Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Las Vegas Shooting Victims Sue Bump Stock Makers [View all]Always Right
(84 posts)154. You said all
If you didn't mean all transfers without exception, then why say that?
I understand this is an emotional subject for you so you keep giving emotional responses.
However, if you are going to advocate laws, then you should be precise in what the law says and knowledgeable in what you want to regulate.
When "non gunners" write gun laws using vague, inexact terms and improper terms, they can't be surprised when "loopholes" are exploited.
I've done nothing but correct inaccuracies, provide technical information and education on the subject matter, things that could be used against "gunners" and you continue to thank me with insults. I wonder what you would say if you really didn't like someone.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
156 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Great. Now remove the law that prohibits victims from suing gun manufacturers and profiteers.
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#3
It would be quite simple really, modify the trigger guard area where something like that doesn't
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#6
I bet you'd like to see the suit. You probably have some bump stocks, maybe profit from them.
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#7
You've only made 10 and came in through the Gungeon. That tells me a lot about you.
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#13
The genetic fallacy is a favorite 'go to' for those that have nothing else to counter with...
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2017
#88
What "technical information" have I provided that is not true? Yes, I do get ticked with gunners
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#95
Do any of these ads give the target (buyers) the idea the rifles are military spec?
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#124
"Yes and no." LMAO. I guess the one that comes right out and says this gun "is destined
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#142
The idea that it somehow "easy" for gunmakers to make changes preventing such devices.
Adrahil
Oct 2017
#132
Oh, I agree and think all semi-autos need to be banned. As to modification to prevent bump stocks,
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#134
Well, at least you are thinking and can see that it is possible to modify a rifle where a bump stock
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#137
You are a gun promoter. There are millions who support the NRA, but are too cheap to pay dues.
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#143
The bump stock is worthless without the AR15. Gun manufacturers, dealers and profiteers like
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#11
Jeeezus. The lawsuit is filed against the bump stock manufacturers. Get you head out of your barrels
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#16
I KNOW Hoyt. THIS lawsuit (their statement) puts ALL the blame on the stock guys!
jmg257
Oct 2017
#18
If you were filing a law suit, wouldn't you write it that way. That's the way all lawsuits are
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#21
The gun companies are the same, they use the NRA and gun-humpers to hide behind. That needs to
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#41
Look, Dem, there's civil liability and morality to consider. Gun profiteers are implicated.
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#75
Bankruptcy doesn't end production of items, it just changes who sells them
Always Right
Oct 2017
#67
Yeah, but s potential buyer or producer has to factor in the liability for the next massacre.
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#71
I get it AlwaysRight, gun and accessory manufacturers, dealers and many gun owners are slimy SOBs
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#80
Your absurd contention then is that pharmaceutical companies have never been sued
LanternWaste
Oct 2017
#85
In a sane world, you would be able to sue, very successfully , a company that
Eliot Rosewater
Oct 2017
#45
Welcome to America. Here we protect their ownership by the highest laws in the land. nt
jmg257
Oct 2017
#50
You don't get it. As far as those not performing back ground checks, I'm referring to gun-humpers
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#19
Kindly point out what's factually inaccurate in his posts. Show your work
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2017
#100
Is not immediately replying to a post I didn't see til now, considered awkward silence? - NT
Always Right
Oct 2017
#120
My apologies for being unclear- that was meant for your interlocutor, not you
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2017
#129
Most of you gunners do, that's why you want to protect private sales without background checks.
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#125
No evidence, eh? If you have any integrity, you'll retract that accusation. Additionally, you can...
Marengo
Oct 2017
#128
Don't hold your breath- that one has been 'all advertising and no product' for years
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2017
#130
I replied to what you wrote #23-"I've never said that I do or don't own guns." Again, it's obvious.
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#126
I know, all the Gungeoneers are just acting like gunners. None have any guns, don't want anyone
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#133
Perhaps someday you'll learn that "my firm belief(s)" and "things that are demonstrably true"...
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2017
#135
No, because gunners will sell to anyone with a fistful of cash. All transfers need
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#141
Jeeez, go post to someone else. You are too obtuse to own or speak on behalf of your guns. n/t
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#148
Great - win this, so bump stocks are THE culprit, and semi-autos are off the hook.
jmg257
Oct 2017
#8
Because, the way I read it (w/o seeing the complaint) it states that the guns were not the issue
jmg257
Oct 2017
#27
Ah I see your point about this is the end game, as it gets even better for the gunners & builders...
jmg257
Oct 2017
#51
They'll be suing shortly, don't you think? I bet a lot of people and groups file suits too.
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#36
The PLCAA refers to suits against makers of "qualified" products, which it defines
petronius
Oct 2017
#38
Agree. The PLCAA shouldn't apply to guns either. It allows gun manufacturers and profiteers to
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#42
Then sue the Federal Government. Sue every Congressperson who voted for it and the President who
coolsandy
Oct 2017
#54
If these devices are not guns according to the ATF, then they are not protected
Gothmog
Oct 2017
#56
The rationale for the Obama ATF to not regulate this device is that it is not a gun
Gothmog
Oct 2017
#113
The rational for not regulating is that does not meet the definition of machine gun conversion part
Always Right
Oct 2017
#115