• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Another shooting in Murica

scaramanga said:
Not Remington. It was insurance companies working on their behalf due to the bankruptcy.
Click to expand...
Remington's insurers at the time of the shooting paid it out. These are pointless semantics and as much as enjoy debating pointless details I'm gonna....do something else
 
Rorschach said:
Remington's insurers at the time of the shooting paid it out. These are pointless semantics and as much as enjoy debating pointless details I'm gonna....do something else
Click to expand...
It's really not because their motives are entirely diffent.

If Remington were in a position to make that decision, their motivation is to reduce further attempts at litigation and run it all the way to the Supreme Court.

In this case, they were not allowed to make their own operational decisions as they were in bankruptcy. So they couldn't choose whether or not to fight the case (which they absolutely would), their insurers decided for them. Their insurers have entirely different motives, their job is to reduce the immediate payout as much as possible. Insurers always want to settle, that's the lowest risk option.
 
I'm surprised there is this outpouring of emotion and news articles about this. Shootings happen every day over there. Whether it is 15 people in one room or 1 person in each of 15 rooms. Bunch of idiots.
 
Jordinho said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1529533877953372161

Does that mean they think guns actually are dangerous?
Click to expand...

That's one event where I would allow them. Shooting that idiot a long time ago would have made America great again.

Hate to say it but nothing will change as a result of this horrific incident. The news cycle, emotion, anger, frustration happens every time. We will have unfortunately forgotten about this by July and then there'll be another one. Good luck to those that live there.

Question for those with US legal know-how, is it possible for Biden to sign an executive order limiting the use of automatic weapons or enforcing background checks?
 
Hate to sound so despondent, but we will having this debate in 50 years, nothing will change. Republicans care more about a foetus than a life of an actual living person. Even if the democrats managed to get new legislation through congress, the republicans would immediately repeal the law whenever they get back into power. American conservatives really are the thickest people on the planet.
 
awesome dawson said:
That's one event where I would allow them. Shooting that idiot a long time ago would have made America great again.

Hate to say it but nothing will change as a result of this horrific incident. The news cycle, emotion, anger, frustration happens every time. We will have unfortunately forgotten about this by July and then there'll be another one. Good luck to those that live there.

Question for those with US legal know-how, is it possible for Biden to sign an executive order limiting the use of automatic weapons or enforcing background checks?
Click to expand...
Sort of.

Executive orders can control how policies are treated by executive agencies, I can't remember if that includes the ATF or not.

But either way, SCOTUS would adjudge it to be anti constitutional within days.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
My eldest owns a bow. The original intent/design of that item was for killing people - he uses it to shoot at foam targets and enter competitions.

You can't hold the maker responsible for the use case of the person who buys it - you have to make the user responsible.
Click to expand...

I sadly agree.

I do think the constitution needs an amendment, of course it won’t happen. The raw truth is this will not change. These mass shootings will continue. The right-wing lobbyists and spin doctors have their talons deep into spinning the liberty vs logic and freedom vs civilized society arguments, and they’re winning that war. McConell will never change, none of them will. And sadly, as Auto said earlier, there is a (much-supported) misunderstanding of the difference between no guns and gun control. Personally I’d ban them all, but that’s unrealistic in a nation founded on them. What beggars belief is how even the most rudimentary of gun control proposals is refracted as an assault on personal freedom.
 
The supreme court may be about to relax gun regulations even further actually. They are looking at a test case where the right to carry guns outside the home is like the right to free speech or any other right guaranteed by the constitution. Madness.
 
thfcsteff said:
I sadly agree.

I do think the constitution needs an amendment, of course it won’t happen. The raw truth is this will not change. These mass shootings will continue. The right-wing lobbyists and spin doctors have their talons deep into spinning the liberty vs logic and freedom vs civilized society arguments, and they’re winning that war. McConell will never change, none of them will. And sadly, as Auto said earlier, there is a (much-supported) misunderstanding of the difference between no guns and gun control. Personally I’d ban them all, but that’s unrealistic in a nation founded on them. What beggars belief is how even the most rudimentary of gun control proposals is refracted as an assault on personal freedom.
Click to expand...
You're right, the answer is a constitutional amendment.

Quite rightly, doing something like that needs almost all of the electorate on your side. Unfortunately, the US isn't even close to being there yet.
 
Does the right to bear arms in the US solely relate to guns or can you have any weapon? I was wondering this morning.. Can you keep a tank in your driveway or own hand grenades etc.?
 
dingdongo said:
Does the right to bear arms in the US solely relate to guns or can you have any weapon? I was wondering this morning.. Can you keep a tank in your driveway or own hand grenades etc.?
Click to expand...
It's related to the concept of a militia from the Civil War era. So the idea is that people should be able to arm themselves to defend against armed forces if required.

So that goes two ways. When it was written, tanks didn't exist so the argument would be no. But to defend against a modern military one would need heavy armourment, so it could be argued yes.

It tends to mean whatever the current justices on the SC want it to mean.
 
scaramanga said:
It's related to the concept of a militia from the Civil War era. So the idea is that people should be able to arm themselves to defend against armed forces if required.

So that goes two ways. When it was written, tanks didn't exist so the argument would be no. But to defend against a modern military one would need heavy armourment, so it could be argued yes.

It tends to mean whatever the current justices on the SC want it to mean.
Click to expand...

So technically you could have a SC decision in the future about the right to keep nuclear weapons for personal protection. I mean...the russians and the chinese have it, so you gotta be able to strike first if they threaten you, right?
 
Robbo said:
So technically you could have a SC decision in the future about the right to keep nuclear weapons for personal protection. I mean...the russians and the chinese have it, so you gotta be able to strike first if they threaten you, right?
Click to expand...
In theory, yes. Although to get to that stage it would have to be tested in court. So there would have to be an individual who owned, or was building, a nuclear weapon. They would be banned by some govt agency from doing so and then it would work its way through the courts.

But the electorate would be ready for a new constitutional amendment well before that stage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back