TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › New NRA bill
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New NRA bill

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
Nightline had a show last night about this bill that passed the Senate that was backed by the NRA that will take make gun makers ammune from liabity claims.
http://www.political-news.org/breaki...-nra-bill.html

If it passes the house, which it will, then severral cases in courts now will get thrown out. What other type of product in american is free from potential liability? ...

Wow, they say the Dems didn't touch it too much cause we/they are all afraid of this ruining their chances for re-election in 06. I know I am sick of gun issues making it impossible to get Dems with better economic and social awareness in power. But at the same time-if it isn't what you believe
we can't let the NRA run things like they do.Intersting, they said prior to 9/11 the NRA membership was way down, that changed things.
post #2 of 16
Yeah, cuz you know the millions of people who are members of the NRA don't actually believe in the Second Amendment or anything. It's just a BS lobby, right? Perhaps the power behind the NRA is the people. I don't see people bitching about the AARP when they lobby, because they are just representing the interests of their membership. So is the NRA.

Here's a thought for you: If guns cause crime, then pencils must cause poor spelling.

Speaking of which...I need to renew my membership. Thanks for the reminder!
post #3 of 16
Well, I sure hope it passes. Suing Gun manufacturers is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard lately. This country LIVES for law suits, it is the NEW American Dream, get-rich without working for it.
EVERYTHING is someone else's fault. Sorry,if you shoot me it is your fault, not the gun manufacturer.
I like the pencil comparison.
Yeah, those Dems they bend with the wind don't they? Sorry, could not resist that.
post #4 of 16
Thread Starter 
Yes but Heidi, the AARP does not have a product that is deemed ammune from normal litigation. And also cigarettes aren't forced into anyones hands and yet they are considered libel.
post #5 of 16
It’s not the gun; it’s the criminal, stupid! (NOTE: This is a catch phrase seen on many bumper stickers and a tshirt that even a mod owns. This is not pointing at ANYONE in this debate)

The gun is an inanimate object. The Person who uses the inanimate (sp) object is the one to blame. Like Heidi said... should we star suing pencil or pen manufactures for awful writing by the ones using it? Like one saying we had in the nightclub industry, if they can sue gun manufacturers, can we sure the liqueur companies for the mistakes we made the night before when waking up next to someone in the morning? Same principle.

btw, a footnote, this bill has been in congress for sometime...


[edited for disclaimer]
post #6 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Yes but Heidi, the AARP does not have a product that is deemed ammune from normal litigation. And also cigarettes aren't forced into anyones hands and yet they are considered libel.
I do remember the fact the cigarette manfatuers LIED since the 60's many times over and lied in front of congress, again many times over. They said back in the 50 and 60's that smoking was perfectly safe.... There is a difference...
post #7 of 16
Thread Starter 
My point is just that while you may question litigation laws ( i know i do at times) I believe this is the first time something is ammune. I mean you aren't forced to smoke cigarettes, and yet they aren't ammune.
post #8 of 16
Question: When someone uses another person's car in an unsafe manner, or under the influence of an illegal or controlled substance, and kills someone, WHO gets charged with the crime? Who gets sued for the damages?? It ain't the owner, it's the guy behind the wheel.
That's the way it oughta be with guns, too. YES, guns are more dangerous, potentially, but when operated properly and with due caution they are no more dangerous to other humans than a car driven by a cautious driver. WHY should the mfr pay, unless their product was deemed faulty???????
post #9 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Yes but Heidi, the AARP does not have a product that is deemed ammune from normal litigation. And also cigarettes aren't forced into anyones hands and yet they are considered libel.
First of all, if you smoke and die from it, it's your fault (at least since the warnings went on the cigarette packages...). They shouldn't have been sued like they have been, IMO. That's people not taking responsibility for their own actions.

Second of all, firearms are already regulated. And there are already laws against using them in the commission of a crime, which is mainly what the lawsuits stem from, at least the ones I know of.

Third of all, there were some idiots who wanted to sue the fast food industry for making them fat. Utterly ridiculous, and those cases were thrown out of court as such. Suing firearm manufacturers is just as ridiculous. Unless, of course, you agree with the ulterior motive which is to make firearms inaccessible to the public (as is being done with tobacco products).

Look, I know you don't like the NRA. But you have to at least recognize that if the membership didn't agree with their lobbying efforts, and didn't have power at the elections, the NRA wouldn't have any power with lawmakers. EVERY person that I know who is a member of the NRA votes regularly, and the politicians know this. (I'm not saying all of them do vote, but the vast majority do if they are willing to support the NRA to begin with.) It's the same as the AARP. The majority of their membership votes too, which the politicians also know.
post #10 of 16
Thread Starter 
Look I sort of agree with you but this *isn't how US litigation law goes*.

Also I believe it's more complicated than that.

I don't hate the NRA what bothers me is we lose so much in the ways of social issues and economic ones cause of the guns making people who might vote for a more progressive candidate vote for the right wing gun guy.
post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Look I sort of agree with you but this *isn't how US litigation law goes*.

Also I believe it's more complicated than that.

I don't hate the NRA what bothers me is we lose so much in the ways of social issues and economic ones cause of the guns making people who might vote for a more progressive candidate vote for the right wing gun guy.
Well, maybe it's the way litigation law needs to go, since there are too many people out there who want big companies (whether they be tobacco, firearm manufacturers, baby toy makers, or fast food restaurants) to be the easy ride financially.

Also, note the text of the bill and what the intentions are:

Quote:
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.
(Italics are mine, this is from the original version of the bill, which can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c1093uqoC5:: )

Here is a link to the bill in question, including the two Amendments (Child Safety Locks (requiring that handguns must be sold with them), and Armor Piercing Ammunition (re-affirming the ban on armor piercing ammunition that has been in effect for over a decade): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c1093uqoC5::

So the immunity clause is for people trying to sue because the product was misused. It does not grant full immunity, and if the product is faulty the manufacturers are still liable.

As for the gun lobby being responsible for the Democrats losing elections, I just don't buy it. There are a lot of people who are single issue voters, and not just gun owners. There are people who vote soley on the person's view on abortion, or the military, or currently that they don't support Bush. The gun owners that I know are not single-issue voters, but they do ascribe more to the GOP (traditional) philosophy than they do the Democrat philosophy. The Second Amendment is part of it, but certainly not all of it.
post #12 of 16
Thread Starter 
Heidi, the gun lobby has a lot to do with Dem losses, don't kid yourself.
post #13 of 16
If someone MISUSES a product, it is ridiculous to sue the manufacturer. If an arsonist burns down my house, I'm not going to sue Bic, because they manufactured the lighter.

If my weapon malfunctions, due to a manufacturer's defect and blows up in my hand, THEN I will sue them.


The practice of suing everyone in sight, as a ticket for a free ride, has gotten completely out of hand and SOMETHING needs to be done about it.
post #14 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Heidi, the gun lobby has a lot to do with Dem losses, don't kid yourself.
I'd put it down to philosophical differences, not being brainwashed or whatever by the gun lobby. I guess there are a lot of people out there who don't like *some* Dem's idea that only the police and military should be allowed to own any firearms (Diane Feinstein and Teddy Kennedy have both basically said as much), and that the Founding Fathers were just wrong including the Second Amendment. Don't kid yourself...the gun lobby works for the people they represent, not the other way around.
post #15 of 16
Thread Starter 
I totally understand and respect your desire to have guns, but it's frustrating you must understand when you aren't into them and never been exposed to them... and yet pro gun people have a ton of power over everything..I don't just mean guns. They have a power over elections that effect everything else.
post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
I totally understand and respect your desire to have guns, but it's frustrating you must understand when you aren't into them and never been exposed to them... and yet pro gun people have a ton of power over everything..I don't just mean guns. They have a power over elections that effect everything else.
I do understand that. Honestly, I think that is something that the moderate left needs to understand, too, and not let the extremes (like Feinstein and Kennedy) get the exposure that shapes people's opinions about the party as a whole. The Second Amendment isn't going to go away if the American people have anything to say about it.

But this is really far from the premise of the original post. I do agree with this piece of legislation because manufacturers of any type of product should not be held responsible when their product is misused. That's what the current lawsuits were about - suing the manufacturers because criminals used their product illegally, but they thought they should pay for it. Doesn't make any sense to me!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › New NRA bill