Even if its done in a fit of temporary depression and regretted afterwards? I’m as pro voluntary euthanasia as anyone, but most suicidal people need psychiatric help more than they need a bullet in their heads.
I agree. Psychiatric help is highly suggested. But it’s still their choice. As long as they arent trying to take me with them, it’s their life, not mine.
NEWTOWN, CT- Connecticut State Judge Barbara Bellis denied a motion to delay the discovery process in the lawsuit against gun companies over the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting.
A few quotes:
Erm… when exactly was it legally established that there’s such a thing as a “military gun”?
And I don’t buy the claim that it’s comparable to the tobacco lawsuits, because what the tobacco companies were held liable for was lying for decades about the health risks of cigarettes, not for selling a legal product. Guns are deadly- duh!
There have been higher restrictions on certain kinds of guns – most notably fully-automatic weapons – for a very long time, and these restrictions have – so far – passed review by the courts.
I can walk into any gun shop in town and buy a semi-automatic rifle, but no shop in town will sell me a fully-automatic rifle.
Or, come to think of it, an anti-tank rocket.
Why is it the manufacturer’s fault? If somebody went on a rampage with a chainsaw, the response wouldn’t be to sue Husqvarna.
If the chainsaw had extra features that made it a lot more deadly than necessary just to cut branches off trees…then maybe.
(“The Extend-o-Blade thrusts out ahead of you, and the Bend-o-Blade swoops around corners! Our new Stealth Engine is almost impossible to hear! You’ll love the way it flings little bits of metal ahead of you in an expanding cloud!”)
“Warning: Do not fire Amaz’n Laser at the President.”
It would be (the response to a chainsaw massacre) if your goal was to put Husqvarna out of business.
Right, and the AR-15 is not a military rifle. Certainly not subject to tighter restrictions than any other semi auto rifle.
Yes and no. Thanks to that embarrassing Second Amendment, officially establishing some weapons as permitted for government troops but forbidden to citizens would be on shaky constitutional grounds. What’s actually happened is that a number of workarounds have been enacted over decades to effectively accomplish the same thing. First, the 1934 NFA heavily regulated (but not banned) automatic weapons by masquerading as a federal revenue tax. Then in combination with the requirement that all full-auto weapons be federally registered, the government now simply refuses to accept any further registrations. And possession of explosives is either heavily regulated or banned in different areas, which eliminates most heavy military ordinance because they either use explosive warheads or use charges of propellant large enough to be considered explosive devices in their own right.
Imagine if the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech had been gelded by a long series of laws banning sedition, slander, obscenity, incitement to riot, “hate speech”, revealing classified information, etc.- all carefully written so as to supposedly fall under some established government authority rather than flatly declaring that freedom of speech can simply be banned at will. Or compare the notorious Jim Crow laws- on paper completely neutral and fair- that somehow always had the effect of limiting blacks’ right to vote (so notorious that even today Voter ID is condemned as a trick to disenfranchise African-Americans). Or if freedom of assembly was constrained by crowd control ordinances and parade permit requirements that made almost every non-approved gathering illegal.
IOW, All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
But, wait, there are actually limitations on the right to free speech—defamation, invasion of privacy, intellectual property law, etc. Those are real and generally accepted as valid.
Yes, if someone can prove harm from an actual event. Just as there can be laws and lawsuits when someone is actually harmed in an assault. The correlation to gun control laws would be restrictions on typewriters, printing presses and computers because they could be used in an improper manner.
Even as someone on the pro-gun side, I have no problem with having tighter restrictions on fully automatic firearms. The difference is one of control: a properly functioning semi-automatic weapon requires an action on the part of the user each time it fires. Even in the military semi-automatic or burst fire is generally preferable to fully automatic fire, and in civilian use it makes it less likely for a bullet to go somewhere you don’t want it to.
Banning “assault weapons”, on the other hand, is basically fraud. It’s an attempt to deceive people by conflating assault rifles with the superficially similar “assault weapons.”
That’s because (according to the info on your stats) you live in California. Fully automatic are legal for civilians in the U.S. under federal law and in about 40 states. The hardest part about acquiring one are their expense, not legalities.
Yes and there are also limits on bad acts that can be committed with a gun. What you are trying to do when you restrict guns instead of restricting the acts that can be committed with a gun is the equivalent of restricting who can own a particular type of printing press because a much harm can come from a bad actor’s use of free speech.
Run, forest, run!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Husky-Run-Forest-XL-T-Shirt-/111989760130?hash=item1a131c2082
Wonderful news.
I’m almost certain they will appeal however, seeking a more favorable anti-gun climate perhaps in a few years.
Any other result would have been shockingly inappropriate.
No, “they” don’t want to take our guns- they just want to establish that firearms are inherently dangerous objects that have no place in a civilized society. :dubious:
But what about hunting you say? Google “hunting is murder”, and the various sites that suggest that hunters are mentally akin to sociopaths.:dubious::dubious:
And gun control advocates wonder why gun owners bristle at even the tiniest concession.