From The Archives -- For Us, The Living
[Note: I'm taking Veterans' Day off, so please enjoy this previous column, which was originally published on Veterans' Day 2013. It's short, and I've made it even shorter by omitting another old (and lengthy) column which was pasted on at the end.]
Originally published 11/11/13
Today's holiday originally celebrated the end of "the war to end all wars," when the 1918 armistice took place on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. No World War I veterans still remain alive, and the holiday has grown to honor all America's veterans of more-recent wars -- so much so that many forget the origins of the holiday itself (which used to be "Armistice Day").
Next week, however, is an even more poignant anniversary: the sesquicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, certainly the most well-known speech in American history. Only 275 words long, Lincoln spoke for mere minutes, following a lengthy two-hour oration given by Edward Everett. But today, only scholars remember Everett's name, and few historians bother to read the text of his remarks. Lincoln's words are still memorized by schoolchildren, even to this day.
A cynic might argue that American kids are assigned the memorization of the Gettysburg Address precisely because it is so short. While Americans know snippets of other famous speeches, most of them are so long that memorizing the entire text would indeed be a daunting task. Not so with Lincoln's 275 words.
Such cynicism is not justified, however, because the brevity of the speech proves what a master Lincoln was at packing poignant imagery into just about every sentence. While the world will surely little note nor long remember this humble blog entry of mine, I have (in the spirit of Lincoln) limited it to exactly 275 words. Even though it's a week early (Lincoln spoke on November 19, 1863), it seemed appropriate to reprint Lincoln's words on the day we memorialize veterans.
Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Nice. I'm a Vet and I appreciate this.
A good Veteran’s Day to you, MtnCaddy, and thank you for your service!
I am also a vet.. USAF and US Army during Desert Storm..
This is very much appreciated...
Russ,
From the previous commentary..
You also brought up The First Step Act for helping prisoners to prepare for re-entry into society, and both of these are great bi-partisan legislation and Trump should be commended for signing them into law.
Yes, he should..
But was he?? Not in Weigantia..
Yasee, that's my beef.. In the Weigantia of days past, it WOULD have been mentioned. President Trump WOULD have been given the credit for it..
I think back to the Bush years and yes, commentaries were rife with condemnation. But Bush did many things that were good and noteworthy and they were acknowledged in this forum...
In the 4+ years since President Trump announced his candidacy, he has been credited ONCE with doing a good thing..
But let’s be clear, if you want to commend anyone for this legislation getting passed, it should be the Democrats.
I know you believe that..
I am sure you believe that ANYTHING good President Trump has done has been because of Democrats..
The economy is another good example of this bias..
So, I am not calling you a liar about it because I know that, in your heart, you actually believe this is factually accurate..
But it's not..
Republicans do not know how to create good legislation.
Yea.. And black people are all criminals..{sic}
SAME EXACT bigotry at work...
So, you are saying that the Civil Rights legislation was not good legislation?? You are saying that the EPA is not a good federal department???
You see, Russ, my friend..
Bigotry is so easy to throw around and also so easy to refute...
But you gotta admit, with where things are heading, any prison reform legislation that Trump signs into law might be done for more personal reasons and he is just planning ahead!
I admit no such thing because I don't presume to know what is in President Trump's head and heart.
But, once again, I have absolutely NO DOUBT that you believe it to be true..
That's what blind, irrational and hysterical hatred does to people..
Peace out..
The Looming ‘1984’ Election
Like it or not, 2020 is going to be a plebiscite on an American version of Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four.
For a variety of reasons, the 2020 election is going to be a referendum beyond Donald Trump’s record and his Democratic opposition.
The furor that Trump has incurred, and the radical antithesis to his agenda and first term, have redefined the looming election. It is becoming a stark choice between a revolutionary future versus American traditionalism.
The choice in reductionist terms will be one between a growing, statist Panopticon, fueled by social media, a media-progressive nexus, and an electronic posse. Online trolls and government bureaucrats seek to know everything about us, in Big Brother fashion to monitor our very thoughts to ferret out incorrect ideas, and then to regiment and indoctrinate us to ensure elite visions of mandated equality and correct behavior—or else!
In other words, the personality quirks of a Trump or an Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders will become mostly irrelevant given the existential choice between two quite antithetical ideas of future America. In 2020 we will witness the penultimate manifestation of what radical progressivism has in store for us all—and the furious, often desperate, and unfettered pushback against it.
Targeting Traditional America
We are also well beyond even the stark choices of 1972 and 1984 that remained within the parameters of the two parties. In contrast, the Democratic Party as we have known it, is extinct for now. It has been replaced since 2016 by a radical progressive revolutionary movement that serves as a touchstone for a variety of auxiliary extremist causes, agendas, and cliques—almost all of them radically leftwing and nihilistic, and largely without majority popular support.
When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and a number of Democratic presidential candidates sympathize with the New York subway jumpers who openly threaten the police, then what or who exactly is the alternative to such chaos?
When the media proves 90 percent partisan according to its own liberal watchdog institutions, or reports things as true that cannot be true but “should” be true, what are the forces behind that?
When the violence of Antifa is quietly—or sometimes loudly—condoned, who are those who empower it and excuse it?
If a late-term abortion results in a live baby exiting the birth canal only to be liquidated, who exactly would say that is amoral?
If the leading Democratic presidential candidates openly embrace the Green New Deal, reparations, abolishing the Electoral College, welfare for illegal aliens, open borders, amnesties, wealth taxes, a 70-90 percent income tax code, Medicare for all, and legal infanticide—what is the alternative vision and who stands between all that and a targeted traditional America?
https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/10/the-looming-1984-election/
At it's most basic, 2020 is going to be the election between the forces of good (traditional, patriotic exceptional America) and the forces of evil (Progressive, Orwellian, Big Brother, Socialist America)...
Like it or not, 2020 is going to be a plebiscite on an American version of Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four. One side advocates a complete transformation not just of the American present but of the past as well. The Left is quite eager to change our very vocabulary and monitor our private behavior to ensure we are not just guilty of incorrect behavior but thought as well.
The other side believes America is far better than the alternative, that it never had to be perfect to be good, and that, all and all, its flawed past is a story of a moral nation’s constant struggle for moral improvement.
One side will say, “Just give us more power and we will create heaven on earth.” The other says “Why would anyone wish to take their road to an Orwellian nightmare?” The 2020 election is that simple.
The choice is as stark and obvious as it is far-reaching..
What Americans decide in Nov of 2020 will set the stage for the next 100 years..
What will it be..
Peace, prosperity, patriotism??
Or dark, dreary Venezuela of the northern hemisphere??
How America Ends
A tectonic demographic shift is under way. Can the country hold together?
Democracy depends on the consent of the losers. For most of the 20th century, parties and candidates in the United States have competed in elections with the understanding that electoral defeats are neither permanent nor intolerable. The losers could accept the result, adjust their ideas and coalitions, and move on to fight in the next election. Ideas and policies would be contested, sometimes viciously, but however heated the rhetoric got, defeat was not generally equated with political annihilation. The stakes could feel high, but rarely existential. In recent years, however, beginning before the election of Donald Trump and accelerating since, that has changed.
“Our radical Democrat opponents are driven by hatred, prejudice, and rage,” Trump told the crowd at his reelection kickoff event in Orlando in June. “They want to destroy you and they want to destroy our country as we know it.” This is the core of the president’s pitch to his supporters: He is all that stands between them and the abyss.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/how-america-ends/600757/
Very good article...
DH,
"Success is never permanent.. Failure is never fatal.. It's the courage to continue that counts."
-Sir Winston Churchill
As partisans have drifted apart geographically and ideologically, they’ve become more hostile toward each other. In 1960, less than 5 percent of Democrats and Republicans said they’d be unhappy if their children married someone from the other party; today, 35 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Democrats would be, according to a recent Public Religion Research Institute/Atlantic poll—far higher than the percentages that object to marriages crossing the boundaries of race and religion.
Fascinatingly scary...
I have to admit that I was warned about California righties. It was said that they were fabulists, and fond of casting elections in apocalyptic terms, but to go all the way to Orwell is a hell of a way to start off the 2020 election.
But such is Victor Davis Hanson's diatribe. He apparently wants to be more important (the three-name moniker gives it away). I never heard of him until this morning.
Most importantly (and it is a feature of West Coast republicants) is the lying that is done about democrats. Maybe somewhere exists the Democrat that he proposes. Certainly not here in the heartland, where abortion concerns take second or third place behind health care.
Mr. Hanson's diatribe has a place among the writings of similar California Republicants, but not out here in the real world, where government operates by rules, not by decree, where allies can sleep at night sure that we won't pull the rug out from under them, and where health care isn't something that only the rich receive.
Balthasar,
Do you have ANY facts to support the claims you made in #13??
For example.. What "lying" was done about Dumbocrats??
It is factually accurate that Dumbocrats have embraced and condoned AntiFa's actions..
It IS factually accurate that Dumbocrats have embraced after birth abortions..
It IS factually accurate that Dumbocrats have embraced slavery reparations and the New Green Deal and Open/Decriminalized Borders..
Where are these "lies" you speak of??
San Francisco's new DA pledges not to prosecute public urination, other quality-of-life-crimes
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-franciscos-newly-elected-da-pledges-not-to-prosecute-public-urination-other-quality-of-life-crimes
Great news for San Francisco.. Public urination is now legal..
You can whip out yer tally-whacker (or drop yer pants and squat if yer female) anywhere, anytime and you won't be prosecuted..
Wanna pee on a school bus while children are watching?? Have at it..
Wanna stand outside the girls bathroom and pee on the wall?? Go for it..
California.. A "paradise"... :eyeroll:
This is the Democrat Party ya'all are defending!?? :eyeroll:
“We will get rid of Trump. As one coup fails two more will take their place.”
-Attorney Mark Zaid
All of this is the stuff of show trials and banana republics. The left does not have a single issue on which they can defeat the president, most especially when it comes to the economy and the lowest unemployment in nearly 50 years, and as Mr. Trump claims, “the highest stock market ever.”
If the public comes to see this as the partisan assault that it is and a power play to nullify the will of the voters who elected the president in 2016 — assuming they pay attention during the coming holidays — this could prove the greatest political disaster for them since Walter Mondale lost 49 states to Ronald Reagan in 1984.
And they will deserve it.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/11/democrats-last-gasp-to-smear-trump/
After the Great Orange Whale
The actions of Adam Schiff and his fellow Ahabs couldn’t be more dumb.
“Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” — a pretty flat declaration as reported by the Apostle Paul, leaving few gaps for politicians to fill at their own discretion. But you know politicians. Here we go with the impeachment hearings, an intended spectacle meant more as payback to Donald Trump for winning the presidency than as high-minded act of democratic reprobation.
Vengeance from parties other than the Lord God Almighty doesn’t always work out as intended. It can lead down twisted and unforeseen paths. Tempers get lost. Rage rules the roost. Butchery of one kind and another takes place, inspiring retaliation that provokes counter-retaliation.
Well, the Democrats wanted this little show. They can’t wait for the voters to punish the president by heaving him from the White House, assuming they so decide. No, it’s a case of showing that the dirty bum done us wrong — and, by the Almighty, We’re Gonna Get Him!
How classy! How dumb!
https://spectator.org/after-the-great-orange-whale/
Again, the question has to be asked..
If Democrats are so absolutely SURE of winning in 2020..
Why bother with this spectacle that puts a world of hurt on this country (according to Democrats) and will also put a world of hurt on Democrats (again, according to Democrats)..
Why bother when even the most dullard one KNOWS that it is doomed to failure...
The *ONLY* logical and rational reason to do something so hard on the country and so decimating on the Democrat Party and so doomed to failure is because they KNOW that President Trump will coast to re-election..
As with the Russia Collusion delusion, Dumbocrats throw a Hail Mary in hopes of SOMETHING... ANYTHING that even remotely resembles a magic bullet..
Yea.. Cuz the PREVIOUS Hail Mary worked out so well for Trump/America haters.. :smirk: :D
Cook Out manager who was fired after cop was refused service says employees followed store policy
https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/cook-out-manager-fired-cop
Respect LEOs or you lose yer job.
Especially if you work in a service industry..
It's not rocket science...
SCOTUS allows Sandy Hook families to sue Remington
The Supreme Court won't stop a lawsuit brought by Sandy Hook victims' families against Remington Arms Co., the manufacturer of the semi-automatic rifle that was used in the 2012 mass shooting at an elementary school.
The Court decided not to take up an appeal by Remington. That marks a blow to the gun industry: Depending on the outcome of the case, it could open the door to gun violence victims' families suing gun manufacturers for damages.
The Sandy Hook victims are "grateful" for the Supreme Court's decision, attorneys for the families said in a statement. They called Remington's appeal the company's "latest attempt to avoid accountability."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/business/remington-sandy-hook-supreme-court/index.html
__________
Pop Quiz: Name an industry who is not held liable for damages their products cause.
Kick,
Senator Biden was just talking about this yesterday at his CNN town hall.
When asked what he would do to prevent gun violence he said something about making it possible for victims of gun violence to sue the gun manufacturing companies.
Am I correct to assume that legislation passed by Congress (not THIS congress, of course) allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers would prompt a huge constitutional battle that may be a losing one?
I guess we'll have to wait to hear the decision on the case being heard today by the Supreme Court …
I'll take a look at your link now.
Okay, I'm getting DACA confused with this.
So, in light of the Supreme Court decision against the gun manufacturer, do you think Biden was talking about legislation allowing these lawsuits or is that even necessary now?
Pop Quiz: How many car manufacturers have been held liable for damages inflicted by drunk drivers behind the wheel of the car manufacturers product???
Am I correct to assume that legislation passed by Congress (not THIS congress, of course) allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers would prompt a huge constitutional battle that may be a losing one?
Yes..
Product liability law concentrates on product defect..
Just like you can't sue Ford if some drunk scumbag in an F-150 mows down and kills 20 people.
You can't sue Winchester if some psychotic scumbag uses a Winchester rifle to mow down and kill 20 people..
The responsibility lies SOLELY with the tool wielder, not the tool itself..
This is a case SOLELY and COMPLETELY based on hysterical emotionalism..
NOT the law...
And that is why the case will fail..
About the only silver lining is that it will establish precedent that will eliminate future emotional-based cases..
Just like you can't sue Ford if some drunk scumbag in an F-150 mows down and kills 20 people.
Bad analogy, Michale, as cars are not manufactured to kill people, you know.
Your arguments are getting worse. Shape up! So that we can have a serious discussion about serious matters, okay?
Liz,
So, in light of the Supreme Court decision against the gun manufacturer, do you think Biden was talking about legislation allowing these lawsuits or is that even necessary now?
There was no SCOTUS decision against the gun manufacturer...
The SCOTUS simply refused to hear the appeal.. That says nothing about the merit of the case..
It's entirely possible that the SCOTUS knows the case will fail if it is ever tried and would like to see that precedent on the books..
The SCOTUS not hearing the appeal says nothing beyond the SCOTUS will not hear the appeal..
Bad analogy, Michale, as cars are not manufactured to kill people, you know.
Which is completely irrelevant..
Especially to the people who are killed and their families??
I mean, honestly.. Do you honestly believe that families of those killed in auto accidents would say, "Oh wow, gee whiz... I am REALLY glad my loved one was killed by something NOT DESIGNED to kill people.. I mean, I would REALLY feel bad otherwise.."
Or is it your belief that those killed by cars are less dead because the car wasn't BUILT to kill people??
You are making an emotional argument. Not a rational or legal one..
Your arguments are getting worse. Shape up! So that we can have a serious discussion about serious matters, okay?
And, by "worse", you mean they are becoming harder and harder for you to refute with facts and logic.. :D
I accept your claim as valid.. :D
Bad analogy, Michale, as cars are not manufactured to kill people, you know.
Yes.. Guns are designed to kill people. I would say guns are designed to eliminate threats, but I'll go with your simplistic claim..
And when a single mother with three kids at home has a home invasion, she goes to the tool that will get the job she needs done... done... She grabs the tool that will most quickly and most efficiently eliminate the threat to her kids...
And the problem you have with that is... What exactly??
If you don't like the drunk scumbag analogy, how about this one?
We have two psychotic scumbags who brutally murder 20 people..
One uses a Winchester semi-automatic rifle...
The other uses a Ford F-150..
Now, according to the logic of the anti-gun crowd..
You CAN sue Winchester..
But you CAN'T sue Ford.
Get that?? Identical crimes.. simply 2 different tools chosen..
But ONE manufacturer CAN be sued and one cannot..
And this "logic" is based SOLELY on the ethereal and mystical reasoning that design intent is the SOLE determining factor.
You see how silly that is??
Just for context: how many home invasions happened last year?
OK Heading to lunch with my lovely wife... Then another heart appt.. Found something before I dunno..
See ya'all in a bit..
Just for context: how many home invasions happened last year?
1.3 million per year..
Michale,
And when a single mother with three kids at home has a home invasion, she goes to the tool that will get the job she needs done... done... She grabs the tool that will most quickly and most efficiently eliminate the threat to her kids...And the problem you have with that is... What exactly??
I don't really have a problem with that scenario except for the sad irony that those kids are much more likely to be shot accidentally in or around their home with that firearm than to be traumatized by a home invasion.
But, in any event, people should be able to protect themselves … with a registered, legally obtained firearm if they so choose.
Hopefully, people take gun safety seriously and understand the need for sensible, constitutionally allowed regulations for firearms ownership.
I don't really have a problem with that scenario except for the sad irony that those kids are much more likely to be shot accidentally in or around their home with that firearm than to be traumatized by a home invasion.
I would argue the point "much more likely"...
But it's not relevant.. We're not talking what is or is not LIKELY to happen.
We are talking about what DID happen..
But, in any event, people should be able to protect themselves … with a registered, legally obtained firearm if they so choose.
Agreed..
Hopefully, people take gun safety seriously and understand the need for sensible, constitutionally allowed regulations for firearms ownership.
Again... Agreed.
But none of that has to do with the issue at hand..
Can gun manufacturers be sued if their product kills 20 people.
No..
Just as car manufacturers can't be sued if THEIR product kills 20 people..
In EITHER case, the only possible exception would be defective product liability...
If someone is legal carrying a rifle and the trigger guard or safety fails and the gun starts shooting wildly and kills 20 people.. THEN the families of the victims have a case...
Put another way...
It would be as if the family and victims of the Oklahoma City bombing could sue Ryder because it was a Ryder truck that was used in the bombing..
Victims and victims' need someone to blame. I get that...
But legally?? There is no liability on the part of the gun manufacturer...
Just for context: how many home invasions happened last year?
1.3 million per year..
Took the wind outta yer sails pretty damn quick, eh Balthasar?? :D
The SCOTUS simply refused to hear the appeal.. That says nothing about the merit of the case..
It's entirely possible that the SCOTUS knows the case will fail if it is ever tried and would like to see that precedent on the books..
Or, more of a possibility... The SCOTUS recognized that the grieving family needs to lash out at SOMEONE.. And, knowing that this case will NEVER be decided against the Gun Manufacturer, the SCOTUS allowed the case to go forward so the families can obtain closure..
There are a host of possibilities as to WHY the SCOTUS did what they did..
And yes.. The idea that the SCOTUS thought that the families' case had merit IS one of those possibilities..
But given the law, it's a very unlikely possibility...
Families can no more sue for gun violence against the makers of the guns then grieving families can sue car manufacturers for the actions of a drunk driver or a murderous terrorist who kills dozens of people by running them over or by placing a car bomb in proximity....
I mean, picture it...
A terrorist parks a explosive laden Range Rover in a crowded Manhattan open market and detonates it, killing hundreds. Could the families of the victims sue Range Rover because it was such a big and spacious SUV that had lots of room for lots of explosives??
It's utterly ridiculous on the face of it..
1.3 million per year..
Took the wind outta yer sails pretty damn quick, eh Balthasar?
Not really. There are 1.6 million members of the 1% tax bracket, and I don't expect to be one of them.
I was just wondering.
EM
20
Senator Biden was just talking about this yesterday at his CNN town hall.
When asked what he would do to prevent gun violence he said something about making it possible for victims of gun violence to sue the gun manufacturing companies.
Biden is correct about that. When manufacturers and/or suppliers of __________ [name any product] are held liable for damages caused by the production and/or sale of same, they either find ways to make it more safe or stop selling it altogether.
Am I correct to assume that legislation passed by Congress (not THIS congress, of course) allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers would prompt a huge constitutional battle that may be a losing one?
You're correct. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act already almost entirely shields firearm and ammunition manufacturers and sellers from liability when their products are used in crimes. The devil is in the details, though, because there are a few exceptions contained therein... say if a weapon's design is found to be defective and said design flaw caused death or injury or if a manufacturer or a seller is found to have marketed or sold the product in such as way as to violated a law.
In the instant case, the Sandy Hook victims' families are taking issue with how the gun is marketed, while Remington had argued it was protected under the law. The victims' families legal action said the federal law does not apply to Remington because the Sandy Hook victims' families are accusing Remington of violating state laws in the marketing of the weapon used to kill the victims. The Supreme Court in Connecticut agreed with the Sandy Hook victims' families, and Remington appealed to the SCOTUS which has today declined to hear the case so the trial is on. It does seem like the claims of the victims' families falls outside the law's protection so now it's on them to prove their case.
I guess we'll have to wait to hear the decision on the case being heard today by the Supreme Court …
DACA is the issue today, and the ruling will come out next summer. Roberts will basically decide it whichever way it goes. Roberts did decide that Trump didn't have a good explanation for just adding the census question so it's possible he'll rule the same way when Trump just arbitrarily killed DACA. Trump also was willing to allow DACA in exchange for border wall funding until he wasn't... so it's an issue that Congress will likely have to step up and ultimately decide regardless.
EM
21
Okay, I'm getting DACA confused with this.
No worries.
So, in light of the Supreme Court decision against the gun manufacturer, do you think Biden was talking about legislation allowing these lawsuits or is that even necessary now?
The SCOTUS refused to hear Remington's case wherein they wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to declare they were exempt based on the existing law I explained above. The SCOTUS likely didn't see a conflict with said law so they refused to hear it without comment.
What Biden is proposing would definitely take an Act of Congress to change existing law.
Mike
22
Pop Quiz: How many car manufacturers have been held liable for damages inflicted by drunk drivers behind the wheel of the car manufacturers product???
Pop Quiz:
1. How many car manufacturers market their products as lethal weapons for drunk drivers?
2. How many posters here are sick of your idiotic uneducated moron exercises in false equivalency?
The Supreme Court will hear my case today. Trump will not win on DACA.
I will not live in fear. And neither will the 700,000 undocumented immigrants like me.
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/11/12/20953221/daca-supreme-court-immigrants
President Trump will most assuredly win the DACA case in the SCOTUS..
This is a forgone conclusion..
DACA was unconstitutional to begin with.. The SCOTUS has already ruled on that point.
Obama himself was the one who sealed DACA's fate when he claimed in response to a heckler. "I changed the law!!"
It is unconstitutional for the executive branch to change laws. THAT is the sole domain of the legislative branch and, under certain specific conditions, the judicial branch..
1. How many car manufacturers market their products as lethal weapons for drunk drivers?
The same number of rifle manufacturers who market their weapons as school shooting tools..
Namely, NONE...
But yer legal argument is MARKETING!!??
BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I always knew you were really mentally deficient.. I just didn't realize you were THAT mentally deficient..
The Sandy Hook case will go nowhere.. Just like all the other cases where grieving, yet ignorant) families tried to assuage their grief and pain thru the courts...
You can no more sue a gun manufacturer for making a gun than you can sue a car manufacturer for making a car..
"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
-Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN
Mike
23
Just like you can't sue Ford if some drunk scumbag in an F-150 mows down and kills 20 people.
Wrong, moron. There's no law whatsoever stopping you from suing Ford for that; you actually can sue Ford for that, but you're just not likely at all to win the case. The burden of proof is on you to prove your case.
The entire point of the conversation is that gun manufacturers are protected by law in ways that other manufacturers are not. You really shouldn't attempt to explain any type of legal issue to anyone because you have no idea what you're talking about, and you're as gullible as you are uneducated.
You can't sue Winchester if some psychotic scumbag uses a Winchester rifle to mow down and kill 20 people..
Yes, by law you actually can sue Winchester for that but only in the most limiting of circumstances.
The responsibility lies SOLELY with the tool wielder, not the tool itself..
Wrong as stated.
Bloomberg's joke of a bid says more about present crop of Democrats
Michael Bloomberg? Seriously?
For president?
Because what people are looking for today as an alternative to the current occupant of the White House is a massively wealthy, arrogant New York City billionaire with his own fleet of private jets.
Politically, strategically, rationally — these people have lost their minds to Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The only intelligent thing about Mr. Bloomberg running for the Democratic nomination for the presidency is what it says about the present crop of Democrats running for the nomination. They’re a hopeless bunch of losers who would rather destroy America than lose another election to President Trump.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/11/michael-bloombergs-joke-of-a-bid-says-more-about-p/
That about sums it up perfectly..
Everyone who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together know that President Trump will win re-election..
Which, amazingly enough, includes the VAST majority of Weigantians who have gone on the record on the subject...
Please, can you imagine Little Michael Bloomberg filling an arena in Milwaukee with thousands and thousands of screaming fans?
But this is the funniest thing about a Bloomberg campaign.
One of the oldest and biggest complaints about President Trump is his supposed arrogance. I would argue that Mr. Trump is actually a marvelously self-deprecating — yet thoroughly confident — politician. So much so that he revels in people’s fear that he is some kind of unstoppable dictator. He will NEVER relinquish the White House peacefully. He will run in 2020. And then in 2024. And 2028.
He openly jokes about this partly to remind voters of his fairly incredible stamina — as if Mr. Trump really might run for president at the age of 112.
But the joke is also meant to torment those stupid enough to take it seriously.
Which brings us back to Mr. Bloomberg. Who served THREE terms as mayor of a city that had a strict TWO-term limit on mayors.
But not for Little Mike. He had the law changed for himself so that he really could blow the term limit meant for politicians.
Good luck. You don’t stand a chance.
If Democrats nominate Biden or Bloomberg, it won't matter..
The Democrat Party will forever declare itself the Party of Old White Men...
THAT is worth a thousand laughs.. :D
Once again, you have to marvel at the LOSE LOSE situation that Democrats have found themselves in..
If they nominate a socialist, they will lose in a LANDSLIDE to President Trump..
If they nominate an old white man who has a CHANCE to beat President Trump, they forever denigrate and shit on what they claim to be as a Party...
So, EITHER WAY, Democrats LOSE!!!! :D
It's poetic in it's simplicity...
Mike
24
This is a case SOLELY and COMPLETELY based on hysterical emotionalism..
NOT the law...
Actually, this is a case that falls within the limited circumstances wherein plaintiffs are allowed to sue gun manufacturers. They're suing based on what the law allows... based on Remington's marketing.
And that is why the case will fail..
It likely will fail because of the burden of proof being on the plaintiffs, but keep in mind that they said the same thing about "big tobacco" until they were finally exposed.
About the only silver lining is that it will establish precedent that will eliminate future emotional-based cases..
You're dumber than a rock regarding legal issues. A rock would win against you by just laying there and saying nothing while you'd offer your usual dumbfuck legal advice and lose your way into your requisite shithole.
Mike
27
It's entirely possible that the SCOTUS knows the case will fail if it is ever tried and would like to see that precedent on the books..
So you think a case makes some kind of "precedent on the books" by plaintiff not being able to prove their claims? It just doesn't get much dumber than that. Stop explaining legal issues. Idiot.
Kick,
What Biden is proposing would definitely take an Act of Congress to change existing law.
Same goes for anything important that a Democratic president would want to do.
So, the Democrats should start talking about the need for undivided government, at least for two years.
And, considering what happened to Obama/Biden through two terms of their administration, Biden is best positioned to persuade the American people - ALL of the American people - of the advantages of a Democratic controlled WH, Senate and House of Representatives.
I think this should definitely be a focus in the general election, assuming, of course, that you know who is the Democratic nominee.
Mike
36
Can gun manufacturers be sued if their product kills 20 people.
No..
Yes, but law precludes them from being sued except in limited circumstances.
Just as car manufacturers can't be sued if THEIR product kills 20 people..
Incorrect.
In EITHER case, the only possible exception would be defective product liability...
Wrong on both counts. There is no equivalent law which protects auto manufacturers from litigation like the gun industry being shielded with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and there are other exceptions for which a gun manufacturer can be sued besides a defective product.
If someone is legal carrying a rifle and the trigger guard or safety fails and the gun starts shooting wildly and kills 20 people.. THEN the families of the victims have a case...
But the law that protects gun manufacturers forces the victims of families to jump through hoops before their case is even allowed to be heard in a court of law so gun manufacturers mass produce and sell a product that is largely immune from civil liability with no impetus whatsoever for them to improve the safety or harmful marketing of their product to morons. They aren't held in check by the possibility of civil litigation like darned near every other manufacturer, and therein lies a big problem... as Joe Biden so rightly points out, gun manufacturers have unprecedented immunity from accountability, and that needs to change. Full stop.
Hey fumduckers, there's some damn fine politicl analysis of the impeachment circus in the current issue if TIME magazine. Well worth reading, even the side of the question which I'm certain you really don't want to hear about.
Mike
44
President Trump will most assuredly win the DACA case in the SCOTUS..
You said that about the census question. You were wrong.
This is a forgone conclusion..
If it was, the SCOTUS wouldn't be hearing it.
DACA was unconstitutional to begin with.. The SCOTUS has already ruled on that point.
Prove it. Good luck. Liar... Idiot... Both.
Mike
45
But yer legal argument is MARKETING!!??
No, shit for brains. The law that practically grants immunity to firearms manufacturers and dealers has an exemption in the way manufacturers and dealers market the weapons.
I always knew you were really mentally deficient.. I just didn't realize you were THAT mentally deficient..
I'm not the one who lives in a trailer in shithole because I lost my ass in a court of law; that mentally deficient dipshit was you. Moron.
The Sandy Hook case will go nowhere.. Just like all the other cases where grieving, yet ignorant) families tried to assuage their grief and pain thru the courts...
You might be right, but then again, I would wager they have a lot better lawyer than the likes of your grieving ignorant ass sent packing to shithole.
You can no more sue a gun manufacturer for making a gun than you can sue a car manufacturer for making a car..
You can sue a car manufacturer and a gun manufacturer, idiot. The point of the entire conversation was that gun manufacturers and dealers are protected by law in ways that the majority of other manufacturers aren't... the PLCAA... Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
The PLCAA prohibits "qualified civil liability actions" (civil or administrative proceedings) which "result from the criminal or lawful misuse" of firearms or ammunition. It's practically a civil immunity from liability, but it does have exceptions:
* an action brought against someone convicted of "knowingly transfer[ing] a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence" by someone directly harmed by such unlawful conduct
* an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se
* an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought
* an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product
* an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage
* an action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.
EM
51
Same goes for anything important that a Democratic president would want to do.
Pretty much, yes. Still, there are quite a lot of things a Democratic president could change with a pen too... anything Trump signed in with an Executive Order could be ended with a single sentence and a signature rescinding the Trump Executive Order by number.
So, the Democrats should start talking about the need for undivided government, at least for two years.
What could it hurt? Seems rather pointless, though. I suspect the GOP will only change their modus operandi when they lose a really big state that renders them unable to win the presidency without substantive Party overhaul... then and only then. Until then, I suspect they'll oppose "whatever issue" until they have no choice.
And, considering what happened to Obama/Biden through two terms of their administration, Biden is best positioned to persuade the American people - ALL of the American people - of the advantages of a Democratic controlled WH, Senate and House of Representatives.
I agree, but there's still the issue of needing 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything substantive, and no Party will be likely be able to achieve that with the 2020 election. Nothing of substance will get done by either Party; I don't care what any of them are promising.
I think this should definitely be a focus in the general election, assuming, of course, that you know who is the Democratic nominee.
Yes, of course. :)
An example of bad gun law:
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/colo-shooting-victim-parents-broke-suing-gun-seller-article-1.2583138
You probably heard about this. Parents that had lost their daughter in the Aurora shooting sued a gun store, Lucky Gunner, where the shooter had purchased (online!) over 4,000 bullets. Unfortunately, a Colorado judge dismissed the case - you can't sue gun stores in Colorado - and the Parents suddenly owed the Lucky Gunner more than $200,000 to cover the costs of the ammo dealer's legal expenses. Unwilling to pay, the couple have been living in an RV, in which they travel around, spreading word of what happened to them.