Page 38 of 48 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 760 of 946

Thread: Gun policy analysis thread.

  1. #741
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Sorry, I'll yield to the high-minded discussion that I interrupted (19 pages in).
    19 pages in? That’s 18 more pages of you shitheads continuing to disrupt, following your lead in post 4. At least Lloyd and I worked a decent conversation in between the nonsense.
    Lloyd is dabomb. Far more patient with slander and smear than I.

    You might try a different website for a more thorough gun analysis discussion. Like I said, your apparent anger seems to stem from unmet expectations here. And in this thread, you continue to hold onto these expectations 19 pages in to a discussion.

    If you want people to stay in a focused discussion, you might try not telling them that they don't read, can't read, or that their opinions "don't matter." You even have posted criticism of the fact that some of your posts don't get replies (or very few). At a fountain pen forum.

  2. #742
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    And the goal posts have curiously moved again…
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  3. #743
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    So, one of your expectations is, apparently, that "goal posts" (whatever you mean by this) never move.

  4. #744
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    So, one of your expectations is, apparently, that "goal posts" (whatever you mean by this) never move.
    Moving goal posts is a metaphor you've never heard of? Curious.

    I wonder if the ignorance is feigned or real.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  5. #745
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    ... 42

  6. #746
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Speaking of Lloyd, have you noticed that he's avoiding this part of the Forum? He annoyed me on occasion, but he's smart and articulate.

    If my comments drove him away, I'm sorry. But I suspect that other factors had more to do with it.

  7. #747
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip View Post
    Speaking of Lloyd, have you noticed that he's avoiding this part of the Forum? He annoyed me on occasion, but he's smart and articulate.

    If my comments drove him away, I'm sorry. But I suspect that other factors had more to do with it.
    Lloyd is a good man. Quite unflappable compared to the rest of us.

  8. #748
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Here is some pushback on current SC rulings:

    Slate: A Federal Judge Calls Clarence Thomas’ Bluff on Gun Rights and Originalism.

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...iginalism.html

  9. #749
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,790
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 897 Times in 689 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Here is some pushback on current SC rulings:

    Slate: A Federal Judge Calls Clarence Thomas’ Bluff on Gun Rights and Originalism.

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...iginalism.html
    I am vindicated...
    "Bruen exemplifies these problems. Thomas adopted a tendentious and selective reading of the record, endorsing a false narrative shaped by Republican-allied academics funded by gun rights groups like the NRA. He started with the false premise that the Second Amendment created an individual right to bear arms—a right that the court established for the first time in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller—which scholars have comprehensively debunked using originalist tools. He then manipulated or ignored long-established limits on concealed carry to conclude that such restrictions are not rooted in American history."

    Having a firearm for sport and hunting is a fringe benefit of the Second Amendment, not the intent. Whether its the law or the scriptures, I allow the text to speak for itself. Human fallibility is most obvious when interpretations are made. It is a rare person who can release themselves of bias.

  10. #750
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    What happened to scottt? Poof!

    Recalled to Troll HQ for re-programming?

  11. #751
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip View Post
    What happened to scottt? Poof!

    Recalled to Troll HQ for re-programming?
    Apparently they've let you loose.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  12. #752
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Back on topic, if Chip is done popping into threads to insult people.

    A trashy news source reports New Jersey is facing a lawsuit challenging their gun control law

    A national firearms trade group is challenging a New Jersey law that allows the state and private individuals to file lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.

    The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a Connecticut-based firearms industry trade group, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Thursday asking a judge to overturn a recently enacted "public nuisance" law that the group argues was "specifically designed to evade the judgment of Congress – and the Constitution."

    The lawsuit claims Congress barred such "baseless lawsuits" against gun makers in 2005 when it passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which gave firearm manufacturers and sellers broad immunity from most litigation.

    The trade group filed a similar federal lawsuit on Thursday against Delaware, President Joe Biden's home state, which enacted a similar public nuisance law earlier this year.

    Lawrence G. Keane, the group’s vice president and general counsel, said the public nuisance laws "flout the will of Congress and undermine the U.S. Constitution."

    "These state laws are at odds with bedrock principles of American law, which does not hold manufacturers and sellers legally responsible for the actions of criminals and remote third parties over whom the manufacturer and seller has no control when they misuse lawfully sold products," Keane said in a statement.

    The group said the PLCAA law "keeps activist lawyers from placing the blame on members of the firearm industry" for the criminal misuse of lawfully manufactured firearms.

    "No other industry in America had been targeted by such baseless, politically motivated lawsuits," the group's statement said.

    The group also claims in the lawsuit that the public nuisance laws would "impose liability" on industry members for firearms lawfully sold in other states that later find their way into Delaware or New Jersey through the independent actions of remote third parties and criminals.

    New Jersey's public nuisance law, which was signed by Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy in July, authorizes the Attorney General to file lawsuits against the gun industry if it "knowingly or recklessly contribute to a public nuisance" by failing to maintain "reasonable controls" on the sale, manufacturing, distribution, importing, or marketing of gun-related products.

    State Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin has created a new division in his office specifically to file civil enforcement actions against firearm companies for violating state laws.

    Platkin and other New Jersey officials say the state's tough firearm safety laws have helped it maintain one of the lowest firearm mortality rates in the country.

    But they point out, there are still hundreds of gun-related deaths each year in the state, which has also seen mass shootings including a 2019 incident where two individuals targeted a kosher market in Hudson County in an attack that claimed the lives of six people, including a Jersey City police officer.

    There was no immediate comment from the New Jersey Attorney General's office about the litigation.
    The recent Bruen decision will make this a tough case for New Jersey. We'll just have to see how it turns out.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  13. #753
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Interesting. I am pleased with the tenor of the state statutes, and am not at all surprised by the challenge.

    Don't we need to read the actual Jersey and Delaware statutes? I see quotations from the law, here, but....

  14. #754
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Interesting. I am pleased with the tenor of the state statutes, and am not at all surprised by the challenge.

    Don't we need to read the actual Jersey and Delaware statutes? I see quotations from the law, here, but....
    Other than the Bruen decision, which has been posted, there is no ruling on this specific suit yet. These are just the arguments. So again, we’ll just have to see how it turns out.

    -edit-

    The suit, linked in the article, can be found here, for those that want an easier link to something they’re unlikely to read.

    Do you want to go back to snark?
    Last edited by dneal; November 20th, 2022 at 06:02 AM.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  15. #755
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    What?

    I meant the actual laws in the states. What snark?

  16. #756
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    And I have read the Bruen decision (not every word, of course). I have commented on it before.

    There is no snark when I say I support efforts to make gun manufacturers more responsible for the destruction their products are used for.

    I was simply saying that we should look at the language of the laws, because the article only quoted little bits.

  17. #757
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    So the conversations yesterday about the Florida “anti-woke” laws, Walker’s injunction, and reading the text instead of an NPR mischaracterization; or the comments in the Trump’s Russian connections thread about articles, didn’t prompt this comment?

    Don't we need to read the actual Jersey and Delaware statutes? I see quotations from the law, here, but....
    That’s one hell of a coincidence.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  18. #758
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    ??

    I don't understand. If you make this a statement instead of a question, perhaps I will better understand.

  19. #759
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    I'll pursue the Jersey law a little bit. Here is another articles description of the package of laws that were passed:

    "The new laws will mandate firearm training for people seeking gun permits, ban .50 caliber weapons, require new New Jersey residents to register their firearms, regulate the sale of handgun ammunition and create a database of sales, require firearm retailers to sell microstamping-enabled firearms, upgrade certain gun manufacturing crimes to second-degree, and allow the state Attorney General to sue gun manufacturers."

    Still looking, tho ....

  20. #760
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Here is a copy of the "directive" for anyone interested. I have not read it yet, and I am sure that there must be other relevant legal docs, but I only heard about this just today (unless I have forgotten, which is possible. I work on removing this kind of clutter from my mind, actually...).

    [URL="[/URL]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •