Can gunmaker be held responsible for Newtown shooting?

[PsyOps]

We do, but the legal document protecting that right is the Constitution, not the DOI.

:shrug:

A right does not have to be specifically enumerated in the constitution in order to be a right. I would argue that the right to smoke is covered in the DOI “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, and the subsequent constitution supports these rights.

 

[Inkd]

had Bushmaster ALWAYS promoted their AR's as modern sporting rifles to be used for hunting and target shooting and personal defense, this would be a MUCH tough argument for the plaintiffs. If you've seem some Bushmaster ads, you can see how it's not hard to argue they promoted them for combat uses, too.

If it is me, I throw this suit out and try and have the lawyers disbarred for insulting the profession. But, if it is me, I throw out plaintiffs trying to ban books, send musicians to jail and use the Constitution to ban gay marriage. So, we'll see.

Which ads are these? I've honestly never seen Bushmaster ads anywhere, I can't even remember seeing them in any magazines? I probably wasn't paying attention though because I wouldn't buy a Bushmaster if someone gave me the money to do so.

They wouldn't have promoted them as a modern sporting rifle in the past since that is just something that has recently came about, recent being relative, to counter the whole "assault rifle" bull$hit. They also never had much popularity as hunting rifles in the past, so they wouldn't have promoted them as such.

I think if they were always used as hunting rifles and someone threw a collapsible stock and railed foregrip on them and started marketing them as tacticool guns and left the hunting aspect behind, then maybe there would be an argument.

From the real quick scan I did of the lawsuit, I don't see where they have a chance at winning with the allegations they are throwing out.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

So we do not have a legal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Nope, that is not in the Constitution. Our rights are supposedly protected so we can have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was in that letter sent to the King.... The Declaration of Independence.

 

[edinsomd]

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397

S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

"A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others."

Enacted by President Bush, 26 Oct 2005.

 

[Gilligan]

They wouldn't have promoted them as a modern sporting rifle in the past since that is just something that has recently came about, recent being relative, to counter the whole "assault rifle" bull$hit. They also never had much popularity as hunting rifles in the past, so they wouldn't have promoted them as such. .

Say..what??? From 50 years ago...

 

[Inkd]

Say..what??? From 50 years ago...

Jeebus man, where did you dig that up from!!!! Never can I remember in my younger days seeing an AR-15 touted as a hunting rifle!!!!! Then again, 50 years ago I was swimming around in my dads nether regions.

I have read gun magazines from the time I was able to buy them myself from the paper route money I made, but from what I remember about guns and ammo back in the 80's, it seemed to cover a lot of revolvers and a few automatics. Mainly the S/W 50 series. Then when Beretta got the contract, it seemed there were more articles about autos.

 

[Larry Gude]

Which ads are these? .

Can't find one now. I'm sure they are out there somewhere. Short vids of guys all geared up roaming the jungle like they're #### hot spec war dudes with their AR's.

 

[PsyOps]

Nope, that is not in the Constitution. Our rights are supposedly protected so we can have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was in that letter sent to the King.... The Declaration of Independence.

You're wrong:

Declarationism

Declarationism is a legal philosophy that incorporates the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of case law on level with the United States Constitution. It holds that the Declaration is a natural law document and so that natural law has a place within American jurisprudence. Its main proponents include Harry V. Jaffa and other members of the Claremont Institute. Some proponents claim that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a follower of this school of thought; however, Thomas is more widely considered a member of the strict constructionist school.

In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the United States Supreme Court stated:

The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

http://www.christianparents.com/deconst.htm

The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first. How many today say the Constitution stands alone devoid of all reference to the Declaration? Let them see hear and understand what those who wrote the Constitution said about our American government. See Article VII.

The Founders believed the Declaration was the foundational document in our Constitutional form of government. The Founders dated their government acts from the year of the Declaration rather than the Constitution. The date of the Declaration of Independence was the recognized date of Sovereignty and Independence of the United States.

In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration.

Samuel Adams pointed out: Before the formation of this Constitution this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.

Well into the twentieth century, the Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent. While the Court's change of standards has perhaps been a display of poor judgment, the Court's actions have actually been illegal under the standards of original intent. Furthermore they have violated the value system of "the laws of nature and of nature's God" established in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Gilligan]

Jeebus man, where did you dig that up from!!!! Never can I remember in my younger days seeing an AR-15 touted as a hunting rifle!!!!! Then again, 50 years ago I was swimming around in my dads nether regions.

I have read gun magazines from the time I was able to buy them myself from the paper route money I made, but from what I remember about guns and ammo back in the 80's, it seemed to cover a lot of revolvers and a few automatics. Mainly the S/W 50 series. Then when Beretta got the contract, it seemed there were more articles about autos.

That was the "holy grail" of desirable but unobtainable ($$$) rifles back when I was a young lad. So was the Remington Nylon 66 semi-automatic 22LR rifle. I had to settle for the latter...

 

[Larry Gude]

That was the "holy grail" of desirable but unobtainable ($$$) rifles back when I was a young lad. So was the Remington Nylon 66 semi-automatic 22LR rifle. I had to settle for the latter...

Fired my first AR in, gosh, '83? '84? I'll never forget how laughable I thought the thing, like a toy.

 

[Gilligan]

Fired my first AR in, gosh, '83? '84? I'll never forget how laughable I thought the thing, like a toy.

Yeah...that was my reaction too, once I finally got a chance to shoot one in the late 70s. Disappointed, I lost interest after that. I like a rifle and cartridge with some meat on the bones. Became a huge .45-70 fan, for example...and 7.62x54R...

 

[Bustem' Down]

7.62x54R...

That one is my favorite to shoot.

 

[Gilligan]

That one is my favorite to shoot.

Overall...I'd have to agree that it's mine too. I have quite a few ways to shoot it....including a couple 91/30s, of course. Great fun. Even if you don't hit what yr aiming at, you'll still leave it deaf and scorched.

 

[b23hqb]

That one is my favorite to shoot.

Or a .308. I also have a .45/70 lever action that is a shoulder thumper. I love the smell of cordite and gunpowder in the morning. Starts the whole day off right.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Overall...I'd have to agree that it's mine too. I have quite a few ways to shoot it....including a couple 91/30s, of course. Great fun. Even if you don't hit what yr aiming at, you'll still leave it deaf and scorched.

My M38 gave me a lot of respect for the WWII Russian Infantryman. Shooting that thing all day long would be killer.

 

[Gilligan]

My M38 gave me a lot of respect for the WWII Russian Infantryman. Shooting that thing all day long would be killer.

True that. The ones I respect even more were the infantry DP-27/28 gunners...lugging that beast of a gun along with a canvas pouch containing three 47-rd pan mags full of 7.62x54r. Amazing.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah...that was my reaction too, once I finally got a chance to shoot one in the late 70s. Disappointed, I lost interest after that. I like a rifle and cartridge with some meat on the bones. Became a huge .45-70 fan, for example...and 7.62x54R...

I love them now, presuming an adjustable stock which gets rid of that sloppy, big ass spring sound the plastic fixed stock ones have. A nice, squared away AR is a thing of beauty and a #### ton of fun, especially when someone else is buying the ammo.

That said, what I really want for Christmas is a Smith Enterprise Crazy Horse M-14...and someone to pay for the feed...

If you are ever out this way, swing by and say hi. I've got two boxes of 7.62 51R I bought in a hurry thinking they were 51

 

[Gilligan]

If you are ever out this way, swing by and say hi. I've got two boxes of 7.62 51R I bought in a hurry thinking they were 51

Don't have a .30-30 any more....

 

[Larry Gude]

Don't have a .30-30 any more....

Sorry. My bad. I meant 7.62 54R.

 

[Gilligan]

Sorry. My bad. I meant 7.62 54R.

ahh...that's different then. Soft point?