Immunity and guns -- is it anti-control or anti-responsibility?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Immunity and guns -- is it anti-control or anti-responsibility?

    The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was enacted in 2005.  I don't find the act itself via Google, but for those who have never heard of it, there's this September 25, 2012 article...

    http://www.thegunmag.com/firearms-commerce-immunity-law-tested-in-new-york-appellate-court/

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Immunity and guns -- is it anti-control or anti-responsibility?

    Parasite trial lawyers, the bankrollers of the Democratic Party,   want gun manufacturers to be responsible if someone uses a gun to commit a crime...

    Billions for filthy rich tycoon trial lawyers, and also would put the domestic gun manufacturing industry out of business.

    Makes as much sense as GM being legally responsible if a car owner drives drunk.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Immunity and guns -- is it anti-control or anti-responsibility?

    Repeated.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Immunity and guns -- is it anti-control or anti-responsibility?

    Or a marketplace solution.  Insurance:  

    Rate different gun attributes, different guns, so different gun manufacturers and different gun sellers get different ratings.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Immunity and guns -- is it anti-control or anti-responsibility?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Parasite trial lawyers, the bankrollers of the Democratic Party,   want gun manufacturers to be responsible if someone uses a gun to commit a crime...

    Billions for filthy rich tycoon trial lawyers, and also would put the domestic gun manufacturing industry out of business.

    Makes as much sense as GM being legally responsible if a car owner drives drunk.

    [/QUOTE]

    Obviously, the preferred law would hold the last lawful owner of the gun responsible for any crimes committed with the gun.  Create a ballistics file for every gun made.  Create a seperate record of gun ownership.  When a crime is committed, the authorities can use the ballistics information collected at the crime scene to back to the weapon and then back to the gubn owner.  If the gun owner allowed the gun to be stolen (didn't put the gun in a secured environment) or illegally sold the gun to someone else who committed, then they can be sured in a civil trial.

    Responsible, law abiding gun owners should have no problem with such a law.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Immunity and guns -- is it anti-control or anti-responsibility?

    gun laws only effect law abiding citizens and we are not the problem...the problem is criminals and they dont care about the law...

    Obama illegally sold assault weapons to mexican drug dealers operating in the US and we need a law taking away MY guns and ammo clips????

    yes that makes sense....

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Immunity and guns -- is it anti-control or anti-responsibility?

    The second amendment, stand and defend, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) are gun laws.  No?  

    Repeal or trim back the latter, treat part of the problem of bad guys with guns with a marketplace (insurance) solution instead of a law.  Conservative precepts.  What's to disagree about?

    "Responsibility - what's your policy?"®

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Immunity and guns -- is it anti-control or anti-responsibility?

    In response to macnh1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    gun laws only effect law abiding citizens and we are not the problem...the problem is criminals and they dont care about the law...

    Obama illegally sold assault weapons to mexican drug dealers operating in the US and we need a law taking away MY guns and ammo clips????

    yes that makes sense....

    [/QUOTE]

    The sad part is that that DOES make sense to liberals.

    illegals and gangs having guns is not a problem worth addressing.  This is the "nothing to see here" liberal response to Holder and Obama selling illegal guns.

    YOU having a legal gun for your protectsion IS the problem, according to liberals.

    So, the result of the gun regulations will be that criminals and illegals, gang members andthe like, all will be better armed than their victims.

     

    Nice going, liberals.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Immunity and guns -- is it anti-control or anti-responsibility?

    Bush and Gonzales's ATF ran guns, too.  Different name, but it started there.  (Doesn't make it right.)  Keeps dropping off the national narrative.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Immunity and guns -- is it anti-control or anti-responsibility?

    Headlines...

    http://www.google.com/search?q=guns+insurance&aq=f&oq=guns+insurance&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=serp&pq=guns%20insurance&cp=3&gs_id=3&xhr=t&q=gun+insurance&es_nrs=true&pf=p&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=gun+insurance&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.dmQ&fp=c5167c443cd9f80c&biw=961&bih=478

    But the PLCAA bulwark would have to be repealed or rolled back.

    Here's an idea:  Repeal the PLCAA and license the NRA to sell liability insurance.  Kind of like AAA and AARP.  An opportunity to step up.  A marketplace solution for the NRA itself.  It would never have to worry about its budget again.

    "Responsibility - what's your policy?"®

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Jim-in-Littleton. Show Jim-in-Littleton's posts

    Re: Immunity and guns -- is it anti-control or anti-responsibility?

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    Create a ballistics file for every gun made.  Create a seperate record of gun ownership.  When a crime is committed, the authorities can use the ballistics information collected at the crime scene to back to the weapon and then back to the gubn owner. 

    ..............

    Responsible, law abiding gun owners should have no problem with such a law.




     

    Anyone knowledgeable about firearms knows that this is nothing but a pipe dream.  Ballistics markings change every single time a gun is fired.  The mere act of using a firearm (i.e. practice training at a range) creates wear on the moving parts and barrel. The markings on a the first bullet fired at the beginning of the day will be different than the markings on the last bullet fired at the end of the day.   Change the ammo being used or any of the gun's parts that leave ballistic markings (i.e. firing pin, barrel, etc...) and the markings change completely making the entire exercise useless.

    Both Maryland and California have tried this ballistic fingerprinting idea and both abandoned it.  It's expensive.  In Maryland's case, after years of collecting data they finally managed to use it to solve one crime - at a cost of over $5 million.

     

    So yeah, I have no problem with it as a law - as long as you pay for it.  

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share