"Stop The NRA" Ad - As Seen in the New York Times

[CO Liberal]

I'd like any of you pro-gunners to dispute any of the information in this ad. If you can.....

http://www.stopthenra.com/site/DocServer/NYTimesAd1017.pdf?docID=121

[Romulus]

1. what are "they" to dispute?

The fact that the scary weapon featured in the ad is banned by the '94 AWB, even though the ad implies that it was the same type used by the SniperGuys (which it was not)? :shrug:

Or that failing to account for FFL dealer inventory is a violation of federal law, thus allowing negligence suits against those FFL dealers under the "immunity law" in question? :shrug:

Or how the "good gun dealers don't need immunity, and bad dealers don't deserve it" line is disingenuous, at best, becase the stopthenra.com crowd considers all firearms dealers to be "part of the problem," and therefore fair game for lawsuits? (I bet a lot of medical doctors are snickering after reading that "don't need immunity" line) :shrug:

http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/us_mayor_newspaper/documents/02_08_99/wintermeeting/8gun.htm
Mayor Ganim encouraged others to join (with his city) in suing the (firearms)industry saying that, "our strength is in numbers" and that mayors must help win in the court of public opinion.

Thanks for letting us point these out, CO.

[Rainbowreflect]

4. I have to agree with you on the

"good gun dealers don't need immunity, and bad dealers don't deserve it" line. This is no different than replying to concerns about illegal searchs, people held without charges or trials, etc. that if you are not doing anything illegal you don't have anything to worry about.
That said I do agree with alot of what the anti-NRA ad is saying.

[Wild Bill]

2. why is the AFT not doing anything about the 1% of dealers

if they know about it why have they not been shut down?

[Stilgar]

108. Because it is not against the law/no one has broken any laws

If you follow all the laws and sell a gun to someone. And that gun 2 months from now shoots someone. The dealer is not at fault law wise.

But, if you can sue and prove somehow it is in someway the gun dealers fault, then hey justice prevails.

The lawsuit exemption stops the second type of case but not the first. If there is actually a law that was broken, you can be charged.
However you cant be sued because guns kill people and you sell guns.

That is the whole "cant get a law against it, so sue them broke" theme some anti's have done lately. Because even if you win every case against the anti's, you still lose money defending yourself.

[CO Liberal]

110. But.....

...if you're a dealer who consistently sells to people you should NOT be selling to, then you are definitely at fault.

[jody]

113. A dealer who knowingly sells to a person prohibited by law from possessing

a firearm has violated a federal law and should be prosecuted.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

3. I assume

This bit of tripe is whining about the Bill moving through the Congress to protect gun manufacturers and dealers from frivolous lawsuits brought by people (such as those idiots at the brady campaign) intending to punish companies and individuals doing lawful business, since these people disagree with the business of the entire industry.

If so, then if Bullseye violated laws during thier time as a gun dealer, they would not be protected by the 'Lawful Commerce' bill. They could be held accountable in both criminal and civil court.

So in the end it seems the ad is nothing more than the normal propaganda put out by the Brady Campaign.

[DavidMS]

46. That is my understanding also.

I believe that the law being criticized in the Bady Bunch Ad would permit victims of shootings where the firarm was improperly obtained (forms not on file, not reported stolen, or fraudelent declearations that are known to the dealer at the time) from a licenced dealer to bring legal action against the dealer.

The same add apeared in the Nation. I am glad they are supporting my favorate magazine, and know the editors will not say anything about it (would tick off too many readers) and I understand it. I agree with them 90% of the time, and running an add from Neurotics, Inc. won't change things between me and them.

Also, is it just me but was the rifle pictured equiped with a flash hider? If so, its probably not the same pattern of weapon gun used by Malvo & Mohamed.

Trying to panic the american public is the last way to elevate public discouce and solve major problems.

[demsrule4life]

5. The New York Times actually speaks the truth?

or have times changed? :)

[iverglas]

42. I give up

"The New York Times actually speaks the truth?
or have times changed?"

Does the NY Times write, or adopt the content of, the ads that its advertisers pay for? Or only accept ads whose content it approves?

Times surely must have changed. If advertising in the media constitutes the medium in question "speaking" anything, its liability insurance rates will undoubtedly be following suit.


Reading comprehension 101 in order?

.

[demsrule4life]

124. It was ment as humor

"Reading comprehension 101 in order?"
Losing written debates to you won't get me killed.
You have already proven to me that taking your advice about lethal force encounters would get me or others killed. Wonder which one is more important?

[Stilgar]

109. They dont check their articles for truth,

they really wont check their ads for it.

[CO Liberal]

112. There's Much More Truth in the NY Times Than The Washington Times

In fact, the only thing that's guaranteed accurate in the Moonie Times IS the ads.

[Stilgar]

123. They are both about the same

They both allow many lies through, only one of them got caught.

[CO Liberal]

125. If You Can't Tell The Difference ...

... between the NY Times and the Moonie Times, I just don't know what to say.

[MrBenchley]

126. Say, what was the name of this place again?

By the way, 125 posts in, we still yet to see anything even resembling a fact from the RKBA crowd.

[1a2b3c]

127. I threw a fact in

I didnt wanna join in your flame war but i did point out that the rifle in the picture is a pre-ban weapon. The ad hints that its the same gun that the DC serial killer used. In reality he used the 94 AWB compliant, post ban, bushmaster rifle.

[jody]

128. 1a2b3c, how dare you use facts when your opponents rely upon

unsupported assertions and hysterical rhetoric.

[MrBenchley]

130. If only he had, jody....

but he didn't.

[MrBenchley]

129. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrre.....

"The ad hints that its the same gun that the DC serial killer used."
Uh-huh.

[1a2b3c]

131. Uh-huh

Nice retort.

[MrBenchley]

6. Great ad...

and 100% accurate

[HotAndSpicy]

12. nothing that comes from Brady and MMM

is 100% accurate, or even close. Their stock in trade is lies, distortions, and wholly made up crap.

I remember a couple of years back when they were pushing hard to close the imaginary "gun show loop hole" they put out a statistic that said X% (can not remember the exact number right now, but it was a large number) of vendors at Gun Shows are UNLICENSED! Sounds horrible and scary doesn't it. Unlicensed vendors at gun shows! How horrible. This must be put to an end!

Well, after some research was done on the claim it was determined that their number was accurate. It was true! But, here is where the outright fraud and distortion comes in.

To arrive at their number they included FOOD VENDORS! Craft, hobby, and accessory venders. T-shirt and other paraphenalia vendors.

They were including people who were not selling guns, ammo, or any accessories that would require and FFL.

It an outright, purposful deception. Period.

[MrBenchley]

13. Sez you

Between you and the Brady Center, I'll believe the Brady Center.

[HotAndSpicy]

15. Justify

Justify their claim about unlicensed dealers when they had to include those listed (and others) to arrive at their numbers.

Tell me that doing such is not a complete fraud and out right, purposeful deception.

[MrBenchley]

30. Show us the claim first

[HotAndSpicy]

17. Also

the immunity bill being considered by congress would NOT give immunity to Bull's Eye Shooting Supply, but to Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the rifle.

Another lie by Brady saying the law would protect Bull's Eye.

[Spoonman]

7. "dispute any of the information"

Easily!
"It would exempt them from legal rules that bind every other industry in America"

This is totally false, and a completely ignorant statement by the author.

Tort law has clearly defined that the willful or criminal misuse of a product excludes the manufacturer of that product from any liability.

This has been posted numerous times, with hundreds on analogies.

Here's a good one;
Should the Ford dealership that sold the truck be responsible for the drunk driver that killed a family of four?
How about Budweiser, because said drunk driver had been drinking it?

Lawsuits are a blatant backdoor attempt to bankrupt the manufacturers of firearms, and an excuse (like an asshole they all stink) to call them corrupt when they fight it.

Yes, fine the gun shop to the fullest extent for the record keeping and control violations of their license.

What a joke, let's sew Craftsmen (Sears) because some asshole beat an old lady to death with a Craftsmen pipe wrench. It's no different!

[MrBenchley]

8. Who are you trying to kid?

""It would exempt them from legal rules that bind every other industry in America"
This is totally false, and a completely ignorant statement by the author.
Tort law has clearly defined that the willful or criminal misuse of a product excludes the manufacturer of that product from any liability."
Gee, then why does the gun industry need a special bill to protect itself?

"Most injuries that result from tortious behavior are the product of negligence, not intentional wrongdoing. Negligence is the term used by tort law to characterize behavior that creates unreasonable risks of harm to persons and property. A person acts negligently when her behavior departs from the conduct ordinarily expected of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances....In some cases tort law imposes liability on defendants who are neither negligent nor guilty of intentional wrongdoing. Known as strict liability, or liability without fault, this branch of torts seeks to regulate those activities that are useful and necessary but that create abnormally dangerous risks to society. These activities include blasting, transporting hazardous materials, storing dangerous substances, and keeping certain wild animals in captivity....The law of torts will hold manufacturers strictly liable for any injuries that result from placing unreasonably dangerous products into the stream of commerce, without regard to the amount of care exercised in preparing the product for sale and distribution and without regard to whether the consumer purchased the product from, or entered into a contractual relationship with, the manufacturer....In addition to damages for past tortious conduct, plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief to prevent future harm. Manufacturing plants that billow smoke that pollutes the air, companies that discharge chemicals that poison the water, and factories that store chemicals that migrate through the soil create risks of injury that are likely to recur over time. In tort law, operations that produce recurring injuries like these are called nuisances. If the harmfulness of such operations outweighs their usefulness, plaintiffs may successfully obtain a court order enjoining or restraining them."

http://www.wld.com/conbus/weal/wtorts.htm

Seems pretty clear that the corrupt gun industry has a lot to fear from ordinary tort law in a way that manufacturers in other fields do not.

"This has been posted numerous times, with hundreds on analogies."
And every time it's been a pantload.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Protecting itself

They need such a bill because ridiculous juries allow ridiculous judgments in cases that should never go to trial. And suing has become the American pasttime.

[MrBenchley]

14. Yeah, surrrrrrrre....

"They need such a bill because ridiculous juries allow ridiculous judgments in cases that should never go to trial."
And yet the refrigerator manufacturers seem to be able to muddle along without it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. That's not a strawman argument, more like a straw army

Come on MrB, you can do better than that.

It is clear that the gun banners have given up, for now, with legislative relief and are trying to put gun companies out of business for producing a legal product that functions as it is intended.

If that policy ever were to take hold, EVERY dangerous product in America would be shut down. No cars. No planes. No boats. No foods. No chemicals.

Today it is guns and fast food. Both are legal products that function as they are intended to do. If you wish to ban them, then feel free to try. But allowing outlandish jury awards to try and destroy legitimate businesses is not what this nation was founded on.

[MrBenchley]

27. Too TOO funny.....

"But allowing outlandish jury awards to try and destroy legitimate businesses is not what this nation was founded on."
Are you trying to tell us it was founded on special privilege for courtiers and some groups being declared above the law?

If the lawsuits have no merit, they would not proceed....but that has clearly not been the case.

[RoeBear]

33. Come on now Benchley...

...you know that gun manufacturers are small potatoes as far as size goes in the U.S. It costs lots of money to defend oneself even in a frivolous suit, and of course the plaintifs hand pick judges that will give themselves the best chance of winning.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Unlike other products

Unlike tobacco, cars, refrigerators and power saws, guns are protected by the Constitution. To use bogus product liability claims (Your honor, this gun worked exactly as it should, I want to sue.) as a means to go after a legal business is ridiculous and needs to be stopped.

[MrBenchley]

49. Too too funny

"Unlike tobacco, cars, refrigerators and power saws, guns are protected by the Constitution."
Gee, if that were even remotely true, there'd be no need for this obscene bill.

"To use bogus product liability claims"
But the whole thing is, they're not bogus...and the corrupt gun industry knows it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Not at all

Guns are, gun manufacturers are not. That's why the bill is needed.

The claims are entirely bogus. The claimants are suing because the products work like they are supposed to. If you don't like the products, move to make them illegal. But as long as they function legally and correctly, suck it up.

[MrBenchley]

54. Again, who are you kidding....

"Guns are, gun manufacturers are not."
Neither are...hence this ugly bill.

"The claims are entirely bogus."
Yeah, surrrrrrrrre.....and Wayne LaPierre is Queen of the May.

"A judge in Tacoma, Washington ruled Friday that a lawsuit brought by nine families of the Washington, D.C.-area sniper attacks against the gun dealer and manufacturer that supplied the assault rifle used in the shootings should proceed toward trial. The court rebuffed arguments by Tacoma gun dealer Bull's Eye Shooter Supply and assault rifle manufacturer Bushmaster Firearms that they are immune from responsibility for supplying guns to criminals.

Judge Frank Cuthbertson's ruling comes as Congress considers legislation to grant sweeping legal immunity to the gun industry from civil litigation. The legislation -- already passed by the House of Representatives (H.R. 1036) and pending in the Senate (S. 659) -- threatens to override the court's ruling and require the immediate dismissal of the sniper victims' case against Bull's Eye and Bushmaster, without allowing the sniper victims to present any evidence to a judge or jury.

Judge Cuthbertson has applied the principles of law that apply to everyone and has decided that the sniper victims have valid legal claims. It is outrageous that Congress would even consider overruling his judgement with legislation that creates special rules for the gun industry. These victims already have suffered an unimaginable loss. Will Congress now deprive them of their legal rights as well?" said Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The sniper victims' families are represented by attorneys from the Brady Center's Legal Action Project and the Seattle law firm of Luvera Barnett Brindley Beninger & Cunningham."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=100-06282003

"The lawsuit alleges that at least 238 guns, including the assault rifle, disappeared from the gun shop in the last three years. Despite audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showing that Bull’s Eye had dozens of missing guns, Bushmaster continued to use the shop as a dealer and provide it with as many guns as the owners wanted, the suit alleged.
The amended complaint also asserts that law enforcement authorities have traced guns involved in 52 crimes to Bull’s Eye, including the Trang Dai Cafe killings in Tacoma that left five people dead. It also claims that Bull’s Eye failed to file required federal reports on firearms stolen or missing from its store for more than a year. "

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134889736_websniperlawsuit03.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. More judicial stupidity

I don't see any lawsuits against the manufacturers of the car they used. This is just trying an end-run on the Constitution. And that is why it will be stopped.

[MrBenchley]

59. So in other words

the lawsuit is not bogus....

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. In other words

It is entirely bogus.

[MrBenchley]

67. Tell it to the Judge

The judge said the lawsuit can proceed, which proves it is NOT bogus.

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. No, I'll tell it to Congress

They will sort out this mess rather than some flipped out judge.

[MrBenchley]

81. Racing to shield the gun industrry from the law

because it's both corrupt and irresponsible and NEEDS this disgraceful bill.

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. Racing to shield the Constitution

So gunbanners don't try to use the courts to do an end run on the 2nd Amendment and indirectly ban guns.

Fortunately, Congress seems to agree.

[MrBenchley]

85. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrrre.....

And Wayne LaPierre is Queen of the May.

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. Interesting

I've always wanted to know who held that position.

[MrBenchley]

91. Those who believe his idiotic fairy tales....

like his dishonest revisionist view of the second amendment, that's who.

[Muddleoftheroad]

94. Oh, you mean like the ACLU?

Thanks!

[MrBenchley]

97. The ACLU's on Wayne's idiotic enemies list

remember?

In facct, there's a whole thread on the board now devoted to the RKBA crowd pissing and moaning because the ACLU isn't deluded enough to swallow Wayne's revisionist lies about the Second Amendment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20909&mesg_id=20909

[Muddleoftheroad]

120. I don't care about enemies lists

Even though I don't support much about the NRA, they are a necessary counterpoint to the GGA (Gun Grabbers of America).

Yes, the ACLU sure supports ALMOST all of my rights.

[MrBenchley]

122. Nor about facts, obviously

[Muddleoftheroad]

132. You speak of opinion, not facts

nt

[iverglas]

92. fortunately for USAmericans

It is the courts, and not Congress, which interpret the constitution and the law, and which determine when rights have been violated.

("Flipped out judge"? You got a lot of them down there? Weird.)

If that ugly legislation passes, then me, I'd be looking at a constitutional challenge to it. It prevents certain people from exercising their rights in the courts.

The 14th amendment to the US constitution comes to mind:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yeah, damn, that's the one for the states. What a dog's breakfast that thing is ...

Some US constitutional scholar can probably help me out here. Perhaps the 9th would help:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I'd think that the right to sue a tortfeasor for damages would be in that category. And that the gummint would have to have some rather compelling reason for denying certain classes of people the ability to exercise that right.

Or that due process bit, also in the 5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(Isn't civil law, i.e. tort law, under state jurisdiction? Damned if I know how come the feds are messing around in this ... but I'm just a furriner.)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/11.html#6

Equality .--If due process is to be secured, the laws must operate alike upon all and not subject the individual to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power unrestrained by established principles of private rights and distributive justice. Where a litigant has the benefit of a full and fair trial in the state courts, and his rights are measured, not by laws made to affect him individually, but by general provisions of law applicable to all those in like condition, he is not deprived of property without due process of law, even if he can be regarded as deprived of his property by an adverse result.<3>

<Footnote 3> Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894).

Sure looks to me like the legislation in question is arbitrarily denying people who claim to have been harmed as a result of firearms manufacturers'/vendors' negligence the ability to exercise their rights, and that those rights are being measured by laws made to affect them individually. (The bar owner could claim the same thing -- if nobody can sue a firearms vendor, how come anybody can sue a bar owner?)

Thank goodness for constitutions, eh? They do protect *everybody's* rights, and all.

.

[iverglas]

60. imagine how long a bar would be in business

... and how likely your Congress would be to enact legislation to protect it from lawsuits ... if the story had gone like this:


"The lawsuit alleges that on at least 238 occasions, including the night of the fatal car crash in question in question, Bar Boozorama sold alcoholic beverages to plainly intoxicated people holding car keys. Despite audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showing that Boozorama had served dozens of drunks with car keys, Bushweizer continued to use the shop as a dealer and provide it with as much booze as the owners wanted, the suit alleged.

The amended complaint also asserts that law enforcement authorities have traced the booze served prior to 52 car crashes, including the five-car pile-up in Tacoma that left five people dead, to Boozorama."

.

[CO Liberal]

63. That Already Happens

In NJ, bartenders and party hosts are liable for accidents caused by their inebriated guests if they do not try to take their keys or take other positive steps to prevent them from driving drunk. It's been that way for about 20 years now - that's why many companies stopped holding Christmas Parties.

[iverglas]

64. Exactly!

And that there is the point.

Bar owners are held liable for negligently (or intentionally, of course) supplying booze to people when it is reasonably foreseeable that the people are then going to commit illegal acts and/or cause harm, and they in fact do so.

Why on earth should firearms manufacturers and dealers get any different treatment?

That's the entire issue in a nutshell.

As I just figured out, after listening for so long to the "they're trying to sue someone for producing a product that worked the way it was supposed to work" chorus spewing from the straw heads that I almost thought it was true.

The case cited by Benchley makes it crystal clear WHAT the manufacturers/dealers are being sued for, and WHY.

If I were a bar owner, I'd be lobbying my congressperson for legislation to protect *me*, methinks.

.

[iverglas]

58. the smell of straw on a fine fall day

"The claimants are suing because the products work like they are supposed to."

You know that's false, right?

You know that the lawsuits in question have nothing to do with how the product works, and everything to do with the negligence of the supplier who supplied them to people who it could reasonably foresee would use them to cause harm?

The booze that your local bar sells to a drunk with car keys in his/her hand also works as it is supposed to.

Does that somehow obviate the bar's responsibility for supplying alcohol to someone who they could reasonably foresee was going to get behind the wheel of a car and drive it over your kid?

Oh, I know. Bars shouldn't be liable for any part of the harm done by the car-key wielding drunks they serve ...

Why doncha do what I suggested in post # 43, and Learn A Little Law?

Whether you *like* the law of negligence is of absolutely no consequence.

Whether the law that applies to everyone else in the country should not apply to firearms manufactureres and dealers is the issue.

.

[MrBenchley]

61. Great post!

"Whether the law that applies to everyone else in the country should not apply to firearms manufacturers and dealers is the issue."
And clearly, the corrupt gun industry knows it has much to hide...

[RoeBear]

68. Try to answer this with a yes or no-

Do you think a gun manufacturer should be able to be sued because someone committed a crime with one of their guns?

[MrBenchley]

69. Depends

Did the manufacturer take care to be sure that the gunns did not fall into criminal hands? Or did he, in fact, encourage the sale of his guns knowing that they were likely to be used by criminals.

[Spoonman]

99. "encourage the sale"

You mean sort of like the way car manufacturers show cars exceeding the speed limit on dangerous roads in the marketing of them?

How about "did the manufacturer take care to be sure that the" cars were not driven by a drunk driver?

Or "did the manufacturer take care to be sure that the" cars weren't stolen and used in a criminal fashion?

The liability argument is so flawed it stinks, and no matter how anyone tries to present it, it will always stink!

[iverglas]

104. well, how about it?

"How about 'did the manufacturer take care to be sure
that the' cars were not driven by a drunk driver?"

How about if the manufacturer KNEW (or ought to have known) that there was a possibility that its cars would be driven by drunk drivers *and* HAD the opportunity to take reasonable steps to prevent that happening?

How about if it knew perfectly well that one of its authorized dealers was in the habit of selling its vehicles to people who were disqualified from driving *and* likely to drive drunk?

Not quite the same as being disqualified from owning firearms, of course. So not really a parallel at all, is it? And car dealer who sells cars to individuals who are disqualified from driving is breaking no laws; a firearms dealer who sells firearms to individuals who are disqualified from owning firearms is.

Now ... how about a car dealer which left cars sitting around on its unlit parking lot at night with the keys in the ignitions, to the knowledge of any drunk needing transportation home from the bar across the street, and whose cars had been "stolen" and used 52 times to cause crashes with other vehicles ... well hmm. If I were the car manufacturer, I might be considering revoking the dealer's franchise. If I were the dealer, I'd be upping my insurance coverage.

A firearms manufacturer can take the reasonable step of denying that dealer authorization to sell its products. The dealer itself can, if it wants to continue being a dealer, take the reasonable step of ceasing to sell its products to disqualified individuals, and ceasing to "lose" its products.

Is there a reasonable step that a car dealer can take to prevent its cars being driven by disqualified drivers? Is there a reasonable step that a car manufacturer can take to prevent its products from being driven by drunks? Not leaving the cars sitting around unlocked with the keys in the ignition across the street from a bar, and revoking the franchise of any dealer who does that, would be a good start.

(Actually, there is a positive step that could be taken: the installation of breathalyzer devices, like disqualified drivers in Ontario must now install in their vehicles if they want their licences back. Apparently this is not considered to be a "reasonable" step for all vehicles sold. Someone might want to try arguing that it is. Someone could bring suit against a car manufacturer, claiming that it failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm caused by a drunk driving one of its cars, when it could have taken the reasonable step of installing breathalyzers in the cars. Has your Congress got around to prohibiting such lawsuits yet?)

Seeing the distinction?

Firearms manufacturers and dealers DO have the ability to take reasonable steps to prevent harm from occurring in this particular way -- the criminal use of firearms by persons disqualified from owning them who obtain them from dealers illegally.

Any particular reason why it would NOT be reasonable to expect them to do this??

.

[iverglas]

71. here's one for you

""Try to answer this with a yes or no- ..."


Quick! What colour is orange: true or false?

Remember -- "true" or "false" only.


I know, I know, that's not quite the same as your question. Your question was just ... well, here's my rewriting:


"Do you think a gun manufacturer should be able to be sued
because someone committed a crime with one of their guns?"

Do you think a bar should be able to be sued
because someone caused a fatal car crash while under
the influence of liquor it sold?

Might you just want to have a couple more facts? Like -- did the bar owner/staff KNOW that the person was intoxicated and was planning to drive?

Gee. Quelle surprise that I'm no more willing to answer your hokey question than you would mine.

Of course, you still haven't said whether you think that a bar should be able to be sued if it serves liquor to an obviously intoxicated person holding a set of car keys, and then watches while the obviously intoxicated person staggers out to the car parked in the bar parking lot, and roars away and runs over your kid.

If you don't, then your opinion is quite simply irrelevant. Because the FACT is that said bar owner MAY be sued.

And the QUESTION is: why, if the drunk driver's victims MAY sue said bar owner, the victims of the person who acquired a firearm contrary to law from a vendor who acquired the firearm from a manufacturer who knew that the vendor was in the habit of selling firearms illegally MAY NOT sue said firearms vendor and manufacturer.

You can't answer that one yes-or-no, but I'll bet you could do it in 50 words or so. In fact, I could probably type up your answer for you and save you the time ...

Anyhow, my answer to your question is:

YES, *if* the risk of someone committing a crime with the firearm was known (or should have been known) to the firearm manufacturer to be higher in a given situation *and if* the firearm manufacturer failed to take any reasonable steps to ensure that the risk did not materialize.

Actually, the firearms manufacturer and vendor should "be able to be sued" unconditionally. It is up to a COURT to decide whether there is a cause of action and whether, and to what extent, the defendant is liable for the damage. I mean, those are the rules that all the rest of us live under.

Quite simple, actually. And commonly called "the law".

.

[RoeBear]

82. Don't you see that the tactic isn't...

...to try to sue a company for misbehavior, they are trying to sue them just to make them go out of business.

I'm not aware of a liquor company being sued for a drunk driver killing someone. If it has happened it would be a bogus attempt at getting to the deep pockets.

[MrBenchley]

83. Who are you kidding, roe?

""Don't you see that the tactic isn't to try to sue a company for misbehavior"

Let's take the most famous current lawsuit...and the one the Bushmaster Protection Act is trying to head off.

"Earlier this year, Bulls Eye filed a motion to dismiss the civil case against it, and the presiding judge denied the motion. Judge Frank E. Cuthbertson wrote "the facts in the present case indicate that a high degree of risk of harm to plaintiffs was created by Bull's Eye Shooter Supply's allegedly reckless or incompetent conduct in distributing firearms." And he denied manufacturer Bushmaster's motion to dismiss, because the facts alleged by the victims would establish that "Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., knew or should have known that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply was operating its store in a reckless or incompetent manner, creating an unreasonable risk of harm."
There's nothing frivolous about the case against Bulls Eye and Bushmaster, and the gun industry knows it."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=510

I"n a significant development in the fight by cities, counties and crime victims to reform the gun industry, five gun sellers have agreed to be bound by a court-enforced code of conduct in order to settle lawsuits against them brought by twelve California municipalities. The gun industry defendants - two major California gun dealers and three national gun distributors who sold guns into California - will be required to take steps that go above and beyond current federal and state law to prevent firearms from being sold into the underground market in California.

The final settlement was approved by California Superior Court Judge Vincent P. DiFiglia late on Friday, October 24, and will be entered by the court today. "

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=514

[demsrule4life]

100. FYI

Gun makers do not sell guns to individual gun stores. Guns are sold to distributers and gun stores order their guns from them.

[iverglas]

103. oh

"Gun makers do not sell guns to individual gun stores.
Guns are sold to distributers and gun stores order their
guns from them."

So the report quoted by Benchley:

The lawsuit alleges that at least 238 guns, including the assault rifle, disappeared from the gun shop in the last three years. Despite audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showing that Bull’s Eye had dozens of missing guns, Bushmaster continued to use the shop as a dealer and provide it with as many guns as the owners wanted, the suit alleged.

-- or more accurately, I suppose, the people who wrote the statement of claim -- got it wrong?

Bushmaster has no control over who deals in its products?

I'd find that odd. Of course, I'd note that you didn't really address that issue, did you? Germane though it appears to be.

.

[demsrule4life]

105. The gun store I use is a "Springfield armory" dealer

If there is a model I want they do not call the Springield factory. How would Bushmaster know that Bull's Eye was faiing aduits from the ATF unless the ATF and or Bull's Eye told them?

[iverglas]

107. well there you are

"How would Bushmaster know that Bull's Eye was faiing aduits
from the ATF unless the ATF and or Bull's Eye told them?"

And that's exactly the question that the court would have to consider when it heard the claim in question. That's what courts do, you see.

The question is what standard Bushmaster would have to meet. Is just sitting on its hands sufficient? Would it only have to act if someone came to it with a copy of the audit, for instance?

Or does it have a duty to do something active? Should it require dealers authorized to sell its product to, say, provide it with copies of the audits? Should it request that the dealer report directly to it with information about compliance with legislation and any "lost" product? Should it require that dealers permit it to do its own spot-checks? Should it send out secret shoppers occasionally to see how the dealer responds to attempted illegal purchases? Should it seek out data about the provenance of firearms used in crimes, to determine whether any of its dealers appear to be violating the law or being negligent in their distribution of its products?

In view of the potential for harm, none of those would seem like particularly onerous duties to me.

In this particular case, I get the impression that by the time the DC snipers, for instance, got their firearms, the problem was rather notorious. It seems that a lot of other people were aware of it; why wouldn't Bushmaster be?

But as I say -- this is a question for the court. What was Bushmaster's duty of care, and what steps did it take to meet that duty, and were those steps reasonable?

Why would anyone think that a court was not capable of deciding these issues? Why would anyone want to stop a court from doing that?

.

[1a2b3c]

73. Can you explain why they are not bogus?

[MrBenchley]

74. Been there, done that

[1a2b3c]

114. Well try again

Just for me.

[iverglas]

75. just how difficult can this possibly be

... for anyone with two brain cells to rub together to understand??

Again: From the aptly titled "Learn a Little Law": http://jurisdocuments.com/LALLMay03.htm

Degree of Care. In tort law, the degree of care required of a person is that which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. It does not mean such a degree of care as would have prevented the harm from occurring, nor is it enough that it is just as much care as everyone else exercises. Nor is it sufficient that one has exercised the degree of care which is customary for persons in the same kind of work or business, or that one has employed the methods customarily used. If one is engaged in services requiring skill, the care must measure up to a higher standard. In any case, the degree of care exercised must be commensurate with the danger that would probably result if such care were lacking. In all cases, it is the diligence, care and skill that can be reasonably expected under the circumstances. (Clear as mud?) Whether one has exercised the degree of care that is required under the circumstances is a question that is determined by the jury.

Learn A Little Law!

People who engage in activities which involve a FORESEEABLE RISK OF HARM TO OTHERS have a DUTY OF CARE -- a duty to take steps to PREVENT that harm from occurring.

If it was FORESEEABLE that the firearms sold to the vendor by the manufacturer would fall into the hands of criminals (duh, in this case), and if it was FORESEEABLE that the criminals would use the firearms to cause harm (duh), then the manufacturer had a duty to take steps to prevent that harm from occurring.

Everybody else in the world has such a duty -- a duty to take steps to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm from resulting from our actions. If I want to cut down a tree on my property, I have to take steps to ensure that it doesn't crush my neighbour's car. If I want to build a bridge, I have to take steps to ensure that it doesn't collapse. Why the *hell* would firearms manufacturers not have the same duty as all the rest of us??

.

[1a2b3c]

115. Iverglas

We are talking about product liability. If youre a lawyer or a judge or involved in law of some way then please explain to me, since i seem to not have two brain cells to rub together, how these claims in courts are not bogus. The gun fired a bullet and killed someone. Is the manufacture liable because of a faulty product? You say yes but my uneducated self cannot see how you, the educated one, can make this claim with a straight face. You say they have to take steps to prevent harm from incurring. Isnt that what the safety on the gun is for? Are you saying its the gun manufactures job to police the bad people who would misuse their product? How is it going to be FORESEEABLE to the manufacture that his gun will fall into criminal hands? You speak like you know what youre talking about when it comes to laws but you dont seem to have a clue as to how firearms are sold. The manufacture sells to a distributor who sells to a dealer who sells to people who wants guns. So if a manufacture sells to a distributor who they know is selling on the black market then yes they are responsible. In NONE of these lawsuits is that the case. In these lawsuits the manufacture is being blamed because a criminal got ahold of a gun and shot someone. Its NOT the manufactures job to stop this from happening just like its not Hondas job to stop drinking and driving. Its the BATF's job. Its the police departments job.

So again, and in dumbass terms please since that seems to be how you think of me, explain to me how these lawsuits are not bogus.

[jody]

116. 1a2b3c, please don't confuse education with wisdom. Lots of educated

people have a real deficit in the wisdom department.

ON EDIT ADD
A jury has the right to use its collective wisdom and do what's right regardless of what the judge, lawyers, and other educated people might desire.

jury nullification : the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact
Note: Jury nullification is most likely to occur when a jury is sympathetic toward a defendant or regards the law under which the defendant is charged with disfavor. Except for a statutory requirement to the contrary, a jury does not have to be instructed on the possibility of jury nullification.

Also see Fully Informed Jury Association and other similar sites on the web.

[iverglas]

118. and unless

... lawsuits in the US are usually decided by King Solomon, someone will have to tell me what "wisdom" might have to do with any of this.

.

[iverglas]

117. oh look

"We are talking about product liability."

I guess we can stop right there.

Because that is most definitely not my understanding of the action now proceeding against the particular dealer and manufacturer in question in the DC sniper shootings. Pretty much zero to do with "product liability", as I see it.

Is an action against a bar for serving alcohol to a drunk who leaves the bar and runs over someone in his/her car an action in product liability?

.

[1a2b3c]

119. Well we was talking about product liability

Im not quite sure what you are talking about. ALL of the lawsuits against manufactures of firearms are dealing with criminal use of a properly working firearm. They are meant to bankrupt the manufacture who has to defend himself in court to show he has no way of controlling what the criminal elements do with his firearms after they are shipped.

Do you know of a lawsuit where the manufacture is being sued for knowingly breaking a law?

[Stilgar]

111. Wrong again

"If the lawsuits have no merit, they would not proceed....but that has clearly not been the case."

Most have been dismissed or found not guilty, NAACP, the mayors group and more

They just want them to stop because even victorious it costs money to defend themselves.

[iverglas]

43. my preferred analogy

... for those unable to understand the concept.

"Here's a good one;
Should the Ford dealership that sold the truck be responsible for
the drunk driver that killed a family of four?
How about Budweiser, because said drunk driver had been drinking it?"

Nah. Here's a good one. Yours just leaves a little bit out of the equation.

How about the bar that sold the drunk driver the drinks?

How about if Budweiser was fully aware that the bar in question sold its product indiscriminately to drunks with car keys in their hands, and that in the past some of those drunks had gone on to cause car crashes in which people were killed?

Or even your dealership. How about if it was in the habit of selling trucks to 12-year-olds and allowing them to drive the trucks off the lot? (How about if *you* gave your 12-year-old the keys to your truck and allowed him/her to drive it to school?)

How about if Ford knew that the dealership made a practice of turning over its trucks to 12-year-olds and that some of those 12-year-olds had gone on to cause car crashes in which people were killed?

Get a grasp on the concept of negligence, hm? It involves the foreseeability of the harm, and the failure to take reasonable steps to avert that harm. There would seem to me to be an argument that a manufacturer who continues to sell its product to a vendor like the one in question here would have a difficult time claiming that it was unable to foresee the possibility that the vendor would "lose" a few of its products, and that some of them would be used by the people who "found" them to commit crimes or cause injury or death.

It's really not that difficult to protect one's self against such liability. Making reasonable inquiries is the usual route.

Up here, we have a law that if one's vehicle is used for smuggling things over the border, the vehicle is forfeit -- *unless* the owner can establish that it took reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the vehicle would not be used for smuggling. It actually is the responsibility of a vehicle owner, before lending or renting its vehicle to someone else, to inquire whether the person is going to use it to smuggle, and to have a reasonable belief that any denial was credible.

There's a preference, among people wanting to smuggle cigarettes and booze, for using other people's cars to do it in, and some of those people are quite happy to lend the cars, for a bit of a profit. It really would be too much if all they had to say was "Moi? You think that *I* knew what my cousin was up to?? Heavens to Betsy, what an idea!" Ditto for car rental agencies in areas where such smuggling is common; turning a blind eye just doesn't work.

Just as it doesn't work for bar owners who sell 10 drinks to someone at a roadhouse: "How was *I* supposed to know s/he was drunk? How was *I* supposed to know s/he was going to drive?"

I can't quite see why it would work for a manufacturer who continued to sell firearms to a vendor who had such a bad habit of "losing" the product, and whose "lost" product so often ended up being used to cause harm.

"Moi? You think that *I* knew about the possibility that someone would lose my product and someone else would find it and shoot a dozen people with it?? Heavens to Betsy, how could I possibly have known this?"

There's none so visually impaired ... and all that. Wilful visual impairment, of course, doesn't usually avert liability.


From the aptly titled "Learn a Little Law": http://jurisdocuments.com/LALLMay03.htm

Degree of Care. In tort law, the degree of care required of a person is that which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. It does not mean such a degree of care as would have prevented the harm from occurring, nor is it enough that it is just as much care as everyone else exercises. Nor is it sufficient that one has exercised the degree of care which is customary for persons in the same kind of work or business, or that one has employed the methods customarily used. If one is engaged in services requiring skill, the care must measure up to a higher standard. In any case, the degree of care exercised must be commensurate with the danger that would probably result if such care were lacking. In all cases, it is the diligence, care and skill that can be reasonably expected under the circumstances. (Clear as mud?) Whether one has exercised the degree of care that is required under the circumstances is a question that is determined by the jury.

.

[jody]

9. The lie "1% of dealers supply 57% of crime guns" is refuted by

Firearms Use by Offenders
Source of gun 1997 data
Retail Store 8.3%
Pawnshop 3.8%
Flea market 1.0%
Gun show 0.7%
Friend or family 39.6%
Street/illegal source 39.2%

I challenge you to prove that the ad was not directed by Karl Rove because Democratic leaders are coming to their senses and realizing that the majority of voters want to use firearms to exercise their inalienable right of self defense?

[MrBenchley]

11. Too TOO funny

Convicts....there's a source to believe.

Gee, if Karl Rove really wanted to get his way, he'd hire people to try to persuade Democrats not to offer the gun control most voters want, and instead to pander to the most bigoted and extreme GOP splinter group, thus alienating the rest of their constituency.

[iverglas]

44. quite apart from the source

... why don't we just challenge jody to prove that 62% of the firearms boldfaced in her list below ...

Retail Store 8.3%
Pawnshop 3.8%
Flea market 1.0%
Gun show 0.7%
Friend or family 39.6%
Street/illegal source 39.2%

(that will be 91.7% of all the firearms in question, by my reckoning; 62% of that 91.7% = 57% of the whole lot)

... DIDN'T come from that 1% of dealers?

What ... she figured that just because there was an intermediary, the original sources (manufacturer and first vendor) just kinda went "poof" and disappeared? The firearms sold by pawnshops and at flea markets and gun shows, sold or lent or given by friends and family, and sold on the street, just magically materialized in the hands of the people who transferred them??

I guess I'll never know jody's answer, but anybody else's guess could be equally entertaining.

.

[Paladin]

16. Why Don't You Prove It, Jody?

Take a break from bashing prominent Democrats and prove the goofy notion that Big Bad Karl is behind this ad. The burden for substantiating such an outlandish claim ought to be on you.

[jody]

19. Paladin, why don't you try proving that Rove is not pulling Brady's

strings. The gun-grabber group cost Gore and other prominent Democrats their elections. Rove has loyal lackeys in his gun-grabber minions.

[CO Liberal]

20. You're The One Who Made The Outrageous Claim, Jody

So the burden falls on YOU to back it up.

[jody]

22. Prove my I made an "Outrageous Claim". The primary beneficiaries

of Brady's ad in the New York Times is Rove's puppet AWOL and the Republican party.

If gun grabbers really wanted to help Democrats win elections, they would listen to the majority of Democratic and independent voters and support RKBA.

Democratic candidates bear a major burden with people like Zell Miller and Diane Fienstein pretending to speak for the Democratic Party.

[CO Liberal]

23. Prove There's a Link Between Karl Rove and Sarah Brady, Jody

If you can't, then ask the moderators to delete your outlandish post.

[jody]

24. CO, I proved that the ad you posted contained false data in response to

your challenge. The Brady group has access to the same data we all have and they knowingly published incorrect data. Why don't you admit that Brady and her group are caught in their use of false data?

As to my opinion, I don't have to prove an opinion I make just as you don't have to prove your many opinions about individual members of the pro-RKBA group.

Are you and Paladin upset because Brady and her group have been exposed as giving aid to the Karl Rove crowd?

[Paladin]

25. Why The Hell......

....should we have to prove something that you yourself admit is nothing more than an opinion, rather than anything even remotely resembling a fact? I put forth a lot of opinions in this forum, but it would never occur to me to demand that your side prove my opinions correct. I'm with CO Liberal on this one: prove up the Karl Rove speculation, or have the strength of character to have the moderators remove your claim. The sooner the better.....

[jody]

26. Do you believe Rove is stupid enough to leave an audit trail between

himself and Brady?

The timing of the Brady ad cited by CO Liberal among other press releases by her group in the past is circumstantial evidence that the group she fronts is just as determined as LaPierre to keep the RKBA wedge issue alive to the detriment of many Democratic candidates. Ask Gore and Clinton whether the gun grabbers help or hurt Democratic candidates.

When Brady, Feinstein, and others who support banning guns attach a disclaimer that they do not represent the Democratic Party on RKBA, then and only then will I reconsider whether they are helping Karl Rove and his crowd.

[MrBenchley]

29. Too too funny

We are supposed to suspect that Diane Feinstein, the senior Democratic Senator from California, the first woman member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a lifelong Democrat who was also the first woman on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the first woman Mayor of San Francisco, is secretly working for Karl Rove because Jody doesn't like her position on guns...

Although it's Feinstein's position that's shared by a majority of voters...and Karl Rove's position that's in the minority...and the view that Jody expresses.

[Paladin]

32. Yeah, Right

So Karl Rove's this master-mind who's too brilliant (in your opinion) to leave any clues behind----and yet you're demanding that we gun control advocates do your job for you and find his fingerprints all over the NYT ad? Absolutely pathetic. Here's an opinion of mine, Jody: this is just further proof that you and your fellow RKBA radicals can't possibly have the best interests of the Democratic Party at heart in your ham-handed efforts to have it adopt an NRA-friendly policy on guns. Don't bother responding---like I said before, it would never occur to me to demand that you prove my opinions correct.....

[jody]

34. You should stay current on trends in the Democratic Party. As a start,

you could read "Democratic Hopefuls Play Down Gun Control" and study the poll "Winning the Gun Vote" used by the DLC and discussed at "Statement by DLC Founder & CEO Al From at DLC-Americans for Gun Safety Press Briefing".

Those Democratic leaders support the Democratic Party Platform which says "Strong and Sensible Gun Laws. A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners." {emphasis added}

[Paladin]

35. Since When Do You Support The Party Platform?

I distinctly remember you criticizing that same platform language as being anti-RKBA, not that long ago.

And believe me, I'm all in favor of the party playing down gun control. I just wonder if RKBA ideologues like you will allow it to happen. So far, you and your fellow travelers seem to be calling all the negative attention you can to the party's position on guns. Not very helpful.....

[jody]

36. Please provide a link where I criticized the party "platform language as

being anti-RKBA". I have stated that the platform contains statements in other sections that lead people to misunderstand the National Democratic Party's position on RKBA that I quoted above.

Do you support the Democratic Party's position on RKBA or are you in favor of banning handguns like Brady or all guns like Feinstein?


AND DAMM PROUD OF IT!

[Paladin]

37. I Support The Party's Position on RKBA......

... and I'm certainly not going to associate myself with what you claim Brady and Feinstein's positions supposedly are on this issue.

And I still maintain that it was the party platform language you quote above that you previously labeled as being anti-RKBA. Find your own damned links. Speaking of which---the word is spelled "damn" or "damned," not "damm." If you're going to put something in bold print, try getting the spelling right. You're welcome.....

[jody]

38. The positions of Brady and Feinstein are well known. As to my use of

"damm", it is a slang spelling derived from "dammit" which itself is an alteration of "damn it". I use it for its slang emphasis. Thanks for playing.

[CO Liberal]

52. And Those Positions Have NOTHING To Do With The Democratic Party Platform

Right?????

[jody]

53. You say you support the Democratic Party Platform. Are you now

asserting that our party's platform supports banning handguns or all guns as proposed by Brady and Feinstein?

[CO Liberal]

55. No, I'm Not

You know what the platform says as well as I do. Please stop trying to cloud the issue.

And show me a reputable link to where Sarah Brady personally said anything about banning all guns. Remember, I said "reputable" link - not one of those wacko gun-nut sites.

[jody]

65. Is it so hard to say you reject Feinstein's position? As to Brady and

her organization, consider the following.

Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) began as the National Council to Control Handguns.

Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, founder and executive director of National Council to Control Handguns said, "We're going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of all guns- is going to take time ... The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." (New Yorker Magazine, p. 57-58, 26 Jul 1976)

The link http://www.handguncontrol.org/ goes to the Brady Campaign. That’s because Handgun Control, Inc. morphed into the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. See A History of Working to Prevent Gun Violence

HCI has generated numerous acrimonious exchanges regarding its “five year plan”. HCI contends the plan is a hoax however I have not read an HCI statement that says it does not agree with “Eventual Ban of Handgun Possession”. The easy task for HCI is to state for the record that it does not support the plan or selected parts of the plan like banning handguns. Their silence fuels continued belief that HCI, now the Brady Campaign does want to ban handguns but wants to hide its real agenda.

The following statements which have not been disavowed by the HCI/Brady Campaign support a belief that banning handguns is a major goal of the group.

Susan Glick of Violence Policy Center, Washington DC: "Sir, we're not hiding behind anything. We we endorse a handgun ban. I will tell you that right now. We absolutely endorse that ban..." Caller, Mark: "Now you're saying that's what your ultimate goal is..." Glick: "That's right, and we are absolutely vocal about it..." (on radio talk show "Front Page" hosted by Sue Wiley on WVLK Radio 590am Lexington KY 12/3/1997)

"I don't believe gun owners have rights." (Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October 1997)

"We must get rid of all the guns." (Sarah Brady speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil Donahue Show" September 1994)

Regardless of what Sarah Brady says, she is chair of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence and she represents its goals -- ban handguns.

[MrBenchley]

50. Here's your link, Jody

"Please provide a link where I criticized the party "platform language as being anti-RKBA".

"jody  (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-08-03
One problem is that the DNC Platform is written with so much anti-RKBA venom"

"Paladin (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-08-03 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Anybody Who Reads The Platform Language You Quote......
....and somehow manages to find it filled with "anti-RKBA venom" is a lost cause as far as the Democratic Party is concerned."

"MrBenchley  (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-08-03 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Here's what the DNC platform said...
"Bill Clinton and Al Gore took office determined to turn the tide in the battle against crime, drugs, and disorder in our communities. They put in place a tougher more comprehensive strategy than anything tried before, a strategy to fight crime on every single front: more police on the streets to thicken the thin blue line between order and disorder, tougher punishments - including the death penalty - for those that dare to terrorize the innocent, and smarter prevention to stop crime before it even starts.
They stood up to the gun lobby, to pass the Brady Bill and ban deadly assault weapons - and stopped nearly half a million felons, fugitives, and stalkers from buying guns. They fought for and won the biggest anti-drug budgets in history, every single year. They funded new prison cells, and expanded the death penalty for cop killers and terrorists.
Here are the results of that strategy: serious crime is down seven years in a row, to its lowest level in a quarter-century. Violent crime is down by 24 percent. The murder rate is down to levels unseen since the mid-1960's. The number of juveniles committing homicides with guns is down by nearly 60 percent.
But we have just begun to fight the forces of lawlessness and violence. We cannot go back to the finger-pointing and failed strategies that led to that steep rise in crime in the Bush-Quayle years. We can't surrender to the right-wing Republicans who threatened funding for new police, who tried to gut crime prevention, and who would invite the NRA into the Oval Office. Nor will we go back to the old approach which was tough on the causes of crime, but not tough enough on crime itself.
...
A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners. The Columbine tragedy struck America's heart, but in its wake Republicans have done nothing to keep guns away from those who should not have them.
Democrats believe that we should fight gun crime on all fronts - with stronger laws and stronger enforcement. That's why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent.
Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children. We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America. We support more federal gun prosecutors, ATF agents and inspectors, and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime."
http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html
That's "venom" the way Faux Noise is "fair and balanced." "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7331#8580

[MrBenchley]

28. Notice

that actually advancing REPUBLICAN policy, as the RKBA crowd wishes us to do, is somehow to the RKBA crowd not advancing Karl Rove's aim...although advancing Republican policy is what Karl Rove IS aiming to do.

MORE RKBA "logic."

[iverglas]

45. the real false statement by jody was this

The lie "1% of dealers supply 57% of crime guns" is refuted by

Firearms Use by Offenders
Source of gun 1997 data
Retail Store 8.3%
Pawnshop 3.8%
Flea market 1.0%
Gun show 0.7%
Friend or family 39.6%
Street/illegal source 39.2%

Aren't we seeing 'em, folks?

Those APPLES AND ORANGES?

The figures jody posted refer to WHERE OFFENDERS GOT THEIR FIREARMS.

They say NOTHING about WHAT DEALERS supplied the firearms.

SOMEONE supplied the firearms to the sources from which the offenders obtained them. Jody is apparently wanting us to believe that the firearms had no provenance at all, that no dealer ever supplied them to anyone ... or that if some dealer did that, we should just draw a line between the dealer and the first purchaser and not make any inquiry about where the firearm actually came from.

I dunno about anyone else, but I'm not much more impressed by the statement that 57% of firearms used in crimes were supplied by dealers to sources who supplied them to people who used them to commit crimes than I would be by the statement that 57% of firearms used in crimes were supplied by dealers to people who used them to commit crimes.

Of course, I don't actually think that anyone ever said that "57% of firearms used in crimes were supplied by dealers to people who used them to commit crimes". In fact, jody even managed to cite the actual statement -- "1% of dealers supply 57% of crime guns" -- before she went tilting off at the straw fella of her own invention, which seems to be "1% of dealers supply 57% of crime guns directly to offenders". Has anyone ever said that? I thought not.

So maybe someone would just ask jody to retract THAT very FALSE statement -- the claim that her figures refute the claim she was addressing.

.

[MrBenchley]

56. Of course you'll also notice

that now Jody also claims to SUPPORT the Democratic platform....

Although just a few months ago it was Jody's stated opinion that that very sensible document was dripping with "anti-gun venom."

Meanwhile, besides the very real fact that we are all entitled to have serious doubt about the truthfulness of convicted felons responding to a poll, you are 100% right to wonder where the firearm actually came from.

Evidently the RKBA crowd would have us believe that the friends, family members and illegal street cources all found them under cabbage leaves, brought there by the gun faeries overnight.

[hansberrym]

80. Suppose a criminal ...

buys a gun from a someone who had legally purchased the firearm from a pawnshop.

The criminal then commits a crime and is caught. When asked by prosecuters "who supplied the firearm", the criminal answers the Pawnshop owner.

Has the criminal lied?
Has he misled the prosecutor?

[CO Liberal]

40. This Is What You Posted Above, Jody

I challenge you to prove that the ad was not directed by Karl Rove because Democratic leaders are coming to their senses and realizing that the majority of voters want to use firearms to exercise their inalienable right of self defense?

You did NOT include words like "I believe", "I think", or even "IMHO". You made a statement as if it were fact.

And I'm challenging you to back that fact up.

[jody]

41. First, admit that the ad by Brady's group is full of lies.

You quoted me correctly "I challenge you to prove that the ad was not directed by Karl Rove because Democratic leaders are coming to their senses and realizing that the majority of voters want to use firearms to exercise their inalienable right of self defense?"

Brady and Feinstein continue to make public statements contrary to the Democratic Party platform and those statements encourage the impression that the Dem Party is out to ban handguns or all guns. Brady, Feinstein, and their supporters are helping Rove by driving independent voters away from Democratic candidates.

Anyone who claims to support "Measures that keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn`y have them, while allowing law-abiding people who chose to own guns access with minimal delay" and refuses to reject Brady and Feinstein's position on guns has a dilemma because Brady wants to ban all handguns and Feinstein wants to ban all guns. One can't support both the Democratic Party platform and gun-bans.

[CO Liberal]

47. Where Do I Begin?????

For the LAST TIME, Jody, Sarah Brady does NOT want to "ban all handguns". I saw her interviewed on "20/20" and she emphatically stated that that is NOT her mission - just keeping them away for the type of people who disabled her husband.

Please stop spreading lies about other people to advance your personal agenda.

[jody]

48. Begin by reading my reply #9. You started this thread by asking

for anyone to dispute the ad. I gave facts that refuted the ad.

Please acknowledge that Brady paid for an ad that contained lies and I will provide links that Brady's organization wants to ban all handguns.

I don't care what Brady said in one interview, the administration her husband worked for and she supported lied in numerous interviews. Number 41 lied and AWOL continues to lie.

Brady might claim she doesn't want to ban all handguns, but her actions belie her words.

[iverglas]

62. why are people allowed

... to "ignore" posts that CONCLUSIVELY DISPROVE their assertions, and just keep on making those false assertions?

Jody claims: "I gave facts that refuted the ad."

I have CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATED that her facts DO NOT REFUTE the facts in the ad.

Is this really a board for people to just spew unfounded and false allegations and NEVER HAVE TO back them up, respond to the disproof, or RETRACT them, and just keep on making them over and over?

Since it does seem to be, perhaps I can recommend the only way I can think of to address the problem.

Ignore the people who do it.

Unless and until jody responds to the demonstration that her assertion that she has "refuted" anything, by either offering substantiation for her assertion, rebutting the rebuttal of it, or retracting it ...

IGNORE HER.

And perhaps question why anyone who so steadfastly refuses to engage in debate is tolerated by anyone else.

.

[CO Liberal]

70. Reaganor Bush Lies Do NOT Equal Sarah Brady Lies

You're really stretching here, Jody.......

[jody]

76. Why not just admit Feinstein wants to ban all guns and Sarah Brady

wants to ban handguns.

I believe Sarah Brady is a Republican, do you?

[CO Liberal]

77. When YOU Admit That Neither Of Them Speak For the Democratic Party

And yes, Sarah Brady IS a Republican. Not that this has any bearing on anything - you seem to hate the individual, not her party affiliation.

[jody]

78. I have never said they speak for the Democratic Party. I said they

encourage and lead people to think they speak for the Democratic Party. The irony is that Republican Brady joins Democrat Feinstein and distorts the real position of the Democratric Party. With friends like those two, we don't need any enemies.

Now back to the question you posed in the initial post. Sarah Brady included at least one lie in the ad and I offered proof. Do you acknowledge that?

ON EDIT ADD
You established the condition "When YOU Admit That Neither Of Them Speak For the Democratic Party" as a precondition to you admitting "Feinstein wants to ban all guns and Sarah Brady wants to ban handguns."

I admitted that neither Brady or Feinstein speak for the Democratic Party so that means you admit that Brady wants to ban handguns and Feinstein wants to ban all guns.

Thank goodness we finally agree on Brady's and Feinstein's positions on what they want to ban. :hi:

[CO Liberal]

86. Show Me A Link, Jody.....

...to anywhere that Sarah Brady, a lifelong Republican, says anything to "encourage and lead people to think (she) speak(s) for the Democratic Party".

She speaks for herself and her organizations - NOT The Democratic Party. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been brainwashed by those like LaPierre and Nugent who spread lies about us Democrats.

[jody]

87. Are you backing out of your offer to admit that Brady and Feinstein

want to ban guns if I admitted they did not speak for the Democratic Party? Sorry, but I accepted your offer and admitted they do not speak for the Dem Party.

Do you want me to believe gun-control types can't be trusted to keep their word? :shrug:

[CO Liberal]

88. I Thought You Said They Were Puppets of Karl Rove

Which is it, Jody????

[jody]

89. I guess you are backing out of your offer to acknowledge that Brady and

Feinstein want to ban guns if I admitted they do not speak for the Democratic Party. I thought that might be the case and that's why I and others don't trust Scary Brady when she says she doesn't want to ban guns.

[CO Liberal]

93. Your Mistrust Is Clouding Your Vision, Jody

One more time ......

"Gun control" does NOT equal "gun banning" or "gun confisaction". They are separate issues.

[jody]

95. Sorry but I and tens of millions of voters know that banning guns is the

ultimate in gun control. Thanks to gun-grabbers, many voters believe that the Democratic Party wants to ban guns, see "Winning the Gun Vote".

When asked "Which type of candidate are you most likely to support", 57% chose "A Democrat who supports 2nd Amendment gun rights, closing some gun law loopholes, and enforcing the laws on the books" versus 32% who chose "A Republican who supports 2nd Amendment Rights", see above report.

Brady, Feinstein, and anyone that gives them unqualified support is involved in a duplicitous act of incrementalism which they hope will lead to gun banning and gun confiscation.

Gun-control advocates who are truly opposed to gun bans and gun confiscation can clean their image by denouncing Brady, Feinstein, and their gun-grabber friends.

[CO Liberal]

96. Tell You What, Jody ......

Are YOU willing to denounce Charleton Heston, Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, Bob Barr, Larry Pratt, and John "Cook The Books" Lott???

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???

[jody]

98. Why should I accept your offer, you have already refused to carry out

your part of an earlier offer, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=21126&mesg_id=21459&page=

Your reluctance suggests that although you say you are not for banning handguns or all guns, that really is your position.

[CO Liberal]

101. I Thought You Knew Me Better Than That, Jody

I somply refuse to be boxed into a corner. Since you seem to have such a deep, abiding hatred for Dianne Feinstein and Sarah Brady, perhaps they're onto something........

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

[jody]

102. I know only what you say on the forum. It's neither a crime nor sin to

support Feinstein, Brady, and other gun-grabbers who want to ban handguns or all guns.

Why is it:
(a) OK for a Democrat to support a RKBA position held by a conservative Republican who wants to ban handguns and

(b) Not OK for a Democrat to support an RKBA position held by a conservative Republican who opposes a ban of handguns?

The issue is the item, not whether it is held by a Republican or Democrat. In that sense, I am pro-RKBA regardless of the political party. I'm fortunate that the Democratic Party position on RKBA is something I can support, "Strong and Sensible Gun Laws. A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners." As I pointed out above, that is a position the majority of people can support.

If the NRA or any other group supports the pro-RKBA position that I hold, then we have that one thing in common even though we may be diametrically opposed on most other political issues.

[BullDozer]

21. Right an NRA GOP coup! Not!

Gee you mean bill S. 659 that Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Max Baucus approve of and which the house has already passed, by a vote of 285-to-140, it's version of the bill H. R. 1036?

[MrBenchley]

31. Notice

none can...and few have even tried.

[1a2b3c]

72. With a quick look

I noticed the scary gun in the ad has a few special features that makes it a pre ban rifle. Now they claim its the gun used by the Beltway serial killer. How can that be if he used a post ban rifle? I think they just wanted to use them scary features to make the sheeple more scared than they already are. It worked too. Hell i dont think im gonna be able to leave the house now.

[Emoto]

106. The bill doesn't do what the ad says

More scare tactics and lies from the Brady bunch. Has anyone got a link to the bill (isn't it S659?) so that people can read the text of it?

[slackmaster]

121. It's on Thomas

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.659: should take you right there.

THE COLON AT THE END OF THE LINK IS REQUIRED!

If that fails, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ - Search for S659.

Actually reading the bill. What a profound idea, Emoto!