In article ,
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
...snipped...
BTW, the Second Amendment states right up front why people should have
the right to bear arms. Have you signed up with your local militia? Does
your local militia commander know how to get in touch with you to summon
you for duty and what weapons you have and how well skilled you are in
their use? Do you report for training as required?


That is a misconception. In the context of the time and circumstances
when it was written, the intent of the framers was that "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms" should not be infringed _because_
the government maintained a militia. IOW, the _people_ were guaranteed
the right to have firearms as protection against the government using the
militia against them. The "shot heard round the world" was in response
to the British forces attempt to disarm the colonists. At the time, the
terms militia, army, etc. were used more or less interchageably.




--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

HeyBub wrote:

Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?

If normal consumer product tort and liability laws applied to gun
companies as they do to all other consumer product companies,
there would be a much different gun situation in the US. Guns
would be more expensive and much safer to handle when exposed to
children for example.

Civil suits arising from damages caused by firearms are
specifically prohibited by "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act," (2005), and became Public Law 109-02

And what logical, rational argument can anyone put forward defending
that law?

How would gun violence and death in the US be different if firearms were
treated EXACTLY like other consumer products under the law?

Why are they treated differently?

Oren wrote:

So how has having a gun helped you?

Which time? Fighting a rattlesnake, killing an about to strike
cotton mouth moccasin, inhibiting an 8 foot alligator from
taking my ship?

All that makes as much sense as saying "I need to own a gun, and have
used it when I go on vacation to Afghanistan".

What the hell are you doing destroying wildlife in the first place?

Don't guns protect your beloved Queen?

She has a navy for that.

On 2012-05-05, Oren wrote:

Which time? Fighting a rattlesnake, killing an about to strike cotton
mouth moccasin, inhibiting an 8 foot alligator from taking my ship?

Boy, howdy! Howzabout bears?

I moved to central CO about 5 yrs ago. We have a Walmart, Subway,
stoplights, cellphones, internet, etc. We also have bears. I've seen
a bear on my deck every year since I moved here. One year, twice
within 12 hrs.

Last year, a big 'un wasn't jes cruzin' fer burgers. He somehow
detected unopened dry dog food in one of our sheds. Figured out how
to get in. Next night, I locked the door. Bear tore the entire
lock/clasp off the door and ate 2nd bag of dog food. Third night
passed uneventfully. Fourth night, after I put a 2x12 across door
with 10" spikes, the bear returned. Tore the top half of the door
completely off, above the 2x12, like it was tissue paper. Called
DOW, who caught the bear and put it down (2nd capture). Two ppl were
killed by black bears within 10 miles of my home, last Summer.

Now, if I find I must go outdoors after dark, like to walk the 150 ft
to the dumpster to empty some trash, I have a powerful headband light
and a .44 magnum pistol with Garrett bear loads in my shooting hand.
A bear is not likely to wait for a call to 911. Neither am I.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Yell out the window "bitch!" --Bill Burr

"gonjah" gonjah.net wrote in message
net...
On 5/5/2012 12:28 AM, harry wrote:
Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...6pLid%3D107028


BTW: Accidental shootings, and all violent crimes, have been on the
decline for years now in the US.

The odds of being accidentally shot in the US are miniscule compared to
death by motor vehicle.

Should we outlaw cars too harry?


Actually harry doesn't consider death by any other means to really count
ONLY "gun deaths" are important to an ignorant hoplophobe like him.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2012 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

So how has having a gun helped you?

Which time? Fighting a rattlesnake, killing an about to strike cotton
mouth moccasin, inhibiting an 8 foot alligator from taking my ship?

Don't guns protect your beloved Queen?

No, Oren. I know, personally, just for me, when I see anyone who wears one
of those three foot high beaver skin stovepipe hats, I think, "That dude has
big balls, and I don't want to go near him."

Kinda like seeing a full dress biker.

You have to have big balls to wear a hat like that on public on purpose.

Steve

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/12 09:04 am, gonjah wrote:

Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...6pLid%3D107028



BTW: Accidental shootings, and all violent crimes, have been on the
decline for years now in the US.

The odds of being accidentally shot in the US are miniscule compared to
death by motor vehicle.

Should we outlaw cars too harry?

Firearms (other than the very few that are bought solely for target
practice) have no purpose other than to kill humans or animals. Motor
vehicles are not designed to kill.


At least that's the claim of stupid and ignorant hoplophobes like you
Ironic that cars are responsible for
over 42,000 accidental deaths against about 600
over 1,000,000 accidental injuries, against bout 10,000
with $billions of property damage against a number so minimal it's not
even recorded.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/12 01:42 pm, Oren wrote:

Firearms (other than the very few that are bought solely for target
practice) have no purpose other than to kill humans or animals. Motor
vehicles are not designed to kill.

Perce

I beg to differ with you. My guns have never killed anything. Bullets
do the kilin' when and if essential.

So impose an enormous tax on ammunition.

BTW, the Second Amendment states right up front why people should have the
right to bear arms. Have you signed up with your local militia?

Actually it doesn't
And the Supreme Court has declared that your conclusion due to lack of
reading skills is wrong

Does your local militia commander know how to get in touch with you to
summon you for duty and what weapons you have and how well skilled you are
in their use? Do you report for training as required?


Why ?
Oh wait, you're one of those ignoramuses who, being unable to read for
comprehension, imagines that one one be part of a militia to have a right...

Try parsing the phrase
"..the right of the people.."
It does NOT mean
".. the right of members of the militia.."


Perce

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 2:04 pm, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:
On 5/5/2012 12:28 AM, harry wrote:

Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...hot-dead-by-th...

BTW: Accidental shootings, and all violent crimes, have been on the
decline for years now in the US.

The odds of being accidentally shot in the US are miniscule compared to
death by motor vehicle.

Should we outlaw cars too harry?

Jim

Guns are intended to kill. Auto accidents are just that.
Not having guns would be lives saved.

LOL
More ignorance from the stupid hoplophobe
There are about 2,500,000 people who avoid being the victims of criminals
each year
By banning guns you would create a MINIMUM of that many victims right
away
Goo choice harry
What does it feel like to be pro-criminal ?

"gonjah" wrote in message
net...
On 5/5/2012 11:54 AM, Home Guy wrote:
gonjah wrote:

Should we outlaw cars too harry?
Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?

If an old lady can sue McDonalds because she burned herself when she
spilled a hot coffee, then why can't a home owner sue Smith& Wesson or
Colt because their product did not have enough built-in safety
mechanisms to prevent accidental injury or death?

If normal consumer product tort and liability laws applied to gun
companies as they do to all other consumer product companies, there
would be a much different gun situation in the US. Guns would be more
expensive and much safer to handle when exposed to children for example.

And anyone injured or killed by a stolen or lost gun (a gun that was not
reported to the police as being lost or stolen) should be able to sue
the last registered owner for negligence and wrongful death.

Insurance companies would or could include additional premiums for
homeowners that have or maintain dangerous products in their house that
can kill or injure others or be stolen and used to injure or kill others
- most specifically firearms.

If you want to make it so that it's your right to own a gun - fine.

If you want to own a company that makes or sells guns - fine.

If your gun injures or kills someone (regardless who pulled the trigger)
then some degree of responsibility should be aimed at you, and your ass
should be able to be sued for (at least) monentary damages.

You have to carry liability and property damage insurance to own/operate
a car.

The same should also apply to firearms.

This is moving the goal posts IMO. Good arguments, but not the root issue
of the right to bear arms.

Harry wants to law guns. Not practical here and will never happen anyway.

Actually, if ou had thought about it, you would realize they are false
arguments.

You have a right to sue for damages if the PRODUCT is DEFECTIVE, and are
subsequently damage BECAUSE of the defect
You are NOT allowed to sue because a third party misuses the product
There are NO car manufacturers successfully sued because they were harmed
from driver negligence, error or even criminal use.
Ditto for ANY other product that were used in such a way.

"Steve B" wrote in message
...
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top...RhrWCM9dQ.cspx

I rest my case, yer honor.


Interesting how the knife-wielding nutter IMMEDIATELY stopped when he faced
a gun..
"Then, before the suspect could find another victim -
a citizen with a gun stopped the madness.
"A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon
or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon
and the people from Smith's grabbed him.""

"gonjah" gonjah.net wrote in message
net...
On 5/5/2012 12:06 PM, Steve B wrote:
BTW: Accidental shootings, and all violent crimes, have been on the
decline for years now in the US.

Accidental shootings and firearms mishaps were THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF
DEATH
among the wagon trains in the 1800's. People mishandling guns, shooting
their uncle who was taking a dump out in the bushes and they thought they
was Injuns, etc.

Steve



Well that settles it. Outlaw taking dumps.

Well at least doing so BEHIND BUSHES..

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Home Guy wrote:
gonjah wrote:

Should we outlaw cars too harry?

Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?



You would NEED to prove that the gun was defective for such a suit


If an old lady can sue McDonalds because she burned herself when she
spilled a hot coffee, then why can't a home owner sue Smith & Wesson
or Colt because their product did not have enough built-in safety
mechanisms to prevent accidental injury or death?


What makes you think they don't ?
Oh wait, you are stupid.


If normal consumer product tort and liability laws applied to gun
companies as they do to all other consumer product companies, there
would be a much different gun situation in the US. Guns would be more
expensive and much safer to handle when exposed to children for
example.



Clearly you are clueless about tort and liability laws


Civil suits arising from damages caused by firearms are specifically
prohibited by "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," (2005), and
became Public Law 109-02 (15 USC 7901 et seq. ).

See
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...-109publ92.pdf


They were made illegal because there was a concerted effort to sue the
companies NOT because of any wrongdoing but simply because they were gun
manufacturers
The intent was to bleed them out with frivolous lawsuits
The intent and purpose of the law was to such such lawsuits.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...

The only thing that the right to bear arms has given the citizens of the
United States is pain, misery and suffering.


I'm sure that people in this store feel otherwise
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top...RhrWCM9dQ.cspx
"Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store"

But those headlines the hoplophobe most happily ignore.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 3:31 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...hot-dead-by-th...

Truly regrettable. Still, an occasional tragedy, even a preventable one,
is
the price we pay for freedom.

You are slaves to your banksters.

Whatever

Liviing in a place with concentration camps,

While concentration camps are a British invention, there are no
"concentration camps" in the US.

arbitary arrest,

In your fantasies maybe.
Last time I checked, it was far more likely where you live.

Most people in jail,

Yup
It means that criminals are not running around committing crimes
Funny how the crime rate has been dropping, as prisoners are being put
behind bars.


one of the highest highest murder rates.

Highest relative to what ?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...100-000-people
63rd place out of 124 is doesn't even qualify as "one of the highest" BY ANY
STANDARD.


Most government snoops.

LOL
This from a country where they have snoops driving down streets to see who
has TVs
And the more street cameras per capita than the US..



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rceration_rate

You are 668 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US than
the UK.

BZZZT
FALSE
Criminals are FAR MORE likely to die from being shot, either by other
criminals or citizens. than citizens being shot by criminals.
Whereas in the UK you are far more likely to be burglarized and raped, not
to mention assaulted than in the US.
We can live with a few accidental deaths , 800 annually, for being much
safer otherwise.

And then let's not forget that in the UK, if, you try to defend yourself or
your property, with a gun, you will go to jail and the government will help
pay the lawyer's fees for the criminal to sue you..

**** ENGLAND

On Sat, 05 May 2012 14:03:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2012 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

So how has having a gun helped you?

Which time? Fighting a rattlesnake, killing an about to strike cotton
mouth moccasin, inhibiting an 8 foot alligator from taking my ship?

Don't guns protect your beloved Queen?

harry wouldn't want a gun to protect him.

On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:16:07 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

Oren wrote:

So how has having a gun helped you?

Which time? Fighting a rattlesnake, killing an about to strike
cotton mouth moccasin, inhibiting an 8 foot alligator from
taking my ship?

All that makes as much sense as saying "I need to own a gun, and have
used it when I go on vacation to Afghanistan".

What the hell are you doing destroying wildlife in the first place?

Don't guns protect your beloved Queen?

She has a navy for that.

I suppose their navy, like Canuckisans, doesn't have guns.

On Sat, 05 May 2012 10:42:48 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:16:01 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

Firearms (other than the very few that are bought solely for target
practice) have no purpose other than to kill humans or animals. Motor
vehicles are not designed to kill.

Perce

I beg to differ with you. My guns have never killed anything. Bullets
do the kilin' when and if essential.

Pencils were designed to cause spelling errors.

Obviously. Otherwise they wouldn't come with erasers.

On Sat, 05 May 2012 14:54:17 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 05/05/12 01:42 pm, Oren wrote:

Firearms (other than the very few that are bought solely for target
practice) have no purpose other than to kill humans or animals. Motor
vehicles are not designed to kill.

Perce

I beg to differ with you. My guns have never killed anything. Bullets
do the kilin' when and if essential.

So impose an enormous tax on ammunition.

Why? So people won't practice shooting? ...so when they need the gun, they
spray their neighbors? I'm sure you're one of the kooks who believes people
should have to have 100hrs (or 10x) of classroom training before they can be
licensed, yet you want to make sure they can't handle the weapon. What a
kook.

BTW, the Second Amendment states right up front why people should have
the right to bear arms. Have you signed up with your local militia? Does
your local militia commander know how to get in touch with you to summon
you for duty and what weapons you have and how well skilled you are in
their use? Do you report for training as required?

Totally wrong. Every word.

Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?

If normal consumer product tort and liability laws applied to gun
companies as they do to all other consumer product companies,
there would be a much different gun situation in the US. Guns
would be more expensive and much safer to handle when exposed to
children for example.

Civil suits arising from damages caused by firearms are
specifically prohibited by "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act," (2005), and became Public Law 109-02

And what logical, rational argument can anyone put forward defending
that law?

How would gun violence and death in the US be different if firearms
were treated EXACTLY like other consumer products under the law?

Why are they treated differently?

It is obvious you didn't read the law.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text

--- Begin quote:

SECTION 2 - FINDINGS

(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors,
dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended,
which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse
of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm
that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes
public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic
constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and
destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing
in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an
unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal
Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others
are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common
law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide
expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a
maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a
manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress,
or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability
would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities
guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution.

(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal
Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and others
attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of
government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and
judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and
weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State
sovereignty and comity between the sister States.

--- End quote

That's why.

Attila.Iskander wrote:
one of the highest highest murder rates.

Highest relative to what ?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...100-000-people
63rd place out of 124 is doesn't even qualify as "one of the highest"
BY ANY STANDARD.


Harry thinks that places where guns are mostly illegal are safer from gun
violence. Places like, oh, Mexico for example.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Attila.Iskander wrote:
one of the highest highest murder rates.

Highest relative to what ?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...100-000-people
63rd place out of 124 is doesn't even qualify as "one of the highest"
BY ANY STANDARD.


Harry thinks that places where guns are mostly illegal are safer from gun
violence. Places like, oh, Mexico for example.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO MEXICO?

Well, I have. I went to Cabo, San Jose del Cabo, Mazatlan, and Puerta
Vallarta. And up into the countryside around there. Like Copala.

It is just a land full of the sweetest nicest kind considerate people I have
ever seen. I think I'd like to live there some day. My destination is
Puenta Gorda, north of the new marina at San Jose del Cabo.

I walked the streets. I bought things at the tourist shop. I ate at lots
of little restaurants. I sat on the beach and drank El Pacifico and lime.

What could anyone say bad about Mexico? I think you are mistaken. The
Mexico I saw was very nice.

Steve ;-)

On Sat, 05 May 2012 20:07:05 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

BTW, the Second Amendment states right up front why people should have
the right to bear arms. Have you signed up with your local militia? Does
your local militia commander know how to get in touch with you to summon
you for duty and what weapons you have and how well skilled you are in
their use? Do you report for training as required?

Lat time I checked the 'militia' (a.k.a. National Guard) provides
weapons to the volunteers and must be returned after the drill.

The "militia" is *not* the National Guard.

On Sat, 5 May 2012 19:44:27 -0700, "Steve B" wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Attila.Iskander wrote:
one of the highest highest murder rates.

Highest relative to what ?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...100-000-people
63rd place out of 124 is doesn't even qualify as "one of the highest"
BY ANY STANDARD.


Harry thinks that places where guns are mostly illegal are safer from gun
violence. Places like, oh, Mexico for example.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO MEXICO?

Well, I have. I went to Cabo, San Jose del Cabo, Mazatlan, and Puerta
Vallarta. And up into the countryside around there. Like Copala.

It is just a land full of the sweetest nicest kind considerate people I have
ever seen. I think I'd like to live there some day. My destination is
Puenta Gorda, north of the new marina at San Jose del Cabo.

I walked the streets. I bought things at the tourist shop. I ate at lots
of little restaurants. I sat on the beach and drank El Pacifico and lime.

What could anyone say bad about Mexico? I think you are mistaken. The
Mexico I saw was very nice.

I think he was talking about this Mexico.

http://www.wtop.com/215/2852855/Tort...-across-border
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ican-city.html
(Funny harry didn't find that one)

On Sun, 06 May 2012 00:15:11 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2012 20:07:05 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

BTW, the Second Amendment states right up front why people should have
the right to bear arms. Have you signed up with your local militia? Does
your local militia commander know how to get in touch with you to summon
you for duty and what weapons you have and how well skilled you are in
their use? Do you report for training as required?

Lat time I checked the 'militia' (a.k.a. National Guard) provides
weapons to the volunteers and must be returned after the drill.

The "militia" is *not* the National Guard.

According to them it is.

Why would you use the idiot gun grabber's definition for anything?

There are lots of militia groups if
that's what you mean.

No, this is what I meant:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

10 U.S.C. § 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

On May 5, 6:28*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
The unfortunate death is a result of unsafe gun storage.

RKBA is one of the reasons the citizens of USA have
any freedoms remaining. Though, rapidly shrinking
freedoms.


So having guns hasn't helped?

On May 5, 8:10*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top...eal-and-carry-...

I rest my case, yer honor.

Steve

Tch. Carrying knives is outlawed here as well.

On May 5, 9:26*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 5, 2:04 pm, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:
On 5/5/2012 12:28 AM, harry wrote:

Parents must be half wits.
I bet they are Republicans.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/05/...hot-dead-by-th....

BTW: Accidental shootings, and all violent crimes, have been on the
decline for years now in the US.

The odds of being accidentally shot in the US are miniscule compared
to death by motor vehicle.

Should we outlaw cars too harry?

Jim

Guns are intended to kill. *Auto accidents are just that.
Not having guns would be lives saved.

That's bizarre. Having guns saves lives. By the hundreds of thousands.

The US experiences over two million defensive gun uses per year. Were it not
for the gun, a significant number of those instances would result in death.

Remember the mantra, "If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Two million. You just made that up. Like the rest of the crap you
invent. (Vince Foster being ane xample.)

On May 5, 10:03*pm, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2012 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

So how has having a gun helped you?

Which time? Fighting a rattlesnake, killing an about to strike cotton
mouth moccasin, inhibiting an 8 foot alligator from taking my ship?

Don't guns protect your beloved Queen?

Oh a regular Crocodile Dundee.
Fighting a rattlesnake. Heh Heh. Did the rattlesnake have a gun
too?
The all American hero.

I don't believe a word of it.
All of the above are very timid and only attack if provoked.

News. It was an eight foot alligator sank the Titanic! Heh Heh.

Well guns didn't protect Kennedy. Or Regan. Or Lincoln. Garfield.
McKinley.
I don't recall a single King or Queen ever being shot in the UK.

One or two have been executed or chopped to bits with swords.

So guns have a zero record for protecting anything.

You are a complete dolt. You need to put your brain into gear before
your mouth. Mind you. Americans are noted for having big mouths.

On May 5, 11:11*pm, Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?
If normal consumer product tort and liability laws applied to gun
companies as they do to all other consumer product companies,
there would be a much different gun situation in the US. *Guns
would be more expensive and much safer to handle when exposed to
children for example.

Civil suits arising from damages caused by firearms are
specifically prohibited by "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act," (2005), and became Public Law 109-02

And what logical, rational argument can anyone put forward defending
that law?

How would gun violence and death in the US be different if firearms were
treated EXACTLY like other consumer products under the law?

Why are they treated differently?

Because they are crazed in America. And gun manufacturers make lots
of money off the simple minded, fearful fools that buy them..

You GOT to be simple minded to leave a loaded gun where a two year old
can find it.

On May 5, 11:26*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...

On Sat, 5 May 2012 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

So how has having a gun helped you?

Which time? Fighting a rattlesnake, killing an about to strike cotton
mouth moccasin, inhibiting an 8 foot alligator from taking my ship?

Don't guns protect your beloved Queen?

No, Oren. *I know, personally, just for me, when I see anyone who wears one
of those three foot high beaver skin stovepipe hats, I think, "That dude has
big balls, and I don't want to go near him."

Kinda like seeing a full dress biker.

You have to have big balls to wear a hat like that on public on purpose.

Steve

I bet he wears a Davy Crocket hat.

On May 6, 3:44*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

news
Attila.Iskander wrote:
one of the highest highest murder rates.

Highest relative to what ?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...urders-per-100....
63rd place out of 124 is doesn't even qualify as "one of the highest"
BY ANY STANDARD.

Harry thinks that places where guns are mostly illegal are safer from gun
violence. Places like, oh, Mexico for example.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO MEXICO?

Well, I have. *I went to Cabo, San Jose del Cabo, Mazatlan, and Puerta
Vallarta. *And up into the countryside around there. *Like Copala.

It is just a land full of the sweetest nicest kind considerate people I have
ever seen. *I think I'd like to live there some day. *My destination is
Puenta Gorda, north of the new marina at San Jose del Cabo.

I walked the streets. *I bought things at the tourist shop. *I ate at lots
of little restaurants. *I sat on the beach and drank El Pacifico and lime.

What could anyone say bad about Mexico? *I think you are mistaken. *The
Mexico I saw was very nice.

Steve *;-)

I don't suppose he has been out of his home state.

On May 6, 6:11*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2012 19:44:27 -0700, "Steve B" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Attila.Iskander wrote:
one of the highest highest murder rates.

Highest relative to what ?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...urders-per-100....
63rd place out of 124 is doesn't even qualify as "one of the highest"
BY ANY STANDARD.

Harry thinks that places where guns are mostly illegal are safer from gun
violence. Places like, oh, Mexico for example.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO MEXICO?

Well, I have. *I went to Cabo, San Jose del Cabo, Mazatlan, and Puerta
Vallarta. *And up into the countryside around there. *Like Copala.

It is just a land full of the sweetest nicest kind considerate people I have
ever seen. *I think I'd like to live there some day. *My destination is
Puenta Gorda, north of the new marina at San Jose del Cabo.

I walked the streets. *I bought things at the tourist shop. *I ate at lots
of little restaurants. *I sat on the beach and drank El Pacifico and lime.

What could anyone say bad about Mexico? *I think you are mistaken. *The
Mexico I saw was very nice.

I think he was talking about this Mexico.

http://www.wtop.com/215/2852855/Tort...aandthecaribbe...
(Funny harry didn't find that one)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny Nuevo Laredo is right next to the USA too. I wonder if that has
anything to do with it.

The USA exports violence and crime worldwide. You gotta feel sorry
for Mexicans right next to the US.

HeyBub wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?

If normal consumer product tort and liability laws applied to gun
companies as they do to all other consumer product companies,
there would be a much different gun situation in the US. Guns
would be more expensive and much safer to handle when exposed to
children for example.

Civil suits arising from damages caused by firearms are
specifically prohibited by "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act," (2005), and became Public Law 109-02

And what logical, rational argument can anyone put forward defending
that law?

How would gun violence and death in the US be different if firearms
were treated EXACTLY like other consumer products under the law?

Why are they treated differently?

It is obvious you didn't read the law.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text

--- Begin quote:

SECTION 2 - FINDINGS

(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors,
dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and
intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm
caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including
criminals.
(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for
harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system,
erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the
diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites
the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic
sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the
United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate
and foreign commerce of the United States.
(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal
Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and
others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years
of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not
represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible
sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit
jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by
the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures
of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would
constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities
guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal
Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and
others
attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative
branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce
through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the
Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important
principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the
sister States.
--- End quote

That's why.


crickets

On 5/5/2012 11:34 AM, harry wrote:


If it were "free ice cream day" both would complain that the included
free toppings didn't include the color of sprinkles they like so clearly
the whole idea of "free ice cream day" is terrible...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

??????????
I think it's you lives in a dark, paranoid fearful world.


Sorry but no. I am like the majority of people and am not be angry and
obsessed because I can see the big picture.

Sit down next to anyone in a public place and carry on the way you do. I
will guarantee almost everyone will ask themselves "whats wrong with
this guy?" and then they would politely leave.

On 2012-05-06, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

No, this is what I meant:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

10 U.S.C. § 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Besides, how could the original authors of The Constitution possibly
have meant the current National Guard when no such entity existed in
1789, nor would it for another 114 yrs.

It always pains me to listen to these legal beagles try and outthink
the founding fathers, as if those great men somehow slipped up and got
it wrong. I'm not gonna dig up the 2nd ammendment for dissection at
this point, it all being too ludicrous to even comment on. Right now,
I'm happy the way it's going. The 2nd ammendment has been under
constant attack since its inception and is still healthy, alive, and
kicking, despite attempts by our increasingly repressive govt to
corrupt its meaning. The govt knows damn good and well exactly what
it means. It means if they push too far, the people are more than
capable of pushing right back. Not exactly conducive to the
furthering of a police state.

BTW, screw Jeff Cooper and his stupid "Cooperisms". Hopolophobe,
indeed! Sounds like someone with a phobia against Hopalong Cassidy.

nb


--
vi --the heart of evil!
Yell out the window "bitch!" --Bill Burr

On 2012-05-06, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mexico I saw was very nice.

I think he was talking about this Mexico.

http://www.wtop.com/215/2852855/Tort...-across-border
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ican-city.html
(Funny harry didn't find that one)

Or this one:

http://tinyurl.com/7ked4vy

Gunned down on a jet ski, ferchrysakes!

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Yell out the window "bitch!" --Bill Burr

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 6:28 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
The unfortunate death is a result of unsafe gun storage.

RKBA is one of the reasons the citizens of USA have
any freedoms remaining. Though, rapidly shrinking
freedoms.


So having guns hasn't helped?

yawn
Stupid and superficial as usual

harry wrote:

RKBA is one of the reasons the citizens of USA have any freedoms
remaining. Though, rapidly shrinking freedoms.

So having guns hasn't helped?

Exactly.

Americans are seeing their rights and freedoms being eroded on a daily
basis, and their guns aren't making any difference in that equation.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Attila.Iskander wrote:
one of the highest highest murder rates.

Highest relative to what ?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...100-000-people
63rd place out of 124 is doesn't even qualify as "one of the highest"
BY ANY STANDARD.


Harry thinks that places where guns are mostly illegal are safer from gun
violence. Places like, oh, Mexico for example.

Hell, most if not all of those 62 countries ahead of the US have stricter
gun controls.