This one takes the cake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[worldtalker]

How dumb are these people,how dumb are the Americans that believe it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ft-immunity-for-gun-manufacturers-and-dealers GodBless Chris

 

[Red James Cash]

If stupid cant be fixed imagine the impossibilities of trying to fix *******

 

[Chadeaux]

Never again will NPR soil my ears. I do listen occasionally to get the other side --- you know, get a good laugh --- but this is far beyond stupid.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Okay so if john stupid is driving his Ford truck 90 mph, runs red light and kills someone it is Fords fault....

Just how many Gumps do we have in congress?

 

[truckinbutch]

Okay so if john stupid is driving his Ford truck 90 mph, runs red light and kills someone it is Fords fault....

Just how many Gumps do we have in congress?

Way too many Gumps from what the media reports .

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Way too many Gumps from what the media reports .

HA! They WERE "voted in"...

 

[Red James Cash]

HA! They WERE "voted in".

By other gumps.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

By other gumps.

YEP! LOL!

 

[dieselram94]

Does smell of ignorance for sure. Lift immunity laws? Maybe that should apply to elected officials.........Health care comes to mind.

 

[bigscoop]

I'm not even going to say, "I told you so." It's all going to come down to liability, for manufacturers, dealers, and owners. There's no reason special interest groups should be excluded from liability when it comes to negligence. What all of this will mean to you in the end, if yours is the last name to be attached to a weapon that was used during a crime, that liability is going to come back to you, the last registered owner, control of that weapon was your responsibility. Eventually your insurance companies will jump on the boat, gun safes will be a requirement if want to keep the current homeowner liability and theft protection coverages,etc., on your home, all at an increased cost, of course. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see this play coming and it is a brilliant move in furthering better gun control measures, and, it violates nothing in the face of all the "no compromise" posturing by the gun advocate groups. If you couldn't see this effort coming then you simply misunderstand how these things work. Everyone can still buy and sell and own, but now they all just have to be responsible in every aspect of it. Going to be interesting to see how this one plays out in the end.

 

[Chadeaux]

I'm not even going to say, "I told you so." It's all going to come down to liability, for manufacturers, dealers, and owners. There's no reason special interest groups should be excluded from liability when it comes to negligence. What all of this will mean to you in the end, if yours is the last name to be attached to a weapon that was used during a crime, that liability is going to come back to you, the last registered owner, control of that weapon was your responsibility. Eventually your insurance companies will jump on the boat, gun safes will be a requirement if want to keep the current homeowner liability and theft protection coverages,etc., on your home, all at an increased cost, of course. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see this play coming and it is a brilliant move in furthering better gun control measures, and, it violates nothing in the face of all the "no compromise" posturing by the gun advocate groups. If you couldn't see this effort coming then you simply misunderstand how these things work. Everyone can still buy and sell and own, but now they all just have to be responsible in every aspect of it. Going to be interesting to see how this one plays out in the end.

Close down Ford because someone used a car in a manner not intended to kill someone.

Close down Harbor Freight because someone used a nail gun in a manner not intended and caused someone else to die.

Guns are intended to be used for hunting and protection. So, when James Holmes uses one in a manner not intended (mass murder) we should close down a gun manufacturer.

As Forest Gump said: "Stupid is as stupid does."

Well, wait until someone uses a metal detector to commit a murder . . . and XLT or someone else is sued out of business because their product was used in a manner not intended.

THEN you'll understand how stupid their reasoning actually is.

 

[dieselram94]

I took the article as meaning the gun companies themselves would be liable for what the end user does with their weapons.....as a means to destroy the gun industry......

I'm not even going to say, "I told you so." It's all going to come down to liability, for manufacturers, dealers, and owners. There's no reason special interest groups should be excluded from liability when it comes to negligence. What all of this will mean to you in the end, if yours is the last name to be attached to a weapon that was used during a crime, that liability is going to come back to you, the last registered owner, control of that weapon was your responsibility. Eventually your insurance companies will jump on the boat, gun safes will be a requirement if want to keep the current homeowner liability and theft protection coverages,etc., on your home, all at an increased cost, of course. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see this play coming and it is a brilliant move in furthering better gun control measures, and, it violates nothing in the face of all the "no compromise" posturing by the gun advocate groups. If you couldn't see this effort coming then you simply misunderstand how these things work. Everyone can still buy and sell and own, but now they all just have to be responsible in every aspect of it. Going to be interesting to see how this one plays out in the end.

 

[dieselram94]

Well said Chadeaux!

 

[bigscoop]

....some of you guys are like a trip in na-na land. I must have missed the part that said something about closing gun businesses down. Use your heads, stop and think before you allow others to manufacture your own baseless fears. Don't automatically jump into the wolf-pack simply because their howling cries frighten you. Nothing to do with shutting gun businesses down, but it has everything to do with making them responsible for the handling of their business. No more, "Gee, we don't know how those got onto the street." Stuff like that. Thefts will have to be reported now. All sales, even individual transfer of ownership, will have to be reported now. Loan your shotgun to someone so they can go hunting and they do something stupid with it, yep....you'll be liable. Everyone wants to keep guns in the hands of the responsible, and so, this brilliant bill helps to further insure that process. That's all it is, nothing more, unless of course, you allow yourself to become part of the roaming wolf-pack so a dominate Alpha male can do all your thinking for you.

PS: And for those of you who don't recognize the obvious, guns are designed to kill and/or inflicte injury, items like cars, detectors, cotton balls and popcicles are not. Geeeezzzz.......

 

[Chadeaux]

Well then, Bigscoop, you should actually pay attention to the folks who proposed what you are advocating. They are wanting to allow individuals to sue the manufacturers of weapons when one of their weapons' use results in a person's death. Lawsuits have caused more than one business to close their doors. The antigun folks don't care what methods they use, they want the gun manufacturers to stop making guns - except those who make guns for the military.

They want me and you to be here defenseless and (they hope) cowering in the corner.

They followed a similar path of small steps when trying to destroy the tobacco industry. (no, I don't smoke, dip or chew)

 

[bigscoop]

You're wrong again Chad, as usual. When this all started gun advocates were asked to participate in helping to find a solution to better gun control measures. But naturally, even in light of the Sandy Hook massacre of innocent, defenseless children, these gun advocate groups simply refused to take any part in helping to find a better means to prevent such things in the future. All they wanted to do was to point the finger of blame to this or that. They took no responsibility whatsoever, not even as caring human beings. The door was open, they had a chance to walk through it, they refused. They refused because they did not want anything to do with responsibility, they just wanted to keep being allowed to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. So, since they simply refused to take part in trying to help the situation, the only practical solution is to make responsibility an underlying factor by way of liability. Poor decision making has even turned public opinion against them, many gun owners today refusing to have anything to do with advocate groups like the NRA. These groups have painted their fate simple because it is obvious that they don't care who gets killed or how, they just want to keep on leaning the second amendment as means of doing for themselves. Well, ok then, here you go, keep doing just as you want to do, the way you want to do it. But just remember, now you reap what you sow. It is a brilliant stance/position to take. As a gun owner you should have no problem with being responsible for the guns you may own, unless of course, you feel you may actually do something irresponsible with them.

And Chad, negligence has to be established and proven, and if there is no negligence, then why all the fear?

 

[bigscoop]

And one more thing to consider Chad, the tobacco industry flat out lied and hid evidence about the secondary effects of smoke and the effects of the product they produced. This is what made them liable, responsible. Today they are still in business and smokers can still buy the product. So your example is actually, once again, in full support of the position I have been taking on gun control all along. Guns will still be made, you will still be able to buy them, but now there is just going to be more responsibility involved, as there should be. Thanks for helping me to point this out by your own example.

Keep reading all the propaganda stuff, use your own head. The wolf-pack is a dying bread.

 

[packerbacker]

Scoop, if ANYONE needs to explain how illegal guns get onto the streets, can we start with the Obama-appointed Attorney General of this country? Just askin'. The good-ol-boy attitude is alive and well in Washington and they are all above the law. Now let me ask another question. Which of the recent shootings would have been prevented if they had photos of the guns, stool samples, blood samples, pictures of the gun owner, fingerprints, mother's maiden name, a one-gun limit, a street sign saying no guns allowed, etc, etc, etc. NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HELPED! Do you think an armed teacher or two could have changed things in the school shooting? I do and so does the NRA. You said the NRA didn't care about anything or anyone, just themselves. Let me point out here that they suggested guns in the schools but "the other side" DOES NOT WANT TO LISTEN! THEY are the ones that don't want to protect anyone except their own in their private, ARMED schools. I'm glad to hear that some school districts are considering arming some of their staff. I've also heard that gun purchases have soard in the areas these crimes were committed. Aparently the citizens in these areas are convinced that the only way to protect yourself from these nutjobs is to have a gun handy. They don't feel these silly restrictions and requirements they want to place on gun ownership is going to help either. They just want to appear to be controlling crime to their voters as they buy more votes with my taxes in the form of food, homes, phones, rebates, medical care, unemployment and on and on. I thought it was illegal to buy votes.

 

[Chadeaux]

Do you think an armed teacher or two could have changed things in the school shooting? I do and so does the NRA.

. . . and so does What's His Name in the White House. Why do you think there are 11 armed guards PLUS secret service people at his kids schools?

If he doesn't agree, then put them in a PUBLIC SCHOOL along with all the other kids their age to prove how safe it is.

 

[dieselram94]

I don't think public opinion has turned against guns. It is just presented that way by the mainstream media. Bigscoop, I think you are severely underestimating the support for guns and the second amendment. The next few days will prove me right. It is our right to own guns ......period.