SCOTUS Allows Sandy Hook families to Sue

[Doug1029]

12 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The guys who do it by hand say they are more humane.

However many hogs get killed, it won't eliminate the problem.  Maybe there's a way we could implement commercial hunting of hogs.

Doug

[RavenHawk]

On 11/13/2019 at 2:49 AM, RAyMO said:

I am not sure where suing the manufacturer can realistically end - the surprise was the SCOTUS allowing it.

That said given the make up of the SCOTUS I think they are pretty certain it will turn out to be a waste of time as far as the complainants are concerned and they (SCOTUS) can point to it as 'fake?' evidence of even handedness in their decision make.

It was no surprise.  The whole point is to have it move through the lower courts first, then when it reaches the SC, it’ll set a precedence in law.  The SC uses this process.  I’m sure every justice already has their opinion, but they use the process to either confirm or change that opinion.  This process will fill a new volume of legal jurisprudence and be the standard here on out.  It *WILL BE* even handedness on their part.  That is their job.  To keep to the original intent.

[RavenHawk]

On 11/14/2019 at 12:45 AM, Rlyeh said:

You couldn't work out that firearms are designed as weapons.  Clueless as always.

No, you just didn’t understand logic.  In some cases, design is all that matters, but in other cases, it is irrelevant.  In this case, it doesn’t matter what it is designed to do but what can it do?  Every thing is a weapon if you are creative enough.  And since the vast majority of murders are single or double, that is all you need.  Restricting guns is not going to stop the killing or reduce the number of incidents.  People will find other ways to kill.  That is human nature.  Mass killings are a rarity, they just have a very public stigma.  When it comes to a little girl that gets killed by some stray bullet, we too easily forget about her.

[toast]

On 11/12/2019 at 11:13 PM, spartan max2 said:

I don't agree with the government having a database of all legal gun owners though.

Why not?

[aztek]

people will not look for other ways to kill, they will look for other ways to get guns, and legality of it is irrelevant, just look at drugs, not to mention ratio of legal guns used in crimes by their registered owners, is minuscule, 

[Kenemet]

3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

No, you just didn’t understand logic.  In some cases, design is all that matters, but in other cases, it is irrelevant.  In this case, it doesn’t matter what it is designed to do but what can it do?  Every thing is a weapon if you are creative enough.  

Those "everything is a weapon" objects are also objects with other primary uses.  Like chairs.  Or knives.

There is NO secondary use for a gun.  It's for killing things.  Even if you make the object of your shooting a target, the purpose is to hit a kill area on a target.

[aztek]

2 minutes ago, toast said:

Why not?

so gvmnt can't take them away

[Kenemet]

1 minute ago, aztek said:

so gvmnt can't take them away

Government has a registry of your houses, your cars, and a lot of other things.  How is registering guns different?

[aztek]

Just now, Kenemet said:

Government has a registry of your houses, your cars, and a lot of other things.  How is registering guns different?

because guns are not cars, houses or other things, that is how

[RavenHawk]

14 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Classification under the "Brussels Tariff" is a good start.

That is just a classification.  That doesn’t tell anything about how effective all those classified objects are at killing.  We see this in places like London.  Guns are banned so the next preferred weapon is a knife.  Now there is talk about registering knifes.  Give me a break.  Cars are used to kill, pressure cookers, baseball bats (like Lucille), and heavy chains.  What’s next?  Having to register your snow chains?  Even Saddam Hussein was getting around sanctions by being creative.  He would order piping (for industrial pipe lines) and converting them to fire rockets.  The Germans because the worlds finest engineers in the 20s and 30s to get around limitations put on them by treaty after WWI.  You’re just not thinking outside of the box.  That is were you find innovation.  And killing is one of the oldest institutions.

[BrooklynGuy]

1 minute ago, Kenemet said:

Those "everything is a weapon" objects are also objects with other primary uses.  Like chairs.  Or knives.

There is NO secondary use for a gun.  It's for killing things.  Even if you make the object of your shooting a target, the purpose is to hit a kill area on a target.

 I believe the purpose here was to win an Olympic medal

SKEET SHOOTER HANCOCK COVERING EVERY ANGLE FOR TITLE DEFENCE

 

Born on 19 March 1989 in Eatonton (USA), Vincent Hancock is nothing short of a phenomenon in the world of shooting. After picking up a rifle at an early age, he began specialising in skeet. In this discipline clays are launched from two traps 40 metres apart, one high and the other low, with shooters shooting at the targets from seven different stations. Hancock took part in his first competition at the age of 11 and was so talented that he landed his maiden world title just five years later in 2005. Aged only 18, he set a new world points record at a World Cup event in Lonato (ITA), shooting 125 in qualification and 25 in the final for a perfect score of 150.

Read more: https://www.olympic.org/news/skeet-shooter-hancock-covering-every-angle-for-title-defence

 

 

[spartan max2]

16 minutes ago, toast said:

Why not?

It infringes on rights without actually preventing anything.

A database of legal gun owners won't do anything after the fact of a crime. 

If you're in the theoretical database then you're legal and already jumped through all the hoops, no one thinks you will commit a crime.

I can't see how it would prevent any shootings. 

So what's the practical purposes of the database. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by spartan max2

[aztek]

Just now, spartan max2 said:

 

So what's the practical purposes of the database. 

so they know who to take guns from, or who to  force  to get rid of them,  they already done that in some jurisdictions. 

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, aztek said:

so they know who to take guns from, or who to  force  to get rid of them,  they already done that in some jurisdictions. 

I feel like you could red flag someone without a database though.

[aztek]

6 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I feel like you could red flag someone without a database though.

you could, absolutely,  not to mention we already have a database, of gun owners, every time a name is ran thru NIBC system it is recorded,  so they know you bought a gun, or at least attempted to,  we already do have BC on every purchase and transfer thru any FFL dealer,, and at gun shows. we already tried bullet print program, it was dropped since it hasn't helped to solve a single crime,  the left just want  to take guns away, libs  needs obedient powerless sheep for population. so they can do whatever they want and face no resistance

Edited November 15, 2019 by aztek

[toast]

10 minutes ago, aztek said:

so gvmnt can't take them away

If a government has no control in a way that it could disarm individuals and/or groups within the population if needed to protect other individuals/groups within the population, then the government has a risk assessment issue.

[RavenHawk]

9 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Those "everything is a weapon" objects are also objects with other primary uses.  Like chairs.  Or knives.

And?  It doesn’t matter what it’s primary use is.  It’s that it can be used as a weapon to kill.

 

There is NO secondary use for a gun. 

There are any number of secondary uses for a gun.  Give a gun to a Redneck and there ain’t telling what they’ll come up with.

 

It's for killing things. 

No, it’s not.  The purpose of a gun is to shoot a projectile.  It is up to the operator has to how to use that.  The most obvious reason is of course to shoot at something, either to hit or to scare off.  It can easily be used to save life as it is to take it.

 

Even if you make the object of your shooting a target, the purpose is to hit a kill area on a target.

The object of shooting at a target is to hit that target.  It is not very effective if you can’t hit the target.  It is solely up to the operator as to what imagery they put on the target.  It is up to the operator as to if they use a gun to kill or not.  It is not up to the gun or the manufacturer.

[aztek]

46 minutes ago, toast said:

If a government has no control in a way that it could disarm individuals and/or groups within the population if needed to protect other individuals/groups within the population, then the government has a risk assessment issue.

exactly

btw, who told you gvmnt protects one group of population from another??  they lied to you, gvmnt does not do such thing, it only protects itself, thus registration, a first step of confiscation, it has already happened here, in some jurisdictions, including mine.

Edited November 15, 2019 by aztek

[Rlyeh]

55 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

No, you just didn’t understand logic. 

Please don't make me repeat myself, guns are marketed as weapons.  p*** off, I'm not interested in your stupid word games. 

[RavenHawk]

8 minutes ago, toast said:

If a government has no control in a way that it could disarm individuals and/or groups within the population if needed to protect other individuals/groups within the population, then the government has a risk assessment issue.

That is the purpose of the 2A, to restrict government from taking guns from the people.  We have law enforcement to protect the individual.  The risk assessment is to protect the people from a tyrannical government and *ALL* government become tyrannical over time.  Under Obama, our government lurched toward tyranny and Trump has pulled us back a little.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

31 minutes ago, toast said:

If a government has no control in a way that it could disarm individuals and/or groups within the population if needed to protect other individuals/groups within the population, then the government has a risk assessment issue.

Yeah! Seems Germany did just that in 1938 when they confiscated all guns and knives registered to Jews. And well the world knows what happened after that.

[aztek]

9 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Yeah! Seems Germany did just that in 1938 when they confiscated all guns and knives registered to Jews. And well the world knows what happened after that.

especially funny when a German says that to a jew, lmao

Edited November 15, 2019 by aztek

[RavenHawk]

1 minute ago, Rlyeh said:

Please don't make me repeat myself,

A sphincter says what? 

 

guns are marketed as weapons. 

Never said they weren’t.  Is that supposed to be some kind of taboo?  Weapons are an integral part of culture.

 

p*** off, I'm not interested in your stupid word games. 

Of course not, you are not interested in listening to contradictory information.  Your mind can't handle it.

[Golden Duck]

55 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That is just a classification.  That doesn’t tell anything about how effective all those classified objects are at killing.  We see this in places like London.  Guns are banned so the next preferred weapon is a knife.  Now there is talk about registering knifes.  Give me a break.  Cars are used to kill, pressure cookers, baseball bats (like Lucille), and heavy chains.  What’s next?  Having to register your snow chains?  Even Saddam Hussein was getting around sanctions by being creative.  He would order piping (for industrial pipe lines) and converting them to fire rockets.  The Germans because the worlds finest engineers in the 20s and 30s to get around limitations put on them by treaty after WWI.  You’re just not thinking outside of the box.  That is were you find innovation.  And killing is one of the oldest institutions.

 

You asked what was an official weapon as if there was no such thing. 

It's a fact that weapons are classified under chapter 93 based on their principal use. Hammers, made of metal, are classified under chapter 82.

The creativity you are trying to conflate is still not effective. You simply cannot emulate an event like Christchurch without an object with a primary use of killing.

[Rlyeh]

Just now, RavenHawk said:

A sphincter says what?  

A sphincter named RavenHawk.

You asked what is "officially a weapon" and I told you.  I don't care for your ****ing word games, troll.