Democrat Debate

[PJay]

IKR.

I am addicted to them, and get their FB posts on my page, so I can follow them.

Forgot about them! Thanks for posting!

 

[This_person]

The real winner last night should have been Anderson Cooper. He was by far the best moderator of the to-date 3 debates. He didn't look or act like he was playing for the cameras...or trying out for his next job with another network.

Webb was by far the best candidate as it related to defense.

Agree with this much of your post 100%.

 

[SamSpade]

One thing that came up I can't stop thinking about - why do people think that gun manufacturers are somehow on the hook for gun deaths? Are bathtub manufacturers on the hook for bathtub drownings? Cars, for drunk driving car deaths? Knife manufacturers for stabbings?

There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country and the overwhelming majority have never been used to shoot someone.

If I kill someone with a baseball bat - should we blame the bat?

 

[LibertyBeacon]

One thing that came up I can't stop thinking about - why do people think that gun manufacturers are somehow on the hook for gun deaths? Are bathtub manufacturers on the hook for bathtub drownings? Cars, for drunk driving car deaths? Knife manufacturers for stabbings?

There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country and the overwhelming majority have never been used to shoot someone.

If I kill someone with a baseball bat - should we blame the bat?

Simple.

Political capital.

We in this nation, on balance, believe in gun control. Don't believe me? Who thinks that documented mentally ill people should be banned from legally owning a firearm? How about convicted felons? Child sex offenders? Should they be prevented from legally possessing firearms? If yes, then you (royal you, not OP to this post necessarily) believe in gun control.

It sells.

 

[SamSpade]

Simple.

Political capital.

We in this nation, on balance, believe in gun control. Don't believe me? Who thinks that documented mentally ill people should be banned from legally owning a firearm? How about convicted felons? Child sex offenders? Should they be prevented from legally possessing firearms? If yes, then you (royal you, not OP to this post necessarily) believe in gun control.

It sells.

Only very partly agree. We all agree that our rights come with responsibility and thus cannot be completely unrestricted. I won't bore you with endless - and rational - reasons why we do need to curtail freedom of expression, because it does not guarantee complete freedom to do and say whatever we want at any time. Crowded theater and all that. We understand that in a normal society, some rights come with conditions, such as you don't hand a gun to a known violent crazy person who has killed people.

 

[rdytogo]

One thing that came up I can't stop thinking about - why do people think that gun manufacturers are somehow on the hook for gun deaths? Are bathtub manufacturers on the hook for bathtub drownings? Cars, for drunk driving car deaths? Knife manufacturers for stabbings?

There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country and the overwhelming majority have never been used to shoot someone.

If I kill someone with a baseball bat - should we blame the bat?

While I agree with your premise, I disagree with your analogy. The reason someone might sue a gun dealer or manufacturer is much different than a bathtub, baseball bat, knife, or car. The primary function of a firearm is to do harm or destruction. That's the difference between those other items.

Now, as far as suing gun dealers or manufacturers, I think the law signed by President George W. Bush is fair and protects those entities when they should be protected, and allows for suits when they should be sued.

I do think it's fair to sue a dealer or a manufacturer when they sell a gun to someone they know they is disqualified, the gun has a defect which causes harm, or when they falsify records about the sale of guns.

 

[This_person]

While I agree with your premise, I disagree with your analogy. The reason someone might sue a gun dealer or manufacturer is much different than a bathtub, baseball bat, knife, or car. The primary function of a firearm is to do harm or destruction. That's the difference between those other items.

Now, as far as suing gun dealers or manufacturers, I think the law signed by President George W. Bush is fair and protects those entities when they should be protected, and allows for suits when they should be sued.

I do think it's fair to sue a dealer or a manufacturer when they sell a gun to someone they know they is disqualified, the gun has a defect which causes harm, or when they falsify records about the sale of guns.

I think LB had one word right - capital.

People don't want to change the laws for the ability to sue manufacturers of firearms for selling to felons or falsifying documentation - as you say, that law already exists. People like Sec. Clinton want to sue manufacturers for selling firearms, period.

While you accurately point out that a bathtub is not sold as a murder weapon, neither is a firearm. Illegally using the bathtub is actually no different from illegally using the firearm. So, that reason for disagreeing with the analogy goes out the window on first reflection.

People like Sec. Clinton want to sue manufacturers of firearms, and sellers of firearms, because they generally have deep pockets AND if you make their industry less and less profitable, or their product less and less affordable, it will be the gun-control advocate's equivalent of self-deportation - you'll make guns go away without need for laws that actually take guns away. Ask the sellers of firearms in San Francisco - oh, wait, there aren't any because they've been legislated out of existence not by banning them, but by regulating so many things they were no longer profitable. The last shop finally closed.

 

[rdytogo]

While you accurately point out that a bathtub is not sold as a murder weapon, neither is a firearm. Illegally using the bathtub is actually no different from illegally using the firearm. So, that reason for disagreeing with the analogy goes out the window on first reflection.

Maybe you should read what I wrote. A person may not illegally use a firearm, but still be negligent, so therefore your reflection, as usual is mute. The primary function of a firearm is still to do harm or destruction. Not true in a bathtub.

 

[This_person]

Maybe you should read what I wrote. A person may not illegally use a firearm, but still be negligent, so therefore your reflection, as usual is mute. The primary function of a firearm is still to do harm or destruction. Not true in a bathtub.

Um, negligent how that is not illegal? That should result in going after the firearm manufacturer?

Because, you can use a bathtub and be negligent, too... like leaving a 2 year old in a full Jacuzzi (deep) tub who drowns. That would be a very negligent thing to do, yet using the tub "per design". (it's also illegal from the point of view of criminal child neglect)

So, what do you mean?

 

[SamSpade]

While I agree with your premise, I disagree with your analogy. The reason someone might sue a gun dealer or manufacturer is much different than a bathtub, baseball bat, knife, or car. The primary function of a firearm is to do harm or destruction. That's the difference between those other items.

And I considered that in my analogy. But since there are more firearms than people in this country, if your description were strictly true, then all those guns aren't being used "properly".

I'd say the primary purpose of a gun is defense.

 

[Gilligan]

I saw reports this morning that the WH has pushed back on Hillary's claims about why she flipped 180-degrees on the TPP trade deal. Her lie..er..reason was that she flipped after she saw the final results of negotiations. WH says she flat out lied..because the final draft has yet to be revealed.

Does that woman ever tell the truth about anything...ever?

 

[Bann]

I saw reports this morning that the WH has pushed back on Hillary's claims about why she flipped 180-degrees on the TPP trade deal. Her lie..er..reason was that she flipped after she saw the final results of negotiations. WH says she flat out lied..because the final draft has yet to be revealed.

Does that woman ever tell the truth about anything...ever?

Nope!

 

[rdytogo]

Um, negligent how that is not illegal? That should result in going after the firearm manufacturer?

Because, you can use a bathtub and be negligent, too... like leaving a 2 year old in a full Jacuzzi (deep) tub who drowns. That would be a very negligent thing to do, yet using the tub "per design". (it's also illegal from the point of view of criminal child neglect)

So, what do you mean?

I think a person with even your moderate intelligence should be able to understand the difference between an item which primary function is to do harm or destruction and what the function of a bathtub is. If you can't figure out how a person can be negligent, but not criminally liable, then there really isn't much more to say. Have a pleasant day. Please do not waste your employers money by being on here all day.

 

[rdytogo]

And I considered that in my analogy. But since there are more firearms than people in this country, if your description were strictly true, then all those guns aren't being used "properly".

I'd say the primary purpose of a gun may be defense.

I agree that the primary purpose of a gun is defense. The primary Function of a firearm is harm or destruction. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[SamSpade]

I agree that the primary purpose of a gun is defense. The primary Function of a firearm is harm or destruction. Wouldn't you agree?

Or the threat of it. Hence, defense. Most guns in this country aren't used to shoot people. Beyond that, I believe we are splitting hairs - it is ridiculous to hold gun manufacturers liable for the illegal use of their product; that is, to wantonly kill people when you're not defending yourself.

So far, we're not holding sanctuary cities liable for harboring criminals. So the idea is a political one. So yeah, as was noticed, the comment was made to get a reaction to an audience that somehow wants to blame them.

What I don't understand is why.

 

[This_person]

I saw reports this morning that the WH has pushed back on Hillary's claims about why she flipped 180-degrees on the TPP trade deal. Her lie..er..reason was that she flipped after she saw the final results of negotiations. WH says she flat out lied..because the final draft has yet to be revealed.

Does that woman ever tell the truth about anything...ever?

Maybe she hacked somebody's e-mail and got it?

 

[MMDad]

F'real. I don't think you get any more conservative than Huckabee and Cruz.

I don't consider anyone conservative as long as they want the government to enforce their morality. If they were true limited government conservatives, they'd be trying to get the government out of the marriage business instead of catering to those who want strict enforcement of their interpretation of the bible.

 

[This_person]

I think a person with even your moderate intelligence should be able to understand the difference between an item which primary function is to do harm or destruction and what the function of a bathtub is. If you can't figure out how a person can be negligent, but not criminally liable, then there really isn't much more to say. Have a pleasant day. Please do not waste your employers money by being on here all day.

I'm just looking for you to justify your point, which apparently you can't.

I get the primary functions of each item. When used in a way to illegally harm someone through intention or neglect, either item is being used inappropriately. When used as a defensive weapon, a gun is not being used illegally - and we have laws that establish proper and improper use of the weapon.

If you can justify your point, please do. If not, please admit that.

 

[rdytogo]

What I don't understand is why.

The answer to your question is we aren't. In the absence of those three things I pointed out, the law protects gun manufacturers or dealers from being liable.

 

[This_person]

The answer to your question is we aren't. In the absence of those three things I pointed out, the law protects gun manufacturers or dealers from being liable.

Do you get that Sen. Clinton and those like her are asking for manufacturers to be held liable for the illegal use of their product - going beyond the things you quoted?