Senate Moves to Shield Gun Industry

[IChing]

By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate put off until fall completing a $491 billion defense bill in order to act this week on the National Rifle Association's top priority: shielding gun manufacturers and dealers from liability suits stemming from gun crimes.

On a 66-32 test vote Tuesday, the Senate indicated there's plenty of support for Republican leaders' determination to pass the gun bill before lawmakers leave at the end of this week for a monthlong vacation.

"The only reason it is coming to the floor, in a time of war to interrupt the debate on the Defense Authorization bill is that members are feeling pressure form the gun lobby," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.

Congress was on the way to passing the bill last year when the NRA abruptly asked its chief sponsor, Sen. Larry Craig, R-, R-Idaho, to withdraw it after gun opponents succeeded in amending it to extend an expiring ban on assault weapons. A pickup of four GOP Senate seats in last November's election emboldened gun rights supporters to try again, confident they can block reimposing restrictions on assault-type weapons.>>>>snip

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_GUNS?SITE=MNMAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-07-26-13-32-52

[SteppingRazor]

1. Should gun manufacturers and dealers be sued?

I mean, I think that's a pretty fair question. You can draw the tobacco-industry analogy, of course, but I don't think it's really an apt comparison. Should any manufacturer be sued when the product they make is used for illegal purposes?

[Squatch]

2. No.

[obxhead]

4. Possibly

If there is proof that a manufacturer is knowingly putting guns directly into the hands of "black market" dealers.

[mknmehappy]

8. Is there proof of this?

[Squatch]

9. Now, the matter of "proof" would be an issue for the courts...

wouldn't it?

[benEzra]

11. The law doesn't shield any company who acts negligently...

as I understand it. It is supposedly aimed more at cities and others who wish to drive gunmakers out of business by holding them strictly liable for criminals' obtaining and using a gun illegally (i.e., D.C.'s strict-liability law). If a Ford happens to be the car a drunk driver uses to kill someone, no one would sue Ford, but if a stolen Smith & Wesson is used in a crime, a lawsuit holding S&W strictly liable would be possible under D.C. law, for example.

[MrBenchley]

21. Guess again...

"It is supposedly aimed more at cities and others who wish to drive gunmakers out of business by holding them strictly liable for criminals' obtaining and using a gun illegally (i.e., D.C.'s strict-liability law)."
Gee, wonder why cities would want to stop gun lobby from arming loonies and thugs on their streets?

"If a Ford happens to be the car a drunk driver uses to kill someone, no one would sue Ford"
If Ford was making no effort to be sure their cars were ebing sold to licensed drivers and served drinks in its showrooms, they sure as shit would be.

[benEzra]

33. Quite correct. But if the suits were brought on the justification

that Ford cars are not equipped with governors to limit their speed to 60 mph, do not have built-in breathalyzers, are not painted safety orange, and are sold by dealers who do not turn away anyone who looks "suspicious" (like, say, a twentysomething person of color trying to buy a Ford), then such lawsuits would indeed be unjustified and frivilous.

In the same way, lawsuits based on dealer/distributor conduct and such are perfectly justified. But lawsuits based on the fact that a gun holds more than, say, 12 rounds (a development that hit the civilian market around 1865), or based on the fact that a rifle has a protruding handgrip instead of a 19th-century-style stock (like the Bushmaster rifle in the aforementioned suit) and therefore should not be marketed to "civilians" at all, or that a dealer does not turn away an otherwise lawful purchaser who might be from an urban area where the gun is prohibited, are likewise groundless.

As I mentioned before, I am not staunchly in favor of this legislation (I think the courts are doing a decent, if rather slow, job of throwing out the baseless ones, and I am concerned about bad amendments), but I do think the bill's alleged deficiencies are more concocted by the anti-gun lobby than they are genuine.

[MrBenchley]

35. Sometime you ought to look at the suits

and not just swallow what gun nuts say about them...

And for the record, Bushmaster evaded the law by marketing an assault weapon with minor modifications.

"and therefore should not be marketed to "civilians" at all"
Most ordinary citizens overwhelmingly support that too, for what are obvious reasons.

"I do think the bill's alleged deficiencies are more concocted by the anti-gun lobby than they are genuine."
I disagree...

[IA_Seth]

60. Ok, I would love to take a look....

Could you please site me examples of suits that you feel are justified, viable, and would be limited by the proposed legislation?

I would love to be enlightened - I don't plan to "swallow what (anti)gun nuts say about them"

Please keep in mind that I would like examples of lawsuits that would be prohibited by the proposed legislation. I am assuming you have them if you are against the legislation.

[MrBenchley]

64. Try the Chicago lawsuit, or the NYC one...

[IA_Seth]

75. Great, just the type of specifics I was looking for...

way to back up your cause.

[MrBenchley]

78. You asked and I pointed you to them...

Clearly though, you didn't want to see them for yourself...you wanted to piss and moan about the lawsuits some more.

[IA_Seth]

84. Oh, quite clearly. Do you know me?

I honestly would like to see a specific court case in which the pending legislation would negate or hinder its ruling.

Seriously. If you can give me an example I would be more than happy to advocate against the law. Otherwise you are just peddling b.s. as bad as the pro-gun lobbyists.

If I ask a PETA member for examples that support their cause, they would do it in a heartbeat.

Help me.

[MrBenchley]

86. I'm sure not seeing much incentive to get to know you

"I honestly would like to see a specific court case in which the pending legislation would negate or hinder its ruling."
And I pointed you toward two of them. In fact, the GOP tried to ram a law through the Illinois legislature to try and shut down the Chicago and Gary lawsuits, but couldn't do it.

For that matter, here's the exact same sort of law shutting down an ongoing lawsuit that predated it...

"The Missouri Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit from the city of St. Louis to seek compensation from the gun industry for gun-related injuries, the Associated Press reported July 28.
In its ruling, the appeals court cited a Missouri law that was revised last year that prohibits pending and future lawsuits from cities, counties, the state, or any other political subdivision against the gun industry that are related to the legal products it makes and distributes."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0%2C2061%2C573640%2C00.html

[slackmaster]

179. IA_Seth, here is an example from today's Buffalo News

Here is a perfect example for this discussion:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050728/1050688.asp

slackmaster's comment: The complaint filed by Mr. Williams alleges that a gun dealer and a gun show promoter were negligent in that they allowed obvious "straw purchases" of guns that ended up in the hands of a person who was a member of a violent criminal gang (and may have even been prohibited from possessing any firearm at all).

The bill we are discussing here, S.397, would affect only Mr. Williams' ability to sue the manufacturer of the weapon that was used to shoot him. The other defendants would still be culpable and subject to being sued because their alleged activities were not lawful.

[MrBenchley]

193. And slack misstates the case AGAIN....

The bill proposed would make it impossible for the Williams family to sue the industry. Period.

Here's the actual text of this disgrace...

"(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.397:

In other words, the victim's family can't sue the guy who made a gun aimed at the criminal market, the guy who sold some thug 87 of them without asking any questions (or a background check), AND the guy who ran a tupperware party for criminals and crazies so that guns COULD be sold without background checks. Because the gun killed their loved one, as it was designed to do.

What a fucking disgrace. How does a defender of this bill look himself in the mirror without puking?

[slackmaster]

199. Actually it is MrBenchley who misstates the case again

Nothing in the bill prevents anyone from suing members of the industry who have acted outside of the law.

In other words, the victim's family can't sue the guy who made a gun aimed at the criminal market, the guy who sold some thug 87 of them without asking any questions (or a background check), AND the guy who ran a tupperware party for criminals and crazies so that guns COULD be sold without background checks.

Only one right out of three. It's MrBenchley's personal opinion that the High Point weapon is aimed at the criminal market. He is entitled to make and state such speculation, but even if he's right that is totally irrelevant to the case and S.397. MrBenchley is half right, unless the company actually broke the law the bill would protect it against this kind of lawsuit.

Now for the other two defendants: If the plaintiff can make a credible case that the gun dealer and gun show promoter aided and abetted in illegal straw purchases of handguns (and in my well-informed opinion as a federal firearms licensee there is ample evidence for that), they would NOT be protected against a lawsuit by S.397.

[MrBenchley]

206. That IS rich...

"It's MrBenchley's personal opinion that the High Point weapon is aimed at the criminal market."
Ahem.
"Whether it's Bad Guys or Bowling Pins, you can knock 'em down and keep 'em down with this heavy hitter."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/deadhip.htm

"If the plaintiff can make a credible case that the gun dealer and gun show promoter aided and abetted in illegal straw purchases of handguns"
Does Ohio have a one gun a month purchase law? NO.
Does Ohio require background checks at gun shows? NO.

Did they sell 87 guns to a thug? YES
Did the gun show try to require a background check. NO.

[slackmaster]

210. Ohio requires background checks on NEW guns wherever they're sold

The allegation here is that a federally licensed gun dealer sold 87 brand new guns to a thug WHO USED A WOMAN AS AN OBVIOUS STRAW PURCHASER. That makes him a criminal, therefore not protected by S.397.

Background checks were performed, but not on the actual buyer of the guns. The thug is in prison for federal firearms law violations.

Did the gun show try to require a background check. NO.

State and federal law required background checks, and checks were performed. But it's pretty clear the dealer and the promoter were aware of the straw purchases. That makes them liable criminally, and under S.397 they could still be sued by a crime victim.

[MrBenchley]

214. Not even close to true....

"Gun Show Checks
Are background checks required at gun shows? NO"

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=oh

"This report shows conclusively that gun shows without background checks have become firearms convenience stores for criminals—it's cash and carry, with no questions asked," said AGS Foundation President Jonathan Cowan. "This report also shows that background checks won't stop any of the 4,500 gun shows held each year, or restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to buy guns." The study combines information from a broad range of organizations to get the best picture yet available of the effects of the gun show loophole. The information comes from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; reports issued by the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Justice and the General Accounting Office; news reports; gun show publications; and data from Internet sites of the National Rifle Association and the National Association of Arms Shows.
The gun show loophole refers to the ability of participants at gun shows to sell firearms without conducting the background checks that licensed gun dealers are required to make under the Brady Law. An unlicensed seller is anyone who does not have a federal firearms license or does not sell for business. There is no limit on the number of guns an unlicensed seller may sell.
The...states that have failed to close the gun show loophole are:  ...."Ohio"

http://w3.agsfoundation.com/press_041901.html

And Brown, the guy who sold those guns?

"It wasn't the first time Brown's guns ended up in criminal hands. Over a recent four-year period, New York City police recovered some 630 firearms Brown's company originally sold, according to government records in a federal lawsuit.
In Colorado, a semi-automatic rifle Brown sold was used in the Columbine High School massacre of 1999.
And in California, so many of Brown's guns ended up at crime scenes that he's now banned from selling weapons there.
But Brown and another dealer who sold guns to Bostic got a free pass. They were not criminally charged. No administrative actions were taken against them. And they kept the thousands of dollars Bostic paid them in illegal gun transactions. ...
Under pressure from powerful gun lobbies, the federal government aims its war on gun violence at street criminals like Bostic - not the dealers who supply them, The News found.
"Absolutely nobody is looking at the dealers," said Gerald A. Nunziato, a former supervisor with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "It's a lot easier to prosecute some black guy who is selling guns on the street corner - he isn't protected by the National Rifle Association." "

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/breaking_news.asp?id=336

[slackmaster]

221. All sales by FFL holders require a background check - Federal law

The Brady Law.

It doesn't matter where or when the sale occurs.

An unlicensed seller is anyone who does not have a federal firearms license or does not sell for business. There is no limit on the number of guns an unlicensed seller may sell.

Of course that's true. State laws on used firearms vary. But the situation we were discussing involved sales from a licensed gun dealer to a criminal through an obvious straw purchaser.

[MrBenchley]

224. Hahahaha...

And of course we can see what a stickler for public safety this thug who sold 87 guns at a pop is...(snicker).

"It wasn't the first time Brown's guns ended up in criminal hands. Over a recent four-year period, New York City police recovered some 630 firearms Brown's company originally sold, according to government records in a federal lawsuit.
In Colorado, a semi-automatic rifle Brown sold was used in the Columbine High School massacre of 1999.
And in California, so many of Brown's guns ended up at crime scenes that he's now banned from selling weapons there.
But Brown and another dealer who sold guns to Bostic got a free pass. They were not criminally charged. No administrative actions were taken against them. And they kept the thousands of dollars Bostic paid them in illegal gun transactions. ...
Under pressure from powerful gun lobbies, the federal government aims its war on gun violence at street criminals like Bostic - not the dealers who supply them, The News found.
"Absolutely nobody is looking at the dealers," said Gerald A. Nunziato, a former supervisor with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "It's a lot easier to prosecute some black guy who is selling guns on the street corner - he isn't protected by the National Rifle Association." "

[greendeerslayer]

122. loonies and thugs?

You are referring to the LAPD?

[Kelvin Mace]

7. Hell yeah!

Gun manufacturers and dealers have a responsiblity to the public to keep good records, follow the law on background checks, and use common sense. They should STOP selling guns to dealers who break the law.

If they don't do this, they should be sued (as they are SELDOM prosecuted).

[IntravenousDemilo]

13. There is no legal use for automatic weapons.

Period. Anything you would be doing with an assault weapon would be offensive rather than defensive in nature, and therefore unlawful. Companies should be prosecuted for manufacturing and marketing the hateful things.

[MrBenchley]

16. Let's add that the gun industry has taken no steps

to clamp down on straw purchases, evaded the assault weapons ban when it was passed, has marketed guns with features like "fingerprint-proof finishes," and has knowingly commissioned bogus and fraudulent "studies" and presented them as "evidence" before legislatures and other bodies.

[benEzra]

44. Points #2 and #3 are excellent arguments FOR the bill

if anyone is actually proposing or pursuing lawsuits based on those claims...

evaded the assault weapons ban when it was passed

Er, they COMPLIED with the ban. The ban didn't outlaw any firearms; it specified 19 names that civilian firearms could not be marketed under; specified a list of FEATURES that a civilian firearm cannot have more than one of (such as a rifle stock having a protruding handgrip); and specified that over-10-round magazines manufactured after 1994 could not be sold to non-LEO civilians. All manufacturers complied 100% with the law, and failure to do so was a Federal felony during the years it was in effect.

The reason nontraditional-looking civilian long guns remained on the market 1994-2004 (in fact, more were sold 1994-2004 than in the previous three decades combined) was not due to any duplicity on the part of gun manufacturers, but merely due to the fact that the law didn't ban them in the first place. FWIW, I bought my civilian "AK" lookalike (functionally identical to a Ruger Mini Thirty hunting rifle) in 2003; it's a 2002 model.

has marketed guns with features like "fingerprint-proof finishes,"

Interpreting that as "non-fingerprint-retaining," as I assume you are, demonstrates that you have never owned a firearm with an older-style (i.e., blued) finish. As someone who has had oval-shaped rust spots appear on a blued firearm that I didn't wipe down after a trip to the range, I can attest that the older-style finishes were NOT fingerprint-resistant in that they would quickly rust due to skin oils. Phosphate finishes and such, on the other hand, are much more rust-resistant, but they still retain fingerprints. You can dust a gun for prints regardless of what type of finish it has, which makes the above argument precisely the sort of specious accusation that I assume the law in question is meant to halt (assuming anyone would actually be so bold as to argue that point in court).

I haven't seen corrosion-resistant finishes advertised as much in recent years, probably because a majority of guns now have them (that would be like a car manufacturer advertising that their cars come equipped with "paint", which is sort of a given these days).

[MrBenchley]

48. No, they're not...

"they COMPLIED with the ban"
Yeah, that's that good old gun nut "logic" or whatever th ehell it is....selling assault weapons after they've been banned is complying with the ban....

I'll bet you think that cocaine sellers are complying witht he law if they call what they sell "cocain."


"Fingerprint-proof" is an actual quote from the goddamn ad that the scumbags published. And trying to pretend that's a specious accusation is what we scientists some time call a steaming pantload.

The gun manufacturer marketed his gun as "fingerprint proof" because he meant to sell it to people who were likely to worry about leaving fingerprints at a crime scene. And that's a fucking FACT. That's why the ad appeared in that scholarly journal "Soldier of Fortune" (published by NKBA board member and criminal enabler Roebrt Brown).

[benEzra]

74. A gun that doesn't meet the law's definition of an "assault weapon" ISN'T

an "assault weapon", but an ordinary Title 1 civilian firearm. No "assault weapons" as defined by the law were sold to non-LEO civilians after the law was passed. You appear to be taking the position that the definition should have been more expansive (say, requiring ZERO nontraditional features, so you could ban a gun on stock shape ALONE). But a gun with a protruding handgrip, and only a protruding handgrip, was not an assault weapon, and so selling guns with the stock shaped in that way was perfectly legal, compliance with the law rather than "evading" the law.

I suppose driving 35 mph could be considered "evading" the 35-mph speed limit on the road near our house, but that's not the normal definition of the word.

"Fingerprint-proof" is an actual quote from the goddamn ad that the scumbags published. And trying to pretend that's a specious accusation is what we scientists some time call a steaming pantload.

The gun manufacturer marketed his gun as "fingerprint proof" because he meant to sell it to people who were likely to worry about leaving fingerprints at a crime scene. And that's a fucking FACT.

I'm quite aware that guns were advertised as having "fingerprint resistant" or "fingerprint proof" finishes, generally phosphate or nitride. I know, I own a couple, as does my wife (the slide of her Glock is carbon nitride coated). I'm just saying it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means...as someone who has rusted a fingerprint-shaped spot on one of my blued guns...and anyone who knows anything about metal finishes (which would include most gun buyers, I would imagine) would know that nitride finishes are no more difficult to get a fingerprint from than any other metal finish, which is to say not really difficult at all. In other words, if a criminal doesn't wear gloves and leaves his "fingerprint proof" gun at a crime scene, he is in for quite a surprise if he thought that meant the police wouldn't get prints off it...

As to gun ads in general--Smith & Wesson doesn't get a dime from the criminal who buys a .38 or a 9mm out of some black-market dealer's trunk; they get money from people who can legally walk into a gun store and buy one after passing the mandatory NCIS background check and filling out a BATFE form 4473. A gun company has plenty of incentive to market a gun as being very effective for self-defense (that's the #1 reason civilians buy guns), target shooting, or whatever, but little to no financial incentive whatsoever to advertise to criminals. If the converse were true, the criminal guns of choice would be SIG .40's rather than .38/.357 revolvers...

[MrBenchley]

80. Too too funny

"In other words, if a criminal doesn't wear gloves and leaves his "fingerprint proof" gun at a crime scene, he is in for quite a surprise if he thought that meant the police wouldn't get prints off it..."
And that would certainly mean that any gunshot victim wasn't actually shot...

"As to gun ads in general--Smith & Wesson doesn't get a dime from the criminal who buys a .38 or a 9mm out of some black-market dealer's trunk"
But they get a shitload of money by selling handguns in bulk in states that don't have a one gun a month law (and damn few do)...not to mention selling ammo.
By the way, funny you should mention Smith & Wesson as an example of an ethical gun company — guess what the chairman of Smith & Wesson did before he joined the company?

"James Joseph Minder, chairman of handgun maker Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., resigned after a published report revealed he'd spent as much as 15 years in prison decades ago for armed robberies and a bank heist. "

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/27/news/smith_wesson/

Of course, the company kept him on as a lowly member of the board.

[benEzra]

85. Yes, S&W blew that one...

but (1) that was indeed decades ago, and (2) as such he would have been completely unable to purchase a Smith & Wesson firearm from any Smith & Wesson dealer, meaning he is exactly the type of person for whom it would be pointless to advertise to...

I mention S&W only because my handgun is a S&W 3913 LadySmith, with which I am very impressed, and because for many years they were the favored handgun of law enforcement (now superseded by Glock).

[MrBenchley]

87. Too too funny...

"as such he would have been completely unable to purchase a Smith & Wesson firearm from any Smith & Wesson dealer"
Yeah, good thing he was in a position where it would have been impossible for him to get his hands on a Smith & Wesson (NOT!)


"now superseded by Glock"
Wow, a company headed by a guy with ties to neoNazis...I'm sure convinced the gun industry is perfectly ethical and needs special protection from lawsuits...NOT!

[Indy Lurker]

245. my refrigerator has a fingerproof finish

I wonder if it was designed for criminals, ....or maybe just late night snackers.

[VTMechEngr]

255. A fingerprint-proof finish is what gun owners want.

If you ever own a blued 1911 without it, you'll understand.

[RamboLiberal]

17. Automatic Weapons are not Legal

unless you have a very special, expensive license from the feds.

"Assault Weapons" and any other firearm that is legal for civilians to own are semi-automatic.

The Assault Weapon Ban was based largely on cosmetic features of the firearms in question and really did butkus to keep these weapons off the streets. That I think was the original failure of the bill.

The bigger issue to me is prosecuting dealers who knowingly sell to strawman purchasers and to prosecuting those purchasers as well.

And I'm among those who think cities sueing gunmakers was a silly effort.

[MrBenchley]

23. But assault weapons can be easily converted to automatic

"he Assault Weapon Ban was based largely on cosmetic features of the firearms in question"
Surrrrre it was...and that's why the gun lobby scuttled this bill last year when a new version was attached.

"I'm among those who think cities sueing gunmakers was a silly effort. "
I'm not. It's eminently sensible, and even the losing efforts exposed truths about the way guns are sold and marketed that the industry tries to keep hidden from the public.

[benEzra]

36. Guns that are easy to convert are restricted as Title 2/Class III under

the National Firearms Act, i.e. they are classified by the BATFE as "machineguns" and subject to the same strict controls as automatic weapons, grenades, and explosives. So-called "assault weapons" are Title 1, not Title 2; they are NOT easier to convert to full-auto than other self-loading civilian firearms.

The fact that a "sporting rifle" can be transmogrified into an "assault weapon" simply by replacing the straight wooden stock with a black polymer stock having a protruding handgrip should demonstrate that the ban was, in fact, based on superficial features. Ease of converting to full-auto is NOT a superficial feature and places a gun under the purview of the National Firearms Act, not any sort of "assault weapons ban."

Particularly since the guns most affected by the AWB were traditional-looking civilian handguns like this one:

[MrBenchley]

39. Not even close to true...

the whole point of assault weapons is that they can be converted to full auto fire with a few minor modifications. Anmmd thatnks to the scumbags of the Republican party, there are currently no restrictions at all on assault weapons.

"the guns most affected by the AWB were traditional-looking civilian handguns"
Nope. Not so.

[slackmaster]

45. Complete nonsense

MrBenchley wrote:

"the whole point of assault weapons is that they can be converted to full auto fire with a few minor modifications."

That's one for your permanent file, MrBenchley.

Nowhere in the text of the AW ban or its statement of legislative intent is the ease of conversion to fully automatic mentioned.

You're just making stuff up again.

[MrBenchley]

51. Yup, you're posting complete nonsense again

"Nowhere in the text of the AW ban or its statement of legislative intent is the ease of conversion to fully automatic mentioned."
Nor does it have to be--who but a dishonest idiot would even try to pretend that isn't the main appeal of these public menaces?

[Romulus]

52. too too funny

"ease of conversion" of so-called "assault weapons" = machining a whole new firearm :eyes:

Oh, look! An "assault car!": :eyes:



Better ban it to put an end to illegal street racing once and for all!

[MrBenchley]

58. Yeah, rom, you ARE quite risible...

[slackmaster]

53. You're the ONLY person making that claim, MrBenchley

Not even your buddies at the Violence Policy Center agree with you.

3. Civilian assault weapons are not machine guns. They are semiautomatic weapons. (Since 1986 federal law has banned the sale to civilians of new machine guns.) The trigger of a semiautomatic weapon must be pulled separately for each round fired. It is a mistake to call civilian assault weapons "automatic weapons" or "machine guns."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/hoseone.htm

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

69. There's nothing specific about assault weapons there

Any semiautomatic firearm can be converted to fire fully automatic. So can any bolt-action rifle. The British developed a device to do just that during World War II.

My point stands - There is nothing particular to "Assault weapons" that makes them easier to convert to fully automatic than any other semiautomatic firearm.

[MrBenchley]

72. Too too funny...

"My point stands"
Actually it fell over long ago...and now it just looks doubly ridiculous and lame.

[Romulus]

83. FYI: someone conveniently forgot

this part of the Oly Arms ad:

"Full auto units require a copy of your form 4"

[MrBenchley]

88. Hee hee hee....

Someone seems to be pretending those loonies seem respectable and above board...

[MrBenchley]

133. Guess again, slack...

want me to post all those links again?

After the link to the VPC, I think my favorite was the scummy thug selling easy instructions to use those conversion kits and even add a grenade launcher....

"Should you wish to build your own or convert it to auto fire, author Duncan Long supplies you with lists of parts and tools needed for the task, as well as detailed step-by-step instructions."

http://www.ftfindustries.com/weapons_manuals.htm

[slackmaster]

177. And this is HOW MUCH of a problem for public safety?

Tens of millions of people in this country own semiautomatic firearms; millions of those would have been classified as AWs during the 10-year federal evil feature moratorium. How often have you heard or read of weapons illegally converted to fully automatic and used in crimes?

You and CO Liberal used to post links to crimes involving firearms just about every day in the Gungeon. I read every one of those posts and can recall only ONE incident involving homemade illegal machineguns - A gunsmith here in San Diego County went over to the Dark Side and converted two AR-15 rifles (which aren't even legally available in California in their semiautomatic form) to fully automatic. His customers were members of the multi billion dollar Arellano-Felix drug cartel. (Edited for spelling.)

The federal AW ban did nothing to make available weapons more difficult to convert to fully automatic. Manufacturers removed features like bayonet lugs and folding stocks that have absolutely nothing to do with fire control. The ban expired with a big whimper last September - More than 10 months ago and the sky still hasn't fallen. It seems that a very large majority of owners of former "assault weapons" respect and obey the laws prohibiting and regulating their conversion to fully automatic.

"Should you wish to build your own or convert it to auto fire, author Duncan Long supplies you with lists of parts and tools needed for the task, as well as detailed step-by-step instructions."

http://www.ftfindustries.com/weapons_manuals.htm

Freedom of speech can be a real bitch, eh MrBenchley?

[MrBenchley]

201. 30,000 killed, 60,000-75,000 wounded every year

and a multi-million dollar lobby aims to keep Americans right in the line of fire.

"Freedom of speech can be a real bitch, eh MrBenchley?"
So can dishonesty and stupidity.

Want me to post that VPC link that you claimed didn't exist again?

[slackmaster]

203. How many of those involved illegal machineguns made from AWs?

That's the question, MrBenchley. Your appeal to emotion doesn't address it.

"Freedom of speech can be a real bitch, eh MrBenchley?"
So can dishonesty and stupidity.

Your appeal to spite doesn't add anything constructive to teh conversation either.

Want me to post that VPC link that you claimed didn't exist again?

Speaking of dishonesty, I'd like to see you try to show where I ever said it didn't exist.

[MrBenchley]

207. Gee, slack, how many had to?

[MrBenchley]

212. Just for fun....

"You're the ONLY person making that claim, MrBenchley
Edited on Tue Jul-26-05 05:22 PM by slackmaster
Not even your buddies at the Violence Policy Center agree with you."

Ahem...

"Full Auto. "A completely illustrated modification manual on selective fire conversions for the following weapons: Mini-14; AR-15; HK-91-93; MAC 10-11; and the M1 Carbine. With this new edition, you can convert all five weapons into their full-automatic configurations with ease, as all procedures are thoroughly explained in an easily understood, fully illustrated, step-by-step manner. Without a doubt, this is the finest conversion manual on the market. $12.00."<75>
The Mini-14 Exotic Weapons System. "Convert your Mini into a full-auto, silenced, SWAT-type weapon that is capable of field clearing firepower. Note that this conversion process requires no machining or special tools. Once completed it takes just five minutes to drop in the Automatic Connector (the book's secret!) or remove it as needed. It's that simple! $15.00"<78>
FULL AUTOMATIC FIRE FOR YOUR AR-15. The drop-in auto sear is the KEY component in converting an AR-15 to M-16 selective fire capability (semi or full automatic) and is the ONLY part for this conversion that is now required to be registered if CURRENTLY manufactured. OUR auto sears were manufactured prior to 11/1/81 when it was NOT required to have a serial number stamped on this part. COMPLETELY LEGAL TO PURCHASE." With the purchase of "five other commonly available M-16 replacement parts," the conversion can be made "in SECONDS without tools." The ad urges readers to "Act now while it is still legal to purchase these auto sears. When existing supplies are exhausted, THERE WILL BE NO MORE!! $175.00 each."<87>

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaacc.htm

And just for more fun on the same page:
The BMF Activator, a hand crank that can be attached to a rifle, boasts the "newest crank-operated rapid fire capability since the gatling gun!! Legally fire up to 1200 rounds per minute on your semi-automatic .22 rifle. Imagine the sensation of firing a truly rapid fire rifle. Since each turn of the crank handle fires the rifle four times, it is capable of pulling the trigger many times faster than you can." The advertising flyer for the activator includes a copy of a letter from ATF stating that "a manually operated device of this type is not subject to any of the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968."<88>
The Tri Burst Trigger Activator, distributed by Orpheus Industries, offers "legal firepower." It "allows a 3—round burst from your AR-15...mounts in seconds" and fits "all makes" of AR-15 rifles. It sells for a "special introductory price" of only $34.95.<89>
* "The Ultimate" trigger activator derides its competitors as "the rapid fire plastic gizmo and the sheet metal device." With models available for the AR-15, Mini-14 and 30, M-1 Carbine, and AK models, The Ultimate allows the user to "fire individual rounds, 3 shot bursts or 50 round bursts at your instant discretion." The ad notes that "all federal laws (if any) will apply. The ATF has ruled this device is not regulated by federal law." It retails for $129.95.<90>"

[slackmaster]

222. Still no information on how often illegal conversions actually occur

Or how often they play a role in crimes.

[MrBenchley]

225. "Not even your buddies at the Violence Policy Center agree with you."

"Full Auto. "A completely illustrated modification manual on selective fire conversions for the following weapons: Mini-14; AR-15; HK-91-93; MAC 10-11; and the M1 Carbine. With this new edition, you can convert all five weapons into their full-automatic configurations with ease, as all procedures are thoroughly explained in an easily understood, fully illustrated, step-by-step manner. Without a doubt, this is the finest conversion manual on the market. $12.00."<75>"

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaacc.htm


"...many semiautomatic assault weapons not only can be converted to automatic fire with home tools and modest skill, but readily available books and videos walk the would-be converter through the process.

[Romulus]

229. a 20 year old report

with cites that reference publications produced during the era when new machine guns were legal . . . but no mention of the fact that a sear alone is not enough to make a firearm fully automatic. . .or that those conversion kits have been illegal since 1986 . . .:eyes:

Edited to add:

A report that includes this gem:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

As these weapons come to be associated with drug traffickers, paramilitary extremists, and survivalists, their television and movie glamour is losing its lustre to a violent reality.

Because of this fact, assault weapons are quickly becoming the leading topic of America's gun control debate and will most likely remain the leading gun control issue for the near future. Such a shift will not only damage America's gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby for the following reasons:
*snip*

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

Sure sounds like a real honorable organization to me . . .:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

238. What's changed in 20 years, rom?

Gun nuts and the gun lobby are still dishonest pieces of shit, assault weapons can still be converted easily to automatic fire, they're still a fucking public menace, and the scum of the earth like to play with them.

Want to tell us what is dishonorable about using public discourse and fact to change America's opinion and strengthen the already popular case for gun control, rom?

Let's remind anyone reading that you are trying to pretend it's honorable for cat-killer Frist to piss away the right of every American to have a day in court, to shield scumbags like neoNazi Gaston Glock and Sun Myung Moon from the laws everybody else must obey.

[Romulus]

241. too too funny

"Let's remind anyone reading that you are trying to pretend it's honorable for cat-killer Frist to piss away the right of every American to have a day in court, to shield scumbags like neoNazi Gaston Glock and Sun Myung Moon from the laws everybody else must obey."


I guess you didn't bother to read MY post #190:

Here, let me give you a hand:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1655413#1660649

I disagree with the fundamental premise of the immunity bill: that an industry gets special immunity, when other industries with similar dangerous products don't get a free pass.


But I guess it's more fun to tilt at off-topic windmills . . .:eyes:

[benEzra]

56. If you peruse the BATFE Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide

Not even close to true...the whole point of assault weapons is that they can be converted to full auto fire with a few minor modifications.

If you peruse the BATFE Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, which I assume you would consider a reliable and objective source on Federal firearms law, you will find the following on page 63 of the .pdf file:

(b) Machinegun. - The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

The BATFE defines "restored" as including first-time conversions, and I believe the criteria for "readily restored" is ~8 hours in an equipped machine shop. For guns for which merely replacing some parts is sufficient to convert the firearm to full-auto (i.e., a Ruger 10/22 .22 caliber target rifle), the conversion parts themselves are classified as a "machinegun" under the NFA.

Possession of any "machinegun" as defined above is a Federal felony violation of 18 USC 922, paragraph o, unless you have gone through the NFA approval process, which is similar in scope to getting a Secret-level government clearance (i.e., six-to-eight-month background check, interviews with your neighbors, local law enforcement has to sign off on the application, etc. etc.). And as the machinegun registry was closed in 1986 by the McClure-Volkmer Act, the gun or licensed conversion part would have had to have been approved and registered with the BATFE by 1986.

BTW, for those not familiar with the National Firearms Act of 1934, it basically divides firearms into two categories, ordinary civilian firearms (Title 1 firearms) and restricted firearms (Title 2 firearms). You cannot own a Title 2 firearm or device without going through a very stringent government approval process. All automatic or burst-mode weapons, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, disguised firearms (e.g. cell phone guns), firearms over .50 caliber (except hunting rifles and shotguns), grenade launchers, grenades, explosives, large rockets, and the like are restricted under Title 2. All non-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns that meet the other NFA criteria for ordinary civilian ownership and transfer (rifle barrel >16", shotgun barrel >18", OAL >26") are Title 1. It is Title 1 firearms that you can buy at your local gun store. So-called "assault weapons" are ordinary Title 1 firearms with nontraditional styling; they are not Title 2 since the NFA is based on how a gun WORKS, not what it looks like.

BTW, from a gun owner's perspective, the "whole point of assault weapons" is partly to allow a civilian like me to own a gun that looks and feels like (say) an AK-47, even though it doesn't WORK like a real NFA restricted military AK. In other words, my SAR-1 works like an ordinary Ruger Mini Thirty (short-range deer rifle), but with a much more modern appearance. They are versatile, reliable guns that appeal to those of use who didn't grow up worshiping the 19th-century blue-steel-and-walnut aesthetic that defined civilian rifles for much of the 20th century; I'm a Gen-X'er, I think traditionally styled rifles are just SO 19th century...

Here's a photo of my SAR-1 at Common Ground Common Sense (formerly the John Kerry forum).

(benEzra)
"the guns most affected by the AWB were traditional-looking civilian handguns"

(MrBenchley)
Nope. Not so.

Yes, so. The major effect of the AWB was to dramatically raise the price of full-capacity replacement magazines for full- and intermediate-size civilian handguns (Glock 17 and 19, Smith & Wesson 5906, Ruger P-89, Beretta 92 series) by upwards of 500%. (My wife paid over $100 for a $20 15-round magazine for her Glock in 1996 or 1997.) That was the major effect of the law. It certainly didn't take any classes of guns out of gun stores, because it didn't ban any, just names and features.

The features-list aspect of the law mandated that civilian AR-15 type rifles be sold with fake adjustable stocks instead of real ones (or be sold with plain stocks), and required civilian AK-47 lookalikes to have pin-on muzzle brakes or target-style muzzles instead of screw-on brakes. Rifle magazine capacities were for the most part not affected (full-capacity magazines for my "AK" (SAR-1) were $10 each during the ban).

[MrBenchley]

65. Too too funny...

"from a gun owner's perspective, the "whole point of assault weapons" is partly to allow a civilian like me to own a gun that looks and feels like (say) an AK-47"
For what?

"It certainly didn't take any classes of guns out of gun stores, because it didn't ban any, just names and features."
And yet gun loonies spent years wailing that they were being oppressed by it, and practically creamed their jeans in unison when the Republicans kept it from coming up for a vote last fall. And let's not forget the attempts to have it declared unconstitutional in court...all of which FAILED.

[benEzra]

82. Paying $100 for a $20 magazine is at least harassing to gun owners

as a 500% tax on books the Moral Majority disapproves of would be to book enthusiasts. Would I still be able to buy the novel Catcher in the Rye if the price were jacked up 500%? Yes, I'm sure I would. Would I consider it an infringement of the First Amendment? Heck yes. (And do you think it would vastly increase sales of Catcher in the Rye? It sure as heck would...which is what the AWB did with AR's and civilian AK lookalikes...

The biggest problem with the AWB wasn't so much the way it affected the civilian gun market (actually, it was one of the best things to ever happen to the civilian gun market, since it increased sales so much), but the way it attempted to confine "legitimate" civilian gun ownership to the ownership of hunting guns only. Four out of five gun owners aren't hunters, so fighting the "only traditional hunting-style guns are acceptable for civilians" mentality was very important indeed to the 80% of us who don't hunt.

And yet gun loonies spent years wailing that they were being oppressed by it, and practically creamed their jeans in unison when the Republicans kept it from coming up for a vote last fall. And let's not forget the attempts to have it declared unconstitutional in court...all of which FAILED.

I see the Patriot Act has also been upheld by the courts. Does that mean it's a good law? I don't...

[MrBenchley]

89. Rubbish....

"as a 500% tax on books the Moral Majority disapproves of "
Call me next time there's a drive by poetry reading that kills innocent bystanders...

"fighting the "only traditional hunting-style guns are acceptable for civilians" mentality was very important "
Why? So that neurotics could pretend they're killing people while they shoot at paper targets?

"Does that mean it's a good law?"
Jeeze, its defenders aren't trying to sell the public a bill of goods about it "only covering cosmetic issues" and "not being effective." And you'll notice the same humholes who are backing the Patriot Act (which doesn't do dick about keeping guns out of terrorist hands) are the same ones pushing this "get away with murder" treat for the gun lobby...

[benEzra]

96. Missing points and false dichotomies...

"as a 500% tax on books the Moral Majority disapproves of"
Call me next time there's a drive by poetry reading that kills innocent bystanders...

THEY claim that books with sexual content cause child molestation and rape. Just as you appear to believe that owning a rifle with the stock shaped a certain way causes drive-by shootings. And just as banning Catcher in the Rye (or Lolita, to use a more controversial example discussed in college literature classes) from school and university libraries won't do a thing about rape or child molestation, nor will banning guns with modern-looking stocks do anything about drive-by shootings, or gun crime in general.

"fighting the "only traditional hunting-style guns are acceptable for civilians" mentality was very important "
Why? So that neurotics could pretend they're killing people while they shoot at paper targets?

You feel the only possible purpose for a firearm other than blasting furry animals into the Happy Grazing Grounds must be mowing down innocent people? I sense we are speaking across quite a cultural and experiential gap on this issue...

Like most gun owners, I don't hunt. I have nothing against hunters, I just am not particularly interested in going out and killing a deer or whatever. I do enjoy target shooting, just as I enjoy archery, and I have enjoyed studying Isshinryu in the past. Proficiency with firearms is a martial art just like Isshinryu or Kenpo or archery, and can gives a sense of accomplishment and competence just like any other human discipline. And just as with empty-hand martial arts, the proficiency in self-defense that comes from shooting is a symbiotic benefit that is a worthwhile purpose in its own right. And shooting doesn't involve neurotically imagining murdering people any more than practicing Tai Chi involves imagining beating people's heads in.

Just as with the other martial arts, a lot of gun enthusiasts view training and skill development as an end in itself. A Zen thing, if you will. (BTW, to shoot well you must view shooting in a very Zen-like way; breath control, minimization of muscle tremors, concentration, sharp focus on the front sight, smoothness...) A lot of the shooters I know also have a thing for archery, and my wife is into SCA fencing. Some people pride themself on how well they can smack a small white ball with a stick on a golf course. Others pride themselves on how accurately they can shoot a firearm.

Personally, as a nonhunter, I have little need for a firearm powerful enough to drop a 2000-pound animal in its tracks from a thousand feet away; my main interests are punching holes in paper with a gun that can also serve as a good defensive firearm, hence I tend to gravitate toward small-caliber self-loading rifles and moderate-powered handguns.

(regarding the Patriot Act) "Does that mean it's a good law?"
Jeeze, its defenders aren't trying to sell the public a bill of goods about it "only covering cosmetic issues" and "not being effective."

No, that's what its critics are saying (justifiably). That the PA is window-dressing that infringes on fundamental rights while not significantly improving public safety. I don't see that the Chicken Little rhetoric used by supporters of the Patriot Act and that used by supporters of the 1994 AWB particularly differ from each other.

[MrBenchley]

101. Overblown rhetoric to defend the scummy gun industry...

"THEY claim that books with sexual content cause child molestation and rape."
Funny how THEY are the ones also pushing this scummy liability bill, isn' t it? Why it's almost like "opposition to gun control" is a code word to a fundamentally unAmerican extremist right wing agenda, masking bigotry.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

"a lot of gun enthusiasts view training and skill development as an end in itself."
Hot-cha-cha! Of course most people don't think a cheesy hobby ought to superseded public safety.

"shooting doesn't involve neurotically imagining murdering people any more than practicing Tai Chi involves imagining beating people's heads in"
And so the gun industry ought to be deregulated and given a blanket immunity for its scummy deeds. In a pig's eye.

"my main interests are punching holes in paper "
Get a paper punch then...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8146047941&category=33994

"I don't see that the Chicken Little rhetoric used by supporters of the Patriot Act and that used by supporters of the 1994 AWB particularly differ from each other."
Gee, that IS rich.

[smb]

180. You Don't Want To Go There

"as a 500% tax on books the Moral Majority disapproves of "
Call me next time there's a drive by poetry reading that kills innocent bystanders...

OK, we'll tally up the people killed as a result of criminal misuse of civilian guns on the one side, and the number of people killed as a result of following Das Kapital and Mein Kampf on the other....

[MrBenchley]

184. Wow, what a specious argument...

[marions ghost]

242. exactly

Is it true that "tens of millions" of people own semi-automatic assault weapons (do you have the figure? I'm quoting from someone above).

If that is true, then can't we assume that a whole lot of these are being used in crimes, or sold for criminal use? What other use is there? (what's the figure for numbers of these weapons used by criminals?) If police depts say these weapons make their jobs so much harder, should we not be limiting these weapons?

Does it really boil down to gun-nuts feeling they have to build up their arsenal in case the govt comes to get them (in which case they will definitely be out-gunned)? Or just blind fear-factor (the terrorists are coming...)? Or is it just the romantic macho thing--happiness is a warm gun....

What's the real reason for the irrational defense of semi-automatic weapons?
I suspect people want them as a kind of fetish object SYMBOLIZING safety, power, control over their lives (similar to the way I keep my hammock around as a SYMBOL of the free time I never have but wish that I did....)

(PS--My interest in this topic is social psychology).

[slackmaster]

43. Don't mess this up a good incipient flame fest by introducing facts

:nuke:

[slackmaster]

29. You are misinformed

Assault weapons were NOT automatic. They were by definition semiautomatic under the federal AW ban that expired in September.

Automatic weapons have been strictly regulated since 1934.

[MrBenchley]

40. Are you trying to pretend assault weapons can't be converted, slack?

[slackmaster]

42. Are you trying to pretend that they're EASIER to convert than non-AWs?

Pretty pathetic.

[MrBenchley]

47. Gee slack, be sure and show us where I said that....

Because you sure as shit are trying to pretend that assault weapons can't be converted...and that that's not the reason why violence-minded assholes all over America covet them.

[slackmaster]

54. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true

Because you sure as shit are trying to pretend that assault weapons can't be converted...

Show even ONE post where I have ever made that claim and I'll take my foot off of your tail.

[MrBenchley]

66. That IS rich, slack....

Why, you'd almost think from your pious bleating that you didn't post up in #53 "You're the ONLY person making that claim, MrBenchley...

[slackmaster]

67. Thanks for proving my point

I knew you were blowing smoke, now everyone can see it.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

73. You've been trying for years but haven't done it yet

ROFLMAO!

[MrBenchley]

77. Hee hee hee...

says the guy who tried to pretend the VPC didn't mention conversion kits...

[slackmaster]

90. Did I say that?

says the guy who tried to pretend the VPC didn't mention conversion kits...

Cite or retract, or be forever known here as someone who posted something that was less than accurate.

[MrBenchley]

102. No, I'll just keep on laughing at you

[stepnw1f]

92. You Are Good Mr. Benchley

A question. Why do I get the feeling some people here are posting crap for the gun industry? You know... muddying the facts. Do they get paid or are they brain washed by the NRA?

[MrBenchley]

103. Because some people here ARE posting crap for the gun industry

and trying desperately to muddy the facts.

And failing miserably at it too, with the comic results you see here.

[losdiablosgato]

111. I target shot my ar and ak every few months. That is legal.

Paper targets and cans. And I have shot an full auto MP5 at cans before as well. That too is legal.

The democratic party needs to stop pushing gun control. Whether is it lawsuits of the stupid bullet serial numbering in CA. This is a losing issue for us and has cost us elections.

[MrBenchley]

114. Gun control's a win-win issue for us...

Even the Republicans who blocked the Assault Weapons Ban renewal had to hide behind lame procedural bullshit and pretend they were for gun control.

[IA_Seth]

116. Oh yes, clearly win-win...where the hell do you get your stats?

From this very message board, arguably the MOST progressive group of people around, you run into people who oppose your anti-gun stance. Do you HONESTLY think that gun control is "win-win" in a general election?

[MrBenchley]

117. I get them from reputable sources, pal...

"Do you HONESTLY think that gun control is "win-win" in a general election?"
Yeah, I do. And it's noticeable that even though they bend over and spread 'em for the scumbags of the NRA, Republicans have to pretend to be for gun control when election time rolls around.

If Chimpy had said "I think assault weapons are no different than normal guns" or made any of the other horseshit claims the trigger-happy are making in this thread, he would have been shunned by moderate voters in droves and have been left with just the Randy Weaver Wannabe Club. Instead he and the other Republicans paid lip service to gun control while letting the Assault Weapons Ban lapse, and they all should have been hit hard with that every fucking day of the campaign.

[IA_Seth]

119. .....

After reading all of your posts on this thread, I can see that its impossible to have a rational conversation with you. I wouldn't classify myself as "trigger-happy" and honestly I think you are a little too hyped up about the legislation to even think clearly. You aren't making sense and refuse to do so.

I don't even own a gun that would have been banned by the AWB, so clearly your assumptions about me are off the mark. But you know best.

I guarantee you that a good majority of rural voters (you know, the ones we haven't been getting) are not anti-gun and never will be.

[MrBenchley]

120. That IS rich...

Up top you wanted to piss and moan about the lawsuits, but also showed yourself to be totally ignorant of the facts in the case...and you refused to go and find out for yourself.

Down here, you wanted to pretend that polls didn't show the public overwhelmingly favoring gun control...and now you've flown into a rage because they do.

"I guarantee you that a good majority of rural voters (you know, the ones we haven't been getting) are not anti-gun"
That IS rich. Unless we lie down and let the gun industry run roughshod over their basic rights as Americans, we're "anti-gun."

Unless we let every fuckwit who thinks he wants one get his sweaty shaky hands on an assault weapon, we're "anti-gun."

Here's a long list of people the gun lobby thinks are "anti-gun":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=15904

You'll notice it includes just about every decent American around, including medical associations, parents' associations, the Conference of Mayors, every major civil rights group, the ACLU and the YWCA.

I guarantee YOU that a large percentage of the "rural voters" who sit and fuss over who is "anti-gun" also hate gays, blacks, Jews, uppity women, tree-huggers, and liberals as much as they love them guns...and that they aren't voting Democratic unless Strom arises from the grave with the rest of his Dixiecrats.

[IA_Seth]

126. Ha ha

Ok, I am done with you.

Go ahead and sit in NJ and remain completely ignorant of the Midwest, and rural voters in general. No, we aren't racist, we arent homophobes, we don't fuss over tree-huggers or liberals...we ARE liberals. We just happen to be liberals who have a shared heritage of hunting.

Your broad brush of generalization of my character, and those that oppose your views, make you as bad as the rest of em.

Good Riddens.

[MrBenchley]

130. No loss on my end...

"we ARE liberals"
Trying desperately to stick up for Bill Frist's scummy little bll that limits the rights of ordinary people on behalf of an extremely corrupt special interest group. Uh-HUH.

"Your broad brush of generalization of my character"
No broad brush, chief. I accurately summed up your posts in this very thread.

[losdiablosgato]

135. I agree with you

Many here in the south would gladly vote for a popularist, centerist if they were pro gun

[MrBenchley]

136. Jeeze, John Kerry was a hunter...

and he wasn't pro-gun enough to suit the trigger happy around here...

[slackmaster]

178. John Kerry was and is a pretend hunter

People in the South and Midwest where hunting is still popular laughed at Senator Kerry's contrived hunting photo opportunities. He would have been better off just talking about it.

[MrBenchley]

194. That IS rich, slack

"When George W. Bush made his first run for governor in 1994, he invited a posse of reporters to accompany him on a bird-hunting safari into the wilds outside Austin. The quarry was supposed to be the fearsome mourning dove. After tramping across a cornfield, Bush sighted his prey, leveled his shotgun and fired, nearly obliterating his catch. Upon inspection of the remains, however, the soon-to-be governor made a troubling discovery. He'd downed a killdeer, which, as any novice bird watcher knows, looks nothing like a dove--or any other game bird, for that matter. Indeed, in Texas the killdeer is listed as a threatened species."

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/24/07/stclair2407.html

[slackmaster]

204. GWB is a pretend hunter too

And he's no friend of gun rights advocates.

[MrBenchley]

208. How tragic for enthusiasts...

Even pResident Weakenstupid isn't gun-crazy enough to suit some.

[marions ghost]

244. kinda like the guy

who wandered down our road in camoflage shooting at owls...

Or the guy in the neighborhood who nearly shot someone hanging out clothes...because he was intent on shooting a cardinal from his front porch.

Or the teenager out "hunting" in the area who was actually out to have fun terrorizing horses...

Or the teenager next door who shot a bullet into our shed...

Or the teenager across the road who suicided with his dad's hunting rifle...

Or_____ or ______ or ______
...just a few real-life stories from my neighborhood

[benEzra]

182. Hunting is irrelevant to 80% of gun owners

Jeeze, John Kerry was a hunter and he wasn't pro-gun enough to suit the trigger happy around here...

Hunting is irrelevant to 80% of gun owners since 80% of gun owners don't hunt and therefore have no need of hunting firearms, and even most hunters also own nonhunting firearms.

I don't CARE if I'm "allowed" to own a skeet shotgun or a high-powered bolt-action deer rifle. I want to keep my handguns and small-caliber self-loading rifles, thanks.

[MrBenchley]

195. So fucking what?

Are you telling us that 80% of gun owners thought he was hunting with a bow and arrow or an assegai?

"80% of gun owners don't hunt"
No shit...it's a dying sport.

[benEzra]

231. No, just that he was hunting with a hunting shotgun...

Are you telling us that 80% of gun owners thought he was hunting with a bow and arrow or an assegai?

No, he was hunting with a hunting shotgun. But most of us don't care if we're allowed to own 2-shot over/under shotguns suitable only for bird hunting and skeet shooting. I don't hunt and I don't shoot skeet, so why would I be reassured that someone supports my right to own a very conservative class of gun that I don't own and have no conceivable use for? Gun owners would have been a LOT more reassured by the senator visiting a target range with an AR (even a ban-era) and a 9mm than by anything to do with hunting, and considering who he was running against I don't think that would have hurt him at all among the Democratic base.

There was a perception, true or not, but one the campaign allowed to persist, that hunting or hunting-style firearms were the only kind he approved of, and that he would actively seek to curtail the ownership of guns with more modern styling, such as the immensely popular AR. Certainly that's how the hunting photo-ops were widely interpreted, rightly or wrongly, especially when coupled with his backing of S.1431 (draconian neo-AWB) in the previous Congressional session.

Americans for Gun Safety had convinced many candidates that the Field and Stream crowd is synonymous with the gun vote, and that being pro-hunting would allow one to go after nonhunting guns with impunity, when in actuality hunting is irrelevant to most gun owners. Not that we necessarily oppose it, just that it's not something that really affects us.

[MrBenchley]

239. Here's a bulletin...

Most of America really doesn't give a crap that you're jonesing for an assault weapon. And I sure as shit don't. Even a substantial number of gun owners are in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban, and overall public support was in the 75% range.

"Gun owners would have been a LOT more reassured by the senator visiting a target range with an AR"
Hey, how about if he steamed up in the swift boat and let fly with its machine guns? How about hand grenades?

Kerry was skeet shooting....what the hell else do you use for that? How about if he drove by a city block and sprayed the passersby on the street with his AR? Would that have been gun crazy enough for you?

"S.1431 (draconian neo-AWB)"
In other words, a perfectly sane gun measure that most Americans approved of...

[benEzra]

246. Since polls of POLICE (Allentown, PA) show that 68% of officers

surveyed thought the ban covered automatic weapons--things like military AK-47's and Uzi's and whatnot--one would expect public misunderstanding of what the law covered to be at least that high.

http://wayne.hazard.org/2ndAmend/PAPolicePoll.html

Interesting aspects of the poll to me are (1) the very high support for widespread gun ownership, even in a moderately anti-gun area, and (2) the tremendous confusion even among police officers about what the 1994 ban on "assault weapons" actually covered--68.6% of respondents mistakenly thought the "assault weapons ban" covered automatic weapons (actually been restricted since 1934 by the National Firearms Act, and not affected in any way by the AWB), and fully 71.4% thought it covered actual military firearms.

Here and on Common Ground Common Sense, it appears to me that most of the people most supportive of the ban--though not all--believe the ban covered firearms that it actually had nothing to do with. (I'm not including you in that category since I assume you are quite aware of that.)

If I based my opinion of the AWB on what I've heard and read from the MSM, I'd probably support it, too...

[MrBenchley]

249. Hell of an authoritative source there (snicker)

Couldn't you find a link on the Free Republic?

And here's the Easton Hopspital website...

http://www.easton-hospital.com

No sign there that of that poll....or that they conduct polls of this sort at all...

Or that they do research of this sort....

http://www.easton-hospital.com/body.cfm?id=15

Nor does a search for the term "Christopoulos" come up with any results...

By the way, why would a teaching hospital even have a research analyst?

And it must be a helluva swell hospital if the Allentown police chief does their hiring and firing.

The source of this toilet fish of an e-mail seems to be the Gun Owners of America, whih is basically Larry Pratt and a handful of cronies. And Larry Pratt is a racist so virulent that even Pat Buchanan had to shun him publicly.


And the Keystone Firearms Coalition appear to be just Chris BeHanna, who BeCrazy as a freeper can be.

http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/kfc.html

http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/

[losdiablosgato]

134. Gun control is one of the main reasons we lost the Congress in 94

Bill Clinton said as much. It has cost us the south in the past two elections as well.

[Chi]

137. I just spent 20 min's looking for the quote....

But couldn't find it.
Might you have a link, or a better idea of where I can look?

Thanks in Advance

[MrBenchley]

139. The quote is a defiant defense of gun control...

...not a craven surrender, as our friend tried to portray. Se my post below for a link to the quote from the Clinton presidential library.

[MrBenchley]

138. Clinton said NO such thing...

and when he mentioned the issue, it wasn't the gun issue (no Republican anywhere campaigned openly against either the Brady Bill OR the assault weapons ban) but the gun lobby's money that Big Bill pointed to...

"And then we got into the gun business. We passed the Brady Bill, and we passed the assault weapons ban -- (applause) -- which Senator Feinstein was especially active in passing. And, oh, they said, the world was going to come to an end. And we lost -- I'm telling you, we lost a lot of members of the House of Representatives on the budget bill because the people hadn't felt the benefit of the improving economy by '94 and on the gun issue. I'll never forget, when I went back to New Hampshire, which is a state like my home state of Arkansas, where more than half the people have a hunting license, and I said, I want to go into the middle of a bunch of hunters -- and I went back in '96, because they beat a congressman up there because he voted for the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill.
And I told those guys -- I remember, there were just all these guys in their plaid shirts just looking at me kind of sulled up, and I said, you know, if any of you missed a day, even an hour in the deer woods on account of the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban, I want to vote against me, too, because that congressman lost his job because of me. But if you didn't, they lied to you and you need to get even. And they did."

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/040200-speech-by-president-at-dccc-reception-san-jose.htm

You will note that Newt Gingrich's dishoest Contract on America does not raise the issue--nor does it even meniton the word "gun." If he thought opposing gun control openly would have gained the GOP even a single vote more than the millions of moderates they'd lose, that creepy humhole would have stuck it in there somewhere.

Here's Big Bill on 7/16/04 at the Democratic convention:
"In this year’s budget, the White House wants to cut off federal funding for 88,000 uniformed police, including more than 700 on the New York City police force who put their lives on the line on 9/11. As gang violence is rising and we look for terrorists in our midst, Congress and the President are also about to allow the ten-year-old ban on assault weapons to expire. Our crime policy was to put more police on the streets and take assault weapons off the streets. It brought eight years of declining crime and violence. Their policy is the reverse, they’re taking police off the streets and putting assault weapons back on the streets. If you agree with their choices, vote to continue them. If not, join John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats in making America safer, smarter, and stronger."

And here's what Clinton told David Letterman a few days later: "We could legalize deadly assault weapons and make it easier for terrorists and criminals to get, at the very time when this administration's got another proposal to de-fund 88,000 uniformed police officers on the street, including over 700 here in New York City who put their lives on the line on 9/11," the former president said. "

[Chi]

140. I guess that explains why the only two hits I got were...

Gunowner.org And FreeRepublic.com

[MrBenchley]

141. It sure does...

You know, just about every argument I've ever heard against gun control was based on dishonesty, denial, and/or distortion.

You'd think that if our "pro-gun democrats" couldn't figure THAT out, they'd at least ask themselves why only the scummiest public figures (like Trent Lott and Ted Nugent) ever oppose it openly.

[benEzra]

185. Here's what President Clinton said (State of the Union speech, 1995):

I don't want to destroy the good atmosphere in the room or in the country tonight, but I have to mention one issue that divided this body greatly last year. The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it. And I know, therefore, that some of you who are here because they voted for it are under enormous pressure to repeal it. I just have to tell you how I feel about it.

The members of Congress who voted for that bill and I would never do anything to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms to hunt and to engage in other appropriate sporting activities. I've done it since I was a boy, and I'm going to keep right on doing it until I can't do it anymore. But a lot of people laid down their seats in Congress so that police officers and kids wouldn't have to lay down their lives under a hail of assault weapon attack -- and I will not let that be repealed. I will not let it be repealed."

In a later interview, the President estimated the number of lost Dem House seats at 20, IIRC. Some anti-gun repubs who voted for it also lost their seats and were replaced by either pro-gun Dems or pro-gun repubs.

I should point out that the Feinstein ban didn't "ban 19 assault weapons"; rather, it banned 19 names that civilian firearms could no longer be sold under, restricted ALL self-loaders with two or more of a list of "naughty features," and restricted ALL new magazines to only 10 rounds, with a few inconsequential exceptions. That was one of the misconceptions that kept a lot of Dems from realizing just how sweeping this law was--a mile wide and an inch deep...

The President and other party leaders didn't help matters by constantly framing the issue in terms of "only sporting uses are acceptable," since the VAST majority (80%) of gun owners don't hunt, and most hunters I know also own nonhunting guns, including full-size 9mm's (the type of gun most affected by the ban) and modern-looking small-caliber self-loaders like AR's.

[MrBenchley]

196. Funny how you have to leave out what came after your quote

and paraphrase it inaccurately to get it to come out the way you want.
For the record, here's what followed: "The members who voted for that bill and I would never do anything to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms to hunt and to engage in other appropriate sporting activities. I've done it since I was a boy, and I'm going to keep right on doing it until I can't do it anymore.
But a lot of people laid down their seats in Congress so that police officers and kids wouldn't have to lay down their lives under a hail of assault-weapon attacks, and I will not let that be repealed. I will not let it be repealed. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou95.htm

He's right too. Shame on anybody who puts their cheesy hobby first.

"That was one of the misconceptions that kept a lot of Dems from realizing just how sweeping this law was--a mile wide and an inch deep..."
Gee, and that had nothing to do with the gun lobby and the Republicans fighting in Congress to weaken the bill, too......NOT.

[losdiablosgato]

213. Funny how you leave out the fact that gun control has cost us state

In the last two national elections. If the democratic party was not for gun control we would have the white house and the congress now. You can not change a thing until you are in power.

[Chi]

215. How do you know they would not of lost more people, than gained?

What convinced you the Dems would have the White House and Congress?
Is there a report on this....or a poll you would like to share?

Seems to me there is already a party for guns, where would the people that are for sensible gun control go, if the Dems turn pro gun?

[MrBenchley]

217. Funny how people like Frank Luntz

the crooked pollster who shapes the GOP talking points, doesn't advise them to start spouting "Assault Weapons Equal Freedom"...you'd think if there were voters to be gained, not lost, he would.

Newt Gingrich crafted the dishonest pile of mush called the "Contract With America." Funny he didn't say word one about "guns" in it, isn't it?

[Chi]

219. It never actually occurred to me, there wasn't anything about guns.

Interesting.
My favorite part of the Contract with America was the line item veto....
ya know the one they wouldn't give Clinton a budget to sign, until it was repealed.
I guess they should of stipulated for Repug Presidents only.

What a dog and pony show that was.

[MrBenchley]

223. Not a word about guns in the Contract in America

but pretty much the entire genesis of the Enron swindle was euphemistically described. It should have been presented as a recipe: Add swindlers, and stir.

I think my favorite part was the term limits...you know, the ones that PROMISED us that we wouldn't still be stuck with asswipes like Dennis Hastert, Dan Burton and Tom DeLay clogging the halls of Congress because they were going to quit after a couple of terms.

[MrBenchley]

216. Not even close to true...

"If the democratic party was not for gun control we would have the white house and the congress now."
go ahead and prove that. We'll wait right here.

Meanwhile, if that were even close to being true, why does the GOP have to pretend to be for gun control?
Answer: Because if they got up and even tried to spout half of the silly arguments we hear here, the only votes they would have got would be the Randy Weaver Wannabe Club. And that's a fact.

[MrBenchley]

14. You bet your ass....

And that's why they're scrambling to get this bunch of scumbags imunity no other industry enjoys...or needs.

[arwalden]

112. Can Acme Steak Knife Company Be Sued...

... because someone uses one of their paring knives to murder someone? They made the knife too sharp, too pointy? Too easily available to the general public, and children.

[MrBenchley]

128. They sure as shit can be sued

if they put an ad on the boxes their steak knives come in showing somebody getting stabbed and claiming the handles are "fingerprint proof" (note the peculiar notion stated elsewhere in this thread that it ought to be okey-dokey for them to do so if the claim is false)...

They sure as shit can be sued if they don't make an effort to see that their products are sold responsibly in the right channels.

They sure as shit can be sued if they market their steak knives to children as toys...


They sure as shit can be sued if they hire a crackpot to produce a fraudulent study claiming that if everyone walked down the street clutching a steak knife, crime would drop...

http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/

[jlseagull]

247. No, no, and no.

This does nothing to curb gun crime, nor will it make anyone any safer. All it does is restrict markets, increase prices, and reduce innovation in citizen arms. Not a good thing.

[AllegroRondo]

3. Doesnt this violate the 7th Amendment?

[SteppingRazor]

6. Not quite..

You could perhaps make some literal interpretation that goes against the seventh, but it would be twisting the amendment from its original intent. The amendment guarentees that, should a suit be brought in a common law case, the defendant has the right to trial by jury.
However, it does not guarantee that would-be plaintiffs have the right to sue whomever they please.

[MrBenchley]

18. On the other hand it doesn't say either

that the gun industry has the right not to be sued just because they make fetish objects for the trigger-happy.

[SteppingRazor]

25. Two things --

First, guns aren't "fetish objects for the trigger happy" -- I own several handguns, and I'm a perfectly responsible, sensible... OK, OK. I like making big holes in things and yelling, "Yeehaw." You got me there.

Second, I think sticking to the spirit of the amendments enumerated in the Constitution is very important, or we can weasel our way around all sorts of them. In that sense, even if you don't personally agree, I think it's dangerous to use a weaselly reading of the 7th Amendment, simply because it opens the door to for conservatives to do the same with, say, the First Amendment. Or the Fourth. Kinda scary, imho.

[MrBenchley]

27. Two answers...

Take a look at the sort of gibberish on any gun owner online forum, and tell me again guns aren't fetish objects for the trigger happy. Youu know as well as I do that the hardcore gun nuts are as crazy as outhouse rats.

"I think sticking to the spirit of the amendments enumerated in the Constitution is very important"
And I don't see anything in the Constitution that says one bunch of criminals and crazies should get some kind of special exemption from responsibility for their actions just because they peddle guns.

[SteppingRazor]

32. I agree!

We ought to stop this law from happening. All I'm saying is we shouldn't base any action against this law on the 7th Amendment. That's it. Other than that, I'm certainly against this law. I just thought it was worthwhile to discuss the basic question involved in it.

And if you don't like gunowners, me and my guns will just go play elsewhere :cry:

[IChing]

5. Exception of liabilities if you remember the movie

Runaway Jury:


One example from the article


"Gun opponents say the bill effectively exempts from liability gunmakers and that dealers allow the weapons to get into the hands of people the law says shouldn't have them. If the bill had been law when six victims of Washington, D.C. snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo sued the gun dealer from which they obtained their rifle, the dealer would not have agreed to pay the families and victims $2.5 million, say opponents of the bill."

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Those arguements failed to sway a few Senate Democrats

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00206

[benEzra]

12. "Stole" the rifle would be a more specific term than "obtained"

in this case, if I recall correctly. And if the dealer in this case was in fact negligent, they could still be sued since the law exempts suits based on negligence.

[MrBenchley]

19. It was "stolen" the way Faux is "fair and balanced"

The gun dealer only reported the gun "stolen" AFTER it had bene identified in the national news as the source of the Beltway sniper's gun. The same gun store ALSO armed Buford Furrow, the mental patient and white supremacist who shot up a kindergarten in a synagogue and killed a Filipino-American postman as a "wake-up call to America." AND the same store had "lost track of" almost 300 weapons.

Incredibly, due to the combination of Republican craziness and gun industry ugliness, the store is STILL open for business....and now it has been freed from the requirement to have an inventory in writing. Also the BATF is forbidden to point out this sort of operation to the public, or otherwise reveal who ius putting guns in the hands of criminals and crazies.

[IChing]

22. The gun dealer is now safe from the vicious attacks of lawyers

:spank:

I thought that how the story came out, it was reported after the fact.
Never mind Columbine

[MrBenchley]

24. There it was, quietly arming loonies and racists, when suddenly

a mob of gunshot victims and trial lawyers pounced on it....

[benEzra]

28. If it was sold, rather than stolen,

there will be a BATFE Form 4473 with Malvo's name on it, proof that Malvo passed the Federal criminal background check, and the transaction would have been registered in the dealer's bound book. Otherwise, the dealer is guilty of a Federal felony and a lawsuit should be the least of his worries.

If the rifle was stolen and wasn't missed/reported, that is negligence and the gun dealer could/would still be sued, even if the lawsuit bill passes. My quibble with "obtained" is that it makes it sound as if the dealer legally transferred the gun to Malvo, when in fact it was not.

BTW, how has it been freed from having an inventory? Or are you speaking of "in writing" as opposed to, say, electronic records? Even a lowly C&R FFL is required to keep a bound book, so a full-blown FFL could be clotheslined and hung out to dry under current law, unless there are some shenanigans going on here as you mention. But it certainly has nothing to do with the lawsuit bill, pro or con.

What WOULD have been affected by the bill would have been the suit against Bushmaster, for DARING to market such a nontraditional-looking small-caliber rifle to law-abiding peons such as myself, thereby allowing the low-powered-but-scary-looking gun in question to be stolen or otherwise illegally obtained by a couple of idiot nutjobs and used to shoot innocent people at point-blank range from the trunk of a car. Had Bushmaster only made their civilian rifles more traditional looking (straight wooden stocks and all that), the killers might have been forced to use a rifle with a wooden stock instead of an evil plastic stock and protruding handgrip, and nobody would have been killed since we all know that wooden-stocked rifles are harmless and only plastic-stocked ones can be used to kill people.

FWIW, I am fairly neutral on the lawsuit bill myself, even as a gun owner, since (1) most of the junk lawsuits have been thrown out of court, (2) D.C. hasn't yet tried to pull their strict-liability stunt AFAIK, and (3) I am much more concerned about prohibitionist amendments that the anti-gun lobby might try to add to the bill, like another ban on rifles with the stock shaped in a non-19th-century way. But I do think the junk lawsuits are an issue, and I think most of the arguments against the bill have been based on Brady/VPC press releases rather than on the text of the law itself.

[MrBenchley]

34. Who ARE you trying to kid?

"Yeah, they seem like such sticklers for paperwork there at the old Buillseye Gun Shop, all righty...

"The Seattle Times reports that federal investigators cannot account for 340 guns at Bull's Eye Shooter Supply -- including the sniper's rifle. ...Federal agents know the gun was shipped to Bull's Eye last June -- a Bushmaster XM 15 assault rifle.
KOMO 4 News has learned that even though agents can't find the gun, they did find the empty box at the store. "

http://www.komotv.com/news/story.asp?ID=21138

"BTW, how has it been freed from having an inventory"
This bit of dreck from one of the scummiest Republicans in Congress passed inot law...

"Tiahrt offered an eight-point amendment to the 2004 funding bill for the Commerce, Justice, and State departments to prohibit the use of federal funds for several BATF activities. The amendment would prevent BATF from conducting physical inventories of gun dealers and from requiring them to provide documentation for guns sold in a specific period. In addition, it would prevent BATF from denying licenses to dealers whose sales fall below a certain level."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,566162,00.html

"What WOULD have been affected by the bill would have been the suit against Bushmaster, for DARING to market such a nontraditional-looking small-caliber rifle to law-abiding peons such as myself"
In other words, for evading the assault weapons ban...

"the anti-gun lobby"
In other words, sane people...

[Romulus]

46. IOW

(according to some around here) the bill is bad, because the Bullseye lawsuit could go forward under the bill.:crazy:

The DC law has been used against Beretta USA. Beretta tried to get the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that it uncontitutionally regulated interstate commerce, but lost at the appellate level. That means the DC case may proceed.

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/docket/cities/cityview.php?RecordNo=22

The District's suit is based on statutes that give it unique legal rights held by none of the cities and counties that previously sued the gun industry, including the District of Columbia Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act of 1990 which provides that anyone who manufactures, imports, or sells an assault weapon or high-capacity semi-automatic firearm is strictly liable, regardless of proof of fault, for all direct and consequential damages that arise from bodily injury or death caused by the weapon in the District.

BTW, that Glock of yours is classified as a "machine gun" under DC law. :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

49. Good for DC...

"The District also has an express right under the Health Care Assistance Reimbursement Act of 1984 to recover from defendants the millions of dollars in unreimbursed expenses it has incurred for Medicaid and other health care assistance to victims of shootings caused by defendants' actions, and a statutory right to recover all costs of assistance and compensation to its police officers, firefighters, and other employees who have suffered injuries from gun violence because of defendants' actions. "

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/docket/cities/cityview.php?RecordNo=22

No wonder shitbirds like Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott are fighting so hard to knock down DCs gun laws.

[TecnoCrat]

15. Well, then it is also time for...

Legislation protecting from lawsuits against video game makers, movie studios, and music companies. It's only fair, right?

[MrBenchley]

20. Hell, why not just get rid of liability law altogether

and yet corporations run wild and free like rabid hyenas...

[CarinKaryn]

26. Why is the Senate supporting this?

Have they lost their will? Have they been completly bought off by a bag full of silver? Don't they care that people are dying?


I'm starting to lose faith...:cry:

[MrBenchley]

115. Worth noting that in delaying the vote on the Defense Appropriations Bill

they're also giving the green light to more torture....pResident Weakenstupid has threatened to veto that bill if the Senate tries to restrict his torture policies, which they have.

[slackmaster]

30. Gun control extremists reap what they have sown

If Mothers Against Drunk Driving was suing the automobile industry because of the misdeeds of drunk drivers, Congress would be voting on b ills to protect car makers.

[MrBenchley]

37. The scummiest lobby on earth gets the GOP to do its bidding

"If Mothers Against Drunk Driving was suing the automobile industry"
But in fact, the automobile industry is SUPPORTING Mothers Against Drunk Driving, not slandering the group, trying to rig lawsuit protection for itself, and trying to make it easier for drivers to get behind the wheel.

(edited just for slackmaster)

[slackmaster]

41. "noslandering"?

A new verb has been coined.

[MrBenchley]

50. "not slandering", slack

but with as much venom as you spray all over Democrats routinely, I'm not surprised that the idea of a popular progressive group not being slandered seems so unfamiliar to you.

[slackmaster]

55. Please show ONE post where I have sprayed venom all over Democrats

And maybe I'll let you have another scoop of ice cream for dessert.

[MrBenchley]

57. Hee hee hee....

Drag out that John Wayne Gacy picture you like to flash, slack...

[slackmaster]

59. Why, do you like John Wayne Gacy?

Is he some kind of role model for you?

[MrBenchley]

68. Like I said, feel free to post it again...

It speaks volumes about you...

[slackmaster]

71. I made a Flash movie with you and Pogo the Clown

Forum rules would prohibit posting the link here. If anyone wishes to view it, please send me a private message.

[MrBenchley]

76. Yeah, I'll bet you did, slack...

I'm all broken up that someone like you doesn't like me...especially considering the sort of humholes you DO stick up for on a regular basis.

[IA_Seth]

61. I gotta say, slackmaster hasn't sprayed me lately. n/t

[54anickel]

31. I call BS and smoke-screen. They are putting off the DOD bill

because of McCain's amendment and Bush threatening to veto it.

I am assuming that is the bill that is being put on hold to address the NRA's concerns. How convenient? :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1650932


edit to add this article as well:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0705/072105cdam1.htm

The Senate started debate on the $441.6 billion fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill Wednesday, with several senators poised to offer a slew of amendments that range from interrogation tactics at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility to halting the current base realignment and closure round.

Over the last several years, lawmakers have not succeeded in any legislative attempts to delay base closures, but that likely will not dissuade a coalition of senators from mounting one last campaign to stop the process.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., has been one of the most vocal critics of the BRAC, and said Wednesday that he expects to introduce an amendment to put the process on hold until after the Pentagon concludes a series of sweeping reviews of its organization, force structure and plans.

The amendment, which would be similar to legislation he introduced this spring, also would require the return of most of the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan before launching back into base closures, said Thune, whose state stands to lose the expansive Ellsworth Air Force Base.

[MrBenchley]

38. The other bill they're going to try to ram through this week

makes tax-free inheritances for multi-million dollar estates permanent.

[54anickel]

109. See how well it's working? When they want to take the

heat off of a topic they just toss a wedge issue out there.

Rove in trouble? - "Look, supreme court nominee, lots of secrets and threats to Roe - FETCH!!!"

Shrub about to look like an ass vetoing a bill because it stops abuse of prisoners? Cheney having to come out and publically state taking away the ability to abuse prisoners underminds Shrubs authority in an attempt to shut McCain up? - "Look, firearms issue - FETCH!!!!"

They play the Dems (and the American public in general) like a fiddle every time. :eyes:

[DanCa]

63. Crossfire question

So if someone pops my ugly ass in crossfire who can I sue? I am just wondering ?

[slackmaster]

91. Depends on who shoots you

If you get shot by police who were "acting in good faith", you cannot sue them.

If you get shot by criminals, there's no point in suing them.

[Vinca]

79. IMHO, no one should receive a blanket guarantee of not being sued.

If they're taken to court and it's frivolous, the suit will fail. First the gun makers, next the drug companies. No freakin' way.

[MrBenchley]

81. Agreed...

[stepnw1f]

93. Is the Gun Industry Trying to Create the Perfect STorm or What

I see right-wing nutters buying these guns... the question is, what for? Is having an assualt weapon that important? Are they preparing for a revolution? You know... hostile take over... brown shirts.

[Romulus]

94. yes, that's it

the only reason someone buys a firearm that works no differently than any other firearm is to prepare for some sort of revolution . . .:eyes:

[stepnw1f]

95. Assault Weapons...

Duh

[benEzra]

97. "Assault weapon" isn't a type of firearm, it's a pejorative term

arbitrarily applied.

Object lesson: Here is a Ruger mini-14, a small-caliber (.223 Remington) self-loading rifle explicitly recognized by the framers of the 1994 AWB as being "particularly suitable for sporting purposes", and California legal:



OK, here's the same gun shown in the first photo (not just the same model, the same individual firearm), after swapping the wooden stock for a black plastic stock having a protruding handgrip (which takes only a few seconds):



OK, here's the same gun again as shown in the first two photos, this time with a stock that folds for storage:



The same rifle that is "particularly suitable for sporting purposes" when dressed in a 19th-century-style wooden stock suddenly becomes an evil California-banned "assault weapon" when you dress it in a black plastic stock having a protruding handgrip (photo 2). And dressed in the stock shown in photo 3, it's an "assault weapon" according to the Federal ban. It would also have been a Federally defined "assault weapon" if you used the stock shown in (2) and added a screw-on muzzle brake or a pin-on flash suppressor, or if you used the wooden stock in (1) and added a screw-on flash suppressor.

See what I mean? The difference between an "assault weapon" and a "sporting firearm" can be as simple as what the stock looks like.

[stepnw1f]

98. Shiney is My Precioussssssss

Stop deregulating the gun industry.

[benEzra]

100. No one's asking to deregulate it...

I'm OK with most of the whole boatload of regs already on the books (and you probably have no idea some of the arcane regs that are already law...) Even the lawsuit bill (which I am ambivalent about, BTW) is more an attempt to keep D.C. and other anti-gun districts from setting national gun policy than it is an attempt to deregulate the industry. I just don't see how slapping yet more restrictions on the already tightly circumscribed spectrum of firearms the LAW-ABIDING can own does much about misuse of firearms by CRIMINALS.

The #1 gun used in crimes and homicides is the .38/.357 caliber revolver, if you take BATFE trace data as proxy for that variable. The #1 long gun is the 12 gauge pump-action (e.g., hunting type) shotgun. The #1 rifle is the lowly .22LR plinking rifle. I fail to see how slapping irrational and arbitrary restrictions on things like the shape of rifle stocks has ANYTHING to do with crime, when rifles of any description are among the least likely of firearms to be misused, presumably for concealability reasons. It was only the early '80's that prominent leaders of the anti-gun lobby were promising NEVER to go after long guns, that handguns were all they were after, for precisely that reason...

"Shiney is My Precioussssssss"

???

Dude, you have issues...is it possible to discuss the technical aspects of firearms and firearms law like grownups, or is there something about the issue that disconnects the brain from the phalanges? I have no problem with you disagreeing with me; I would be perfectly satisfied if you knew what you were disagreeing with instead of merely regurgitating some reporter's take on some lobbyist's press release about how eee-villll gun owners are...

Around 36% of registered Dems own guns. Most are nonhunters. Almost none will ever commit a crime of any sort. Myself, I'm a 34-year-old literature and physics geek, professional technical writer, married and dad to a 6-year-old special needs kid. I don't own any camo outfits, I drive a Camry, I play the guitar, like poetry, enjoy running and cycling, and live in a multiracial working-class neighborhood. My wife, also a gun owner, was born in Boston (she's originally from Cambridge, MA), has a B.A. in English, and studies medieval Russian history for fun.

Gun owners are just like anybody else, they just have different views than you on gun ownership.

[MrBenchley]

108. HE has issues?

"is it possible to discuss the technical aspects of firearms and firearms law like grownups?"
Not when somebody arguing for firearm industry deregulation adamantly denies he's doing so...

"how eee-villll gun owners are..."
Don't know about eeeee-vil, but they sure leak NRA talking points at the drop of a hat.

"Gun owners are just like anybody else"
Except that so few other people try to pretend their cheesy hobby is a constitutional right.

[benEzra]

123. Arguing against new restrictions =! deregulation

"is it possible to discuss the technical aspects of firearms and firearms law like grownups?"
Not when somebody arguing for firearm industry deregulation adamantly denies he's doing so...

Deregulation is, by definition, the repeal of existing restrictions. I'm not arguing for that. I'm saying that placing NEW restrictions on rifles (among the least likely of all firearms to be used in crime) based on aesthetic criteria like how the stock is shaped is wrongheaded and counterproductive, and the fact that the anti-gun lobby concocted a scary name ("assault weapons") for rifles with the stock shaped in a nontraditional way is irrelevant to whether or not guns with the stock so shaped should be banned.

"how eee-villll gun owners are..."
Don't know about eeeee-vil, but they sure leak NRA talking points at the drop of a hat.

Yes, I'm sure what I think is years of firsthand range experience and independent research on the topic was really beamed into my brain via the secret mind-control device in my NRA membership card. And I'm sure the photos of my own rifles I used to illustrate a couple of points above were actually transmitted to my digicam from NRA headquarters. Whereas your own arguments, on the other hand, obviously come from personal range experience, firsthand examination of the firearms in question, and in-depth perusal of BATFE and DOJ regulations, rather than simply repeating anti-"assault weapon" talking points you've heard from the anti-gun lobby via media reports or VPC/Brady position papers...

My wife and I own a couple of guns the prohibitionists label as "assault weapons," including one that is an "assault weapon" when fitted with a black stock and a "sporting gun" when fitted with a brown stock. I can also point you to chapter and verse of 18 USC 922 or cite pages from BATFE publications, but I'm sure both 18 USC and the BATFE regs in the Code of Federal Regulations are really just NRA agitprop intended to cover up the REAL gun regulations in this country, which aren't published anywhere in the U.S. Code or the CFR but which you obviously have intimate knowledge of. Silly me.

"Gun owners are just like anybody else"
Except that so few other people try to pretend their cheesy hobby is a constitutional right.

You and I will just have to disagree on that. But even if you just view it as a "cheesy hobby", it is a "cheesy hobby" in which 36% of Democrats, and a far higher percentage of swing-state Dems, participate. Something like 80% of union members in many pro-gun states are gun owners, for example (union wages --> disposable income to spend on "cheesy hobbies," as you term them).

Is your animosity toward gun owners just cynicism, or do you have a personal bad experience with gun misuse, criminal or otherwise?

[Romulus]

124. you da man

I don't know how you have the patience to do it, but I salute your attempts at bringing some sense to this discussion.

[MrBenchley]

129. The only new restriction is on ordinary citizens

who are going to be prevented from suing people they ought to have every right to sue. How giving one of the scummiest industries in America a "get away with murder" waiver that frees them from litigation isn't deregulation is beyond me.

"Something like 80% of union members in many pro-gun states are gun owners, for example"
I keep hearing this horseshit from the trigger happy. It's especially horseshit when you consider how many of these "pro-gun states " are also right to work states.

And in fact, there's no lobby more fanatically anti-labor and anti-workers rights than the gun lobby...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04248/373232.stm

What I wonder is who seriously believes there is some sort of specimen somewhere who thinks Halliburton's corruption, a failing economy, the loss of his social security, sinking wages, open bigotry, no health care, a war based on lies about WMDs AND the destruction of the Constitution is just ducky....but would switch his vote to the Democratic party in a flash if only he wasn't deathly afraid someone like Dianne Feinstein would grab his penis, er, gun.

[MrBenchley]

106. Of all the hokum peddled by the trigger-happy

this "nobody knows what an assault weapon is except we who cream our jeans over them" might be the most tedious.

"The difference between an "assault weapon" and a "sporting firearm" can be as simple as what the stock looks like."
In that case, you don't NEED one, do you?

[benEzra]

173. I suppose not, in the same way that I don't "need"

any book that the Moral Majority disapproves of, nor do I "need" to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures (since I am law-abiding). I don't "need" freedom of the press since I don't own a newspaper, I suppose. While we're at it, let's ban alcoholic beverages in tall, dark-colored bottles, too, since the shape of the bottle demonstrates they have "no nutritional purpose" and makes them the "beverage of choice of date rapists and drunk drivers"...

The fact that I don't "need" a gun with a black plastic stock as opposed to a brown wooden stock does NOT make banning guns based on the shape of the stock any more rational...

The point is, I CHOOSE to replace the brown stock with a black one having a more comfortable handgrip. And any politicians who want to rummage around in our family's gun safe so they can tell us that they will "allow" us to continue to own the brown ones, for now, but that the black ones aren't "suitable" for mere peons such as ourselves to own, are going to meet some resistance at the polls.

Our pro-gun Democratic governor (NRA endorsed, BTW) won this state 55/45, even as Senator Edwards and the presidential ticket lost it 45/55. Dems can win in NC, but not Dems who want to rummage around in our gun safes and take the ones they find aesthetically displeasing...hence Erskine Bowles' loss to no-name repub Richard Burr...

The prohibitionist policies you endorse play well in gun-banning urban areas like D.C. and Chicago, but they don't in rural areas and pro-gun states in general.

[CarinKaryn]

170. You've killed your own argument.

If you have a dangerous weapon that is banned because of its inherent lethalness, it should be banned regardless of the kind of stock or finish it has.

It sounds like your shiney rifle had already been banned. We just need a reinterpatation of existing law.

There is really no reason for you to have it and didn't you break the law by putting the banned features on it?

[benEzra]

174. No, I didn't break the law...

I waited until the AWB expired in 2004 to fit the third stock. Someone who didn't care about the law (i.e., a criminal) could have fitted such a stock anytime they wanted, but criminals usually don't use rifles, anyway.

You've just walked straight into the NRA's point that the AWB leads directly to the position of banning ALL civilian self-loaders, since the "shiny rifle" you are talking about is one that was specifically recognized as a "good" sporting rifle by the Federal AWB in configurations #1 and #2 (find a text of the federal AWB and search on "mini-14").

The second configuration was and is banned in California, but was never banned at the Federal level.

[Chi]

176. "the AWB leads directly to the position of banning ALL civi. self-loaders"

I, for one, would certainly be against banning individuals being able to own a 30-06, or shotgun (among others).

What convinced you that the AW ban would lead to the banning of these weapons?

[benEzra]

181. The following gun would have been banned by name by S.1431

(Senate counterpart to H.R.2038) last session:



It's a Ruger mini-14, a .223 caliber self-loader of very traditional design and styling.

The NRA has been arguing since the early '90's that a ban on nontraditional-looking self-loaders inevitably leads to a ban on traditional-looking self-loaders, since the only difference between the two are superficial features like the way the stock is shaped. S.1431 and the associated VPC rhetoric proves them right.

The difference between this gun (or a Ruger Mini Thirty) and a Remington 7400 or Browning BAR in .30-06 is that the .30-06 is twice as powerful and more lethal at longer ranges...

[MrBenchley]

187. Gun nuts sure consider the Ruger 14 an assault weapon and say so

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as37-e.htm

Nor is the gun just a harmless toy...

"One was the Ruger Mini 14, manufactured by Connecticut-based Sturm, Ruger & Co., a weapon used by a Montreal gunman who, shouting, "You're all a bunch of feminists!" killed 14 female students at an engineering school in 1989. It was the worst massacre in Canadian history.
     An internal state Department of Justice memorandum acknowledged that the restricted AK47 and Ruger Mini 14 "are the same caliber, magazine capacity, size, etc." But the memorandum went on to say: "It was agreed that certain weapons probably had too large a constituency to ever be worth the risk of including, including the Mini 14."
     Sometimes called the "poor man's assault weapon," the Mini 14 has a loyal following because of its accuracy, reliability and entry-level price of about $350."

http://www.guncite.com/LATimesASW/weapon1a.htm

Here's a REAL Ruger 14 enthusiast....a neoNazi loon who wants his to protect "white men"...

"And as a White Nationalist it is your duty to own a military-capable firearm if at all possible. ...Some popular choices are the AR-15, the AK-47, the SKS, the M-14, the Ruger mini-14, and even the vintage M1 Garand."

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/CaptPat040105Guns.htm

Astonishing and telling what google turns up...especially what it turns up early in its search.

[benEzra]

227. That's pretty funny...

An internal state Department of Justice memorandum acknowledged that the restricted AK47 and Ruger Mini 14 "are the same caliber, magazine capacity, size, etc."

That's pretty funny, considering the mini-14 only comes in .222 Remington and .223 Remington, and the AK-47 is 7.62x39mm (.30 Russian Short). Considering that the Justice Department is unlikely to make such an elementary blunder, I suspect the "memo" being referred to is either bogus or something that was being circulated by an anti-gun congressional aide rather than DOJ personnel...

But the memorandum went on to say: "It was agreed that certain weapons probably had too large a constituency to ever be worth the risk of including, including the Mini 14."

That must be why Dianne Feinstein specifically mentioned the mini-14 as being "especially suitable for sporting purposes"...again, you're just proving to be the case what the NRA claimed in 1989, that the "assault weapons ban" was intended to eventually ban all self-loading rifles...

As far as the size of the mini-14's "constituency," IIRC the sales numbers are similar to AR-15 type rifles and only a fraction of the number of SKS rifles in civilian hands, which didn't stop Bush the Elder from aiming regulations at them...and the "constituency" of over-10-round-gun owners is probably in the range of 20 to 30 million, which hardly stopped Feinstein et al from including them in the AWB...

Sometimes called the "poor man's assault weapon," the Mini 14 has a loyal following because of its accuracy, reliability and entry-level price of about $350."

Called by whom? Anti-gun activists? Gun-disliking posters on Internet forums?

I am a bit suspicious, since the term "assault weapon" wasn't popularized until the late '80's/early '90's, and mini-14 suggested retail was probably around $400 or more by that time (I paid $450 for mine in 1988/1989, a stainless Ranch Rifle model, and got a very good deal for the time.) As to $350 being "entry level" for a civilian centerfire self-loading rifle, $350 was way more than a civilian AK-47 lookalike in the late 1980's (I paid $379 in 2003, and that was a bit high but I wanted to patronize my local gun shop), and SKS's were in the $79 range in the mid-90's (my wife bought a pristine 1952 Tula for $99 in 1996 or so). And the mini-14 comes with one five (5) round magazine...

As far as the Canadian nutjob who murdered those people with a mini-14--Charles Whitman killed more people than that in the Texas Tower shootings, IIRC, with a bolt-action hunting rifle in 6mm Remington. Those must be "assault weapons" too, I guess...

Some popular choices are the AR-15, the AK-47, the SKS, the M-14, the Ruger mini-14, and even the vintage M1 Garand."

When you start citing amateur web pages run by racist Walter Mittys who don't even know that M14's are Title 2 (i.e., NFA restricted) firearms, you know you are grasping at straws. And since this dimwit also lists the M1 Garand, an 8-shot self-loader chambered in .30-06, the most popular deer-hunting cartridge in America, and which is provided at nominal cost to civilians for government-sponsored rifle competitions--I don't see how this particularly helps your claim that the mini-14 is an "assault weapon."

I could probably direct you to some web pages in which 13-year-old SEAL/Delta veterans tell each other that you can convert AR-15's to full-auto by "filing the firing pin and changing the cylinders"...

[Chi]

228. "poor man's assault weapon,"

"Sometimes called the "poor man's assault weapon," the Mini 14 has a loyal following because of its accuracy, reliability and entry-level price of about $350."

Called by whom? Anti-gun activists? Gun-disliking posters on Internet forums?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1247137/posts#1
Post 27

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69033
Post 9

http://www.sierratimes.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/printpage.cgi?forum=13&topic=8
Post 14

[benEzra]

233. Might want to read the first and third threads more closely...

the first one is talking about an ex-SWAT mini-14 with a folding stock and a short barrel, which would be an "assault weapon" under the 1994 AWB because it would meet the two-features test (hinged stock and protruding handgrip):



The third thread above, the poster uses the term "poor man's assault rifle" to refer to a lever-action rifle of late 1800's design, NOT a mini-14, and saying that the old-timey lever action is just as capable as a mini-14 or an AR:


http://www.marlinfirearms.com/firearms/1894_centerfireRifles/1894SS.htm

The second thread above is an argument for and against the term, and is not necessarily talking about rifles in the traditional configuration.

[Chi]

236. Third thread uses the term 'poor man's assault', but not about the mini

You are correct.
Though the mini-14 is in that post as well, I just read it too fast.
My mistake.

The first and second do call the mini-14 by that nickname.

Edit for spelling

[benEzra]

251. Quite so. My point about the first link was that

the mini-14 so designated is, in fact, in an "assault weapon" configuration as defined by the 1994 Feinstein law (protruding handgrip + folding stock), but we were discussing the mini in its sporting rifle configuration, in which it is not an "assault weapon" by any reasonable definition. But my point was that simply changing the stock (a superficial feature) switches the mini-14 and other hunting-style self-loaders into and out of the "assault weapon" category quite arbitrarily.

In regards to the third link, I have heard lever-action hunting guns in .357 or .30-30 called "Brooklyn assault rifles" or somesuch because they provide comparable ballistics and rate of aimed fire to a civilian AK lookalike, but since they predate the Civil War they are generally legal even in places like NYC or Chicago, and you can't really ban them without banning most rifles designed after 1850.

[Chi]

197. No offense, but you didn't answer my question

"AWB leads directly to the position of banning ALL civilian self-loaders"

I was asking what convinced you that all civi self loaders would be banned, I chose the 30-06 and the shotgun specifically.

thanks in advance

[benEzra]

235. If you can classify the following rifle as an "assault weapon"

If you can classify this rifle, in this configuration, as an "assault weapon":



then there are no centerfire self-loading rifles that can't be so dubbed. There is no criterion by which you can say that the above is an "assault rifle" and this rifle is not:



Both are detachable-magazine self-loaders with traditional 19th-century-style stocks and ZERO "assault weapon" features. Both are gas-operated semiautomatics.

Besides, if you ban the mini-14, Mini Thirty, and M1 carbine, and presumably the venerable Springfield M1A (think of it as a mini-14 in .308 Winchester), as well as all the modern-looking guns like AR's, what's left in the domain of self-loading centerfire rifles? The Remington 7400, the Browning BAR, and...what?

The answer would be, pretty much nothing...and not coincidentally, banning the above would mean that there would then be ZERO legal self-loading centerfire rifles suitable for home-defense purposes; you'd be stuck with a couple of high-powered hunting weapons that would shoot through an intruder AND your next door neighbor's house. So we nonhunters would basically be stuck with 1800's vintage lever-actions if we wanted a rifle.

As far as self-loading shotguns, I was more referring to rifles in my previous statement (I am not a shotgunner and have zero interest in owning one), but if you can call a 5-shot autoloading centerfire .22 with zero nontraditional features an "assault weapon," what's to stop the label from being applied to a (far more lethal) 4-shot autoloading .729 caliber shotgun, that can put as many 9mm projectiles downrange in a couple of seconds as a submachinegun?

[Chi]

237. 'self loaders'

OK, never hearing the term 'self-loader' before, I assumed incorrectly that it referred to weapons that had to be manually reloaded.
Again...my mistake.

Please give me the distinction between a semi-automatic, and a self-loader.

[benEzra]

243. They are synonyms

OK, never hearing the term 'self-loader' before, I assumed incorrectly that it referred to weapons that had to be manually reloaded.
Again...my mistake.

Please give me the distinction between a semi-automatic, and a self-loader.

They are synonyms, but a lot of people who aren't into guns seem to think "semiautomatic" describes the mode of operation of automatic weapons (i.e., pull the trigger and the gun fires rapidly in a cyclic mode), so I try to avoid it in general conversation as too likely to be misunderstood. Not knowing how familiar with gun terminology you are, I'll be very basic, so please forgive me if any of this is already familiar.

A semiautomatic firearm is one that when the trigger is pressed, the gun fires once and only once, but the gun uses some of the round's energy to cycle the action, ejecting the empty casing and reloading the chamber with the top round from the magazine (hence the clearer term "self-loader" to describe such a firearm). The gun will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time.

The vast majority of handguns are semiautomatic. Revolvers give the same rate of fire, but do not fire each round out of the same chamber, instead rotating a separate chamber into alignment with the barrel for each shot.

Most self-loading handguns are described as "recoil operated," meaning that the action is cycled via rearward gas pressure on the cartridge case itself, which causes a portion of the handgun (the "slide," at the top) to move rearward; the empty case hits the ejector and is flung to the side. When the slide moves forward again, it pushes the top round in the magazine out of the magazine, up the feed ramp, and into the gun's chamber, which is then locked closed, usually by tilting the barrel slightly. (Chamber pressures for a centerfire firearm are typically in the 40,000 to 55,000 lb/in^2 range, depending on the caliber, so you can see why a locking breech is generally used, although some low-powered handgun rounds (.22LR, .25 ACP, .32, .380) can get away with a non-locking breech due to lower chamber pressures and a very short pressure pulse.)

Here's a photo of a typical semiautomatic handgun:



The lighter portion at the top is the slide. The lever at the top rear is the safety and decocker, the lever toward the middle is the slide release (the slide locks back after the last round, for ease of reloading), and the button right behind the trigger is the magazine release.

Most self-loading centerfire rifles are described as "gas operated," meaning that high-pressure gas is tapped from a small hole in the barrel at the front of the stock, and drives a piston rearward to cycle the action. All else is the same as the handgun, except most self-loading rifles use a rotating bolt (just like bolt-action rifles) to lock up the chamber, since a tilting-barrel system is obviously impractical on a long-barreled firearm. Because rifles have a longer pressure pulse due to the long barrel, it is hard to make a recoil-operated self-loading rifle in an actual rifle caliber, though there are recoil-operated carbines that fire handgun rounds.

Here's a photo of a semiautomatic rifle (a mini-14):



The handle on the right side of the action (about 2 inches behind the black part at the top of the gun) is the charging handle; you pull this to the rear to load the first round, and it moves rapidly back and forth each time you fire the rifle (as if it were being cycled by hand). On this rifle, the lever at the front of the trigger guard is the safety; the little lever in front of that is the magazine release. You can't really see the bolt well, but it rotates laterally and unlocks when you pull the charging handle back, just like the bolt of a bolt-action rifle.

Again, I don't mean to be pedantic, but my default mode appears to be "maximum verbosity" (anybody remember Zork?). Anyway, I hope that answers your question(s)? :)

Humorous sidenote here--I once heard a reporter at a prestigious newspaper (I think it was the New York Times), who was apparently unfamiliar with gun terminology, describe a gas-operated self-loader as a "gas-powered rifle." Which conjures up images of a rifle made by the Weed-Eater company, with a pull cord to start it, and which blows blue smoke out the side while you are shooting...

[MrBenchley]

105. Gee, rom,

if it works no differently than any other firearm, you don't fucking need it do you? You ought to be able to muddle through with ordinary guns.

[Romulus]

113. if it's no different than any other firearm

why ban it? :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

118. The answer is so simple as to seem silly....

It's only your preposterous claim that they're no different...and it's notable your dodging the question of why you need one if that is really true.

If all the ban does is ban "scary looking guns", why not just paste a sign that says "scary looking gun" on your plinker and make mean faces while you "punch holes in paper targets?"

[Romulus]

127. "so silly"

If the ban is against function, then why are those firearms with the same function not being banned?

The fact that there is no answer to that question strikes me as silly . . . unless one were to remember what the fight against "partial birth abortion" is about . . .:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

131. So, rom, are you now telling us

that your earlier claim wasn't true? If so, why did you make it?

"unless one were to remember what the fight against "partial birth abortion" is about"
Yeah, it's about the exact same group of corrupt right wing extremists (Frist, Lott, Craig, Santorum, etc.) that were trying to ban "partial birth abortion," also pushing all the "gun rights" bills, favoring the interests of a small bunch of fanatics and loonies over the interests and rights of all Americans.

[smb]

183. Let's Be Realistic

the exact same group of corrupt right wing extremists (Frist, Lott, Craig, Santorum, etc.)

You dance to their tune like a puppet, doing your part to convince gun owners that EEEEEVIL LIBRULS WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS .

[MrBenchley]

188. Guess that's "realism" to the trigger-happy...

The only way to fight extremists like Medicare Thief Bill Frist is to bend over and spread 'em for his idiotic and ugly agenda...because actually opposing him is doing what he wants.

By comparison with THAT stance, Quisling was a freedom fighter...

[MrBenchley]

104. Mostly it's just flabby neurotics playing Rambo...

The sad thing is that every once in a while one of these charmers doesn't realize it's just mindless gibberish and shoots the postman or blows up a daycare center. All in the name of "freedom," y'understand....not because they're psychos with personality problems.

[hollowdweller]

99. Should Budweiser be sued if a 7/11 clerk sells beer to a minor ?

Should Jim Beam be sued for someone who has a DUI and hurts someone?

[MrBenchley]

107. More right wing rhetorical questions...

Go over to Cato or any othe right wing think tank, and you can pick up a big pantload of such specious rhetoric.

[MrBenchley]

110. The GOP supports the Beltway Sniper, not our troops

pass it on...

[Chi]

121. I have on thing to say to you MrBenchley....

(Chi does a deep bow)
You da man. 8)

I don't know how you can keep responding to such ridiculous arguments, I'd think I'd shoot myself (non A.W. of coarse, heh).

Someone needs to do a psych study on what about weapons makes people so irrational.
I guess the bright side is, no one tried to say it was their constitutional right to own one.

[MrBenchley]

125. Lead poisoning? Solvent abuse?

It IS both funny AND disturbing to see people who are wailing and moaning that their lives were blighted because they were kept from getting their sweaty hands on an assault weapon SIMULTANEOUSLY claiming that the law only bans guns that are "scary looking," or that the law was "ineffective," or that assault weapons "are no different than other guns"...

If you listen to our "pro-gun democrats," the rest of us "anti-gunners" are only supposed to consider such delicate issues as these on some lofty abstract plane of ideal existence, and never ever ever ever notice
--what sort of disgraceful right wing thugs are trying to push this current bill, or what other scummy causes they espouse,
--or what sort of decent liberal public figures oppose it, and what other issues those people espouse.

By the way, wonder how the last election would have turned out if the GOP had piped up and announced to voters: "Assault weapons belong in every store" or "You have no right to sue the gun industry." Think they would have gotten lots more votes?

[mknmehappy]

150. Yes, Yes I do.

[MrBenchley]

171. Hahahahaha...

[MrBenchley]

132. By the way

You'll notice the peculiar claim advanced above that there are vast multitudes who are now voting for the Chimp and his GOP goon squad, but who would switch parties in a heartbeat if only they felt their "guns wouldn't be grabbed."

Anybody who puts their cheesy hobby over the good of the country and their neighbors is either mentally deranged or the sort of person who thinks corruption, hate, outsourcing and religious fantacism are just hunky-dory....

[IA_Seth]

143. See, you are confused.

It's not because they think corruption, hate, outsourcing and other republican crimes are better than our Democratic values, its because ignorant, self-important, and arrogant people tell them part of their heritage/culture is a cheesy hobby.

What experience do you have with guns? Or are you the only one asking questions around here? Seems to me you really don't know what you are talking about.

[MrBenchley]

146. Hahahahaha...

It IS a cheesy hobby, chuckles...and we sure as shit were being told that it WAS why they preferred "corruption, hate, outsourcing and other republican crimes."

"What experience do you have with guns?"
In my experience, the scummiest politicans around, as well as every racist or bigot that can be found high or low, all suck up to the gun lobby and piss and moan about gun control.



My other experience is that every argument I've ever heard opposing gun control is pretty much horseshit in some way or another, as we've seen in this thread.

[Romulus]

147. that's funny

because every argument I've ever heard for the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" is pretty much horseshit in some way or another, as we've seen in this thread . . .

[Chi]

148. I've heard the 'because it will save lives' argument....

What other arguments are there?

[IA_Seth]

152. Proof of that?

Is there any proof that making the guns that were previously banned by the AWB illegal had any affect on gun crimes?

Any proof that gun crimes have gone up since its expiration?

Nope.

[Chi]

157. I didn't say there was, I just asked Romulus what other....

pro AWB arguments there were.

If you have a problem with what he said...talk to him.

[Romulus]

154. perfect example of what I mean

I see that you are here learning about the issue.

The "saving lives" argument is the ultimate principle behind each of the arguments for the AWB:

"No one needs a weapon of war"
"They are more deadlier than hunting firearms"
"Enable the ability to spray fire from the hip"
"Too accurate for hunting use"
"Not accurate enough for hunting use"
"Too powerful for hunting use"
etc., etc.

As BenEzra has explained in this thread, "assault weapons" do the same thing in the same way as other magazine-fed semi-auto firearms: they fire once every time you pull the trigger.

Since the firearms that are NOT banned are just as dangerous in the wrong hands as the banned firearms, for the exact same reasons that are articulated to justify a ban, there is zero gain in public safety from a ban AND there is a logical disconnect.

It is the equivalent of banning Honda Civics because they are "road rockets only used for drag racing, and with no legitimate purpose," while letting all the other cars stay on the market. Or by defining leather steering wheel covers as "speed enhancements," and banning any car with such steering wheel cover by labeling any such cover-equipped care as a "road rocket."

[MrBenchley]

158. Still peddling this crap, rom?

Notable that we yet to hear a good reason why they should be on the market...other than that "saving lives" doesn't seem worthwhile to the trigger-happy?

"they fire once every time you pull the trigger."
Unless they're converted to auto-fire...which as we've seen is pretty easy to do.

"there is zero gain in public safety from a ban AND there is a logical disconnect. "
And thus we see why the gun industry ought to be able to be sued like evey othe rindustry...oh wait, that's not what the corrupt gun lobby is trying to pull.

"It is the equivalent of banning Honda Civics because they are "road rockets only used for drag racing, and with no legitimate purpose," while letting all the other cars stay on the market."
Gee, rom, sounds like you're arguing that ALL guns should be banned.

[IA_Seth]

161. Easy?

"Unless they're converted to auto-fire...which as we've seen is pretty easy to do."

Pretty easy to do? Have you done it before? I have owned semi-auto guns off an on my whole life, as have most other hunters I know (most of which are Democrats, btw) and we have never converted any to auto-fire.

I think you really should quit generalizing all gun owners as trigger happy psychos..it really is counter-productive.

[MrBenchley]

164. Yup, pretty damn easy....

"I think you really should quit generalizing all gun owners as trigger happy psychos..."
Gee, a majority of gun owners support the assault weapons ban...

[Chi]

162. OK, so saving lives seems to be the only argument

From what you said, it was sounding like there were many, that is why I asked.

Your argument seems to be they are not a problem, so why limit their distribution.
If I got that wrong, please correct.

But the topic of this thread is about the government protection of firearms manufacturers, so I will ask...

What reason can you give for the government protecting them from lawsuits, possibly legitimate lawsuits.
Why should your right to sue, be taken away.

Thanks for the civil response 8)

[MrBenchley]

165. One wonders what more is needed by way of argument?

Or who would argue that saving lives wasn't a worthy enough goal in and of itself...

The VPC has plenty of information on the issue (including plenty on converting them to auto fire, despite the silly claim above.

[Chi]

167. I am well aware of how easy it is to convert.

Gun shows and gun magazines make it a piece of cake with easy to buy kits.
Someone close to me has done so on many occasions.
He's got a cool sten, among many others, all that were purchased legally yet turned into something illegal.

I have nothing against guns, they are a pisser to shoot.
I do have a problem with 12,000 murders a year though.

[MrBenchley]

168. No other industrialized country

has anywhere near our amount of mayhem, or allows gun sellers such unfettered "freedom."

[Romulus]

190. Back on topic

I disagree with the fundamental premise of the immunity bill: that an industry gets special immnunity, when other industries with similar dangerous products don't get a free pass.

On the issue of defective design:
It is fairly settled products liability law that all products must be designed to reasonably guard against risk of misuse or accidents. This has played out in the various cigarette lighter and prescription bottle-top developments. In the firearms context, I can't figure out why grip safeties (patented since the late 1800's) and magazine disconnects (patented since c.1911) aren't used more often to prevent accidental discharges. Whether it is "unreasonable" not to have these on a handgun should be a question for a jury, if they are asked.

On the issue of negligent distribution:
Drug companies have all kinds of certification-type requirements that they impose on the local pharmacies before the companies' drugs can be sold. These include physicial security standards, sales training to spot fake prescriptions for drugs like oxycontin, record-keeping requirements, etc. If the drug companies can do this, maybe the firearms companies should, too. But whether they "should" do these things is, again, left to a "reasonable" question for a jury to decide, if asked.

These concepts have been around for a long time. I remember reading a case in my Torts class about a tugboat company that got sued in the 1920's. A tugboat pulling the plaintiff's barge didn't know about an approaching storm because the tugboat didn't have a radio, and so the storm caused the plaintiff's barge to be sunk in rough seas. The company was found at fault because it could have installed one of the new-fangled wireless radios, but didn't, and many other tugboat companies did install such radios for just such a reason as receiving weather warnings. It's basic tort law, and no surprise to any business.

[Chi]

198. Great...we agree.

I too agree (as with most others posting) that..

A) The fundamental premise of this bill, it is truly unjust.

B) The merit of any suit is up to the courts to decide.
Legislators should keep their paws out of the judicial branch of government, and the Constitution for that matter.

:thumbsup:

[MrBenchley]

155. In fact, crimes with assault weapons

were cut by the ban..they dropped more than 65% while it was in effect.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=aw_renew

[Romulus]

159. crimes with (firearms within the legal definition) dropped

Sure there was a drop in overall crime during that time period. Thanks to the great Clinton economy and the screening process of the Brady Bill.

Meanwhile, the banned firearms with pistol grips and bayonet lugs were replaced among criminals by non-banned firearms having pistol grips but without bayonet lugs . . . . and firearms crime still dropped.

[MrBenchley]

163. And crimes with assault weapons dropped faster

because assault weapons were in part banned...and they might have dropped even further if scummy gun manufacturers hadn't evaded the ban.

"Meanwhile, the banned firearms with pistol grips and bayonet lugs were replaced among criminals by non-banned firearms having pistol grips but without bayonet lugs . . . ."
Gee, I wonder what industry sold those criminals those modified assault weapons despite the ban? Ironically, it's the same one claiming now that they need to be protected from lawsuits. Go figure!

[benEzra]

189. Actually, they weren't "replaced" in criminal hands...

since the primary guns used by criminals in the first place are the .38/.357 revolver, and the most common long guns (12-gauge pump-action shotgun and .22 caliber rimfire rifle) weren't covered by the ban at all.

Another point that should be mentioned is that the number of "assault weapons" (using the broader definition that MrBenchley favors, i.e. any nontraditional looking rifle whether or not it fit the AWB definition in the law) drastically increased as a direct result of the ban. The number of AR-15 type rifles in private hands, which is probably a good proxy for modern-looking small-caliber self-loaders in general, probably tripled between 1993 and 2004; I think more AR's were sold in 1993 through the late '90's than in the previous three-plus decades that AR's had been on the civilian market. This would have applied even more to civilian AK ownership (I bought mine, a 2002 model, in 2003). Yet the crime rate continued to decrease, demonstrating that the prevalence of nontraditional long guns in private hands had, and has, nothing to do with the crime rate...

[MrBenchley]

209. Wow...try to follow the silly twists and turns....

"the number of "assault weapons" (using the broader definition that MrBenchley favors, i.e. any nontraditional looking rifle whether or not it fit the AWB definition in the law) drastically increased as a direct result of the ban"
And that's why the gun industry put up such a tooralloo and kept mounting expensive efforts to get it repealed or declared unconstitutional...they were selling TOO many banned guns! (snicker)

"Yet the crime rate continued to decrease"
Wow...it's almost like that claim that there were more assault weapons after the ban was, I don't know, mindlessly silly and untrue or something.

[benEzra]

230. Two conflations here...

(benEzra)
"the number of "assault weapons" (using the broader definition that MrBenchley favors, i.e. any nontraditional looking rifle whether or not it fit the AWB definition in the law) drastically increased as a direct result of the ban"

(MrBenchley)
And that's why the gun industry put up such a tooralloo and kept mounting expensive efforts to get it repealed or declared unconstitutional...they were selling TOO many banned guns! (snicker)

No. They were selling more guns than ever...but none of them were banned. The 1994 AWB did NOT restrict AR-15 type rifles, civilian AK-47 lookalikes, or what have you, and more of these were sold 1994-2004 than in the previous several decades combined. The irony is that if you consider AR-15 type rifles and civilian AK-47 lookalikes as a determining factor in crime rates, the crime rate dropped to historic lows even as the number of such firearms in civilian hands drastically increased as a direct result of the ban. The VPC/Brady Campaign, and you, consider all such firearms to be "assault weapons" based on their looks rather than the features test, but the 1994 law was features based and any gun with less than two listed features was not an "assault weapon" by any stretch. That's the way the law was written, and a law banning ALL AR's and AK lookalikes would never have passed in the first place.

The other lasting effect on the gun market, of course, was the introduction of new subcompact handguns sized to fit the much shorter 10-round magazines, creating a whole new market niche, which is another irony--the AWB bait-and-switch intended to build momentum for a broader handgun ban backfired and produced a renaissance in handgun design and sales, as well as the wave of CCW permit reform that swept the country after 1994.

BTW, the manufacturer's didn't get the bill repealed; WE did (i.e., formerly complacent gun owners who got off our butts and got politically active).

[MrBenchley]

240. One big dumptruck full of silliness....

"They were selling more guns than ever...but none of them were banned"
Then there was no fucking reason not to renew it, was there? But then the industry's own actions show what a load that claim of yours is.

"the wave of CCW permit reform"
That IS rich....want to tell us about the Missouri "reform"? Want to tell us about Mary Rosh?

For those who haven't gotten a dose of this gun lobby whopper, the gun industry hired a racist crackpot named John Lott to produce an incomprehensible mass of pseudoscience to "prove" More Guns = Less Crime (also the name of his book). They then shipped him all over the country to convince legislatures that crime would drop if only they handed out pistol permits like candy.

Which many states did more or less on the sly--today in states like Texas, Missouri and Ohio, any humhole can get a permit to walk around with a handgun UNLESS the cops can find a reason to stop them...and the cops have only a limited amount of time to find that reason.

In Missouri, Democrats forced the matter onto a referendum. And despite millions of dollars of paranoid propaganda about what "victims" people of the Show Me State would be unless they walked around with popguns in their pants, Missouri voters turned it down.

What our chum here is ludicrously trying to pass off as "reform" is the GOP's legislature putting the bill through ANYWAY...and it's worth noting that two of the GOP legislators doing so own gun stores.

Meanwhile, John Lott's work was looked at by real scientists who swiftly found error upon error (in one table he reported negative murder numbers--no doubt people resurrected from the grave by gun sales) and outright falsehoods. For his part, Lott was unable to produce the survey data he claimed to have, nor even the graduate students he claimed had helped him with it. As somebody at Johns Hopkins U said, "He didn't prove there were more guns, he didn't prove there was less crime, and he didn't prove that one thing had anything to do with the other."

A strange thing started happening, though. Academics who were actually doing research into gun control or who were looking into Lott's work began to be attacked over the internet by someone calling herself "Mary Rosh." The attacks were sometimes personal. Glowing reviews of Lott's work began to appear all over forums, penned by Mary, who claimed to have been one of Lott's students and to have thought he was the most brilliant person she had ever encountered.

It turned out, though, that Mary Rosh was John Lott himself.

Today Lott is synonymous with academic fraud and is festering at the American Enterprise Institute, where his presence is widely seen as a sign of the think tank's decline. He occasionally emerges from AEI, often to defend racism; Faux Noise famously imported him to "prove" Rush Limbaugh's "black quarterback" diatribe wasn't racist (ESPN wasn't convinced and fired the flabby junkie anayway).

Jeb Bush shipped him to the Civil Rights Commission to testify about the voter fraud in Florida in 2000; Lott "proved" that there was no fraud by asserting that the problem had been that black voters weren't bright enough to vote correctly, and then claimed absurdly that it had been black Republicans who had been discriminated against.

[MrBenchley]

153. Really, rom?

You still haven't explained why you made the claim you later derided as false.

Want to try here?

[Romulus]

156. maybe you could try

I have consistently stated that the functional capabilities of the so-called "assault weapon" firearms are no different than the functional capabilities of the non-banned fireams . . . after all, isn't the function what is supposedly the target of the ban?

[MrBenchley]

160. Too too funny...

"I have consistently stated that the functional capabilities of the so-called "assault weapon" firearms are no different than the functional capabilities of the non-banned fireams . . ."
And again, rom, if that were even remotely close to true, you wouldn't be screaming that you need one.

[MrBenchley]

142. Daily Kos puts it firmly in perspective

"If a company makes a product that is inappropriately used to illegally copy a movie, that company is liable. If a company makes a product that is inappropriately used to illegally kill a human, that company is not liable. What's the common logic holding these disparate concepts together? Massive corporate special interest money. Welcome to your government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, where a pirated copy of "Hollywood Homicide"* is bigger threat than an actual Hollywood homicide."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/26/2160/13925

[IA_Seth]

144. False Analogy

If a company makes a product whose SOLE USE is to do something illegal, sure. Your definition of "Assault Weapons" includes all whole host of guns used for hunting and sport.

[MrBenchley]

145. Absolutely accurate analogy

and it points up the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Republicans pushing this scummy "get away with murder" bill.

By the way, I take it from this that your peevish "good riddens" in post 126 is the same sort of hooey as your other posts.

P.S.: Did you look up the Chicago lawsuit yet? Did you look up the New York City one?

[benEzra]

186. Actually, the Court ruled

that if the product were primarily used for lawful purposes, the company would NOT be liable. The report on NPR discussed that aspect of the music piracy case explicitly; the court cast the ruling narrowly and seemed to make it clear that a service with lawful applications, mostly used lawfully, would NOT be liable for product misuse, as I recall.

Since ~99.95% of firearms, including those with nontraditional styling, are used for lawful and legitimate purposes, the idea that gun companies should be liable for <1% misuse is precisely opposite from the conclusion that may be drawn from the USSC ruling, assuming the NPR report on the case in question was correct. Meaning that in this case, Daily Kos got it precisely backward, unless they are under the impression that the majority of firearms are owned and used illegitimately.

[MrBenchley]

191. Gee, so why not see what the court rules in the gun lawsuits...

By the way, I hope you aren't trying to pretend that the Republicans haven't atempted to make Grokster liable for illegal use through legislation. Because they sure as shit have done so.
Similarly, I hope you're not going to pretend that the gun industry hasn't marketed its products by focusing on shooting other people. Because they sure as shit have done so too.

"the idea that gun companies should be liable for <1% misuse"
Funny, courts have ruled the lawsuits ARE legitimate...AND if the gun industry didn't know that, they wouldn't be scrambling to have the GOP let them get away with murder.

"Daily Kos got it precisely backward"
Between you and Kos, I'll stick with Kos.

[DemsUnite]

149. $$$ Talks

[alarimer]

151. No industry should be exempt from lawsuits

Any lawsuit against an industry/company should fail or succeed based on the merits or lack thereof of the case. Period. The gun industry deserves no special protection; the only reason it gets it is because of lobbyists and the Senate's pandering to gun owners/ NRA Nazis.

[MrBenchley]

166. Amen to that!

[speedingbullet]

169. Legal Welfare

There is no need for this legislation. In general, I don't think gun makers should be responsible for crimes committed using their guns. If someone thinks they can prove differently, let them bring their lawsuit and the gun company's insurance company can defend it. If the court decides the action is frivolous, the court can impose sanctions on the party or attorney. By prohibiting lawsuits against gun companies, I'm sure they can have cheaper insurance. Can I have a law prohibiting people from suing me?

[MrBenchley]

172. Americablog frames the issue perfectly...

"Why does Bill Frist hate the troops?
by John in DC - 7/27/2005 09:48:00 PM
Putting aside their much needed money so we can, instead, pass legislation helping the gun lobby.
I guess the guns in the hands of big-money donors are more important to Bill Frist than the guns in the hands of our troops dying in Iraq."

http://www.americablog.org/

[LisaL]

175. Suing you? LOL.

What is so special about gun industry? Why should they have protection from lawsuits, while the other industries don't?
How about Drs. and medical profession? Should senate pass a law protecting them from lawsuits?

[benEzra]

192. A better analogy would be

if an highly anti-abortion locality (say, Salt Lake City) tried to make manufacturers of suction curettes and other medical equipment strictly liable for any death or injury resulting from an abortion, even if the doctor was grossly negligent, thereby attempting to shut down abortion providers nationwide by indirect means. Which is what the District of Columbia is attempting to do with the gun industry via its strict-liability suits.

If the alcohol prohibitionists tried the same thing with alcohol--i.e., making Budweiser strictly liable if someone stole a friend's beer out of his fridge, drank himself to a BAC of 0.12, and went out and killed someone in a DUI--there might be calls from people who drink responsibly to put a stop to such lawsuits.

I should reiterate that I am not convinced that such a bill is necessary yet (because the anti-gun cases are being thrown out of court almost as fast as they are being brought, except where the gun company can't afford to defend itself and settles), but I think the opposition to it is based more on misperceptions about the bill itself (and about gun owners and the gun industry in general) than about the bill itself...

[MrBenchley]

200. Only to those who can't distinguish between their guns and their sex lives

"If the alcohol prohibitionists tried the same thing with alcohol--i.e., making Budweiser strictly liable if someone stole a friend's beer out of his fridge, drank himself to a BAC of 0.12, and went out and killed someone in a DUI--there might be calls from people who drink responsibly to put a stop to such lawsuits."
Hee hee hee.

"We at Anheuser-Busch oppose underage drinking, and we market our beers and related merchandise only to those who are of legal drinking age.
Our programs to help prevent underage drinking address the issue in many ways, such as helping parents talk with their children about drinking, assisting schools in building self-esteem in children and showing the problems of alcohol abuse, and assisting those who sell our products in spotting fake I.D.s and serving responsibly.
Our beer advertising is developed and placed according to strict industry guidelines and federal regulations to ensure that we reach out to an audience that is predominantly adult."

http://beeresponsible.com/programs/underage.html

Worth noting that Bud pulled its famous lizard and frog commercials for precisely those concerns.

No such effort exists for the gun industry...if Budweiser were to operate like the gun industry, they would angrily deny that teen drinking was a problem, market the beer in high schools, and fight to repeal all laws against teen drinking.

Worth noting that the liquor industry and the automobile industry BOTH actively work with MADD.

Also worth noting that those notorious right wing loonies, the Coors family, HAVE been sued for marketing to underage drinkers...and that they have responded more or less like the gun industry.

"Many of these practices, the suit claims, violate voluntary restrictions imposed by the Distilled Spirits Council, a trade group."

http://westlake.k12.oh.us/WestlakeParentConnection/WSJAlcoholAds0104.htm

[moodforaday]

202. Is this the bill with humane treatment provisions?

Is this the defense bill with provisions for humane treatment of POWs and detainees which Bush said he would veto if the provisions were not removed?

Because if it's the same bill, then it's not about guns at all, folks. It's about procrastination. In the fall, those provisions will either be long forgotten or moot. It's being done to postpone the confrontation between moderate Repubs and WH.

[MrBenchley]

205. Yup...that's the one they've stopped debating

In order to give the gun lobby a "Get Away with Murder" treat. They don't want to be out on the campaign trail next year trying to explain why pResident Weakenstupid vetoed a defense bill...or why they didn't vote to override.

"it's not about guns at all, folks. It's about procrastination."
Like Certs, it's both a candy mint and a breath mint. It's about avoiding a vote so that they can weaken or get McCain to withdraw the provision AND ensuring that gun lobby's blood money keeps flowing when election time comes around.

(And let's not forget that the NRA and its sister klaverns pump out huge volumes of Republican propaganda every day. The NRA even started its own "news network" to evade campaign finance laws last year.)

[1971commander]

211. Newb saying hi!

Good read. Interesting points.

[MrBenchley]

218. Welcome to DU!

Enjoy.

[Justitia]

220. They have no time for the STEM CELL RESEARCH BILL, but plenty

'o time for the "NRA's Top Priority"!

Glad to see where our "elected representatives" priorities lie.

:puke:

[MrBenchley]

226. You're so right...

Shameful in every way.

[theHandpuppet]

232. I usually avoid gun threads like the plague, BUT...

I will say that I do believe gun manufacturers must shoulder some liability, if limited, for the carnage from which they profit.

Why so I say this? Well, I'll give you an anecdotal example.

I used to work in a shipyard that did maintenance for commerical ships, including some tankers from Exxon Corp. At the time I was on friendly terms with their head engineer, who oversaw all repair jobs on the East Coast. During a conversation I once asked him about the Exxon Valdez catastrophe.

Turns out that he knew the captain of that vessel very well and in addition to the environmental catastrophe, there was a singular human tragedy as well. This captain of the Valdez was, from what I was told, a recovering alcoholic. Exxon had supported the man through his rehabilitation and everything seemed to be going well for him. But for whatever reason, unbeknownst to anyone, at some point he hit the bottle again and from what I understand he was drinking during that fateful voyage.

The head engineer related this mournfully, for he said the captain was a truly decent man and that not only would he be haunted by the tragedy but his life was basically ruined.

So we come to the point: who is/was responsible for what happened with the Valdez? The ship's captain, the crew, or Exxon, which eventually paid for the cleanup? Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around, but can we really say that Exxon should have been absolved from any responsibility for what happened? They took a risk with that ship's captain just as surely as do gun manufacturers who are well aware that many of their weapons will end up in the hands of criminals or as evidence in another murder. Heedless, they relentlessly push advertisements for bigger and more powerful weapons which are obviously not intended to hunt game -- unless its the two-footed kind.

Just as greedy corporations fight any rational regulations (think EPA) to provide safeguards for the public and the environment, so do gun lobbyists spend millions of dollars fighting what should surely seem sensible safeguards on their own industry: background checks, for instance, or banning automatic weapons. At what point do they share in any modicum of responsibility for the carnage on our streets, and from which they continue to profit like the Pontius Pilates of the boardroom, washing their hands of any responsibility with claims that they are merely meeting the clamoring demands of the public?

Any sane society fashions a series of checks and balances which, hopefully, are entered into as mutually agreed upon "contracts" for the public good. This is certainly true when we're speaking of items which can kill or maim, be it cars, chemicals or guns. If, for instance, tomorrow we lift all regulations on the purchasing of explosives and "Joe's Bomb Shop" sells some detonators to any someone off the street who in turn ends up destroying the Lincoln Tunnel, who's to blame? Certainly the bomber, but what about "Joe's Bomb Shop" or the explosives manufacturer who just spent millions of dollars lobbying to have our Senators and Representatives absolve them of any responsibility for how their "merchandise" is used?

Look, I've both owned and used guns, having lived in the country where a gun was needed. I do not own one now but have considered purchasing another. Having said that, I really do not understand why so many gun owners become so downright hysterical when even the least, rational rules, safeguards and limits are proposed for gun ownership. This is why I usually avoid gun threads and why I've pretty much said all I have to say on the matter. This country's idolatrous love affair with weapons is something I simply do not share.

[MrBenchley]

234. Great post! n/t

[moondust]

248. Thanks.

People have sued plenty of toy companies when their kids were injured by somebody's products but has the toy industry been shielded by a special act of Congress?

I don't understand the love affair with guns either. I outgrew my "guns and flags" hypnotic state at around age 13.

[MrBenchley]

250. Excellent point...

Child car seat manufacturers can and should be sued if they build them so that children can pull some part off, pop it in their mouth and choke on it...even though the seat works as designed....

[slackmaster]

253. Toy companies get sued for defective products all the time

Nobody has ever tried to sue a toy company because someone intentionally, criminally misused a toy to injure or kill someone. That's the proper analogy.

Same applies to car makers. They get sued for defective products all the time.

S.397 will not protect gun manufacturers who make defective guns. People will still be able to sue them for that.

I don't understand the love affair with guns either. I outgrew my "guns and flags" hypnotic state at around age 13.

No such hypnotic state is needed to appreciate the mechanical beauty or elegance of a cleverly designed or well-made firearm.

[MrBenchley]

254. They also get sued for non-defective products that present a public menace

"Nobody has ever tried to sue a toy company because someone intentionally, criminally misused a toy to injure or kill someone."
Because its next to fucking impossible to kill somebody with a toy, slack. How often do you hear of a drive by teddy bearing?

"S.397 will not protect gun manufacturers who make defective guns."
But gun manufactuers who advertise how much fun it is to kill folks and sell to irresponsible dealers? Now they get a free pass.

"No such hypnotic state is needed to appreciate the mechanical beauty or elegance"
So because fanatics like you have a cheesy hobby, the Republicans and their most extreme splinter group get a victory. Hope it makes you feel all tingly to know you're helping folks like Sun Myung Moon kill innocent people, slack.

[slackmaster]

256. Do you think Senator Byrd is a racist today, MrBenchley?

"The people who think this is a good idea... ...hate gays, Jews, blacks and uppity women even more than they love them guns.

They're not voting Democratic unless Lester Maddox and the Dixiecrats make a comeback...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=111111&mesg_id=111113

That puts you in the same league as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Lew Rockwell, and all the other right-wing assholes who impotently attempt to deride the good Senator for his brief youthful dalliance in the KKK. And I recall you beating up on more than one short-lived right-wing troll on this board for trying to make an issue of Senator Byrd's past association.

I don't think there's a racist bone in Senator Byrd's body, MrBenchley. It's funny in an ironic way that far left-wing authoritarians so often end up in the same place as far right-wing authoritarians: Same smear tactics, different rationalizations, same results; and it's surely a shame that you pick and choose your friends based on this one issue. It's a good thing you aren't calling the shots at the DNC. If you did, we'd be in even worse shape than we are now.

[MrBenchley]

257. No, slack, I think he's been unduly pressured

by the sort of dishonest humhole who puts his crappy little hobby above the nation's good.

"I don't think there's a racist bone in Senator Byrd's body, MrBenchley"
Big fucking deal...I've seen your fellow gungeonites try to pretend there isn't a racist bone in Ted Nugent's body. I've seen you and your fellow gungeonites preten that gun owners' forumns weren't racist even when presented with evidence of the same. Given the things you turn a blind eye to, i'm surprised you can even notice Byrd is a Senator.

"it's surely a shame that you pick and choose your friends based on this one issue."
Tough titty, slack. I'll stay where I am.

[slackmaster]

258. Pitiful attempt to spin your way out of your own inconsistency

"No, slack, I think he's been unduly pressured"

Did someone hold a gun to Senator Byrd's head and force him to vote for S.397? Does Senator Byrd doesn't lack the backbone to stand up to the Evil Gun Lobby, or is he just lacking in strong moral principles? I'm not aware of any major gun manufacturers located in West Virginia, so what kind of "pressure" are you talking about here? Could it be that Senator Byrd's vote reflects the wishes of his constituency? Is it wrong for a senator to express the will of the people he represents? The bottom line is he doesn't agree with YOU on your little pet peeve, so from your tunnel vision perspective there must be SOMETHING wrong with the man.

You can't have it both ways MrBenchley. Either Senator Byrd is a racist or he is not a racist. Now you're on record here saying both that he is and that he isn't in a span of less than 24 hours. Senator Byrd has been called a lot of things over the many years he's been in the senate, but spineless and unprincipled aren't among them. He's done a lot more for civil rights and this country in general than atone and apologize for his youthful pecadillos.

How does it feel being a wholesale smearer of 14 Democratic senators, MrBenchley?

[hollowdweller]

252. Both My Democratic Senators Byrd and Rockefeller voted for it

Also Harry Reid. They know the Dems have got to take gun control off the table to win and pass stuff that people WANT. Like national healthcare.