Jump to content
Sniper

Joe Biden: Time to Sue Gun Manufacturers

Recommended Posts

So, Biden wants to sue gun manufacturers for what end users do with them, But he won't answer the question if car manufacturers should be held to the same standard. Hey Joe, how about doctors, when they kill you in the O.R.? Hey Joe, what about Anheuser Busch or Seagrams? Going to add McDonalds to that list, since cheeseburgers cause heart disease/death? Might as well add stairway manufacturers to that list, too, since people fall down the stairs and die all the time.

Hey @AVB-AMG, what do think about this proposal by your Number One Boy???

During the MSNBC / Gabby Giffords / March for Our Lives gun control forum in Las Vegas, Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden contended that it is time to use lawsuits to rein in gun manufacturers.

Biden stressed that if he were granted a “wish list” for gun control, the first thing he would do is repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005). That Act protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits tied to firearms that were legally manufactured and legally sold.

He said, “No other outfit in history has gotten this kind of protection,” and he claimed the suits would result in “change overnight.”

Biden did not say whether Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, Ferrari, or others, should be open to lawsuits when one of their legally manufactured and sold products is stolen and used in a crime.

In addition to suing gun manufacturers, Biden wants to ban the manufacture and sale of AR-15s and require registration of the AR-15s that are already in circulation. Breitbart News reported that Biden also wants to register ammunition magazines.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/05/joe-biden-time-to-sue-gun-manufacturers/

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTEdeo576DVpgeRnbaEgMd

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unreal what words and consequent actions the Marxist, Statist, Democrats can get away with.  Biden is an unAmerican POS.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sniper:

8 hours ago, Sniper said:

So, Biden wants to sue gun manufacturers for what end users do with them, But he won't answer the question if car manufacturers should be held to the same standard. Hey Joe, how about doctors, when they kill you in the O.R.? Hey Joe, what about Anheuser Busch or Seagrams? Going to add McDonalds to that list, since cheeseburgers cause heart disease/death? Might as well add stairway manufacturers to that list, too, since people fall down the stairs and die all the time.

Hey @AVB-AMG, what do think about this proposal by your Number One Boy???

@Sniper:

First of all, let’s get our historical facts straight so we all can understand where Joe Biden is coming from in his argument.

Back in 2005, Congress enacted the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”, (PLCAA), the law that Biden has now said that he would want to repeal as part of his gun control proposals.  Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits filed against the gun industry in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance." 

The PLCAA law protects gun manufacturers, dealers and sellers from any civil action resulting in a criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition.  This is the reason why gun manufactures today are not able to be sued.  That is why many are concerned that Firearms industry has special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.  Rarely has Congress acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts.

We all know that America is a litigious society, but there is a valid concern that the PLCAA law is a hindrance to the type of deterrence necessary to prevent more gun-related deaths, let alone mass shootings.  The PLCAA protecting gun makers has opened the door to "scapegoating" of people who should not be blamed for mass shootings, where the shooting victim's families sue whomever they can in an effort to get something for their loss.  I agree with Rep. Adam Schiff who has stated that "responsible actors in the gun industry don't need this limitation on liability and the irresponsible ones don't deserve it".

Your analogy, (and that posed by others), in attempting to cite hypothetical examples for other industries is not valid.  Your argument is essentially saying that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

The history of corporate law suits is against your argument.  Almost every other manufacturer of a machine that has the potential to kill or maim a human being is required by morality and ethics, and in most cases in the U.S., established laws to think about and take into account consumer safety.  For example, major automobile companies have had to pay in settlements millions of dollars over defective airbags, various vehicle design flaws and other faulty parts. In cases of accidental death or injury on international flights, airlines must pay families a minimum liability, regardless of fault, of about $170,000 per victim, according to the international Montreal Convention agreement. Yet, no other U.S. industry is as guarded from liability as the gun industry, as a result of the PLCAA. So far in 2019, there have been more that 250 mass shootings, that counts incidents in which at least four people other than the shooter were injured or killed.  If the gun industry did not have the protection of the PLCAA, then I wounder what the ramifications might result...?  I am willing to roll the dice and take that chance.

I think it is time for us as a nation to rescind the PLCAA and see what the results are after several years.  I believe that the gun manufacturers will not go out of business and speculate that the result may be a more stringent industry self-advocating for the enforcement of all the existing gun laws.  My guess is that the gun industry will follow the lead of the almost 80% of the top 100 companies in America who have put legal clauses in the fine print of their customer agreements.  These clauses bar consumers from suing them in federal court, and instead force victims to pursue arbitration or, in some cases, file suit in small claims court.

AVB-AMG

  • Disagree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sniper:

Rather than just reading and accepting the right-wing spin on Joe Biden’s stand on guns from Breitbart, why not look at exactly what he is now proposing.  Biden’s campaign recently issued his proposed program pertaining to guns and it is quite wide-ranging and worth a closer look to see what is in it.   I did just that and have done a “cut & paste” of the highlights from his web site and my comments and opinion noted in italics.  While I do not agree and support all of his proposals, I do support most of them:

AVB-AMG

  • Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the PLCAA.  Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (I agree with this approach)
     
  • Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.  (I disagree with this)
     
  • Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (I cautiously supportive of exploring this approach further but have concerns that it could go too far).
     
  • Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (I have spent a lot of money to purchase multiple 10-round magazines for my various firearms, in order to comply with the recently enacted NJ law.  I have almost $1,000 worth of 15-round magazines stored out-of-state for my various firearms that I can no longer legally possess.  If these magazines remain illegal then I would hope that I could sell them to the government to recoup some of my financial investment).
     
  • Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (I do not have a problem with this.  A firearms enthusiast could purchase 12 more firearms each year, if they so desire….)

Keep guns out of dangerous hands. The federal background check system (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) is one of the best tools we have to prevent gun violence, but it’s only effective when it’s used. Biden will enact universal background check legislation and close other loopholes that allow people who should be prohibited from purchasing firearms from making those purchases. Specifically, Biden is proposing to do the following:

  • Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I agree that this makes sense).
     
  • Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy.
    (I do not have a problem with this).

     
  • Close the “hate crime loophole.” Biden will enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (I do not have a problem with this).
     
  • Close the “Charleston loophole.” The Charleston loophole allows people to complete a firearms purchase if their background check is not completed within three business days. Biden supports the proposal in the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, which extends the timeline from three to 10 business days. Biden will also direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to put on his desk within his first 100 days as president a report detailing the cases in which background checks are not completed within 10 business days and steps the federal government can take to reduce or eliminate this occurrence. (I agree with this).
     
  • Close the “fugitive from justice” loophole created by the Trump Administration. Because of actions by the Trump Administration, records of almost 500,000 fugitives from justice who are prohibited from purchasing firearms were deleted from the background check system. The Biden Administration will restore these records, and enact legislation to make clear that people facing arrest warrants are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. (I agree with this).
     
  • End the online sale of firearms and ammunition. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.  (I am against this).
     
  • Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. Federal law defines categories of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, and the federal background check system is an effective tool for ensuring prohibited persons cannot purchase firearms. But we lack any serious tool to ensure that when someone becomes newly prohibited – for example, because they commit a violent crime – they relinquish possession of their firearms. There are some promising models for how this could be enforced. For example, California has a mandatory process for ensuring relinquishment by any individual newly subject to a domestic violence restraining order. As president, Biden will direct the FBI and ATF to outline a model relinquishment process, enact any necessary legislation to ensure relinquishment when individuals newly fall under one of the federal prohibitions, and then provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to establish effective relinquishment processes on their own. (I support this approach).
     
  • Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. Biden will incentivize the adoption of these laws by giving states funds to implement them. And, he’ll direct the U.S. Department of Justice to issue best practices and offer technical assistance to states interested in enacting an extreme risk law.  (I support the concept of red flag laws that enable immediate family members from filing a report of an issue noted above.  But there should be a limit to the time period of the law, (sunset provision), to ascertain and evaluate the effectiveness of it, before it can be brought up again for a vote into law).
  • Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. Biden will enact legislation to give states and local governments grants to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun.  (Well, as we all know as NJ residents, we already essentially have this burden.  Yes it is a PITA, but we all have gone through it and have been able to obtain our desired firearms, so it is not the end of the world….).

  • Adequately fund the background check system. President Obama and Vice President Biden expanded incentives for states to submit records of prohibited persons into the background checks system. As president, Biden will continue to prioritize that funding and ensure that the FBI is adequately funded to accurately and efficiently handle the NICS system. (I support this effort of providing funding to enable states to truly enforce the gun laws already on the books).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

First of all, let’s get our historical facts straight

Speaking of facts...

42 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

Your argument is essentially saying that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

That's correct.

42 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

For example, major automobile companies have had to pay in settlements millions of dollars over defective airbags, various vehicle design flaws and other faulty parts. In cases of accidental death or injury on international flights, airlines must pay families a minimum liability, regardless of fault, of about $170,000 per victim, according to the international Montreal Convention agreement. Yet, no other U.S. industry is as guarded from liability as the gun industry, as a result of the PLCAA. So far in 2019, there have been more that 250 mass shootings, that counts incidents in which at least four people other than the shooter were injured or killed. 

Wow, there are no words..

So in YOUR world, you're comparing defective PARTS and defective DESIGN flaws, which cause ACCIDENTAL deaths, to defective PEOPLE (who commit mass shootings), as one and the same, and the manufacturers of those products used should be sued equally?

This LACK of logic is astounding!!!

42 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

I think it is time for us as a nation to rescind the PLCAA and see what the results are after several years.  I believe

So, you "think" by rescinding it, this will suddenly make people no longer evil, not willing to murder people, stop mass murders, and eliminate all gangbangers in the 'hood, because the gun manufacturers will be held responsible too?

Just how much have you been drinking tonight?

25 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (I do not have a problem doing this).

I'm not going to touch on all the ANTI 2A clauses you agree with Biden on. It's so pathetic, it makes me want to puke... What a traitor to the 2A you are, but I'm not really surprised, based on all your Liberal delusions you spew here regularly.

But on this particular one, what exactly is a "Assault Weapon"? Please give me links to the category of those weapons at PSA or Bud's so I can order one right now. Even better, please link that category description at any one of the major firearm manufacturers, I'd like to check them out.

25 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

While I do not agree and support all of his proposals, I do support most of them:

@AVB-AMG There just are no words............

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

@Sniper:

Rather than just reading and accepting the right-wing spin on Joe Biden’s stand on guns from Breitbart, why not look at exactly what he is now proposing.  Biden’s campaign recently issued his proposed program pertaining to guns and it is quite wide-ranging and worth a closer look to see what is in it.   I did just that and have done a “cut & paste” of the highlights from his web site and my comments and opinion noted in italics.  While I do not agree and support all of his proposals, I do support most of them:

AVB-AMG

  • Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the PLCAA.  Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (I agree with this approach)
     
  • Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.  (I disagree with this)
     
  • Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (I do not have a problem doing this).
     
  • Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (I have spent a lot of money to purchase multiple 10-round magazines for my various firearms, in order to comply with the recently enacted NJ law.  I have almost $1,000 worth of 15-round magazines stored out-of-state for my various firearms that I can no longer legally possess.  If these magazines remain illegal then I would hope that I could sell them to the government to recoup some of my financial investment).
     
  • Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (I do not have a problem with this.  A firearms enthusiast could purchase 12 more firearms each year, if they so desire….)

Keep guns out of dangerous hands. The federal background check system (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) is one of the best tools we have to prevent gun violence, but it’s only effective when it’s used. Biden will enact universal background check legislation and close other loopholes that allow people who should be prohibited from purchasing firearms from making those purchases. Specifically, Biden is proposing to do the following:

  • Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I agree that this makes sense).
     
  • Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy.
    (I do not have a problem with this).

     
  • Close the “hate crime loophole.” Biden will enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (I do not have a problem with this).
     
  • Close the “Charleston loophole.” The Charleston loophole allows people to complete a firearms purchase if their background check is not completed within three business days. Biden supports the proposal in the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, which extends the timeline from three to 10 business days. Biden will also direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to put on his desk within his first 100 days as president a report detailing the cases in which background checks are not completed within 10 business days and steps the federal government can take to reduce or eliminate this occurrence. (I agree with this).
     
  • Close the “fugitive from justice” loophole created by the Trump Administration. Because of actions by the Trump Administration, records of almost 500,000 fugitives from justice who are prohibited from purchasing firearms were deleted from the background check system. The Biden Administration will restore these records, and enact legislation to make clear that people facing arrest warrants are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. (I agree with this).
     
  • End the online sale of firearms and ammunition. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.  (I am against this).
     
  • Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. Federal law defines categories of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, and the federal background check system is an effective tool for ensuring prohibited persons cannot purchase firearms. But we lack any serious tool to ensure that when someone becomes newly prohibited – for example, because they commit a violent crime – they relinquish possession of their firearms. There are some promising models for how this could be enforced. For example, California has a mandatory process for ensuring relinquishment by any individual newly subject to a domestic violence restraining order. As president, Biden will direct the FBI and ATF to outline a model relinquishment process, enact any necessary legislation to ensure relinquishment when individuals newly fall under one of the federal prohibitions, and then provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to establish effective relinquishment processes on their own. (I support this approach).
     
  • Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. Biden will incentivize the adoption of these laws by giving states funds to implement them. And, he’ll direct the U.S. Department of Justice to issue best practices and offer technical assistance to states interested in enacting an extreme risk law.  (I support the concept of red flag laws that enable immediate family members from filing a report of an issue noted above.  But there should be a limit to the time period of the law, (sunset provision), to ascertain and evaluate the effectiveness of it, before it can be brought up again for a vote into law).
  • Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. Biden will enact legislation to give states and local governments grants to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun.  (Well, as we all know as NJ residents, we already essentially have this burden.  Yes it is a PITA, but we all have gone through it and have been able to obtain our desired firearms, so it is not the end of the world….).

  • Adequately fund the background check system. President Obama and Vice President Biden expanded incentives for states to submit records of prohibited persons into the background checks system. As president, Biden will continue to prioritize that funding and ensure that the FBI is adequately funded to accurately and efficiently handle the NICS system. (I support this effort of providing funding to enable states to truly enforce the gun laws already on the books).

Your a FUDD and you need to go eff yourself....  your a freaking commie liberal pinko SOB.  

 

We don't care what you think we dont care what you like

 

Piss off wanker

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not going to quote AVB since it’s bullshit in its entirety.
 

PLCAA does not protect gun manufacturers against negligence or defects in design. In those cases the manufacturers can still be Taken to court and found liable.  
PLCAA protects them against lawsuits stemming from the illegal use of their firearm.  You could argue that no other area has those protections but also no area has needed those protections after the organized and tactical lawsuits in the 90’s that still continue today 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sniper said:

But on this particular one, what exactly is a "Assault Weapon"? Please give me links to the category of those weapons at PSA or Bud's so I can order one right now. Even better, please link that category description at any one of the major firearm manufacturers, I'd like to check them out.

Have patience, the AW definition is being written up as we speak by the same folk  (Dept of Subterfuge) who re-defined the whistle blower criteria. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, USRifle30Cal said:

Your a FUDD and you need to go eff yourself....  your a freaking commie liberal pinko SOB.  

 

We don't care what you think we dont care what you like

 

Piss off wanker

I understand your frustration, but comments like that don't do anything to advance the dialogue.  I admire AVB and Greenday, even though I rarely agree with them, because they continue to come back here to provide opposing views in the face of nearly universal hostility  Without them, we would all be in near total agreement on most issues, and the discussions would be a lot less interesting.  

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:


 

PLCAA does not protect gun manufacturers against negligence or defects in design. In those cases the manufacturers can still be Taken to court and found liable.  
PLCAA protects them against lawsuits stemming from the illegal use of their firearm.  You could argue that no other area has those protections but also no area has needed those protections after the organized and tactical lawsuits in the 90’s that still continue today 

That is my understanding of it, yet the anti-gun people continue to obfuscate, and conflate manufacturing defects with intentional misuse of a product to claim that the firearms industry is the only group that is protected from liability lawsuits.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

@Sniper:

Rather than just reading and accepting the right-wing spin on Joe Biden’s stand on guns from Breitbart, why not look at exactly what he is now proposing.  Biden’s campaign recently issued his proposed program pertaining to guns and it is quite wide-ranging and worth a closer look to see what is in it.   I did just that and have done a “cut & paste” of the highlights from his web site and my comments and opinion noted in italics.  While I do not agree and support all of his proposals, I do support most of them:

AVB-AMG

  • Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the PLCAA.  Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (I agree with this approach)

Wouldn't sueing be a means to this?  Riddle me that, Batbrain, and of course you agree.  Anything but the actual humans that commit the crimes, as its not their fault, but ours, the president, and the gun manufacturers.  Dipshit, what do you think that would do to the gun companies, what with all the POS slip-and-fall lawyers and corrupt judges and brainwashed citizenry?

Quote
  • Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.  (I disagree with this)

 

Of course you to because it won't matter if all the gun companies are out of business.  And by the way, batbrain, what is an assault weapon?  I want my korean issued M1 Garande that I cannot purchase and a Saiga or two..  

 

Quote
  •  
  • Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (I do not have a problem doing this).
     

LOL.  There aren't that many to worry about, anyway.    They were lost in lots of boating accidents.

 

Quote
  • Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (I have spent a lot of money to purchase multiple 10-round magazines for my various firearms, in order to comply with the recently enacted NJ law.  I have almost $1,000 worth of 15-round magazines stored out-of-state for my various firearms that I can no longer legally possess.  If these magazines remain illegal then I would hope that I could sell them to the government to recoup some of my financial investment).
     

You are such a moron.  Bite the bullet and take your losses.  They are too dangerous, anyway.   Maybe you should pay some extra taxes to pay yourself back.

Quote
  • Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (I do not have a problem with this.  A firearms enthusiast could purchase 12 more firearms each year, if they so desire….)

Again, a complete idiot.   Focus on punishing the individual, law-abiding citizen with something of NO CONSEQUENCE.  And, all of that nonsense would in effect register, etc.   I'm not Biden, but what if I think you should only have 3 guns total.  Turn the rest in and buy them back with your own taxes.  MORON.  You are as dumb as Biden.

Here is what I think Joe Biden meant...  He wants to get rid of guns and this is just a key part of his plans.   Anyone that supports Biden is against America.  

BINGO.  Troll's R Us

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your brilliancy addressing this, I don't know what to say... Idiocy review continued:

9 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

AVB-AMG

Keep guns out of dangerous hands. The federal background check system (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) is one of the best tools we have to prevent gun violence, but it’s only effective when it’s used. Biden will enact universal background check legislation and close other loopholes that allow people who should be prohibited from purchasing firearms from making those purchases. Specifically, Biden is proposing to do the following:

  • Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I agree that this makes sense).

 

Yes, it is best to provide the undeserving and mistrustful government with more information and power over the people.  

Quote
  • Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy.
    (I do not have a problem with this).

And your statist government would decide this?    How would that be distinguished between those unable and those who get aid from others?  And by the way, how would temporary assistance be recognized.  Busy body, Statist.

Quote
  • Close the “hate crime loophole.” Biden will enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (I do not have a problem with this).

 

Again, who would decide this nonsense?

Quote
  •  
  • Close the “Charleston loophole.” The Charleston loophole allows people to complete a firearms purchase if their background check is not completed within three business days. Biden supports the proposal in the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, which extends the timeline from three to 10 business days. Biden will also direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to put on his desk within his first 100 days as president a report detailing the cases in which background checks are not completed within 10 business days and steps the federal government can take to reduce or eliminate this occurrence. (I agree with this).
  •  

 

Perhaps, instead if a background check cannot be completed in (3) days, issue the victim of the government and bureacracy ANY free firearm under $2000 of his or her choice.  Perhaps let them select two, instead, from the buyback bin.

 

Quote
  • Close the “fugitive from justice” loophole created by the Trump Administration. Because of actions by the Trump Administration, records of almost 500,000 fugitives from justice who are prohibited from purchasing firearms were deleted from the background check system. The Biden Administration will restore these records, and enact legislation to make clear that people facing arrest warrants are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. (I agree with this).

 

So who are these fugitives from justice?  Trump supporters?

 

Quote
  •  
  • End the online sale of firearms and ammunition. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.  (I am against this).

 

Again, it would be so hard and complicated and costly to get them with all you agree with that it wouldn't matter that you agreed or not..

 

Quote

  •  
  • Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. Federal law defines categories of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, and the federal background check system is an effective tool for ensuring prohibited persons cannot purchase firearms. But we lack any serious tool to ensure that when someone becomes newly prohibited – for example, because they commit a violent crime – they relinquish possession of their firearms. There are some promising models for how this could be enforced. For example, California has a mandatory process for ensuring relinquishment by any individual newly subject to a domestic violence restraining order. As president, Biden will direct the FBI and ATF to outline a model relinquishment process, enact any necessary legislation to ensure relinquishment when individuals newly fall under one of the federal prohibitions, and then provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to establish effective relinquishment processes on their own. (I support this approach).
  •  

 

Yes, lets make criminals of the state and send a SWAT team at 5 in the morning and murder them in cold blood.  Lets keep records so we can round them up when we feel like and without due process.

 

Quote

  •  
  • Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. Biden will incentivize the adoption of these laws by giving states funds to implement them. And, he’ll direct the U.S. Department of Justice to issue best practices and offer technical assistance to states interested in enacting an extreme risk law.  (I support the concept of red flag laws that enable immediate family members from filing a report of an issue noted above.  But there should be a limit to the time period of the law, (sunset provision), to ascertain and evaluate the effectiveness of it, before it can be brought up again for a vote into law).

 

 

 

And how would you safeguard indiiduals against abuse of this?  And through due process how will the firearms NOT be damaged and returned to the individual?  And what will be the penalty for state officials that don't follow through accordingly?

 

 

Quote

 

  • Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. Biden will enact legislation to give states and local governments grants to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun.  (Well, as we all know as NJ residents, we already essentially have this burden.  Yes it is a PITA, but we all have gone through it and have been able to obtain our desired firearms, so it is not the end of the world….).

 

Didn't Hitler and a few other unbearable and inhuman creatures enact this very thing on the people?  Didn't it lead to gun confiscation?  Certainly was the end of the world for a few disarmed individuals and their families packed into train cars.

 

Quote

 

 

  • Adequately fund the background check system. President Obama and Vice President Biden expanded incentives for states to submit records of prohibited persons into the background checks system. As president, Biden will continue to prioritize that funding and ensure that the FBI is adequately funded to accurately and efficiently handle the NICS system. (I support this effort of providing funding to enable states to truly enforce the gun laws already on the books).

Perhaps that enforcement should be done before passing ANY more laws.  Maybe we can tax the gun owners and use that money to setup a system?

 

Neither YOU nor BIDEN should be in charge of anything beyond cutting your own fingernails when long.  Someone plesae contact the Social Security Office.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

@Sniper:

@Sniper:

First of all, let’s get our historical facts straight so we all can understand where Joe Biden is coming from in his argument.

Back in 2005, Congress enacted the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”, (PLCAA), the law that Biden has now said that he would want to repeal as part of his gun control proposals.  Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits filed against the gun industry in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance." 

The PLCAA law protects gun manufacturers, dealers and sellers from any civil action resulting in a criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition.  This is the reason why gun manufactures today are not able to be sued.  That is why many are concerned that Firearms industry has special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.  Rarely has Congress acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts.

We all know that America is a litigious society, but there is a valid concern that the PLCAA law is a hindrance to the type of deterrence necessary to prevent more gun-related deaths, let alone mass shootings.  The PLCAA protecting gun makers has opened the door to "scapegoating" of people who should not be blamed for mass shootings, where the shooting victim's families sue whomever they can in an effort to get something for their loss.  I agree with Rep. Adam Schiff who has stated that "responsible actors in the gun industry don't need this limitation on liability and the irresponsible ones don't deserve it".

Your analogy, (and that posed by others), in attempting to cite hypothetical examples for other industries is not valid.  Your argument is essentially saying that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

The history of corporate law suits is against your argument.  Almost every other manufacturer of a machine that has the potential to kill or maim a human being is required by morality and ethics, and in most cases in the U.S., established laws to think about and take into account consumer safety.  For example, major automobile companies have had to pay in settlements millions of dollars over defective airbags, various vehicle design flaws and other faulty parts. In cases of accidental death or injury on international flights, airlines must pay families a minimum liability, regardless of fault, of about $170,000 per victim, according to the international Montreal Convention agreement. Yet, no other U.S. industry is as guarded from liability as the gun industry, as a result of the PLCAA. So far in 2019, there have been more that 250 mass shootings, that counts incidents in which at least four people other than the shooter were injured or killed.  If the gun industry did not have the protection of the PLCAA, then I wounder what the ramifications might result...?  I am willing to roll the dice and take that chance.

I think it is time for us as a nation to rescind the PLCAA and see what the results are after several years.  I believe that the gun manufacturers will not go out of business and speculate that the result may be a more stringent industry self-advocating for the enforcement of all the existing gun laws.  My guess is that the gun industry will follow the lead of the almost 80% of the top 100 companies in America who have put legal clauses in the fine print of their customer agreements.  These clauses bar consumers from suing them in federal court, and instead force victims to pursue arbitration or, in some cases, file suit in small claims court.

AVB-AMG

Yes, they will flourish and prosper and new products will emerge and on and on.  So you want them to be accountable to the dishonest Statists in Washington and the Corrupt media?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tony357 said:

While Joe goes out back and fires two rounds off his porch to scare off intruders that he hears in  the distance.

Talk about mentally deficient.  Where is the Social Security official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Glock guy said:

I understand your frustration, but comments like that don't do anything to advance the dialogue.  I admire AVB and Greenday, even though I rarely agree with them, because they continue to come back here to provide opposing views in the face of nearly universal hostility  Without them, we would all be in near total agreement on most issues, and the discussions would be a lot less interesting.  

That is my understanding of it, yet the anti-gun people continue to obfuscate, and conflate manufacturing defects with intentional misuse of a product to claim that the firearms industry is the only group that is protected from liability lawsuits.  

If AVB was honest I would agree with you, but he is NOT honest and twists things, etc.    Additionally, he is trying to push his views and agenda on me.  I don't care if he wants to turn his guns in, register them, etc. or if he gives his significant other the ability to turn him in, and if he wants to buy only one gun a month.  Leave me alone, Joe and AVB.   And you should think about the radicals such as Giffords that you associate with.  

By the way, Greenday, do you agree with AVB?   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, AVB, for confirming what I have suspected for awhile.

Your "250 mass shootings" is straight from the "Gun Violence Archive", which has its own definition.

The FBI's definition counts 31.

You're another one who's 'drank the cool-aide'.

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh... where to begin?! Point-by-point, I guess... I'll hit a few that jumped out at me. (Boldface added by me).

11 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

The PLCAA law protects gun manufacturers, dealers and sellers from any civil action resulting in a criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition.  This is the reason why gun manufactures today are not able to be sued.  That is why many are concerned that Firearms industry has special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.  Rarely has Congress acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts.

We all know that America is a litigious society, but there is a valid concern that the PLCAA law is a hindrance to the type of deterrence necessary to prevent more gun-related deaths, let alone mass shootings.  The PLCAA protecting gun makers has opened the door to "scapegoating" of people who should not be blamed for mass shootings, where the shooting victim's families sue whomever they can in an effort to get something for their loss.  I agree with Rep. Adam Schiff who has stated that "responsible actors in the gun industry don't need this limitation on liability and the irresponsible ones don't deserve it".

@voyager9 and @Old Glock guy are quite correct, AVB. And you, in this instance, are so very wrong. Sorry!... but, the PLCAA law protects manufacturers from being sued when someone uses their product for criminal purposes. It's a pretty narrowly defined exception. It does NOT protect them from being sued over, for instance, defective parts that cause injuries - or - any other type of negligence! The ONLY reason the law was passed was because the industry was unique... in that it was under attack with nuisance lawsuits coordinated by activists who wished to bankrupt the industry. The analogy to suing a car manufacturer for the actions of a drunk driver is EXACTLY spot-on! If indeed, car manufacturers were regularly facing lawsuits (coordinated by MADD, for instance) holding them accountable for the actions of drunk drivers, we'd need to pass a law to stop that as well. I suggest you go read the PLCAA directly - the number is: 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903.

12 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

The PLCAA protecting gun makers has opened the door to "scapegoating" of people who should not be blamed for mass shootings, where the shooting victim's families sue whomever they can in an effort to get something for their loss.  I agree with Rep. Adam Schiff who has stated that "responsible actors in the gun industry don't need this limitation on liability and the irresponsible ones don't deserve it".

The person to be blamed for the shooting is, first and foremost... the SHOOTER!  Victims suing "whomever they can in an effort to get something for their loss" is a symptom of our sick, litigious society. As though getting a "cash settlement" somehow makes losing your loved one... better? Yikes. We need to re-think that. And Schiff?! Good god, AVB, he's an extremist. As stated, responsible manufacturers were being besieged with nuisance lawsuits promulgated by activists - THAT'S why the law was passed in the first place!

11 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes.

You accuse @Sniper of "just reading and accepting the right-wing spin on Joe Biden’s stand on guns from Breitbart" - and yet, in your passage above, you directly link to information from The Giffords Law Center, a site of left-wing spin. Pot... meet Kettle! :rofl:

And, oh, btw, shootings deaths by AR-15s (and rifles of all types) are also very rare in this country, despite not being under the NFA. You're about as likely to be struck dead by lightning as you are to be killed by an AR-15... you're MORE likely to be beaten to death by someone's bare fists.  You're buying into obvious "spin", AVB. You should be smarter than that! I suggest you avoid Giffords (and all other political sites), and go straight to credible sources (like FBI crime stats) for a clearer picture. You're getting hoodwinked, my friend!

12 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy.
(I do not have a problem with this).

Maybe YOU don't have a problem with this... but I think you should! A number of leading organizations (including those that defend the rights of people with disabilities) certainly did! They saw it for what it was... a sneaky way to strip people of their Constitutional rights without due process. Those decisions were being made by bureaucratic administrators, not judges (based on expert testimony and all the other hallmarks of due process). Hell, it was such an egregious overstep that even the ACLU (no fan of guns!) came out strongly against it, and in fact, was one of the main plaintiffs. Judging from your political slant as expressed on these forums, I'm guessing you respect the ACLU, right? 

4 hours ago, Old Glock guy said:

I admire AVB and Greenday, even though I rarely agree with them, because they continue to come back here to provide opposing views in the face of nearly universal hostility

Eh, I agree with that... to a point. I enjoy Greenday's shooting threads - because frankly, I like to see people with a left-leaning slant enjoying firearms and seeing the ridiculousness of punishing legal gun owners for the actions of criminals - and he seems to "get" that point! (Progress?!) But, on most of the political threads, I suspect he's in it more for the sly fun of trolling and watching other posters' heads explode. And that's just mean-spirited... and as a result, people are now openly mean and hostile to him, too. It's a real shame.

Whereas in AVB's case, agree with him or not, he actually "debates" - he builds his argument, he stays and defends it (and doesn't scamper off to another thread), and he's shown he's capable of changing his position when others present enough opposing information. At least I can respect his process, even at those times when I wholeheartedly disagree with his positions. And he also participates by bringing in other interesting threads, on any number of topics. I consider him, in that respect, a good contributing community member! Some folks on here simply can't tolerate opposing views... I'm not of that mindset myself. I personally think there's something inherently useful in hearing opposing viewpoints.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Oh... where to begin?! Point-by-point, I guess... I'll hit a few that jumped out at me. (Boldface added by me).

@voyager9 and @Old Glock guy are quite correct, AVB. And you, in this instance, are so very wrong. Sorry!... but, the PLCAA law protects manufacturers from being sued when someone uses their product for criminal purposes. It's a pretty narrowly defined exception. It does NOT protect them from being sued over, for instance, defective parts that cause injuries - or - any other type of negligence! The ONLY reason the law was passed was because the industry was unique... in that it was under attack with nuisance lawsuits coordinated by activists who wished to bankrupt the industry. The analogy to suing a car manufacturer for the actions of a drunk driver is EXACTLY spot-on! If indeed, car manufacturers were regularly facing lawsuits (coordinated by MADD, for instance) holding them accountable for the actions of drunk drivers, we'd need to pass a law to stop that as well. I suggest you go read the PLCAA directly - the number is: 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903.

The person to be blamed for the shooting is, first and foremost... the SHOOTER!  Victims suing "whomever they can in an effort to get something for their loss" is a symptom of our sick, litigious society. As though getting a "cash settlement" somehow makes losing your loved one... better? Yikes. We need to re-think that. And Schiff?! Good god, AVB, he's an extremist. As stated, responsible manufacturers were being besieged with nuisance lawsuits promulgated by activists - THAT'S why the law was passed in the first place!

You accuse @Sniper of "just reading and accepting the right-wing spin on Joe Biden’s stand on guns from Breitbart" - and yet, in your passage above, you directly link to information from The Giffords Law Center, a site of left-wing spin. Pot... meet Kettle! :rofl:

And, oh, btw, shootings deaths by AR-15s (and rifles of all types) are also very rare in this country, despite not being under the NFA. You're about as likely to be struck dead by lightning as you are to be killed by an AR-15... you're MORE likely to be beaten to death by someone's bare fists.  You're buying into obvious "spin", AVB. You should be smarter than that! I suggest you avoid Giffords (and all other political sites), and go straight to credible sources (like FBI crime stats) for a clearer picture. You're getting hoodwinked, my friend!

Maybe YOU don't have a problem with this... but I think you should! A number of leading organizations (including those that defend the rights of people with disabilities) certainly did! They saw it for what it was... a sneaky way to strip people of their Constitutional rights without due process. Those decisions were being made by bureaucratic administrators, not judges (based on expert testimony and all the other hallmarks of due process). Hell, it was such an egregious overstep that even the ACLU (no fan of guns!) came out strongly against it, and in fact, was one of the main plaintiffs. Judging from your political slant as expressed on these forums, I'm guessing you respect the ACLU, right? 

Eh, I agree with that... to a point. I enjoy Greenday's shooting threads - because frankly, I like to see people with a left-leaning slant enjoying firearms and seeing the ridiculousness of punishing legal gun owners for the actions of criminals - and he seems to "get" that point! (Progress?!) But, on most of the political threads, I suspect he's in it more for the sly fun of trolling and watching other posters' heads explode. And that's just mean-spirited... and as a result, people are now openly mean and hostile to him, too. It's a real shame.

Whereas in AVB's case, agree with him or not, he actually "debates" - he builds his argument, he stays and defends it (and doesn't scamper off to another thread), and he's shown he's capable of changing his position when others present enough opposing information. At least I can respect his process, even at those times when I wholeheartedly disagree with his positions. And he also participates by bringing in other interesting threads, on any number of topics. I consider him, in that respect, a good contributing community member! Some folks on here simply can't tolerate opposing views... I'm not of that mindset myself. I personally think there's something inherently useful in hearing opposing viewpoints.

Good job.  A well-written response.  Sometimes when I am in my truck the factory radio resets to NPR.  When I listen to this I have to laugh because after just this one soundbite of nonsense I can see how my own brother's head gets filled with the gobblygook, and the programming is everywhere not just NPR.  What's a left-leaning individual to do?  With all of that how can they be held responsible?  At one point in time AVB even invited me to sit down for a drink with him. I will give him kudos for his passion.   At least he has good taste in chew toys for his dog (and he has a dog)(can't be all bad).

I am completely open to HONEST debate, however, someone with AVB's intellect cannot be that uneducated with some of the things he says.  Therefore I find him dishonest and sneaky, cherry-picking facts, etc. and spinning things, and just like Jenny, I have his number.  If you are right and he actually does it in a well-meaning manner, and to his credit he has never presented himself other than a Progresssive (if I can categorize him that way) person (meaning he doesn't hide his beliefs), then I will concede, but I really don't think this is so.    He knows exactly what he is doing.  And, if you think it is all sincere, take the personal attacks against Trump.  Maybe he personally knows Trump and there is bad blood as he mentioned from Real Estate deals, etc..  Trump is certainly no angel, but he is doing right by America at the moment.  When AVB personally attacks him he  isn't making his case, he is showing derangement.  And, with all the fear he has, why was there no remote concern with Obama and his excesses, abuses, and scandals?  Even with the media in the tank, they couldn't be completely hidden.   Again, I don't know AVB personally, but I perceive him as sneaky and dishonest with the threads and thread titles he starts and the things he chooses to write about in them I believe he is trying to make his views seem reasonable.  

I'm not comparing AVB to Biden, but It is sort of like this... Would you treat Biden differently if you met him and viewed him as a whimsical, well-meaning older, bumbling  gentleman  with some impediments to his mental clarity (as long as he didn't touch your daughter), or would you treat him differently if you saw him as calculating, dishonest and creepy individual above the law, hypocritcal and dangerous to personal freedoms.   Maybe that is how AVB sees Trump... but where are the facts, AVB?  That is how Biden is seen by many.  And, I am sorry, but I don't see you as truthful.

I hear what you say about Greenday.  He doesn't seem to have any malice and just says what he believes, though misguided.  He seems to always be respectful and not get too much into the weeds.   In the things he writes, though, he seems to be developing as a progressive and being more outspoken.  Remember, facts Greenday, facts.   He is getting more outspoken, and to your point that is OK, however he needs to be called on his BS.  

By the way, I disagree, AVB drops his crap and runs off because he only has personal attacks and no facts.  

I keep forgetting that both of these individuals are products of the propaganda media and facts and reason matter very little and AVB and Greenday don't see themselves as responsible for the Leftist, NWO crap that is being dumped on us all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

AVB said:

Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy.
(I do not have a problem with this).
 

Once again, AVB talks the 'party' line, and has no idea what he is talking about. 

The Obama-Biden "policy" (executive fiat, really), was that everyone who was check-marked (NOT "adjudicated", as AVB asserts) as needing assistance managing their affairs was unilaterally moved into the prohibited category.  Unlike AVB, I KNOW people who were in this category.  These were administrative decisions-not an adjudication-where an injury was in a certain category, such as a head injury, was required to name another to "manage" their affairs.  Most did not need a conservator, but they were forced to identify one or risk losing their Social Security benefits.  These were bureaucratic decisions based on a check in a box or checklist, NOT the result of either court or professional decision-making --- even more egregious than the current "Red-Flag" laws!

These were largely implemented so that the SSA could cover their own asses and have someone (other than themselves) to blame in the rare cases of patient abuse.  The Obama-Biden fiat was CORRECTLY tossed-out as unconstitutional.

Use some of that advanced education you regularly pat yourself on the back over, AVB, and educate yourself BEFORE you pass judgement.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, W2MC said:

Once again, AVB talks the 'party' line, and has no idea what he is talking about. 

The Obama-Biden "policy" (executive fiat, really), was that everyone who was check-marked (NOT "adjudicated", as AVB asserts) as needing assistance managing their affairs was unilaterally moved into the prohibited category.  Unlike AVB, I KNOW people who were in this category.  These were administrative decisions-not an adjudication-where an injury was in a certain category, such as a head injury, was required to name another to "manage" their affairs.  Most did not need a conservator, but they were forced to identify one or risk losing their Social Security benefits.  These were bureaucratic decisions based on a check in a box or checklist, NOT the result of either court or professional decision-making --- even more egregious than the current "Red-Flag" laws!

These were largely implemented so that the SSA could cover their own asses and have someone (other than themselves) to blame in the rare cases of patient abuse.  The Obama-Biden fiat was CORRECTLY tossed-out as unconstitutional.

Use some of that advanced education you regularly pat yourself on the back over, AVB, and educate yourself BEFORE you pass judgement.

 

No idea, or spinning?  There is a difference, though slightly, how he is perceived from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Underdog said:

 

Well AVB, you just proved what I often say about liberals. You don't support the 2nd Amendment at all, you're just a liberal who likes to play with guns, maybe they make you feel big and bad or just think they're cool, I don't know. What I do know, based on your many statements, you don't support the 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, njpilot said:

Well AVB, you just proved what I often say about liberals. You don't support the 2nd Amendment at all, you're just a liberal who likes to play with guns, maybe they make you feel big and bad or just think they're cool, I don't know. What I do know, based on your many statements, you don't support the 2nd.

Excactly. He's just a pompous braggart who cares no more about guns than his inventory of port or brand of luxury cars. It's all about stockpiling labels to pad his life's accomplishments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avb.  Could you let me know which bullet points of your thread you agree with and which bullet points you don’t.   That may clarify misunderstandings.   But please no paragraphs. I dont get paid to read through this stuff.  Its a yes i agree or no i do not agree or.   I agree somewhat.  Lengthy answers usually make an ambiguous answer.   Thats how lawyers and politicians do it.   Yes I figure you’re going to say.   You’re a quasi politician.   But.  I dont answer things that way.   I respect your answers 

lets take it from there.   Maybe we’re all misinformed and need a better viewpoint.   Take me there.

respectfully

GB   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go down the memory lane for the benefit of the noobs that weren't around and the geezers with poor memories, shall we? 

Years ago after a particularly bad mass shooting, a member here, one of us, came  on this very board defending the banning assault rifles.; If I remember correctly " maybe it was time to give them up, maybe the risks of owning don't outweigh the benefits" or some other pap like that.

Obviously, he got beaten back. Later he offered that he had a change of views, that he had considered all opinions and changed his. Again, the man can lay it thick.

Most here, at the time,  seemed to have believed him.

Now, let me ask ya'll a question. Have you ever seen a tiger turning vegan? Sure he may nibble on a bean sprout to impress a woke tigress, but he won't change. That's his nature and his nature will always come to the top. The man's a grabber.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, WP22 said:

Let's go down the memory lane for the benefit of the noobs that weren't around and the geezers with poor memories, shall we? 

Years ago after a particularly bad mass shooting, a member here, one of us, came  on this very board defending the banning assault rifles.; If I remember correctly " maybe it was time to give them up, maybe the risks of owning don't outweigh the benefits" or some other pap like that.

Obviously, he got beaten back. Later he offered that he had a change of views, that he had considered all opinions and changed his. Again, the man can lay it thick.

Most here, at the time,  seemed to have believed him.

Now, let me ask ya'll a question. Have you ever seen a tiger turning vegan? Sure he may nibble on a bean sprout to impress a woke tigress, but he won't change. That's his nature and his nature will always come to the top. The man's a grabber.

 

 

Arthur Kill?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Golf battery said:

Avb.  Could you let me know which bullet points of your thread you agree with and which bullet points you don’t.   That may clarify misunderstandings.   But please no paragraphs. I dont get paid to read through this stuff.  Its a yes i agree or no i do not agree or.   I agree somewhat.  Lengthy answers usually make an ambiguous answer.   Thats how lawyers and politicians do it.   Yes I figure you’re going to say.   You’re a quasi politician.   But.  I dont answer things that way.   I respect your answers 

lets take it from there.   Maybe we’re all misinformed and need a better viewpoint.   Take me there.

respectfully

GB

@Golf battery:

FYI - I already did that in my original post.  I guess you did not read the introduction where I said that I expressed my opinion as to whether or not I agree or disagree with Joe Biden's proposals regarding firearms.  My opinion was/is listed in italics typeface at the end of each bullet point narrative, taken directly from Biden's web site.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

@Golf battery:

FYI - I already did that in my original post.  I guess you did not read the introduction where I said that I expressed my opinion as to whether or not I agree or disagree with Joe Biden's proposals regarding firearms.  My opinion was/is listed in italics typeface at the end of each bullet point narrative, taken directly from Biden's web site.

AVB-AMG

Your killing me smalls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...