocksman]

About the gun manufacturer lawsuits, the ones I'm aware of are not "let's sue the gun makers because guns kill people" as the conservative establishment has successfully portrayed them, but rather about many manufacturers continuing to supply weapons to stores that were selling them to gang-bangers and felons, despite being repeatedly informed which stores were doing this.

Anyone who knows anything about the gun business realizes this is bullshit plain and simple.

First, most manufacturers don't sell directly to gun dealers.

They sell to wholesalers such as Davidsons, CDNN Investments, Southern Ohio Gun, or Century International Arms.
The wholesalers then sell the guns to the individual retail dealers.

There are a few that do sell directly to retailers, but they are small outfits.



Second, firearms retailing is among the most heavily regulated businesses in the United States.

It's illegal to sell guns without running a NICS background check on every purchaser. If a dealer is selling guns to known felons, then he is violating the law and it should be reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives or the local police so he can start serving a sentence in Club Fed.

If the ATF doesn't bust the dealer, how's Colt going to know he's violating the law? Phone calls from the neighborhood busybody?

Third, the suits are about 'let's sue the gun makers because guns kill people'

Here's one example

San Rafael plaintiffs attorney Richard R. Ruggieri had never handled a case involving guns until Brandon Maxfield came along. Maxfield was seven years old when he was left quadraplegic by the inadvertent discharge of a Bryco Model 38 .380-caliber handgun by a 20-year-old family friend who didn't know the gun was loaded.

When Ruggieri examined the facts surrounding the incident he became convinced that the gun was poorly and dangerously designed, so he took the case as a product-liability suit he thought he and Brandon Maxfield's family could win. On May 13, 2003, a jury in Alameda County, Calif. agreed, finding Bryco Arms and owner Bruce Jennings liable for $24 million in damages.

Brandon's parents apparently left a pistol lying around the house and either the babysitter or Brandon himself found it. The babysitter tried to unload the gun, the trigger was pulled, and Brandon was severely injured. The parents and babysitter were found partially liable and Bryco Arms and their distributor were also found liable to the tune of $24 million dollars.

I'm not going to rehash the case except to point out that the gun did not malfunction. The gun functioned exactly as designed; the trigger was pulled and the gun discharged. As far as the 'defect' goes of the safety needing to be off in order to work the slide, let me point out that many other pistols such as the Colt 1911 and Browning High Power share the same 'defect'.

This was a bullshit suit that a California jury bought and is a perfect example of why the liability protection law was needed.

[Edi]

Just skimmed most of the last three pages of this thread, but there was one item that caught my attention, namely the partial birth abortions. I got into a protracted debate about the issue with one dishonest little fuck on another board, and after several pages of rather fruitless argumentation with the evasive, obfuscating turd, he finally defeated his own argument by providing the perfect justification for my opening statement and showed that he had been blowing smoke all along. Namely about what does and does not constitute partial birth abortion. The relevant quotes, after an amount of :

<snip> Nobody is saying partial birth abortions are right, but the court is quite right to strike down a poorly crafted law.

Poorly crafted because there are not special exceptions for murder?

<snip pages and pages of irrelevant red herring bullshit, strawmanning, out of context quotes and outright lies in amounts directly comparable to Axis Kast at his worst>

The bill that has sparked this debate defines "partial birth abortion" as delivery of a fetus "until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."

Yes, delivery of a fetus, but you seem to have serious problems understanding what that passage actually means. If the fetus is forcibly extracted, it cannot be said to have been born, really. Besides, the definition conveniently just refers to a living fetus, without making any effort to address the central point of the whole abortion debate, which is sentience and when the fetus acquires it. This definition you quoted just makes it plain that the law was a political attempt to set the stage for outlawing abortion altogether sometime in the future. It also shows the law to be very, very poorly crafted, which is why the SC [Edi's note: my mistake here, it was an appeals court, not the SC, that struck the PBA ban down]was correct to strike it down, as I said earlier.
And in addition to that, there is a procedural way around this, but which is more complicated and dangerous for the woman. Dilating the vaginal canal, then injecting the fetus with a poison that would kill it and then delivering it out doesn't violate the law unless it has some more provisions to outlaw all sorts of abortions. At that point the fetus will already be dead by the time it is delivered in any sense of the word. The law is also cunningly crafted in the sense that because abortion requires the fetus to be removed from the woman's body in order to not kill her, it almost makes it illegal to do that part.

So, it appears that the PBA law was just a general ban on all abortion procedures past the very early stage disguised in language meant to purposely misrepresent what the religious right really means, and in addition the wording of the statute is so vague that it is completely fucking useless. Anybody who defends that steaming pile of bullshit is either speaking from ignorance, or is just too fucking stupid to live. It's all just a great big Trojan horse meant to accomplish by stealth and overly wide interpretation a general ban on all abortions, and it's bloody frightening how many normal rational people (myself included up until that point) have been fooled by it, mainly because they take PBA to mean late term abortion while the people behind it really mean "abortion at any stage as long as the fetus passes through the birth canal alive, and fuck sentience and rights based arguments".

Edi

[Darth Wong]

This was a bullshit suit that a California jury bought and is a perfect example of why the liability protection law was needed.

If the suits are without merit, they should fail. It does not follow that an entire industry requires categorical immunity from lawsuits which no other industry enjoys. Do you know many frivolous lawsuits are launched against manufacturers in other industries? If there is a problem in the way lawsuits are handled, it should be addressed in a manner which benefits all manufacturers, rather than making one particular industry a special "privileged" industry. There is still no reason whatsoever to make special protections for the gun industry.

[Beowulf]

This was a bullshit suit that a California jury bought and is a perfect example of why the liability protection law was needed.

If the suits are without merit, they should fail.

The problem is, they largely don't. Most of the lawsuits charge that a defect is there, when the gun does exactly what it is supposed to do. If it were for a real defect then yes. However none of the lawsuits have been for such things as the gun firing when it's dropped, largely because safeties have been incorporated to protect against that.

[Darth Wong]

This was a bullshit suit that a California jury bought and is a perfect example of why the liability protection law was needed.

If the suits are without merit, they should fail.

The problem is, they largely don't. Most of the lawsuits charge that a defect is there, when the gun does exactly what it is supposed to do. If it were for a real defect then yes. However none of the lawsuits have been for such things as the gun firing when it's dropped, largely because safeties have been incorporated to protect against that.

Care to address the rest of my post, or the one before it dealing with this issue, or indeed, anything I've said about the nature of product liability?

[Glocksman]

This was a bullshit suit that a California jury bought and is a perfect example of why the liability protection law was needed.

If the suits are without merit, they should fail. It does not follow that an entire industry requires categorical immunity from lawsuits which no other industry enjoys. Do you know many frivolous lawsuits are launched against manufacturers in other industries? If there is a problem in the way lawsuits are handled, it should be addressed in a manner which benefits all manufacturers, rather than making one particular industry a special "privileged" industry. There is still no reason whatsoever to make special protections for the gun industry.

Tort reform as a whole is way overdue in the US.

I have no problem with a gun company being sued for making a defective firearm; i.e., one that blows up when the trigger is pulled or one that fires when dropped or the safety is applied.

In fact, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act specifically exempted such suits from prohibition. It would have only prohibited "civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others."

It would not have prohibited suits based on the gun being defective, so it wouldn't have even stopped all of the nuisance suits, much less someone with an actual case.


The difference between the gun industry and most (tobacco being the notable exception) other industries is that most of these suits are driven by a desire to bankrupt the gun industry and drive the companies out of business, or at the very least, make guns so expensive that only the well off can afford them.

When someone sues Ford or GM because their truck exploded when hit by a thrown pebble, they want to win a settlement and force the company to fix the defect that made the explosion possible.

The stated intention of many of the lawyers and organizations suing the gun companies is to drive them out of business.

Even though the gunmakers eventually win a vast majority of the suits, it still costs millions each year to defend against. I'd like to see the courts start forcing the losers to pay the legal costs in cases such as this


Overlawyered.com has a pretty good section on gun suits.

[The Kernel]

Tort reform as a whole is way overdue in the US.

You are correct. However, (and this is a big however) passing laws that give blanket protection to an entire industry is not the way to proper tort reform. What needs to be done is a much more general reform of the legal system in order to prevent frivalous suits from being brought in the first place.

[Beowulf]

Tort reform as a whole is way overdue in the US.

You are correct. However, (and this is a big however) passing laws that give blanket protection to an entire industry is not the way to proper tort reform. What needs to be done is a much more general reform of the legal system in order to prevent frivalous suits from being brought in the first place.

Care to make a comment that actually matters? The proposed act that Glocksman refered to banned specifically lawsuits that tried to blame manufacturers for making guns that worked as designed, but were used in a criminal act.

It's like trying to sue Ford for them making a car that's used in a hit and run.

[Fire Fly]

People in general really need to stop being lazy and ltry to find the reason why someone votes on way or another. You cannot just take an answer and immeadiately label someone a "liberal" or a "conservative" based on which box was checked. To do so says you're either really lazy, already biased, uninformed, and all of the above etc. Judge not based upon YEA or NAY but upon why they chose YEA or NAY.

I think Senator Kerry said it best during the second Presidential Debates when he was asked to rebutt a rebuttal made by Bush in regards to using tax dollars and abortion.

KERRY: Well, again, the president just said, categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that. You know, it's just not that simple. No, I'm not.

I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.

Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16-or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.

[White Cat]

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

Legislated categorical protection of one particular industry from lawsuits is absurd. If it's wrong to sue industries based on misuse of their products, why not extend this to all industries? Why just guns?

I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that an "all industries are protected from lawsuits on injuries from the misuse of their products" law would be too broad to enforce, and could possibly invite constitutional challenges. This is the kind of thing that needs to have laws tailored to each individual industry.

Second, why is that a reason a reason for voting no? Just because one wants all industires protected this way is no reason to stop a law that protects one of them. It would be like having a law to protect Endangered Species #1, and voting against it because it didn't do anything to protect Endangered Species #2.

Finally, this is speculation on my part, but I kinda doubt that "other industries deserve equal protection" was Kerry's reason for voting against it.