Good news.

I can imagine a mass shooter listening to a Trump speech (or his future racist equivalent) rambling against immigrants, and is so enraged that he suddenly gets up because he has decided to make an AR-15 in the kitchen of his mobile home. It would, of course, be more likely to blow up in his face before they can shoot anybody. Oh... and he would also need to make his own explosive bullets, of course.

 

Because you believe only an AR can be used to kill???

 

No idea what you're talking about. I'm not a plaintiff in any case. I'm just using logic, reason and facts to arrive at a sensible, well reasoned conclusion. It's what people do when they're in a Political forum. And apparently I have succeeded, given that you have not been able to poke any holes in my reasoning.

 

you are so dramatic. How am I a danger to anybody? And I have no desire to overthrow the government. The second amendment ensures that I won’t have to. It’s when that is taken away that the government will get all uppity and need to be overthrown. As long as the second amendment is in place and our population is well armed, the government will behave itself.

 

And all of that, in your mind, means that this discussion is about knives and not about assault weapons?

 

That is probably the weirdest thing that you have said in this discussion.. And that's saying a lot

 

You have no desire to overthrow the government but you'll overthrow it if it doesn't do what you want....

I think it's sign of an underlying problem when somebody doesn't realize what they're saying. That type of disconnection with reality is the kind that we don't want to see combined with guns.

 

Seems you do based on your rants.

 

Are we really discussing guns or are we discussing saving lives? It appears to me that you are discussing guns with the goal being to save lives. So if your goal is to save lives why not concentrate your efforts in an area that would save more lives? Even if we could stop all mass shootings in the US it would be a small number of lives saved compared with the 7000+ who die from obesity every year or the 18000+ that die annually from non-firearm suicide. My research indicates that through the first nine months of 2019 there were 334 mass shootings in the US with a total number of victims 385. While tragic, it is such a small number compared to other things causing pain, suffering and death. Over 5000 die each year in the United States due to nutritional deficiencies. If we really want to save lives then let's feed the hungry instead of banning guns.

 

well, the constitution is on my side. And yes, of course it’s time to overthrow the government when it doesn’t do what I want. It would be kind of silly to overthrow a government I was happy with.
You make it sound like rebellions and revolutions just don’t ever happen. Apparently you’ve never read a history book. Not surprising really, judging from most of your comments.
You choose to just hope the government stays good for the people. Myself and other like minded people ensure that it stays that way.

 

He's not a medical doctor and doesn't pretend to be one, but you know that.

 

The claim presented on the part of yourself is that the Remington manufacturing company advertised its products as being suitable and intended for killing a great many people in a short amount of time possible. Such is not reasoning and logic, rather it is a deliberately false claim.

The burden of proof the plaintiffs will have to meet, to show the Remington manufacturing company essentially boasted that their product was perfect for committing mass murder, is sufficiently high enough to be essentially insurmountable. They will not be able to present so much as a single piece of advertisement to show that this was the message which was presented to the public. And if the Remington manufacturing company opts to file a counter suit against the plaintiffs so that they have equal control of the trial, it can force the plaintiffs to try and prove their claims in a court of law.

What this boils down to is the decision of the state supreme court being irrelevant. There is no standard under which the plaintiffs can hope to win. They will lose their case, they will be forced by law to cover the court fees of the Remington manufacturing company, and it will set precedent by proving firearm manufacturers cannot be held responsible for the criminal misuse of their product.

 

It was yourself who introduced the matter by citing how there was only a single stabbing-related death in the nation of China on the same day the Sandy Hook incident took place. Thus knife-related mass killings that relevant to the discussion to show that an absence of legally owned firearms would not do anything to reduce the number of mass killings that are committed as a result.

 

Among many other reasons, sure.

 

Yet he writes books on nutrition and homeopathic medicine and makes outrageous statements about people with autism.

You are right, he doesn't pretend to be a medical doctor, he pretends he knows more than the medical profession.

 

Following such logic, no private individual should be able to legally possess any private property at all.

 

Not at all. Mainly just the one capable of mass shootings and those most popular in violent gun crimes.

 

I am not suggesting we get rid of speed limits because they don't keep everyone from speeding. But passing additional speed limit legislation to curb speeding when current laws are not working would make no sense. Passing additional firearms legislation to stop murder makes no sense. Murder like speeding is already illegal.

Should all of a specific type of rifle should be confiscated to keep a few from committing murder? Should we take away all cars and all alcohol to prevent drunk drivers?