OP: “Hillary-,no FRAKKING way in hell I’d ever vote for this evil,myself centered nannying gun grabbing female canine”. “Gun grabbing” says it all: the OP argued that his stockpile was at risk. In fact, so did you in your second sentence.
Second sentence: I believe it’s possible that monkeys might fly out of my butt. But I predict that there will be no nationwide confiscation of guns that are currently legal to own in 2016-2024. What sort of outre scenario did you have in mind whereby this could take place?
I’m trying to pin you down to a prediction, Bone. Hillary will most likely be the next President. I think my political predictions above regarding gun control are grounded in fact. If you think there’s a serious risk of a nationwide gun confiscation program in 2016-2024, your views are grounded in fantasy, IMHO.
Take your time. I’d like to see some predictions from your side of the aisle. I’ve submitted mine. You probably have literally ~10x the amount of knowledge on this subject than I do. So if you are making predictions that are crazy from the POV of 2024, that’s a problem with your information sourcing, right?
Right?
I find the arguments against the existence of the gunshow loophole to be unconvincing. It’s easy to get guns at a criminal gunshow today. I would advocate that all private gun sales be cleared through a registered gun dealer who has mandatory record requirements. That would involve a multiple day inconvenience in practice. You could still buy a gun on the same day from a gun dealer though, provided the database is up and running.
Eliminate gun manufacturing? Really? Actual question. If you just meant that hyperbolically, no harm no foul but let me know what you’re alluding to.
Nothing expressed fear about confiscation. My neighboring city, they recently did ban possession of high capacity magazines. So if you had them, you had to get rid of them - does that count as a confiscation to you?
I don’t have that many actual predictions. I do not expect any nationwide confiscation of guns that are currently legal to own in the next 10 years - so on that point we agree. What views are grounded in fantasy exactly? Here are a few predictions:
[ul]
[li]There will be additional gun control in CA in the next 2 years.[/li][li]There will be at least 2, maybe 3 more states that enact constitutional carry in the next 5 years. Currently there is just under 20% at 9.[/li][li]I also think Hillary will likely be the next president - though I wouldn’t bet on it.[/li][/ul]
I don’t have many more predictions than that that I would be confident in making.
Why an FFL? Why not do it all private party? If NICS is open, you could have mandatory background checks. But that was rejected when it was offered. The only reason is because the background check was not a sufficient goal.
Clinton wants to repeal PLCAA. The effect of which would put gun manufacturing in this country at risk. I’m extrapolating - but the purpose of PLCAA was to protect the manufacture of firearms in this country so it’s not a stretch to construe supporting its repeal to opposition towards gun manufacturing. When state and local governments sue gun manufactures for criminal actions using their products, it’s the actual government trying to cripple the manufacturers. Not all gun manufacturing - just the ones they don’t like.
George Carlin – “Why I don’t vote”:“If you have selfish, ignorant citizens then you’re going to get selfish ignorant leaders, and term limits aren’t going to do you any good, you’re just going to wind up with a bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans.”
Bone - Thanks for your responses. My goal in this thread is to evade core arguments regarding gun control (that’s for GD and the pit) and emphasize issues of politics.
Ok, so you had in mind possession bans as opposed to confiscation. Fair enough. The confiscation stuff I was alleging was grounded in fantasy. If you were arguing for that scenario (you were not) I wanted to tie you down with a prediction.
All of that is reasonable in my view. (I don’t know about accurate - I’m not a gun guy. Though judging on this article there are a lot of local governments in California curbing high capacity (11 shot) magazines, and there’s a statewide ballot initiative in the works. )
I don’t follow this stuff - I frankly don’t know what you’re alluding to.
Ok, I looked up this acronym. It sounds like you were exaggerating a little. The Clintons are very much engaged with issues of commerce: the goal of collapsing any industry in the US isn’t their style. Currently you can produce a cheap gun that explodes in people’s hands, and the gun manufacturer isn’t liable. Reforming the PLCAA doesn’t necessarily imply - and I argue most probably would not in practice imply - a preference for imported guns over domestically produced ones.
The big picture is that I’m highly dubious about any the prospects of seriously infringing on the 2nd amendment at the national level, for better or worse. I have to admit that statewide restrictions are in play, which is not necessarily wonderful.
This should have been:
When state and local governments sue gun manufactures for criminal actions of others using their products, it’s the actual government trying to cripple the manufacturers.
This is false - rediculously so. PLCAA doesn’t protect manufacturers from liability from defective products. Clinton has lied or misled about this numerous times.
National issues aren’t the only ones. Favoring the right to choose dosent mean laws requiring stupid shit to get an abortion shouldn’t be opposed.
My source was an Economist article I read years ago FWIW. A search of their archives reveals that I was probably confused. Here are excerpts from a 2002 article (From the hip (sub req)): [INDENT][INDENT] Most products—from cigarette lighters to medicine bottles—have to be designed to protect against foreseeable misuse. But there is no regulator to help the plaintiffs: guns and tobacco are the only products that the Consumer Product Safety Commission does not oversee. And even though lawsuits have often helped push up safety standards elsewhere, there are plenty of conservative judges who do not think it is the courts’ job to create gun laws (see article).[/INDENT][/INDENT] Also: [INDENT][INDENT] And two bills banning all liability suits against the gun industry are gaining momentum in the House and Senate. [/INDENT][/INDENT] So here’s a question. Does the BATAF have powers to ban or regulate defective guns? They used to be called Saturday Night Specials, though I’m not making claims about their actual levels of safety.
Oh sure, I was conceding a point. State and local stuff has limited relevance at the Presidential level, though not zero relevance since the Prez has a microphone.
Seeing as how the PLCAA was passed in 2005, the article from 2002 is not the best source. That and the text of the law itself is not long, if you’d like to learn more I suggest you actually read it. What Clinton claims about it is false and I don’t think it’s an honest mistake. Here is one exampleof the claim she has made:
This op-ed does take issue with the statement but I think that’s debatable. The idea that repealing the PLCAA is an attack on gun manufacturers is not.
This is one reason why a Sanders presidency would be better than a Clinton one. If Sanders is the nominee, I could probably hold my nose and vote for him. That would never happen with Clinton. Ever.
BATAF has the ability to operate in the space of enforcement of firearm laws. They can also issue interpretations of laws which gives some latitude in their enforcement. I believe you are referring to product safety however, and in that space the BATAF does not operate. Product safety is regulated at the local and state levels in some cases. In all instances the courts and customers have the ability to persuade manufacturers to produce desired products.
The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) promulgates standards for safety, interchangeability, reliability and quality.
Then nominate judges. They have the bully pulpit. Anyone espousing the views that support gun control as Clinton does should be punished politically.
Honestly Bone, I can’t see how Clinton’s statements are incorrect. The gun industry has a carve out from regulation from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is unusual. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms doesn’t regulate product safety with respect to firearms, if I understand you properly. What are we left with? Common law? You point to an industry organization which is unpersuasive and public pressure which has nothing to do with liability. “Some states” really doesn’t cut it.
What’s going on here? Why the hysteria? I hope you are not arguing that a claim that the gun industry lacks liability for its products is necessarily a narrow comment on a 2005 law that most have never heard of.
You’re not from around here, are you? For many American voters, the three most important issues are Guns, GUNS, and * GUNS!*
Start another stupid War in the Middle East? Poison poor people’s water? Destroy Social Security? Double the Education budget … or halve it? These issues would pale into insignificance if there was a bill to change the gun waiting period from 3 days to 4, or require birthdate information before buying a gun on the Internet.
Welcome to America! Twenty clowns to choose from, each one with ideas zanier than the next and all we care about is their stance on … GUNS!
You’ve already acknowledged your misunderstanding of product liability as it relates to firearms in post #49. Clinton has claimed there is both absolute immunity for firearm manufacturers and that no other industry gets this type of immunity. Both of these statements are knowingly false with the intent to deceive. Lies. Firearm manufacturers do not enjoy absolute immunity, and vaccine makers also have a carve out that gives them limited immunity.
If a firearm is defective through design or manufacture, firearm companies remain liable like any other product. What the PLCAA does is prohibit nuisance lawsuits.
Where is the hysteria? Is it when you say that this is a law that no one has heard of? Clinton has been using her vote against it to differentiate herself from Sanders throughout her campaign, during the debates, and on her stump speeches. If you have been paying attention to the campaign, what did you think she was talking about all those times she brought it up?
One more comment on this because I remembered on my commute to work:
The thing is, you’ve made this claim before, and have been corrected before. It’s an absurd claim, so repeating it after being corrected is strange. From here in 2014:
(my bold in both of the above)
To which I responded in 2014:
You continued to participate in the thread after that response. It’s very strange to claim general ignorance, use an out of date cite, or proffer an “obscure law” that Clinton has been campaigning on when you’ve participated in threads on this same topic.
Just a quick clarification, I don’t fear that Clinton will “take away my guns” any more than Obama or bush, or Bill Clinton or any other politico.
I have no problem with the rules as they are now, I go to my local gun shop, fill out Federal form 4473, wait 10 to 45 minutes (depending on NICS backlog) then pay for my purchase and walk out of the store with my latest acquisition.
I have an issue with banning firearms and/or mags based on action type, cosmetic features or mag capacities, as none of those really do anything, an AR-15 and Ruger Mini 14 fire the same size cartridge, are both semiautos, and mag fed, one has a nice wood stock (Ruger) and one has scary black plastic, both pale in power compared to a bolt action Remington 700 in .30-06 or .308, and the 700 looks like Dad’s/Grampa’s old deer rifle.
I received no response to that back in 2014. Those linking to that thread can see that it got pretty intricate.
I maintain my claim that most people have never heard of PLCAA and that the acronym is not common knowledge. It’s also my understanding that there is no federal regulator that affirms that firearms work safely: they can routinely explode in your hand without government action. There were apparently lawsuits successfully launched against shitty gun manufacturers. I don’t know whether they referenced state or federal law. This matters with regards to the accuracy of Clinton’s claims.
More generally. Bone. I know this is going to be hard for you to wrap your head around. But while guns are a first order issue to you, they are an 8th order issue to most people. I can figure out acronyms like BATF but I’m simply going to draw a blank on PLCAA even if you mentioned it once in a pit thread 2 years ago. Similarly for BATFE or FFL. No worries, but there’s a certain level of perspective I’d like to recommend.
Good. You are welcome to vote for who you want of course. I’m implying that Hillary Clinton doesn’t deserve to be labelled a bitch though. I have yet to see evidence that gun manufacturers have federal liability for example. They might. But no evidence for that contention was proffered in this thread or the 2012 thread and I can’t remember what my internet search uncovered 2 years ago.
Speaking generally, I love it when my political opponents pass symbolic measures that have no practical effect on me. Let them have their fun. I do dislike it when they pass substantive measures. In the case of the so-called assault weapons ban, the substantive issue revolves around magazine capacity. But I honestly don’t know why gun enthusiasts would care if the Feds decide to ban scary black or aqua marine colored grips. I assume many do not.
Yes, I did not answer that question in 2014 because I didn’t care to. You make a factually incorrect statement I’ll be more motivated to respond but otherwise I’m not Google.
Whether or not the acronym is common knowledge is irrelevant. Clinton has been campaigning on this issue and using it to separate herself from Sanders. Do you deny that? It’s scaremongering to raise issues of guns “routinely exploding in your hand” - and since that far fetched issue is not impacted by the PLCAA, nor what Clinton is talking about during her campaign, it’s a distraction. None of your *‘i don’t know about…’ *matters with regards to the accuracy of Clinton’s claims. She stated that gun manufacturers have absolute immunity. It’s a knowingly false statement. There is no possible explanation where that statement is correct. She is a liar.
And somehow in the last two years, you’ve managed to forget and repeat your error about firearm manufacturers having no liability for handguns exploding in people’s hands.
Save your condescension. And yet guns get prominent mention during debates, during stump speeches, etc. Yes they are not the highest priority for many people. If they were so unimportant, perhaps the Democratic candidates would leave the issue alone. Perhaps gun control wouldn’t be Obama’s greatest disappointment. And given it’s one of the topics of the OP, it’s hard to give credence to the idea that it’s not an issue of high significance. Sure in the general sense there are likely many more important issues to folks, but it’s one of the things this thread is about.
When I don’t know a term, I use Google to learn about it. If you’d like to surround yourself in a shield of ignorance go right ahead. If you want to engage in discussion about a topic, it’s best to have an understanding of what you’re talking about. I don’t argue about the validity of the theory of general relativity because, what the shit, I can’t explain it. But not knowing the acronym FFL in a discussion about firearms? You responded to a post in 2015 using that acronym here with no problem as well as participated in that thread where the term was used repeatedly. It was also used in the previously linked thread which you participated in. And here in post #13 of a thread from 2002 the OP used the acronym BATF and it didn’t spawn any questioning from you. The whole line of, oh no one really knows about this stuff feigned ignorance is strange indeed. It’s like having a discussion about Obamacare and not knowing what ACA stands for - and not bothering to look it up.
If you want to talk about Clinton’s position on guns during the 2016 campaign, then having a working knowledge of the very issue she talks about at every opportunity, the PLCAA, is a prerequisite.
I was addressing your shock that I would have a hazy recollection of a subpoint of a passing discussion we had 2 years ago in the pit. I maintain my position that it is not shocking. Like most Americans, guns are not my #1 issue.
Regarding Clinton’s claims, I was able to locate a fact check. First and foremost, my claims about no federal product liability for pistols exploding in one’s hand appear to be false. Junk guns OTOH are still legal: the BATF and the CPA have no authority to ban for example zinc alloy weapons, though a 1968 law does have an import ban on junk guns. Unusually, product liability issues are handled solely by the courts and not by any federal regulator whatsoever. Legal experts say the following regarding Clinton’s improvised remarks during an October town hall meeting in New Hampshire: [INDENT][INDENT]“[Clinton’s statement] doesn’t appear to be completely accurate,” said Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, in an email to NPR. “The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product.” …
However, Clinton “is not totally off base,” said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said Congress was particularly “aggressive” in granting the gun industry this legal shield.
“Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts,” he said. [/INDENT][/INDENT] So she muffed her response a little. Is this part of her stump speech? Did she continue to make such claims once the issue was clarified? If not, I’d say throwing harsh terms at her is evidence of hysteria. FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'? : It's All Politics : NPR
For many American voters, the three most important issues are Guns, GUNS, and * GUNS!*