once I read "DEMOCRATS WANT" my brain shuts off.
once I read "DEMOCRATS WANT" my brain shuts off.
PRAISE KEK
FATHER OF CHAOS
BRINGER OF DAY
IN THY WEBBED HANDS WE PLACE OUR FAITH
SHADILAY, SHADILAY!
Well I would not have seen Kadmos' latest stupid comment if it were not for your re-quote, so I suppose I must thank you Krupski.....Originally Posted by Krupski
He intentionally misreads the line "It says "Owners of semi-automatic rifles would be subject to strict liability for civil damages caused by their weapons"" Who or how is this misread? Because liability for YOUR actions is already the case. Me as a gun owner are ALREADY LIABLE if I do harm or property damage or injure or kill someone with my gun. That is already the case now. You don't need a new law to do it. Kadmos is lying again. The Democrats want blanket liability to be 'spread around' like 'social justice'. They want ALL gun owners to be liable for the actions of a few. To describe it as being 'reasonable' ignores the fact that our own liability for our own weapons by our own hands ... is already the case. One doesn't have to codify it since it's already there. I'm already liable and ready to be sued by tons of lawyers if I go nuts and shoot up the town. Doesn't matter WHAT gun I use.
The ONLY thing here is them trying to push 'AW owner's liability insurance" which they will required all AW owners to buy or go to jail. The problem is that no insurance company will want to issue it or at the least, it will be really expensive.
As usual Kadmos is wrong in comparing it to CAR insurance. For one, every driver i know in the state of CA has had at least ONE fender bender in their life times. Thus the liability for DRIVING is much higher. The aggregate cost is much higher on a daily basis. You can't compare that to "Assault style weapon owners". For one, I have NEVER killed anyone with my AR-15 style rifle, nor has anyone else I know in CA who has one. You can't compare gun owners to car owners. We can go our entire lives and NOT kill or injure a person or destroy other people's personal property with our guns. However just one criminal shooting by a psychopath or career criminal can incur MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars in loss and suffering. And we're supposed to bear the burden of that? For what reason? Because we own the same type of weapon?
So their evil plan is to make US liable for the criminal actions of others. That's the only thing I can see them doing if they are going to focus on the TYPE of gun.
Last edited by tank_monkey; 02-06-2013 at 02:29 PM.
Thanks but im not going to help feed that troll
Unfit for office far as I am concerned.
YOU misread it as "Owners of semi-automatic rifles would be subject to strict liability for civil damages caused by other people's weapons""[/I]
Hmmm, I didn't use the words "car" or "insurance" and certainly didn't combine them into "car insurance", but somehow I compared it to car insurance?As usual Kadmos is wrong in comparing it to CAR insurance
I made no such comparison.
What it sounds like they are actually trying to do is add an extra burden on those who would attempt to use certain guns. The idea seems to be, and granted I've not read the legislation, is to change the law so that accidental damage, or intentional, or for that matter unintentional damage done by a certain kind of gun, would have a stricter level of liability.
Basically, it seems, if you were to defend yourself with say, an AR15, you would be liable for any collateral damage, whereas if you used say, a single shot rifle, you would not...you would only be liable as much as the law previously allowed.
The theory behind this would be that the AR15 is more dangerous, and likely to cause more damage, potentially unnecessary damage, than a "normal" gun.
To a degree this is obviously true, like it or not.
In reality, most states already have this notion to a degree, if you use a weapon that is excessive to the situation you may face additional liability. This law would simply define certain weapons into that class, rather than having judges or juries decide.
I don't like that it bases only on certain weapons, many of which are likely overly common, but I do think parts of the idea may have some merit.
As I said, there is such a thing as drastic overkill.
Sure if you shoot the guy coming at you with a gun and the single bullet you shot goes through him and kills a kid it should be considered the attackers fault.
If it takes a few bullets to take him down, then it should still be considered the attackers fault.
But if you do pull out the Ma Deuce and fire at him for a full 30 seconds, churning him into an unrecognizable puddle while taking out the marching band behind him in the process, then you have gone too far.
Now, what the happy medium is between those two acts, well..I do not know.
And I think that is what this law is trying to define, albeit poorly.
But coming up with a legal standard or test isn't necessarily a bad thing. It stops it from being a subjective issue. If you know that using a gun with a mag capacity of 10 will be considered a weapon of personal self defense, and you will not be held liable for collateral damage then you can carry accordingly, safe in that knowledge.
Is this a way to try to get something of a backdoor ban on these guns? Absolutely! It wouldn't so much actually ban them, but it would make them less likely to be used as weapons of self defense.
And obviously it's far from a perfect idea just using basic logic. You would be immune from increased liability on the five shots you used in self defense from the hunting rifle, but would be liable for more for the single shot you may have used from an AR15. Which makes no sense whatsoever
I think you skimmed over the first line.
This panty wearing douche tube is ascribing causation to any owner or maker of assault weapons if some third party commits a crime with one. I cannot see any lawyer making a good argument for just cause to penalize lawful owners and manufacturers for a crime. If that ever became law in this country then every single one of us would be guilty of something every single time somebody else committed a crime. This is Socialism amok and I believe that a good number of Colorado Democrats need a refresher in the constitution especially as it pertains to the limitations of their powers and the rest of the Democrats need to be put in custody and hooked up to a Thorazine IV because they are nuttier than a tree full acorns.DENVER (Reuters) - Owners and makers of assault-style weapons would face civil liability under a package of measures unveiled on Tuesday by top lawmakers in Colorado, a state shaken by some of the deadliest shootings in U.S. history.
Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA
"THE STATE THAT SEPARATES ITS SCHOLARS FROM IT WARRIORS WILL HAVE ITS THINKING DONE BY COWARDS AND ITS FIGHTING DONE BY FOOLS"
THUCYDIDES.
He does that a lot. Par for the course as far as I'm concerned.
Registering any firearm with the government can logically be counted an act of treason against US all.
Diesel 88888888
I didn't skip over it at all, I read it and understood it to mean the owners of the weapons used, and the manufacturer, would be held liable for the actions of their own arms.
Tank's reading of it is not supported by anything else in the article, no where does it say uninvolved 3rd party owners of the same type of weapon would be held responsible.
Granted, the language could have been clearer, but it takes a really poor reading to think it says what Tank said it says.
I didn't comment at all on the manufacturers responsibility. Personally I'm just fine with a basic shield law to protect manufacturers from liability for correctly functioning guns that were poorly used.
I do think the shield laws may have gone to far and protect against liability due to unsafe designs, and other flaws. Gun manufacturers should have the same general product liability on that score.
Mary had a little lamb.
Given that he has no idea what I'm saying it's a bit ridiculous for him to complain that I skip over what is written...
They already tried that , that's why the Congress passed a law you can't sue the firearms producers for third party caused deaths. The Democraps like Kadmos are just trying a different tact now to make exercising your second amendment more expensive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks