NYC Lawsuit Against Gun Makers Dismissed

I have an idea. If a death is caused through the use of an illegally sold gun, the spouse or the oldest child of the deceased will be allowed the use of that same weapon and two bullets.

He or she will then be placed in a room containing 1) the killer and 2) the person who sold the weapon. He or she is allowed all the time in the world.

Joe(I don't believe for a minute that vengeance is a bad thing.)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

I have an idea. If a death is caused through the use of an illegally sold gun, the spouse or the oldest child of the deceased will be allowed the use of that same weapon and two bullets.

He or she will then be placed in a room containing 1) the killer and 2) the person who sold the weapon. He or she is allowed all the time in the world.

Joe(I don't believe for a minute that vengeance is a bad thing.)Nation

Please define "illegally sold" weapon for us all Joe....

Perhaps this is a new liberalism for "stolen property".

0 Replies

I don't know anything about the weapons being sold on the corner of Wadsworth and 189th Street from the trunk of the rental car with Virginia plates.

Joe(I'm sure they are needed for protection or sports shooting)Nation

0 Replies

The decision doesn't seem related to the legality of the sale though, does it.

0 Replies

You're right, Roger. Let me rephrase:

I have an idea. If a death is caused through the use of an legally sold gun, the spouse or the oldest child of the deceased will be allowed the use of that same weapon and two bullets.

He or she will then be placed in a room containing 1) the killer and 2) the person who sold the weapon. He or she is allowed all the time in the world.

Joe(I don't believe for a minute that vengeance is a bad thing.)Nation

0 Replies

I don't believe for a minute that vengeance is a bad thing, either.

Let's string up a car salesman every time someone dies in a traffic accident. No, the decision involved the company that made the gun. Let's go to Japan, and waste someone at the company that made the car. Unless the car were defective, though, I would really prefer to focus on the driver that was at fault.

0 Replies

Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be deciding in the near future what the Second Amendment really meant - right to bear arms or right to be in a militia that bears arms?

What I find interesting is that some of those that believe they have a right to bear arms look upon that right with an almost religious fervor. That scares me. Sort of like when someone with a mean looking dog passes; I'm more concerned about someone that would own that dog; not the dog.

That's why NYC needs to have the old Sullivan laws. Oh sure, there are illegal guns, but at least they are not considered as one's right to bear arms in a densely populated city.

Who again said, "Live by the sword; die by the sword"?

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Sort of like when someone with a mean looking dog passes; I'm more concerned about someone that would own that dog; not the dog.

I totally agree!

0 Replies

Ummm. That's why they call them accidents. Accidential shootings are a miniscule amount of the number of gun deaths in the USA, but maybe if we shot a few of those people causing the accidents others would be more careful.

I know I would be more careful about who I sold a gun to.

Joe(wouldn't you?)Nation

0 Replies

Also, "Ummm". My agreement might depend on what you mean when you say ". . . those people causing the accidents." If you mean the moron who pulled the trigger without knowing the gun was loaded, I might agree. Maybe. I do believe in the death penalty in certain cases, but I'm not sure even I go for it in the case of an honest accident.

On the other hand, if you're trying to drag in the people who made the gun, you already know we disagree. This is just another backdoor attempt to accomplish the same end as a complete ban on private ownership of firearms.

Now, I'm not dumb, Joe. I know you are not proposing a civilian firing squad. I'm just trying to answer in the terms you present.

0 Replies

You're very kind, Roger, to even spend a moment considering what is a silly idea drawn up merely to slap a little consciousness into the unconscious.

If someone were to create a future tale where anyone responsible for a gun death was destined to be shot in the street, how do you think the story would end?

Would gun owners become more cautious about who they drew down on knowing that a conviction of murder (even in the second degree) would entail their own sentence of death?

Would gun sellers, who in this future would be as liable as the shooter, take more consideration about who they sold weapons to?

Joe(Just musing here, that's all.....but soon to be a major motion picture)Nation

0 Replies

No. By and large, my supposition is that people that shoot other people without legal justification don't have a great deal of foresight, anyway.

How about those sellers, though. Assuming they comply with all federal and local laws, can they be held liable for a sale that goes astray? Should they be? That's a serious question, and I don't know the answer. Suppose one buyer drops in with four cronies, they're all wearing the same design on their jackets, and they're talking tough. Make the sale, or exercise some judgement, again assuming the actual buyer meets the legal standards? I'm tempted to hold him liable for bad judgement, but wait. . . . What if they are all members of an identifiable ethnic group. Could he be sued for discrimination? That area between manufacturer and final buyer sounds a little problematical, so far as me forming an opinion.

Thanks for bearing with me on the automobile analogy. It's weak, and I need to come up with something better.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Sort of like when someone with a mean looking dog passes; I'm more concerned about someone that would own that dog; not the dog.

I totally agree!

This is a poor analogy because a dog is a thinking, mobile weapon. Also, foofie, do you think certain people should not be allowed to purchase steak knives?

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be deciding in the near future what the Second Amendment really meant - right to bear arms or right to be in a militia that bears arms?

We clearly have both rights. What the Supreme Court is deciding is whether to start enforcing one of those rights instead of ignoring it.

Foofie wrote:

That's why NYC needs to have the old Sullivan laws.

No, you don't need to have unconstitutional laws. You need to be forced to stop violating people's rights (and forced to compensate all the people whose rights you've already violated).

Foofie wrote:

Oh sure, there are illegal guns, but at least they are not considered as one's right to bear arms in a densely populated city.

As soon as we get Fourteenth Amendment incorporation for the right to have a self defense gun, you'll be forced to stop violating people's rights.

0 Replies

So, yesterday was a day of shooting in New York.
As I got off the subway at 16th and 8th, I got to see the twenty cops investigating the shoot-out involving two cars (which ended up sandwiched into each other and, if I counted the number of coffee cups covering either the cartridge shells or the bullets correctly, fourteen shots.

Julia Roberts is shooting "Duplicity", a movie, two doors down the street. Lots of interesting things to see.

Joe(if my timing had been worse one of them could have killed me)Nation

0 Replies

Yeah, and I would suggest prison terms for chocolate makers who cause people to lose their legs through diabetes. Re: the remark about knives. I just picked up a dandy set of knives at Costco. They are so sharp (as advertised) that I am convinced, that with a bit of prodding, I could produce major mayhem. How the government allows Costco to sell these dangerous weapons is beyond me!

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

I have an idea. If a death is caused through the use of an illegally sold gun, the spouse or the oldest child of the deceased will be allowed the use of that same weapon and two bullets.

He or she will then be placed in a room containing 1) the killer and 2) the person who sold the weapon. He or she is allowed all the time in the world.

Joe(I don't believe for a minute that vengeance is a bad thing.)Nation

Joe, the Supreme Law of the Land prevents any government
from having any jurisdiction to make any gun sale legal or illegal.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;
(it gives an explanation of the reason that it shall not be infringed).
Therefore, if a government makes a gun sale illegal,
that government is committing a crime by violating the Constitution.

In theory, government can make it illegal to sell shoes,
but GUNS are beyond the reach of government
(one of the reasons for that being to make sure that the people
will be able to overthrow that government, if thay want to,
as the Founders who wrote the 2nd Amendment had just finished doing).

Therefore, "gun control" is basicly and fundamentally UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

HOWEVER, there is no law against controlling criminals or lunatics.
For many years, I have advocated ISOLATING
violently recidivistic people from decent society.
We can use secure prisons, like Alcatraz.

Maybe the Austrailians will rent us space in Botany Bay,
or we can find somewhere else, but it makes no sense
to bear ill will against the seller of the tool a malefactor used.

Criminals did not sit around waiting for guns to be invented
before thay began committing their crimes.
Crime is 1000s of years older than guns r.

If your daughter becomes obese,
u shud not take vengeance against her spoon maker, Joe.

Da( I agree with u about vengeance, but find the RIGHT GUY. )vid

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Yeah, and I would suggest prison terms for chocolate makers who cause people to lose their legs through diabetes. Re: the remark about knives. I just picked up a dandy set of knives at Costco. They are so sharp (as advertised) that I am convinced, that with a bit of prodding, I could produce major mayhem. How the government allows Costco to sell these dangerous weapons is beyond me!

I understand that in England,
there is a move in progress to outlaw knives
as thay oullawed guns.

The mind-set of the politically correct authoritarian collectivists
who propagate this point of vu is that all problems can be cured
by reducing personal freedom; that by adding one more iron chain
to the populace, the problem will go away,
and this remedy shud be continued until no further motion is possible.

David

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

roger wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Sort of like when someone with a mean looking dog passes; I'm more concerned about someone that would own that dog; not the dog.

I totally agree!

This is a poor analogy because a dog is a thinking, mobile weapon. Also, foofie, do you think certain people should not be allowed to purchase steak knives?

Very good point. I was acknowledging Foofie's concession that is is appropriate to assign blame to the person, not the tool. This is a breaktrough.

0 Replies

NYC Lawsuit Against Gun Makers Dismissed - Bloomberg Loses

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know