New York Loses a Top Legal Ally in Suit Over Guns

[flaminlib]

"New York City is preparing for the first trial of a civil suit by an American city claiming that the gun industry fosters an illegal market in the firearms criminals use to deliver death to the city's doorsteps.

Gun industry representatives say the case is crucial, and the companies have some of the country's top law firms defending them. Until a few weeks ago, the city had a powerful legal weapon, too: another of the country's top law firms, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, had agreed more than two years ago to work on the case for free.

But now the law firm is withdrawing from the case, acknowledging that at least one of its corporate clients had complained about its role. In a statement, the firm said that "certain potential `positional conflicts' " had been "brought to our attention." Some industry critics say the disruption in the city's legal team may have been intended to weaken the city's chances in what is certain to be a bitterly fought trial"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/nyregion/17GUN.html


What is this suit about? Anyone know? How can a city sue the gun industry over the criminal activity of a few, and get away with it? Isnt this like suing the auto industry over drunk driving deaths?

[MrBenchley]

1. "How can a city sue the gun industry"

That's easy...the scummy Republicans voted against their own "immunity from liability" bill about a month ago on gun lobby orders...

"Isnt this like suing the auto industry over drunk driving deaths?"
In a word, no.

[MrBenchley]

2. Interesting turn of events...

"The firm's lawyers appeared formally for the first time in court on Jan. 30. In February, the lawyers said, Alan E. Mansfield, a New York lawyer for Smith & Wesson, called at least one company he represents that is also a client of Weil, Gotshal. Smith & Wesson is one of the 40 gun makers and distributors sued by the city.
After the call by the Smith & Wesson lawyer, people at the corporate client of Weil, Gotshal raised questions with Weil, Gotshal lawyers about whether the gun case might lead to precedents that could later be used against them, lawyers involved in the case say. "

Yeah, that looks like something an innocent plaintiff would do...

"The battle over the role of Weil, Gotshal is the latest display of the hardball struggles over more than 35 similar suits that were filed by cities from coast to coast against the firearms industry beginning in 1998.
That struggle has included an effort by the gun industry and its supporters that failed in Congress last month to get immunity for the industry from such suits, and stark claims by the gunmakers in the city's case that the Brooklyn federal judge handling it, Jack B. Weinstein, is biased against the firearms industry.
Several experts said they had reached that conclusion in part because a firm of Weil, Gotshal's sophistication would have taken on the city's case only after determining that it would not pose any conflict with its many other clients. The firm has represented scores of companies, including Texaco, Lorillard Tobacco Company, Enron, Johns-Manville and General Motors. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/nyregion/17GUN.html?pagewanted=2

[flaminlib]

3. Sounds to me like the plantiff has some issues, youre right

The weasel attorneys looking for some time it the spotlight, got caught in the headlights. Woops!

I can't support going after the gun industry for what happens after their products leave the factory. Show me something that proves the gun industry is complicit in the "illegal" activity that this suit feigns to address, and I will change my mind.

This is reminiscent of the obesity lawsuits brought against the fast food industry. Some things are just wrong, and those are 2 perfect examples.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[slackmaster]

5. You're making way too much sense

Show me something that proves the gun industry is complicit in the "illegal" activity that this suit feigns to address, and I will change my mind.

Yes, if someone can come up with some kind of "smoking gun" internal memo similar to those that proved the tobacco industry was more aware of the health hazards of smoking that they said in public, that would be a reasonable basis for the suit.

So far nobody has come up with any proof that the gun industry wants to sell guns to criminals. It wouldn't really make any sense for them to do that.

[flaminlib]

6. Its not unlike the auto industry

They stuff all required safety bells and whistles possible into each model. But the end user is responsible for the actual "use" of the product. Legal or not, anyone can get behind the wheel. All the regulations in the world wont stop that. What is needed are more effective and aggressive enforcement procedures in the laws we have.

[MrBenchley]

7. Except that the auto industry

wasn't trying to engineer immunity from liability for itself...

"Legal or not, anyone can get behind the wheel. All the regulations in the world wont stop that."
Yeah, just try and buy a Ford from a Ford dealer without a driver's license and proof of auto insurance.

"What is needed are more effective and aggressive enforcement procedures in the laws we have."
And who's that opposing morre aggressive enforcement of gun regulations? Why, it's the corrupt gun lobby.

[slackmaster]

9. Tell us how many times groups like MADD have sued car makers

For the actions of drunk drivers.

Then that argument might hold water.

[FeebMaster]

10. Your comic is inaccurate.

For all the talk about how powerful the NRA is and how the Republicans are at their beck and call, they certainly haven't gotten rid of any of the federal laws we have.

[MrBenchley]

13. Gee, feeb...and why do you suppose THAT is?

It's because nobody but the lunatic fringe thinks repealing gun control laws is a good idea...the overwhelming majority of Americans want gun control.

[FeebMaster]

26. So you keep telling us.

But still, you'd think with the lunatic fringe now in charge and with their lunatic fringe gun lobby controlling things that they'd repeal something.

[MrBenchley]

32. Yup

"you'd think with the lunatic fringe now in charge and with their lunatic fringe gun lobby controlling things that they'd repeal something."
Write and ask them why, feeb. It sure isn't because they suddenly grew a sense of responsibiltiy, or stopped being wretched pieces of shit.

[FeebMaster]

49. I don't need to write them and ask them why. (nt)

[MrBenchley]

52. Gee, feeb, I know they're the scum of the earth

so next time you want to know why they do something, ask somebody else.

[Columbia]

53. How do you know?

From looking at a picture right?

[MrBenchley]

57. Gee, ask me next

who that is pimping for the Chimp in Pittsburgh...

[FeebMaster]

80. I haven't asked you anything in this sub-thread. (nt)

[flaminlib]

11. Are you saying?

That the auto industry has NEVER tried to prevent legislation that would restrict it or add to the cost of production? Check out the seat belt fiasco back in the 60's or the number of air bag lawsuits filed.

"Yeah, just try and buy a Ford from a Ford dealer without a driver's license and proof of auto insurance."

That is not the work of the auto industry, that is the government. The regulations in place were not the idea of the auto industry, they were the work of the government. And those laws apply to Dealers, not private citizens. Yes, you can buy a car without a drivers license, insurance, etc. Nor does it stop car theives and other "criminal" activity.

"And who's that opposing morre aggressive enforcement of gun regulations? Why, it's the corrupt gun lobby."

Same analogy with the auto industry. No industry wants to open itself up to lawsuits based on the criminal or negligent behavior of the users.

[MrBenchley]

14. Gee, flamin...

You're the one who dragged the auto industry in. I said what I said about it, and it's plain as day.

It's REALLY fucking funny to hear the bullets for brains bunch piss and moan in support of one of the scummiest industries on earth.

The gun lobby has tried several times to get these suits thrown out of court, and the suits turn out to have standing. The gun lobby tried to pass a law outlawing that suit, and it fell apart when it came into the light. Now the gun lobby is twisting arms behind the scenes to try and cripple the lawsuit.

They sure do seem to be desperate to keep citizens from exercising our rights, don't they?

[flaminlib]

15. So why not go after the auto industry too?

If the gun and auto industries are equally "scummy", why not go after car makers?

Not sure the bill fell apart when it came to light. I think it fell apart when they tacked on other crap in the final vote. And you are right, it was the NRA who backed off and wanted it killed.

"They sure do seem to be desperate to keep citizens from exercising our rights, don't they?"

Which rights are you referring to?

[MrBenchley]

16. Been there, done that...

Go to a Ford dealer and try to buy a Ford without a driver's license and proof of insurance.

[flaminlib]

17. Youve already made that point.

As I said, you can buy a car without a license or insurance. Im not sure what else Im supposed to extract from your argument.


Here is another point though...how much has regulation in the auto industry cut down on cars being used in crime?

[MrBenchley]

19. Says it all....

"you can buy a car without a license or insurance."
Uh-huh...lotsa luck doing so.

So how many cars are sold without the dealer requiring a license and proof of insurance?

"Here is another point though..."
A-a-and what a point! Be sure and let the gun lobby know you thought of that.

[flaminlib]

21. refer to slackmaster's post #12

[MrBenchley]

22. You mean the guy who says this?

"slackmaster
38. It's the Big Lie strategy"
"slackmaster
58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"
"slackmaster
65. If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd"
We aren't saying they are lying."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20875&mesg_id=20875

Slackmaster (#32): "The presence of a few idiots in Nazi uniforms need not spoil a family outing."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22105

"slackmaster (1000+ posts) Wed Nov-05-03 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. Who is this "RKBA crowd" you keep referring to?
However I will concede that now that I've read it I don't see anything at all wrong with the GOP's platform."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20403&mesg_id=20484&page=

You're welcome to whatever Slack has to say on this subject.

[flaminlib]

25. I wont acknowledge that

But if you have any doubts about whether you can buy a car without a license, pickup your local newspaper and ask a private citizen if he or she will require a license or insurance. If you are focused only on Dealers, you are missing the majority of distribution outlets for both guns and cars.

[slackmaster]

27. Anyone with cash can buy any car

The ID card I carry in my wallet says "California Driver License" not "California Car Owner License".

Remember that Joe Walsh song Life's Been Good?

My Maserati does 185,
I lost my license, now I don't drive

Not And we had fun fun fun til' Daddy took the Maserati away (Sorry about that, surviving members of the Beach Boys)

BTW please go ahead and read my old posts that MrBenchley's linked to, in their proper context. I think you'll find some of the discussions amusing.

Of course you don't have to have a driver's license to buy or own a car. If someone with a big wad of cash goes into a New Jersey car dealer and wants to buy a new car I doubt very much that the dealer is going to care whether or not the guy with the money is licensed to drive on public roads. Car dealers are not the police.

I've found that once people start writing creatively on this forum there's not much point in continuing a conversation with them.

[flaminlib]

28. I just looked at some of your posts

I didnt find anything that would disqualify your remarks. I just wanted to avoid the personal attacks and I wont respond to them, whether they are "suggested" or outright.


I think what MrBencley is referring to is trying to get a loan, not actually "buying" a car. Thats why I pointed out going through a private owner and avoiding that process altogether. Im quite sure there are significant numbers of cars, and guns, sold privately. The point is moot.

[iverglas]

135. the funny thing is

I think what MrBencley is referring to is trying to get a loan, not actually "buying" a car. Thats why I pointed out going through a private owner and avoiding that process altogether.

Ya just can't do that for a CAR, can you? I mean, not in the civilized jurisdictions I'm familiar with. You just cannot LEGALLY have the ownership of a car transferred into your name without REGISTERING your ownership of the car, and showing proof of LIABILITY INSURANCE on the car.

I mean ...

Im quite sure there are significant numbers of cars, and guns, sold privately.

... unless you're saying that you live in some underdeveloped backwater where people may legally transfer the ownership of vehicles without registration of the transfer ... or register transfers without showing proof of insurance ... . I've heard that there are such places, but I don't plan to drive in any of them.

Of course you don't have to have a driver's license to buy or own a car. If someone with a big wad of cash goes into a New Jersey car dealer and wants to buy a new car I doubt very much that the dealer is going to care whether or not the guy with the money is licensed to drive on public roads.

And of course, here's where there are some relevant DIFFERENCES between cars and firearms. As we've discussed ad infinitum and ad nauseam so many times before.

When cars are driven on the public highways, they are big and visible and obvious. And if they don't have valid registration plates on them, showing that the ownership of the car was legally transferred to, and registered in the name of, its owner, that's just a really easy thing to notice.

When firearms are carried out in to the agora, they might be completely invisible to the naked eye. Hands up, everybody who has ever tucked a car into his/her belt, or zipped it up in a sports bag.

And people do indeed need licences to OPERATE cars. And owning a car without a licence to operate it -- which is perfectly legal, as long as the ownership is registered and the car is insured (if it is driven on the public highway) -- has no effect on the public as long as the unlicensed individual does not drive it. There are in fact all sorts of valid reasons why an individual would own, but not drive, a car. Nonetheless, such an individual WOULD BE liable for any harm done by anyone driving the car with the owner's permission, even where the driver was properly authorized to drive.

Seeing some differences? What valid reason would there be for anyone to own a firearm that s/he was not authorized to use? Is any firearm owner liable for any harm done by someone else using a firearm with the owner's permission where the person using the firearm was not barred by law from using it?

Car dealers are not the police.

Yeah. You just try to drive a car off a dealership lot without having had the registration of ownership legally transferred into and registered in your name, regardless of how much you've paid for it. Or find a private vendor stupid enough to hand over a car for money without insisting that the hand-over be registered.


But hey -- fine. Treat guns like cars. Require all transfers of ownership of firearms to be legally registered, require proof of liability insurance before ownership can be legally transferred, make the owner liable for harm done by legal users of the firearm, and require anyone using the firearm to be licensed for that purpose.

So unlicensed users would be entitled to purchase firearms. No problem. Their ownership of the firearm will be registered, they will be breaking the law if they use the firearm without a licence to do so, and they'll be liable for any damage caused by people they allow to use their firearm, whether or not the user is authorized to use it.

Fine by me.

.

[MrBenchley]

29. Then don't acknowledge it...

The car analogy was silly when you dragged it in to start with.

[RoeBear]

50. And you made it hilarious...

...when you said you have to have a driver's license and insurance to buy a car.

[MrBenchley]

51. Gee, roe, are you trying to tell us

you don't have a driver's license and insurance?

Are you trying to tell us there are Ford dealers who don't check?

[slackmaster]

54. How about you provide some proof

That ANY state requires a driver's license or insurance to BUY a car.

[RoeBear]

55. WOW!

That was the largest jump to a conclusion that I ever saw!
Why would you even ask if I have a DL or insurance? What did that have to do with your ridculous, uninformed claim that a person has to present a DL and insurance to buy a car?

I have purchased cars from a GM dealer (I wouldn't own a Ford)without showing them my DL or insurance. I hope it registers in your pweshus brain that showing and having a DL and insurance are two different things. How did this insanity happen? A cash purchase of course. Also can be done with financing set up through another lending facility. All the car dealer wants is to get paid.

[MrBenchley]

58. That's SO pweshus, roe...

[RoeBear]

59. Is that as close to an admission...

...of being wrong that we'll get?

[MrBenchley]

61. Gee, roe, if you want to pretend you're not insured and unlicensed

be my guest. It points out how absurd the RKBA crowd is willing to be.

[slackmaster]

65. Nice Straw Man

But quite unconvincing as a logical followup.

[Wubbman]

84. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You know Mr. B is pissed when he resorts to personal attacks. Whoever said Roe was uninsured and unlicensed? ;)

[MrSandman]

66. The Car show loophole

[MrBenchley]

18. By the way....

Ever hear of the book "Unsafe At Any Speed?"

[flaminlib]

20. Yep

Nader pointed out that the corvair "design" was unsafe. Note that he didnt argue cars should be illegal, or call car owners "nuts". He pointed out a design flaw. In response, the auto industry as a whole made safer products.

Fortunately, that has not been a problem among reputable gun manufacturers nor is "safety" the focus of the lawsuit in question.

[MrBenchley]

23. And you'll also notice

that you're arguing FOR the Corvair...

"Note that he didnt argue cars should be illegal, or call car owners "nuts"."
He didn't pretend there were scads of unlicensed uninsured drivers either.

"In response, the auto industry as a whole made safer products."
So now show us how the gun industry has strengthened distribution practices.

[flaminlib]

24. No, Im not

In fact Im arguing for Nader on this point. He pointed out a safety flaw and got it fixed. I applaud that, in any industry. It just doesnt happen to apply to the gun industry.

"He didn't pretend there were scads of unlicensed uninsured drivers either."

Are you pretending that they arent? Does having a license or insurance PREVENT criminal activity in cars or negligence or misuse? Has licensing or insurance reduced any criminal activity in cars?


"So now show us how the gun industry has strengthened distribution practices."

Naders book, and your argument, was not about distribution, it was about safety.

[MrBenchley]

30. Guess this must be that RKBA "logic" or whatever it is...

If I was defending the corrupt distribution practices of America's scummiest industry (and I sure as shit can't think of any bizarre reason to do so) I don't think I'd bring up a different industry that did not have corrupt distribution practices but had other corrupt practices and turned out to be doing all it could to quash lawsuits.

But then I'm still bemused by people pretending this hasn't already been thrashed out in court, with the gun scumbags on the losing end.

[flaminlib]

34. No, its just logic

You are assuming that the gun industry is complicit in "corrupt distribution practices" and you are also incorrectly assuming that it has been proven in court, or as you say "thrased out". Neither is true.

And what about the auto industry is corrupt? Because they are trying to minimize liability due to negligence or stupidity? I wouldnt call that corrupt, I would call that common sense or self preservation.

[MrBenchley]

36. Not even close to logic....

"You are assuming that the gun industry is complicit in "corrupt distribution practices" and you are also incorrectly assuming that it has been proven in court, or as you say "thrased out""
Are you really trying to tell us that the gun lobby hasn't tried repeatedly to get these lawsuits thrown out of court?

"what about the auto industry is corrupt?"
Guess you didn't read that Nader book as closely as you claimed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/unsafe/cron.html

http://www.multied.com/Bio/people/nader.html

[flaminlib]

41. Irrelevant and nowhere near consistent

"Are you really trying to tell us that the gun lobby hasn't tried repeatedly to get these lawsuits thrown out of court?"

That question is just meaningless. Whether or not they have tried to get the suits thrown out of court doesnt prove or disprove anything. Your point is irrelevant.

"Guess you didn't read that Nader book as closely as you claimed."

Never claimed to have read it. My question was, what IS corrupt about the auto industry. Im not interested in what they did 40 years ago and I dont see how it helps your argument to try dragging that out of the attic.

[MrBenchley]

44. Too fucking funny...

The validity of the lawsuit was challenged in court by the gun lobby. The court ruled that the lawsuit had grounds to poroceed. And you really want to pretend that decision is irrelevant as to whether the law suit has grounds to proceed? That's not logic, that's pouting.

""Guess you didn't read that Nader book as closely as you claimed."
Never claimed to have read it."
Gee, that sure didn't stop you from telling us all about the damn book.

"flaminlib
20. Yep
Nader pointed out that the corvair "design" was unsafe. Note that he didnt argue cars should be illegal, or call car owners "nuts". He pointed out a design flaw. In response, the auto industry as a whole made safer products. "

In retrospect, that makes your pronouncements about the auto industry pretty damn meaningless, don't it?

[flaminlib]

46. Why do you keep trying?

Why keep up with this circular reasoning?

"The validity of the lawsuit was challenged in court by the gun lobby. The court ruled that the lawsuit had grounds to poroceed. And you really want to pretend that decision is irrelevant as to whether the law suit has grounds to proceed? That's not logic, that's pouting."

First you try to impune the gun industry because they made attempts at getting the court thrown out. Your implication is that they must be guilty. When that didnt work, you now cite that their efforts to get it thrown out failed, so they must be guilty. Is there anything you wont try to throw at this to confirm to yourself that, THEYRE GUILTY? Please allow it to go to court first, before you assign guilt. The judicial system thanks you for your cooperation.

"Gee, that sure didn't stop you from telling us all about the damn book."

You never asked if I read it, you asked if I heard of it. Does that make my statements wrong? In your mind, I must be GUILTY of something LOL.


"In retrospect, that makes your pronouncements about the auto industry pretty damn meaningless, don't it?"

No, it doesnt at all. But I dont expect you to follow any LOGICAL conventions at this point.

[MrBenchley]

48. Because I don't like horseshit to stand unchallenged

"First you try to impune the gun industry because they made attempts at getting the court thrown out. Your implication is that they must be guilty. When that didnt work, you now cite that their efforts to get it thrown out failed, so they must be guilty."
Jeeze, flamin, I'm quite happy to see what the court decides. I haven't said word one about "guilty" yet, although if it comes right down to it, yeah, I'm not going to pretend criminals and nutcases find their guns under cabbage leaves thanks to the gun faery.

"Please allow it to go to court first"
Jeeze, who is that putting up post after post moaning and pissing about how unfair this lawsuit is? Sure as shit isn't ME.

"You never asked if I read it, you asked if I heard of it."
And you responded, telling us all about it. Now it turns out you didn't read it....which says volumes about your basic credibility.

[flaminlib]

56. Umm, what challenge?

This isnt a challenge, not by a damn site.

"although if it comes right down to it, yeah, I'm not going to pretend criminals and nutcases find their guns under cabbage leaves"

No, but you havent already decided their guilt, right? LMAO


"Jeeze, who is that putting up post after post moaning and pissing about how unfair this lawsuit is? Sure as shit isn't ME."

No? Arent you the one doing the pissing and moaning because the gun industry actually gets their day in court? Its obvious that you would prefer to go from accusation to death sentence based on what you "pretend".

"...which says volumes about your basic credibility."

I dont need to read the bible to know what thats about either. But in the future, if you want a specific answer, you must be specific in your question. Assumptions only leads to confusion. I apologize if you are confused.

Please try again.

[MrBenchley]

60. and that's why you were pretending you read a book you hadn't

"Arent you the one doing the pissing and moaning because the gun industry actually gets their day in court? "
Not me. I'm happy to see the fuckwads hauled before a judge. You're the one pretending that this suit is without merit...which has already been decided in court.

"in the future, if you want a specific answer"
Gee, flamin, I alredy know what kind of answers I get from you.

[flaminlib]

63. No, you didnt read carefully enough, AGAIN

Please try to read posts carefully, actually, try to write posts more carefully.


"Ever heard of Unsafe at Any Speed?"

LOL, yep. Still heard of it.


"Gee, flamin, I alredy know what kind of answers I get from you."

I know you do, kinda like you already know who's guilty and who isnt. LMAO

[MrBenchley]

68. Why would anybody need to read your posts carefully?

I asked you if you had heard of Unsafe at Any Speed, and you proceeded to tell the board what the book was about and lecture me on its content.

Now you want to hide behind "I never read it."

I really don't give two shits...since I think that trying to argue that an industry is not corrupt by comparing it to one of the most famous cases of corporate corruption in history is silly to the point of near-dementia.

[flaminlib]

70. You think everything is near dimentia... hmm, that is telling

"I asked you if you had heard of Unsafe at Any Speed, and you proceeded to tell the board what the book was about and lecture me on its content."

The board doesnt need lecturing and you shouldnt need to invoke some majority board support for your less than sound argument (if they can be so named)

"Now you want to hide behind "I never read it.""

I dont need to hide behind anything, as you make it clear with each of your posts, I know what Im talking about. Or perhaps you can point out what I was wrong about in my assertions of Nader's book? Can you? Will you? Will you change the subject yet again?


"I really don't give two shits...since I think that trying to argue that an industry is not corrupt by comparing it to one of the most famous cases of corporate corruption in history is silly to the point of near-dementia."

You should give at least ONE shit that you are trying to argue that both industries are corrupt based on... what now? Oh yes, a 40 year old book and what you "pretend" or "feel" to be facts. Innocent of what, right?

Dimentia, oh yes.

[slackmaster]

74. Spelling police checking in briefly here

The word is spelled "dementia".

I can't let a perfectly good degree in Psychology go to waste.

[flaminlib]

76. state college checking in

I didnt get what I paid for, or maybe I did

All they taught me was defense mekunisms, and I learned one very well:toast:


On edit: How do you get a cat out of Skinner box?

[slackmaster]

77. I should know the answer to that one

How do you get a cat out of Skinner box?

I think opening the lid is usually sufficient, but it has to be something funnier than that.

[flaminlib]

78. Unfortunately, its not

Two answers though.

Behaviorist: Open the box, lift the cat out, close the box.

Psychoanalytic: Tell me more about your interest in cats?


Obvious sexual references can be substituted or injected as needed.


Copyright, 1982. Silly Psych 101 Professors Nationwide. All Rights Refused.

[flaminlib]

79. I forgot, there's also Lee Ermey's response

IM ASK THE FUCKING QUESTIONS NUMNUTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CAN I BE IN CHARGE FOR A WHILE?

Full Metal Jacket

[MrBenchley]

81. That's why we call 'em gun nuts....

"The board doesnt need lecturing"
And yet you do it constantly....

"I dont need to hide behind anything"
Gee, one of us is trying to hide behind "I never read it." It sure as shit ain't me.

"You should give at least ONE shit that you are trying to argue that both industries are corrupt"
Come back to me after you HAVE read the book...perhaps then you'll see what a silly mess your argument was in the first place.

[flaminlib]

88. Call who, what?

"The board doesnt need lecturing"
And yet you do it constantly....

Thats the pot calling the kettle black LOL!



"Gee, one of us is trying to hide behind "I never read it." It sure as shit ain't me."

Your still at this? Why are you trying to hind behind this 40 year old book that does more to disprove your argument (or lack thereof) than anything?



"Come back to me after you HAVE read the book...perhaps then you'll see what a silly mess your argument was in the first place."

Again???? Ok, please explain to me why my argument is a silly mess. Try to make a lucid argument rather than your typical, "gun nuts", no substance attack.

[MrBenchley]

93. Like I said, that's why we call 'em gun nuts....

"Why are you trying to hind behind this 40 year old book that does more to disprove your argument"
Gee, maybe because I'm not sticking up for the Corvair....but then I'm also not the one pontiifcating about a book he hasn't read.

[flaminlib]

94. Again with the attacks?

Any other tactics in your arsenal?

"Gee, maybe because I'm not sticking up for the Corvair....but then I'm also not the one pontiifcating about a book he hasn't read"

Gee, at least im not the one pontificating about issues you have no information about.

[MrBenchley]

95. No attacks...

just pointing out that you pontificated about a book you hadn't read.

It was a book about corporate corruption, which you're absurdly trying to pretend shows that another industry couldn't possibly be corrupt.

You're trying to make that point to pretend that there is no merit to a lawsuit that has already been tested in court and shown to have merit.

[flaminlib]

97. Im not sure why you cant understand this

I was not trying to prove that because the auto industry was corrupt that the gun industry is not corrupt. Ok? Im not! Pretending that I have made that argument is indeed absurd. I dont know why you keep trying to imply that.

The point you missed is, why are you not attacking the auto industry also. You are convinced that because guns are used illegally, the gun industry must be complicit in that illegal activity and you attack them, and anyone associated.

Well, cars are used in illegal activity. Why are you not also going after the auto industry? Where are your posts condemning them? Why arent you calling car owners "nuts" and "pet abusers" and on and on? Why are you not consistent in anything?

Do you think the auto industry execs are saints? Do you think they are criminals? Why do you try to protect the auto industry from the same thing that you criticize the gun industry for? Are you in the car business in some way?

[MrBenchley]

101. Jeezus...

"The point you missed is, why are you not attacking the auto industry also. "
Is THAT your point? Gee, that's sad.

"You are convinced that because guns are used illegally, the gun industry must be complicit in that illegal activity"
So are New York City, Chicago, and about 30 or so other rmuncipalities...The gun industry has tried to get these lawsuits knocked out of court, and failed to. Then they tried to get the GOP to give them immunity, and that failed. Now they're trying to muscle lawyers off the case in the backrooms.

"Well, cars are used in illegal activity. "
Then go ahead and piss and moan about that to somebody. Nobody's fucking stopping you.

[OpSomBlood]

103. Simple explanation:

Guns are designed to fire a bullet when someone pulls the trigger. If someone pulls the trigger of a gun and a bullet comes out of it, the gun functioned exactly as it was designed. The destination of that bullet is the responsibility of the person who pulled the trigger, not the manufacturer of the gun.

The analogy with auto makers is extremely valid...when you push the gas pedal, the car goes forward. If you push the gas pedal and the car goes forward into a crowd of children, that is the driver's fault even though the car functioned properly.

Now if someone pulls the trigger and the gun explodes in the shooter's hand due to a manufacturing or design defect, then the gun malfunctioned and you would have a strong case to sue the manufacturer.

[MrBenchley]

105. Even simpler...

the scummy gun industry is getting sued by cities all around the country...and no matter how furiously the bullets for brains crowd pisses and moans, and no matter what absurd analogies they dredge up, the courts have decided there are grounds to proceed.

[flaminlib]

106. And are therefore GUILTY, right?

That seems to be your only point. If they are in court, they must be guilty. Unless of course, its some other industry in which you are employed. Auto industry perhaps?

[MrBenchley]

110. Boo fuckin hoo...

You mean you think this is how innocent folks behave?

That so....pweshus.

[flaminlib]

111. hehehee

I knew you would do it, just a matter of time.

They are in court, so they are guilty, courtesy of MrBenchley's understanding of the judicial system.

[MrBenchley]

114. They're going to court....

and I hope they get good and fucked....

Boy that would be hilarious...the group of thugs Cheney and his Chimp are counting on, out of business before the election...

[flaminlib]

117. Hows that?

"Boy that would be hilarious...the group of thugs Cheney and his Chimp are counting on, out of business before the election..."


You mean the other way around, right? I dont think bushco is counting on the gun industry, I think its the other way around. And I dont think the NRA will be even close to a factor in 04. The NRA is down to about 4 million and half of those people probably dont vote anyway.

Dont worry about the gun lobby in 04. Besides, Kerry will not allow himself to be labeled a gun control zealot. He is too smart for that.

[MrBenchley]

120. Too TOO funny...

"The NRA is down to about 4 million and half of those people probably dont vote"
And that's why Bwana Dick was in Pittsburgh fondling a gun in public.

So tell us, how did Kerry vote on the immunity from liability atrocity?

"Dont worry about the gun lobby in 04."
You mean you think they're not going to lie their asses off again? That's so pweshus.

[flaminlib]

123. Turn off the cartoons

"And that's why Bwana Dick was in Pittsburgh fondling a gun in public."

And what does that mean? If you think Cheney needs to fondle a gun to garner support from the NRA crowd, you are truly misguided. As I said, dont worry about that in 04. Nothing you can say or do will change their vote, and the same goes for Cheney. You ought to be happy, its called preaching to the converted!

"So tell us, how did Kerry vote on the immunity from liability atrocity? "

He voted against it, why? Are you going to vote for HIM? Is he not anti gun enough for you? Would you prefer Nader?


"You mean you think they're not going to lie their asses off again? That's so pweshus."

What does that matter? Think the big bad gun lobby is going to convince the country that they have to vote for bush? Sorry, Im not that naive and neither is the rest of the country. But, you can believe it.

[MrBenchley]

125. Ask me next if I care what you want

"And what does that mean? If you think Cheney needs to fondle a gun to garner support from the NRA crowd"
Geeze, flamin, I know the corrupt turd is just the sort of scumbag the gun lobby loves.

"He voted against it, why? Are you going to vote for HIM?"
Yes, I am going to vote for Kerry. I'm going to urge everyone I know to as well. Kerry supports renewing strenghtening the AWB. Kerry supports closing the gun show loophole. Kerry supports the cities getting their day in court against the scummy gun industry. Kerry won't have the NRA working out of his office.

"What does that matter? "
Nothing to me...I know what lying scum the "gun rights" crowd is...

"Think the big bad gun lobby is going to convince the country that they have to vote for bush?"
Nope...most voters want gun control. Of course I'm not the one here parroting gun nut rhetoric and trying to pretend valid lawsuits aren't valid.

[flaminlib]

128. Are you ok?

"And what does that mean? If you think Cheney needs to fondle a gun to garner support from the NRA crowd"
Geeze, flamin, I know the corrupt turd is just the sort of scumbag the gun lobby loves.

And what is your point? That you are afraid of him/them? Take heart, the big bad gun toters wont hurt you.

"Kerry supports renewing strenghtening the AWB."

So do I, said it many times.

"Kerry supports closing the gun show loophole."

So do I.

"Kerry supports the cities getting their day in court against the scummy gun industry."

Their day in court? As long as you are not on the jury, I say go ahead. Waste the tax dollars. I dont live anywhere near the type of urban crack hole that would inspire such a suit.


"Kerry won't have the NRA working out of his office."

I agree. He also wont have the pacifists begging him to give all the guns to the criminals either.



"Nothing to me...I know what lying scum the "gun rights" crowd is..."

Lying scum? Let me write that one down, its your first novel idea in a while, gotta make a note of it.


"Nope...most voters want gun control. Of course I'm not the one here parroting gun nut rhetoric and trying to pretend valid lawsuits aren't valid."

Most voters have enough sense to know when they are being lied to so, please dont campaign for us this year.

[MrBenchley]

132. I'm just fine...but then I'm not pimping for the gun industry...

or trying to discuss a book I've never read....

""Kerry supports renewing strenghtening the AWB."
So do I, said it many times."
Uh-huh....

Funny, didn't see you saying that when you said...

"flaminlib (175 posts) Sun Apr-18-04 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. No, its just the facts
You really should look into what the AWB really does more closely. You will find that their are no easy answers, only easy scare tactics."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=52104&mesg_id=52184&page=

Oh, well...maybe it was when you said...

"flaminlib (175 posts) Sun Apr-18-04 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Who's wrapping themselves in the flag?
Wrapping myself in the facts of the ban, and logic, I dont understand how any reasonable person would put such emphasis on an ineffective and meaningless bill. In fact, most of the original supporters of the AWB are now running away from it."
The reason people are fervent in their defense against more gun control is because it becomes a slippery slope. The more propaganda and lies the gun control lobby spews, the easier it will be to add to it. Make no mistake, the control control zealots DO want to take away ALL guns.
They understand, as well as we gun owners do, that silly restrictions on cosmetic features make no sense and do nothing to prevent community violence. But the more they can convince people that certain features are "deadly", the easier it will become to take away all firearms. One step at a time."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=52102&mesg_id=52142&page=

Nope, nothing there, either. Guess people would have to read your mind (if they can find it) to know you support strengthening and renewing the AWB...

"Most voters have enough sense to know when they are being lied to"
As does anybody who spends anytime reading posts from the RKBA crowd.

[flaminlib]

134. Havent we been here before...

oh yeah, thats right. When I said the current AWB is useless but i support an "effective" ban that actually does more than address how a weapon "looks". You are VERY selective in what you dredge up from you search, nice try though.

Got anything else?

[MrBenchley]

137. You seem to go around and around

and it always adds up to nothing...

"You are VERY selective in what you dredge up"
Be my guest. Link to all the many posts where you argued for strengthening the AWB.
Hey, also be sure and jump in and tell your fellow "enthusiasts" how much you want the AWB strengthened sometime soon. There's at least two threads about the AWB open now, and a whole bunch of posts by folks whining that they want assautl weapons in their shaky sweaty hands.

[OpSomBlood]

107. Bullets for Brains.

It's easier for you to come up with "clever" nicknames for the people you disagree with than it is to think through the absurdity of your claims. It's easier to clump everyone into the tiny little stereotype you've developed in your years of jaded stewing on this issue.

Do you think that there are grounds to sue a manufacturer for the illegal actions of their customers? Can you name a single other industry where such a lawsuit wouldn't be laughed out of court?

The tobacco cases were settled based on the industry's prior knowledge and concealment that their product was addictive and harmful. They intentionally added chemicals to their tobacco to make their product more addictive than it already was.

If you can draw the same parallels to the gun industry, be my guest. What you see as "scummy" tactics to have cases thrown out of court I see as companies fighting to prevent their industry from being unfairly destroyed by litigation and legislation based on the actions of people who abuse their products.

[MrBenchley]

112. It's pretty fucking easy when the RKBA arguments are THIS lame...

"Do you think that there are grounds to sue a manufacturer for the illegal actions of their customers? "
Yeah, I do. So do the courts.

"The tobacco cases were settled based on the industry's prior knowledge and concealment that their product was addictive and harmful."
Too fucking funny. You DO realize that the evidence of " the industry's prior knowledge and concealment that their product was addictive and harmful" came out BECAUSE the suits against the industry finally got into court, don't you?

"If you can draw the same parallels to the gun industry, be my guest."
Been there, done that.

[flaminlib]

116. Uh, yes but...

A lawsuit does NOT equate to guilt or liability. You dont seem to be aware of that. The reason the industry has tried, and will continue to try to keep these suits out of the courts is because every idiot who see dollar signs will try to take advantage of it, not to mention every over crowded, drug infested, corrupt city. Notice that all of these suits are coming from urban areas where suing people/companies is as natural as a bodily function and common sense as limited as parking spaces.

Your attempt to assign guilt before it ever goes to court is probably your biggest fallacy. It might be your lack of understanding of guns and the industry in general, but I think you are focused more on making these companies pay money. So Im betting the biggest challenge before you will be in understanding the judicial process and company liability before you can make a reasoned argument.

[MrBenchley]

121. Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

You've spent umpty-ump posts trying to pretend that these valid lawsuits are invalid...

"Im betting the biggest challenge before you will be in understanding the judicial process and company liability "
Well, some people's gibberish has certainly proven to be no challenge at all...but I suspect I know more about the judicial process and liability law than you.

For one thing, I know that a valid lawsuit is valid, once the courts rule it's valid.

[flaminlib]

127. Of course youre an excellent driver rain man... relax.

"You've spent umpty-ump posts trying to pretend that these valid lawsuits are invalid..."

Get it? How bout you deal with the real issue. Your inept attempt at nailing them to the cross before they ever go to court! Youve spent "umpty-ump"?? posts repeating the same "validity" crap and tacking on that, well since they are in court, they must be guilty. After all, innocent people wouldnt act that way, would they?

"Well, some people's gibberish has certainly proven to be no challenge at all...but I suspect I know more about the judicial process and liability law than you."

I agree, no challenge to be found today, only "bumper sticker" mentality and the oft repeated straw man. I suspect, in fact Im sure, you THINK you know more than me on anything. Clearly you think you know more than EVERYONE about anything. That is not a new concept to me. Im just going to have to live with that.


"For one thing, I know that a valid lawsuit is valid, once the courts rule it's valid."

Wheel of fortune is on.....

[MrBenchley]

130. The real issue? Who DO you think you're kidding?

The real issue is that you want to piss and moan and pretend this lawsuit is invalid. And it is valid.

"you THINK you know more than me on anything"
Based on the evidence so far, I do.

[flaminlib]

131. How many toothpicks were there?

[flaminlib]

104. What is sad is your lack of substantive input.

You are simply repeating the same old "bumper sticker" propaganda, and nothing more.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Winston Churchill

[MrBenchley]

113. I'm not the one pretending that the courts haven't ruled

that the lawsuits are VALID.

And it's you repeating the standard gun nut line of horseshit.

[slackmaster]

118. Aw, come on Bench - You know that's not quite true

that the lawsuits are VALID.

If you're talking just about the NY suit this thread was originally about you're right, but by saying "lawsuits are" as opposed to "lawsuit is" you've stretched things a bit. Not ALL of the lawsuits have been ruled valid - Lots and lots of them have either lost at trial or been dismissed like the Newark debacle.

Just scan through http://www.gunlawsuits.org/docket/docket.asp and see what the Bradys have admitted. I did a very cursory check and found that at least a few of these suits listed on that page as open have been dismissed or withdrawn.

[MrSandman]

64. Why did Newark drop their suit?

Maybe they had to actually PAY their lawyers.

[MrBenchley]

69. Ever hear of the 2003 blackout?

"However, citing mounting legal costs and the loss of most of the police department’s data in the 2003 Northeast blackout, Newark voluntarily dismissed its case on December 1, 2003. On March 10, 2004, Judge Carole Ferentz entered an ordering dismissing the case with prejudice."

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/docket/casestatus.asp?RecordNo=17

[flaminlib]

71. Ever hear of a convenient time to get out while you can?

"mounting legal costs and the loss of most of the police department’s data"

Translation: The Brady center wont buy a dead horse!

[MrBenchley]

82. Gee, flamin....

You want to play "let's pretend," go ahead. It's not like you been hampered by any facts yet.

[slackmaster]

87. If a school child says to a teacher "The blackout ate my homework"

Will a teacher with two functioning brain cells:

A) Accept the excuse and give the kid another chance to turn it in, or

B) Dismiss the claim with prejudice?

The city of Newark's lawyers lied and the judge didn't buy their feeble excuse. It's just common sense.

OTOH if they'd been honest and said "Your honor, in light of how our case has played so far and the rigorous defense we face, we've decided to withdraw our case in the interests of the people of Newark. We respectfully ask that the case be dismissed without prejudice", the judge would probably have handed them their asses on a platter anyway.

That's the odd thing about the corrupt trial lawyer industry - Often there's no tangible benefit for telling the truth. Newark punted with their ridiculous power outage excuse because they had already lost the case.

[flaminlib]

90. Yet another good analogy.

Im thinking there is too much common sense floating around here.

"Will a teacher with two functioning brain cells:

A) Accept the excuse and give the kid another chance to turn it in, or

B) Dismiss the claim with prejudice?

The city of Newark's lawyers lied and the judge didn't buy their feeble excuse. It's just common sense."


Striking in its logic and overly accurate. Now now, we cant have that!

[flaminlib]

89. Gee Benchley

Dont try to refute anything, just make obscure comments and pretend they mean something. Its not like you have any real argument yet. Aside from the same ole gun nuts, criminals, pet abusers....fill in the blanks.

[MrBenchley]

96. Flamin, I already refuted any RKBA crap...

worth refuting...

Why don't you try to pretend you're driving around uninsured and unlicensed too?

[flaminlib]

98. Oh yeah, good one

Youve already refuted everything by making statements like:

"Why don't you try to pretend you're driving around uninsured and unlicensed too?"


Wow, if I knew what the hell that meant or how it had ANYTHING to do with me or the debate....I might answer something like, huh?

You ok?

[MrBenchley]

102. Yeah, I already refuted it.

You pontificated about a book you hadn't read.
It was a book about corporate corruption, which you're absurdly trying to pretend shows that another industry couldn't possibly be corrupt.
You're trying to make that point to pretend that there is no merit to a lawsuit that has already been tested in court and shown to have merit.

"if I knew what the hell that meant"
Ask Columbia or Roe...they're the ones who decided to try that tactic, for whatever grotesque reason.

[flaminlib]

108. And a fine job too!

"Ask Columbia or Roe...they're the ones who decided to try that tactic, for whatever grotesque reason"


Yet you address it to me??? LMAO Im sure that makes sense to you but I cant for the life of me understand how. Perhaps you should start including quotes from someone else's posts in the GD forum too! That'd be good, huh?


"You pontificated about a book you hadn't read.
It was a book about corporate corruption, which you're absurdly trying to pretend shows that another industry couldn't possibly be corrupt.
You're trying to make that point to pretend that there is no merit to a lawsuit that has already been tested in court and shown to have merit."

Know what the firt part of "assumption" is? :)


You should read things more carefully. You are missing a whole world of insights and information, not to mention wasting time.

[MrBenchley]

115. Yeah, I addressed it to you...

You're the one expressing mystery in that foolish claim, and they're the ones trying to make it.

"Know what the firt part of "assumption" is?"
The sort of individual who pimps for the gun industry.

"You are missing a whole world of insights"
From who? You seem to think this tired right wing crap you're peddling didn't spring out Wayne La Pierre's butt years ago.

[flaminlib]

119. Ok, why?

Why do you keep trying to label everyone who owns a gun as a "pimp" for the gun industry and a "right winger"?

Do you NOT understand that most LIBERALS support gun ownership? Are we all just right wing, pimps, pet abusing nuts? Look around you, sir, do you not see who your friends are? Can you not tell the difference between us and the neocons? Does that distinction even matter to you or are you more interested in taking away guns?

[MrBenchley]

122. Who DO you think you're kidding?

"Do you NOT understand that most LIBERALS support gun ownership?"
Jeeze, it sure is inspiring watching these "liberals" pimping for the NRA and posting crap from every right wing cesspool they can find. But then most of the liberals I know are in favor of gun control...as are most moderate voters.

"Are we all just right wing, pimps, pet abusing nuts?"
You tell me. Who was that posting crap from stentorian?

"Can you not tell the difference between us and the neocons?"
Well, for one thing, I bet neoCons actually read books before they start pontificating about them...even if they're crappy books full of rubbish...like John Lott's.

[flaminlib]

124. Not kidding, ridiculing!

"Jeeze, it sure is inspiring watching these "liberals" pimping for the NRA and posting crap from every right wing cesspool they can find. But then most of the liberals I know are in favor of gun control...as are most moderate voters."

Who isnt in favor of gun control? Besides you that is? I think we have established the NRA to be a right wing group, does that mean all gun owners are right wingers? Are we all NRA members? HA!! Your logic is feeble at best.

"You tell me. Who was that posting crap from stentorian?"

LOL Again??? I have NO fucking clue, you tell me. I have never heard of it. Who posted anything by the 'stentorian'?


"Well, for one thing, I bet neoCons actually read books before they start pontificating about them...even if they're crappy books full of rubbish...like John Lott's."

Ahhh, I knew youd come back to that. Talking points getting a bit thin are they? Well when all else fails, just throw out something that is completely irrelevant and hope it means something. That always works.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it.
W. C. Fields

[MrBenchley]

126. And ye tthe laugh's on you...

"I have NO fucking clue, you tell me. I have never heard of it. Who posted anything by the 'stentorian'?"
Sez it all....

"OpSomBlood (129 posts) Sun Apr-18-04 01:49 PM
23. Feinstein.
Here's one that should get more than a chuckle out of the responsible gun owners here:
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html "

"flaminlib (166 posts) Sun Apr-18-04 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Yep... people should know about this.
And similar sentiments."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=52102&mesg_id=52102

[flaminlib]

129. Oh, geez, guess ya got me there huh?

LMAO, why do you keep trying to associate me with SOMEONE ELSE'S POST? Do you realize that you and I are likely the only one's reading this? If you are "performing" for an audience, you are probably out of luck. Even if there might be a casual observer, your desperation and deception is obvious.

Did you not notice that OpSomBlood posted that link, or do you think guilt by association is "valid" LOL?


Hey, how bout this. Someone somewhere said all felons should have guns...Should I find you the link so you can pretend I posted it? Why not?

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.
W. C. Fields

[MrBenchley]

133. You're the one that cheered for it then...

but it's no surprise you want to run away from it now.


"Did you not notice that OpSomBlood posted that link"
Of course I noticed that. That's why I not only posted his link to it, but I posted your comments that followed about how swell it was.

"Hey, how bout this. Someone somewhere said all felons should have guns...Should I find you the link so you can pretend I posted it?"
Hey, do that, and then find the post I put up right after it thast said what a swell idea it was...That's what I did with you and OpSom and his rancid little nutso chums...

[flaminlib]

136. Thats not what you said

You see, this is where you fall down. You say one thing, then reverse yourself a few minutes later. You tried to pin that source on me, but once you realized you were wrong, you run from it. Your logic goes something like this....."Oh, well you didnt post it, but you agreed with the person who did, so its all the same" Do you understand the difference?? I am really trying here, broke out the crayons for you and everything. Please tell me that some of this is getting through.



"but it's no surprise you want to run away from it now."

Feinstein made the comment, do YOU support it? If something like that comes from a senator, I tend to take notice. Im quite sure you would just as soon she not say that publicly but, I know you think it. Why hide it?

[MrBenchley]

138. That's exactly what I said....

MrBenchley  (1000+ posts) Sun Apr-18-04 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #124
126. And ye tthe laugh's on you...
"I have NO fucking clue, you tell me. I have never heard of it. Who posted anything by the 'stentorian'?"
Sez it all....

"OpSomBlood (129 posts) Sun Apr-18-04 01:49 PM
23. Feinstein.
Here's one that should get more than a chuckle out of the responsible gun owners here:
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html "

"flaminlib (166 posts) Sun Apr-18-04 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Yep... people should know about this.
And similar sentiments."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&...

"Feinstein made the comment, do YOU support it?"
Yeah, I do....but then I saw the quote in context...

[Columbia]

109. Wha?

"Ask Columbia or Roe...they're the ones who decided to try that tactic, for whatever grotesque reason."

What now? Man, you really need to grab a Corona or something buddy. Kick back a bit and relax.

[demsrule4life]

72. They stopped because they lost their computer data?

were they to lazy to go into all the case files and make a case? Sorry this excuse don't fly, the police have to have hard copy police reports, unless of course they threw them away which is never a good idea since you NEED them for court.

[flaminlib]

73. No, it was a good time to cut and run

They knew they couldnt win. The blackout was a "happy accident" and a convenient excuse for them to get out before they pissed more money down the toilet.

[slackmaster]

75. LMAO - Michael Bellesiles would be so proud

"The blackout of '03 ate our computer data."

That's pretty funny even for this forum.

I wonder if their system administrators had ever heard of the concept of "backups".

:evilgrin:

BTW - The judge dismissed the case with prejudice because she knew it was ridiculous. Even if someone finds the computer data later on, Newark's suit is dead, dead, dead.

[MrSandman]

85. I hadn't heard why, but...

(1) Mounting legal costs(they had to PAY their lawyers)
(2) "...loss of most of the police department’s data." Wow, I bet all the perpetrators of crimes under investigation loved that.

;)

on edit: I should have read the other replies first. It made it look like I have a firm grasp of the obvious...s

[slackmaster]

12. I bought a Nissan from a Nissan dealer recently

Didn't have to present either a driver's license or proof of insurance to take delivery of the vehicle. All I needed was good money.

A car dealer is not responsible for anything a car buyer does starting with the moment the car is off the dealer's property.

The state of California required proof of insurance in order for me to register the vehicle in my name. The DMV, not the Nissan dealer, verified that online with my insurance company. It's simply not the car dealer's job to enforce insurance or driver's license requirements, at least not in California.

Those responsibilities are handled where all law enforcement is handled - by law enforcement agencies. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Columbia]

31. Hmm...

I registered a car recently in California too, but I did not have to show proof of insurance.

[MrBenchley]

33. Hmmm....

Driving around uninsured and unlicensed, are you?

[flaminlib]

35. Imagine that!!

All the regulations that are in place, and people still violate the law?


Someone sue someone over something, quick! Im sure that will fix it.

[MrBenchley]

37. You mean you think Columbia is tooling around

without insurance and a license?

Hahahahahaha....

[Columbia]

38. Read what I wrote

Vehicle registration did not require proof of insurance.

[MrBenchley]

39. In other words...

you got a license, proof of insurance and a registered car....

[Columbia]

40. I did not say that

I said vehicle registration did not require proof of insurance.

[MrBenchley]

42. So tell us

are you driving around uninsured and unlicensed?

[flaminlib]

43. Who cares?

[MrBenchley]

45. Certainly nobody in the RKBA crowd gives a crap

about anything that resembles logic or fact.

[Columbia]

47. I didn't say that either

[MrSandman]

62. I've never had an auto dealer ask for my DL.

I never had a car dealer get an o.k. prior to sale from the NHSTA either.

ed fer spellin...s

[slackmaster]

67. What really surprised me about my last car purchase

The dealer accepted a personal check for over $17K without verifying my signature. They used TeleCheck or some other service to verify that the check was good at that moment, but never checked my ID even to verify that I was who I claimed to be.

[MrSandman]

83. He could tell you were honest...

By the look in your eye.

[slackmaster]

8. A parallel argument based on cars might be something like...

...The auto industry knows damn well that some percentage of the cars it makes will wind up in the hands of drunk drivers, road ragers, gang-bangers who do drive-by shootings, etc. But they aren't restricting the number of cars they sell - Allowing the free market to decide how many cars are made and sold without doing anything to prevent drunks from buying their products makes them part of the problem. The corrupt car industry turns a blind eye to the problem of drunk and aggressive drivers and of criminal misuse of their products. All they're interested in doing is selling as many cars as the market will bear.

If the car makers were good corporate citizens they'd produce 5% fewer cars overall, or slow down deliveries of new cars to places that have a higher than average rate of drunk driving arrests. They're doing everything in their power to make sure that drunks, assholes, and criminals can get cars.

:freak:

[Young Socialist]

86. a very good analogy between the auto industry and the gun

industry. thank you.

[MrBenchley]

91. An even better analogy is the gun and tobacco industries...

They both deal in death, they both did all they could by fair means and foul to suppress lawsuits, and they both depend on their political connections to the scum of the earth. (You might recall AssKKKroft settled the Federal tobacco industry lawsuit on terms favorable to the industry, even though it appeared the American people would have won handily.)

Bonus points: Some of the same right wing racist blowhards pimping for the gun lobby (paging Sean Hannity) also pimp for the tobacco industry.

[slackmaster]

92. No, that's a lame analogy

Tobacco has no known beneficial uses other than as a source of nicotine for "natural" pest control. Every instance of a human being consuming tobacco in any form is known to cause harm.

Firearms can be and are frequently used for self-defense; to prevent violence usually by intimidation that causes no harm.

Most of the times firearms are used have nothing to do with causing harm. Most bullets fly harmlessly into a backdrop behind a target.

Bonus points: Some of the same right wing racist blowhards pimping for the gun lobby (paging Sean Hannity) also pimp for the tobacco industry

Irrelevant, guilt by association. The same individuals also like beer.

[OpSomBlood]

99. This thread is hilarious.

There are about ten different people in here, all huddled around the pitcher's mound.

And then there's MrBenchley way out there in left leaning on the Green Monster.

Funny to watch.

[slackmaster]

100. One un-funny aspect of this kind of discussion

Someone might stumble on this forum and get the idea that some of the more radical authoritarian ideas expressed here represent the mainstream or official position of the Democratic Party.