Gun paint company taunts Mayor Bloomberg with paints named after him

[slackmaster]

Interesting unintended consequence of making a mountain out of a mole hill - Free advertising!



A Wisconsin company that disguises deadly firearms with bright paints and camouflage has a new target: Mayor Bloomberg.

Lauer Custom Weaponry, whose products were banned in the city in 2006 because they make dangerous guns look like innocent toys, is taunting the anti-gun mayor with a line of paints named "The Bloomberg Collection."

The company - which named its purple hue after Barney, the dinosaur beloved by toddlers - is peddling a rainbow of candy-colored paints for each of the five boroughs.

There's red for Manhattan, rose for the Bronx, blue for Brooklyn, green for Queens and orange for Staten Island....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/21/2008-03-21_gun_paint_company_taunts_mayor_bloomberg.html

http://www.lauerweaponry.com/duracoatcolors.cfm?colortype=bloomberg&Category=245

[Ganja Ninja]

1. I've actually used their products before.

I refinished an old Star Model BM 9MM in semigloss black. It came out nice.

[L1A1Rocker]

41. I've used them also

but personally I've had better success with guncoat.

[lapfog_1]

2. OK... so now real guns look like kid toys

and the police will react by treating ALL brightly painted guns as real guns.

Kids with toys will end up shot.

Thanks, Lauer Custom Weaponry. Assholes.

[slackmaster]

3. Police have always reacted the same way to perceived threats

How many kids have been shot because they pointed a stick at an officer in poor lighting conditions?

The "controversy" over brightly colored firearms is a tempest in a teapot.

[virginia mountainman]

6. Heck look how some react to common..

BLACK colored rifles...

Proves how nuts they really are.

[aquart]

9. Uh, no. It's not.

And it's so wrong of me to hope it's only their own kids who get shot.

[slackmaster]

11. Feel free to post about it here if that ever happens

:eyes:

[iverglas]

49. you actually don't remember ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=10520

N.J. Lawmakers Press Pellet-Gun Bill

In early September, a 13-year-old boy was shot in the leg by police Capt. James Brady after the teenager refused to drop what appeared to be a real gun. The weapon was actually a toy "Air Soft" gun that shoots rubber pellets.

The legislation introduced by Assemblymen Gary Guear (D-Mercer) and Peter Barnes (D-Middlesex) would ban the sale or possession of any air, gas, or spring-powered gun that looks like a real gun.

In addition, the measure calls for penalties ranging from a $15,000 fine and five years in prison for selling such devices and a fine of up to $10,000 and 18 months in prison for possession.

It's only too bad there were no DUzy awards back then. That thread is the all-time champion.

The headline of the article may give a clue to what ensued. Post 14 will help, if you find yourself at sea. Although Post 16 is the one to read.

[lapfog_1]

19. At least a few...

and all it takes is ONE.

Of course, that is lost on the gun nuts that think they and the manufacturers have NO RESPONSIBILITY to make their product any safer.

Sure, it won't cause 100s of kids to be killed.

What's the acceptable loss number so you can have your gun painted bright yellow and put a smiley face on it?

1 to 10 per year? maybe 20?

[slackmaster]

22. There is nothing unsafe about a brightly colored gun

I think a gun is less prone to misuse when it is easy to see and identify.

The gun banners complain because a rifle is black.

Now they are complaining because of innovative finishes with novel colors.

They complain because a firearm has a finish that resists corrosion by repelling body oils and perspiration.

They complain because a firearm is too powerful.

They complain because a firearm is too accurate.

They complain because a firearm doesn't make enough noise.

They complain because a firearm has ergonomic features that make it easier to handle.

They complain because they don't perceive any "legitimate" use for a type of firearm.

There is no way to keep the extremists from going off half-cocked about anything.

[virginia mountainman]

40. A bit of elaboration is in order...

The gun banners complain because a rifle is black..........--> They call those "assault rifles"

Now they are complaining because of innovative finishes with novel colors...--->Makes them look like "toys"

They complain because a firearm has a finish that resists corrosion by repelling body oils and perspiration.....---> They call those "fingerprint proof"

They complain because a firearm is too powerful....----> They call those "Hand Cannons"

They complain because a firearm is too accurate......---> They call those "sniper rifles"

They complain because a firearm doesn't make enough noise......--> they call those "Assassin guns"

They complain because a firearm has ergonomic features that make it easier to handle....----> they call those "Bullet hoses", and "Hip shooters"

They complain because they don't perceive any "legitimate" use for a type of firearm,..............--> that is because in their eyes, their is NO legitimate use.

There is no way to keep the extremists from going off half-cocked about anything.


Slack you hit the nail on the head, Shows just WHO is being "unreasonable", doesn't it?

EDITED for clarification...

[MaryCeleste]

46. With a little work you could set that to the tune of "Everybody Must Get Stoned" by Bob Dylan

[iverglas]

50. and you've completely missed the fact that no one has ever said

that there is anything unsafe about a brightly coloured gun?

You're getting real good at this. I'm impressed.

[L1A1Rocker]

66. I believe you are wrong on that point. Which explains this long protracted thread.

lapfog_1 (1000+ posts)
Fri Mar-21-08 05:43 PM
Response to Original message

2. OK... so now real guns look like kid toys


and the police will react by treating ALL brightly painted guns as real guns.

Kids with toys will end up shot.

Thanks, Lauer Custom Weaponry. Assholes.
aquart (1000+ posts)
Fri Mar-21-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #3

9. Uh, no. It's not.

And it's so wrong of me to hope it's only their own kids who get shot.

[iverglas]

70. well, that was totally incomprehensible

Sadly, I'm not seeing anyone saying there's anything unsafe about brightly coloured guns. Which was what I said in reply to this statement:

There is nothing unsafe about a brightly colored gun

by someone else, engaging in the usual battle with straw.

No . one . said . there . was . anything . unsafe . about . a . brightly . coloured . gun.

To quote that third party again:

Now they are complaining because of innovative finishes with novel colors.

Yup. But not because there is something unsafe about a brightly coloured gun.

Perhaps, if you think someone said there is, you could copy and paste something said by someone that actually says that.


What you're on about, I really could not guess.

[L1A1Rocker]

72. Too bad you cannot read the quotes.

And yes that is the entire context of this threat.

[iverglas]

75. it just gets worse

And yes that is the entire context of this threat.

I trust you didn't actually mean that.

What you did mean, please, I give up, I surrender, I will not be trying to figure out what you mean, so no need to keep uttering these weirdnesses.

[L1A1Rocker]

78. Laughing.

That's about all I can do in response to your non-responses.
































































LOL.

[iiibbb]

83. Cops react

First, what's to say your average bad guy could go out and just paint their gun pink even without this company.

Now cops are going to react to toys anyway. Cops react.

Kids that point things at cops are inherently at risk.

Cops that shoot at things they can't identify are already accidents waiting to happen.

[L1A1Rocker]

64. The only thing that will make them happy

is the abolition of firearms.

[iverglas]

71. nah

A double scoop of jamoca almond fudge in a waffle cone makes me happy.

[L1A1Rocker]

74. That sounds good, but has nothing to do with this topic.

[iverglas]

76. you really must pay more attention to what you say

I managed to hold that, er, thought of yours long enough to rebut it. Yet you have forgotten it already ...

The only thing that will make them happy is the abolition of firearms.

Not quite true, sadly.

Not even true if we rule out jamoca almond fudge. Just a big whopper. Not even a whopper junior; a gret big fat whopper.

Damn, I'm hungry. Time for some turkey and peppers and celery and green onions on noodles with Szechwan peanut sauce ...

[L1A1Rocker]

79. Laughing. . . lol. . . hahaha

please. . .





























ha ha
































lol




















What. .















lol













"Not even true if we rule out jamoca almond fudge. Just a big whopper. Not even a whopper junior; a gret big fat whopper.

Damn, I'm hungry. Time for some turkey and peppers and celery and green onions on noodles with Szechwan peanut sauce ...

LOL hahaha






















has












to










lol


















hahaha








with this thread.





















THere, I got it out.












































lol









































hahaha

[L1A1Rocker]

85. Your view on gun rights from another thread

iverglas (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-26-08 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. what facts? what argument??

What witnesses???

What are you smoking????


"Gun rights" is the biggest, smelliest, filthiest piece of racist, misogynist, imperialist right-wing shit to have landed on earth since, oh, well, it's hard to think of anything parallel. Fortunately. Maybe "manifest destiny"?



We see your view very clearly now. Thank you.

[iverglas]

88. your views on relevance from another thread

L1A1Rocker
Wed Mar-26-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. Please post something that contributes to the discussion or at the
very least, makes sense.

[L1A1Rocker]

90. Again, nothing meaningful to post? Ha ha ha ha

Typical.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lapfog_1]

12. Nope, your wrong.

All it takes is ONE gun painted that way for cops everywhere to decide that this is a threat. And they WILL shoot a kid with a orange water pistol and claim that they couldn't be sure it wasn't real.

What's the freaking point of painting real guns bright orange or red or yellow? To draw attention to yourself? You can wear a safety vest for that.

Oh, and here is another "inanimate object" which generates "irrational fears"



And I think YOU might be the excretory orifice in question.

[slackmaster]

17. Painting something a bright, distinct color has a couple of advantages

It reduces the likelihood that someone else will mistake your thing from theirs, and makes it easier to find.

I have slow vision, and often have difficulty locating my car keys, cell phone, etc.

[lapfog_1]

21. If you want to add a color dot on the handgrip

go right ahead. But why paint the entire gun bright yellow. if YOU want to be more visible (while hunting, though why you would go hunting with pistols is beyond me) then you should wear something bright (safety vest).

[EricTeri]

25. It had nothing to do with making oneself more visible

You can stop raising that strawman anytime.

It has to do with wanting to customize a piece of private property. Who the fuck are you to tell me I cannot?

[lapfog_1]

31. The same person that tells you you can't own

a working artillery piece.

You live in OUR society, not YOUR society. And we pass laws ALL THE TIME on what you can and can't do.

Many people don't like those laws, but they are there because the society has agreed that they should be there.

You want to act irresponsibly and get yourself killed, I'm all in favor of it. Darwinism at work.

You want to do things that get other people killed... sorry, that's not your call.

[EricTeri]

33. Ah - so you're one of those who hasnt a clue what he's talking about?

You see - i CAN own a working artillery piece. I know a number of people that DO in fact.

Since you mention those pesky laws, what law is there that says a gun must be a certain color? What law is there which gives government the authority to prevent me from having any color firearm i want?

What is irresponsible about simply having an oddly colored firearm?

What would I be doing which got others killed?

Do you have answers for any of these questions or just simply more uninformed emotional mental vomit?

[MaryCeleste]

47. Substitute abortion for guns and then reevaluate your logic

[iverglas]

53. yeah, substitute women for any inanimate object you like

That's what we are. No harm in making your view known as loud and as often as possible.

[MaryCeleste]

55. Substitution is a classic way to evaluate any position

Abortion and firearms are both personal rights in the US Constitution, its a perfectly valid approach to evaluting a position.

[iverglas]

56. it is indeed!

Substitution is a classic way to evaluate any position

That's pretty much what I was saying.

It is pretty easy to evaluate the position taken by someone who would substitute women's lives for guns.

Abortion and firearms are both personal rights in the US Constitution

No, actually. Abortion is a medical procedure that affects no one but the woman who undergoes it; it is an event. Firearms are objects that can be used to carry out multiple purposes, by anyone who happens to lay hands on them, for as long as they are in existence, which can be a very long time.

Neither is in fact a right. One is an action, and one is an object.

I'm betting you actually can see the difference.

[MaryCeleste]

57. Let me rephrase so you can parse it proprerly

choice to have an abortion is a right in the US Constitution
choice to have own a firearm is a right in the US Constitution

When someone says "the will of the people should overcome the right to own a firearm", it is perfectly valid to substitute "the will of the people should over come a woman's right to choose" to evaluate the concept of "the will of the people" to over ride Constitutional rights.

[L1A1Rocker]

63. Well said.

[iverglas]

69. well, kind of clumsily said, actually

choice to have an abortion is a right in the US Constitution
choice to have own a firearm is a right in the US Constitution

But whatever.

Phrase it however you like. If you can come up with any legitimate justification for interfering in any woman's reproductive choices in any way, you'll be the first. If you don't acknowledge that there is legitimate justification for interfering in some people's choices regarding firearms in some ways, you maybe won't be a first, but you'll be a definite outlier and will pretty much have removed yourself from the discourse.

Surely you are aware that merely saying that something is a right in the US Constitution says nothing at all about whether and how the exercise of that right may legitimately be limited. And that it is ALWAYS the legitimacy of a limitation, not the existence of the right, that is in issue.


When someone says "the will of the people should overcome the right to own a firearm", it is perfectly valid to substitute "the will of the people should over come a woman's right to choose" to evaluate the concept of "the will of the people" to over ride Constitutional rights.

Dandy. Let's say "the will of the people based on a demonstrated pressing and substantial public purpose where the limitations on the exercise of the right meet the usual tests of rational connection, proportionality, absence of alternative measures and all that jazz". Which really is what you know perfectly well was actually meant.

Unless you really do want to pretend that your interlocutor is an enemy of liberal democracy. Which it seems is pretty much what you did want. Good luck with that.

[selador]

61. false

and i say this as somebody who is pro-choice

"Abortion is a medical procedure that affects no one but the woman who undergoes it"

the abortion affects both the woman AND the fetus. birth control or cosmetic surgery affects no one but the woman.

big difference

i am pro-choice but i deny the rhetoric that abortion is solely about a woman and her body. the fetus is a dependant organism, but since it has entirely different DNA , it's a different organism and is "involved" in the process.

[iverglas]

65. misogynist bullshit

Abortion is a medical procedure that affects no one but the woman who undergoes it

the abortion affects both the woman AND the fetus.

I see those trooooo colours, shining through.


i am pro-choice but i deny the rhetoric that abortion is solely about a woman and her body.

I don't give a crap what you call yourself, or what you call the fact that abortion is solely about a woman and her body.


the fetus is a dependant organism, but since it has entirely different DNA , it's a different organism and is "involved" in the process.

No, the fetus is not an organism, because it does not meet the qualifications for organism status.

Hmm. Maybe a little education would indeed solve this problem -- the problem of people trying to get other people's rights violated by spouting something that sounds like science and is in reality total crap. If the people hearing the crap were educated, they'd laugh.

Nonetheless, assuming your ludicrous statement to be factual for the sake of argument: so is a housefly.

If a fetus were an organism, your statement would have as little meaning as it has anyway. If someone wanted to prohibit you eating chicken, would you be impressed by the statement that a chicken is an organism and your act of eating chicken is therefore somehow his/her business? A fetus is not a housefly or a chicken; it is also not a human being.


Abortion is a medical procedure that is no one's business but the woman who chooses to undergo it. The risks inherent in the act are risks to her alone, and whether to assume those risks is a decision she has the right to make without interference.

A firearm is an object that can be used by whoever lays hands on it for whatever purpose s/he chooses, including harming or killing or intimidating another human being or group of human beings. The act of possessing a firearm carries with it risks to persons who do not choose to assume those risks, and is thus a proper subject of public scrutiny and regulation.


I have absolutely no doubt that you know all this, but I don't mind telling you.

[selador]

68. rubbish

spare me the "misogynist" crap

i recognize the fact that the fetus exists. abortion does NOT solely affect the woman. it affects both

since i think the fetus has NO RIGHT that supersedes the woman's decision, i support choice

but i don't play that silly rhetorical game that you do .

abortion is NOT solely about a woman and her body. the fetus is not HER body

your point about the chicken is valid

chicken and fetuses are BOTH organisms. correct.

i would (unlike peta) say that former has NO rights.

i would say a first trimester fetus has NO rights, but a VIABLE fetus does have SOME rights.

see, that's how it works

fwiw, it was intelligent people without RHETORIC who convinced me to go pro-choice. and it wasn't by pretending the fetus never existed

it exists.

[iverglas]

73. misogynist bullshit

i recognize the fact that the fetus exists.

Oh, yeah, unlike me and decent people everywhere. We claim that fetuses are figments of someone's overheated imagination. I guess.


abortion does NOT solely affect the woman. it affects both

And you seem to think you have a point.

Does your eating a chicken not affect the chicken? Does your having a wisdom tooth pulled not affect the wisdom tooth?

Once again: a fetus is not a chicken, and a fetus is not a wisdom tooth. And a fetus is not a human being. And a human being is the only one in that list that has rights. A fetus is a fetus. Terribly difficult concept, I know, but there it is: a fetus is a fetus. And hey: it exists.


since i think the fetus has NO RIGHT that supersedes the woman's decision, i support choice

It continues not to matter a pinch of poop what you "think", since the fact is that a fetus is not a human being and thus has no rights PERIOD. What utter nonsense you speak.


chicken and fetuses are BOTH organisms. correct.

You must be speaking to someone, but I wouldn't know whom. I didn't say a fetus was an organism, so I guess it must be another of those imaginary friends.


i would say a first trimester fetus has NO rights, but a VIABLE fetus does have SOME rights.

And I would just say that you have created a world in which some pigs is more equal than others. And just as the notion of "more equal" makes no sense, the notion of something having "some rights", which can be "superseded" by someone else's rights, makes no sense. A dog's breakfast of magical incantations that operate solely and only to turn women into the ones with "some rights" that can be "superseded" by ... something ... else's "rights". Thus making women into human beings who are less equal than other human beings. Good luck with that; me, it gives me a headache and I prefer not to think too long about what goes on in the brains of people who are actually able to look at that nonsense and say "see, that's how it works".

Whose right to do what might supersede YOUR right to life?


fwiw, it was intelligent people without RHETORIC who convinced me to go pro-choice. and it wasn't by pretending the fetus never existed

Well my goodness, if you do someday meet someone who pretends that fetuses don't exist, you'll probably be wanting to back slowly away and speak in a soothing tone until you are at a safe distance. They are not unlikely to also think you are the devil incarnate or a marauding bear, I'd think.


I do love to see a straw fella get what's coming to it. Bash, crash, boom, down it goes. Hurray! And congratulations.

[selador]

77. claims

"Oh, yeah, unlike me and decent people everywhere. We claim that fetuses are figments of someone's overheated imagination. I guess."

when you speciously claim that abortion is SOLELY between a woman and her body, then you are the one using imagination imo.

and you can use the word "misogynist" as many times as you want. doesn't make it true.

"And I would just say that you have created a world in which some pigs is more equal than others. And just as the notion of "more equal" makes no sense, the notion of something having "some rights", which can be "superseded" by someone else's rights, makes no sense. A dog's breakfast of magical incantations that operate solely and only to turn women into the ones with "some rights" that can be "superseded" by ... something ... else's "rights". Thus making women into human beings who are less equal than other human beings. Good luck with that; me, it gives me a headache and I prefer not to think too long about what goes on in the brains of people who are actually able to look at that nonsense and say "see, that's how it works".

Whose right to do what might supersede YOUR right to life?"

yes, some ARE more equal. a first trimester fetus UNDER THE LAW and under my moral code has no rights to exist.

a viable fetus, does. you need justification for (for example) an abortion in month 7, whereas month 1 as a counterexample should be on demand.

[iverglas]

81. nobody really cares about your "moral code"

but this is an assertion of fact by you:

yes, some ARE more equal. a first trimester fetus UNDER THE LAW and under my moral code has no rights to exist.
a viable fetus, does. you need justification for (for example) an abortion in month 7, whereas month 1 as a counterexample should be on demand.

And you'll be needing to back it up. Some authority for the statement that "a viable fetus" has rights.
(edit: even in US law, which I take as authority for nothing but what US law is, of course.)

I'll be checking back tomorrow.

I need justification for cutting down a protected tree. The tree does not have rights.

[selador]

82. plenty of case law. here are some snippets

do care. but if you don't, i promise i won't be heartbroken :)

"And you'll be needing to back it up. Some authority for the statement that "a viable fetus" has rights.
(edit: even in US law, which I take as authority for nothing but what US law is, of course.)

I'll be checking back tomorrow."

well... several cases reference fetal rights. i would be fine with using the term "protections" vs. rights in that the former is more encompassing (even animals have protections, only people have rights).

but in regards to yer question

"The viability stage, defined as the time when the fetus can live apart from its mother, has been designated as the "birth" of fetal rights entitled to constitutional protection.51 The court, in Bonbrest v. Kotz,52 declared that viability was the decisive factor in determining when protection from various harms begins.53 It is submitted that the devastating physiological effects of cocaine54 upon the viable fetus qualify as child abuse.55 Civil statutes have already acknowledged this reality.56 Child abuse does have criminal sanctions; if child abuse includes drug dependent children, as specifically enumerated in the civil law, then such criminal sanctions should also be imposed upon mothers. "

"Whitner is consistent with Roe v. Wade and its progeny. Both areas of law, fetal and reproductive rights, address the interests of women, fetuses, and the State. The constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a woman's right to have an abortion.71 This right is not absolute, however, and the State may infringe upon it in the interests of safeguarding health and protecting potential life.72 When state interests are triggered, an abortion is no longer available to a woman. While the historic decision by the Justices in Roe protect a woman's freedom of choice in the initial stages of her pregnancy, it also permits state intervention in the pregnancy's final stages.73 In the past, states have even ordered invasive medical procedures during late pregnancy, such as cesarean sections and blood transfusions, over the objections of women in order to protect a fetus.74 Such cases evidence the drive toward greater fetal rights, illustrating that the health of the fetus often takes precedence over a woman's right to bodily autonomy.75 Compared to such invasive surgical procedures, proscribing maternal drug use during pregnancy is a minimal intrusion upon a woman's rights. "


whitner v. state of south carolina

"While the use of certain drugs by any person has been criminally actionable throughout the twentieth century,19 accountability for such illicit substances' effects on one's child treads a historically less traveled path but elevates the status of the child inside the womb to that of a child outside the womb. Whitner was a "landmark decision for protecting children,"20 in which the South Carolina Supreme Court became the first state high court in the nation to uphold a conviction of a mother for endangering the life of her fetus through her prenatal conduct.21 Jurisdictions are split regarding the issue of whether viable fetuses are persons entitled to legal protection under child abuse statutes. The critical inquiry has been the status of fetal rights, specifically in relation to the rights of the mother.22 Criminal courts have struggled with the question of whether the fetus should be considered an independent legal entity or simply an appendage of its mother.23 "


" See Fowler v. Woodward, 138 S.E.2d 42, 44 (S.C. 1964) (determining that viable fetus need not be born alive because administrator can maintain action for wrongful death of fetus). The Fowler court said that a viable child constituted a "person" even before it left the womb. Id. at 43; see also Hall v. Murphy, 113 S.E.2d 790, 793 (S.C. 1960) (holding that fetus capable of life apart from its mother is person). "

"BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1565 (6th ed. 1990); see, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 (1973) (declaring that women have constitutional right to abortion under Fourteenth Amendment up to point of fetus' viability after which time state has compelling interest in life of fetus); see also DANIELS, supra note 17, at 17-18. In the medical community, the third trimester fetus is called the "unborn patient" upon whom surgical and therapeutic procedures can be performed. KEITH L. MOORE & TVN PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 105 (1993). On a practical level, viability is a workable demarcation because it is often difficult to prove causation in early stages of pregnancy. See Kaufus, supra note 7, at B7. 65 F. Supp. 138 (D.C. Cir. 1946). "

"The term "viability" came alive in the legal field following the Roe decision. Id. The line of viability was moved back from 28 weeks to 20 weeks in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 515-16 (1989), marking a move towards greater fetal rights as modernized medicine enabled a fetus to survive at an "

"The Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), declared that abortion is no longer a fundamental right, replaced "strict scrutiny" with an "undue burden" test, and rejected the three trimester approach. Id. at 836. This approach effectively allows state regulation of abortion throughout pregnancy as long as it does not create an "undue burden" on a woman. Id. Although Court decisions evolved to keep pace with modern science, leading to an increase in fetal rights"

[L1A1Rocker]

86. I do, and I think you'll find that when you presume to speak for everyone

you only make yourself look foolish.

[iverglas]

89. yeah, but

nobody cares what you say.

[L1A1Rocker]

91. Again, trying to speak for everyone? My point made. Thank you.

Hahahaha


























































LOL

[Hoosier lawyer]

93. I have to agree with Selador

It is silly to say that the fetus is nothing. I am 100% pro-choice but it is simply justifying a difficult and practical decision that people make by claiming that a fetus is a mere part of the woman. If that is the case, then how is it that people are convicted for harming fetuses or sued civilly for the same?

Pretending that a fetus is anything less than a very real potential human in order to justify abortion is like justifying slavery by saying Africans are soulless beasts.

All of the name calling doesn't add anything to the debate, one does not have to hate women to see the truth. An intelligent person should be able to see both sides of a story and admit that they are making personal choices, not necessarily the only right choice, but merely their own choice.

I can see both sides of the gun debate, but my own choice is to be armed.

As the kids would say You do you, I'mma do me.

[iverglas]

94. see things that aren't there much?

It is silly to say that the fetus is nothing.

Now if only we could find someone saying that ... well, we could point and laugh and call him/her silly!

This tactic work well for you in court, does it?


I am 100% pro-choice but it is simply justifying a difficult and practical decision that people make by claiming that a fetus is a mere part of the woman.

Once again -- call yourself what you like, but when it comes to other people's reasons for saying what they say, do try to avoid saying things that aren't true.


If that is the case, then how is it that people are convicted for harming fetuses or sued civilly for the same?

You mean ... in some states of the USA?

Kind of how like people can't marry their same-sex partners in any state of the USA, and all sorts of other hideous things that laws in various bits of the USA, and of course other parts of the world (any other part of the world, utopia not have arrived anywhere yet), provide for?

Kind of how like people in the USA used to get convicted of criminal offences for engaging in homosexual sexual activity, or marrying people of different skin colours?

You're not actually offering up laws as proof of something other than the existence of the laws, are you?

I assure you that nobody where I'm at gets convicted of "harming fetuses", or sued civilly by anyone but the pregnant woman for harming her if a pregnancy is interfered with, or sued civilly by anyone but a human being for harm suffered by that human being (i.e. after birth) as a result of something done before birth.


Pretending that a fetus is anything less than a very real potential human in order to justify abortion is like justifying slavery by saying Africans are soulless beasts.

Yeah, and you're a progressive. And I'm Rumpelstiltskin. And women who have abortions are evil genocidal murderesses.

"A very real potential human", that's one for the books. Looked up "real" and "potential" in your Funk and Wagnall's lately?


I got bored with this discussion. Maybe you can explain to your friend here how things found in law reviews and such like places aren't actually authority for anything, and how Roe v. Wade is authority in the US for the position that the state has an interest in women's pregnancies that at some point becomes compelling (although not for what that interest is or how it becomes compelling, since the Court didn't bother to say that part) -- and NOT for a fetus having rights, which the Court in Roe v. Wade very, very definitely did NOT say.


one does not have to hate women to see the truth

Very true. Pretty hard not to see the truth that anyone who likens abortion to slavery hates women, though.

[L1A1Rocker]

95. Why the insults?

He gave an honest well thought out response and all you do is call him a liar one his points. Why do you assume he is a liar? Do you know this person personally? Do you have evidence? Otherwise there is a legal term for such behavior you are engaged in.

[Hoosier lawyer]

99. now now

Mr.Rocker,
It is clear that if you hold your own ideas on a subject you are an idiot and a woman hater.

As to Iverglas

I do compare slavery to abortion only in the fact that many of the the proponents of either try to dehumanize the subjects of the practice. At this point in medical science the majority of fetuses survive after a certain point in their gestation, but I say so what, its not my right to force a person to be a parent or to be a vessel to bear a child, despite the fact that the kid would probably live. I am in touch with reality that way.


I don't know Canadian law and do not feel like researching. Are you telling me that there are no tort suits for prenatal malpractice or for chemicals that damage fetuses in utero, in all of Canada?

[iverglas]

102. well quelle rights-loving liberal you be

At this point in medical science the majority of fetuses survive after a certain point in their gestation, but I say so what, its not my right to force a person to be a parent or to be a vessel to bear a child, despite the fact that the kid would probably live. I am in touch with reality that way.

Actually, you seem to be engaged in a lazy self-serving exercise in not taking responsibility for the results of your words.

Something either is or is not a human being.

Something that is a human being has rights -- the full set, just exactly like the full set of rights that every other human being has.

Something that is not a human being has no rights -- none.

If you want to claim that a fetus has (or "should have") rights, own your claim and the consequences that would ensue if it were true / applied. And acknowlege that what you have just said is that it's of no never mind to you if people want to go around killing human beings and the law permits it.

If you don't want to claim that, then none of your blithering about anything is of the least relevance, or serves any purpose other than to demonize women.


I do compare slavery to abortion only in the fact that many of the the proponents of either try to dehumanize the subjects of the practice.

Do you also compare arson with slavery based on the fact that people who commit arson dehumanize houses?

What's a "proponent" of abortion? Could it be a bit of overheated right-wing rhetoric? Methinks.


I don't know Canadian law and do not feel like researching. Are you telling me that there are no tort suits for prenatal malpractice or for chemicals that damage fetuses en vitro, in all of Canada?

If you could point out something in my post that provides an evidentiary basis for your question, please do so. I would suggest that you try reading what I actually said, and not what you might imagine or prefer I said, first.

I've never seen or heard of an "en vitro" fetus. That must be quite a feat.


(typo fixed)

[Hoosier lawyer]

103. I am a proponent of abortion

I think the world would be better off with fewer abused and unwanted children. I am far from right wing, but I guess the desire to let people make their own choices seems right wing to you.

I meant in utero. Thanks for the sarcastic help.

[L1A1Rocker]

112. You may need to draw a picture to be clear on that one. HaHaHa

I meant in utero

[Hoosier lawyer]

104. cultural norms

You lack historical perspective. The Spartans, Romans and other cultures did not view a child as a person until it had been accepted by the father. It was not considered murder to expose a deformed or sickly child. You are trying to force your thought template on others as usual. A person is not a person without exception, in my view or yours either if you are honest. A criminal loses many rights for example.

[iverglas]

106. you're actually pretending to be a lawyer?

Doesn't the law have something to say about that where you're at??


A criminal loses many rights for example.

You really have no clue, do you? It's just so hard for me to get my head around this discourse ... having been born in the 20th century as I was ...

The Spartans did not believe that children were human beings -- and a whole lot of USAmericans do not believe that criminals are human beings.

That is the only conceivable explanation for the fact that someone can actually say that anyone "loses rights" -- given that the rights of human beings are ... now, what was that word? ... INALIENABLE. You know what that means, right? You can't sell it, you can't give it away, you can't have it expropriated, you can't mislay it somewhere and not be able to find it again ...

So someone who loses inalienable rights is obviously not a human being, per the person making the claim of loss of rights.

That's why, in times and places where that notion was actually given effect, people in that position were referred to as having suffered "civil death". Having lost the rights that human beings have, their status was tantamount to "dead".

I love visiting the Guns forum. It's like stepping into a time machine.


You are trying to force your thought template on others as usual.

That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. Well, no, of course not; there's matter enough here on an hourly basis to rival it.

And then there are always little tidbits like this for me to puzzle over until I get too bored:

A person is not a person in my view, or yours either if you are honest.

A person is not a person in my view. I swan, I can't fathom that one.

[L1A1Rocker]

113. More personal attacks everglas? Shame Shame

you're actually pretending to be a lawyer?


Doesn't the law have something to say about that where you're at??



Surly you are not accusing someone of practicing law without a license are you? I'd really like clarification here because you could always come back and say that: What you said was really not what you said. I know you've done that before. Need the quote?

[L1A1Rocker]

111. You missed one. Everglas just called me a dog beater.

I quote: "Why do you beat your dog?

Does the term Libel mean nothing to that person?

[iverglas]

100. I give up

Why do you assume he is a liar?

Why do you beat your dog?

all you do is call him a liar one his points

Why do you persist in violating the rules by accusing me of rules violations?

I presume you are referring to my comment on this:

... it is simply justifying a difficult and practical decision that people make
by claiming that a fetus is a mere part of the woman.

-- which it was, admittedly, difficult to make any sense at all out of. From what I can tell, it is a statement about the motivation of people who say something that the poster regards as inaccurate. The poster knows nothing about those people's motivations. The poster's statement is untrue as regards at least some of those people. I said, in response:

... when it comes to other people's reasons for saying what they say, do try to avoid saying things that aren't true.

Does pointing out that someone has made a statement that is not true equal calling the person a liar?

Nope. So hey, maybe when you said that I called the poster a liar, you weren't lying, eh?

Why do you assume he is a liar? Do you know this person personally? Do you have evidence?

And yet one more bleeding time: put these questions to your new little friend, 'k?

Ask him/her how s/he knows what anyone's motivation is for saying anything, and what evidence s/he has for his/her claim about other people's motivation for what they say.

Otherwise there is a legal term for such behavior you are engaged in.

Well, there's certainly a term for it. It's "civil discourse".

Sadly, it's a bit of a monologue.

[L1A1Rocker]

Still losing credibility there.

You write: Why do you beat your dog?

Real mature there and undeserving of a response. I only address it to remind others of you maturity level.


You write: Why do you persist in violating the rules by accusing me of rules violations?


????What??? It is a rules violation to point out that you are accusing a person of being a liar without evidence or merit. I think not.


You write: And yet one more bleeding time: put these questions to your new little friend, 'k?

No, those questions are properly placed on you for making assumptions.

I notice you use of a "bleeding" rather than you normal vulgar word selection. At least there is a little progression on you civility here. Thank you.


You write: Well, there's certainly a term for it. It's "civil discourse".

Um no, the term actually has to do with having you tail sued off for making false statements regarding a persons character in print. Try again.

[L1A1Rocker]

110. Deleted as duplicate

[Hoosier lawyer]

101. canada law

I changed my mind and did a quick google search that indicates that Canadians do get sued for prenatal injuries. Iverglas I'm stunned that you spoke with such certainty about something you know nothing about.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902453

This article examines the theory of liability for pre-natal injuries adopted by Canadian courts. In 1933, the Supreme Court of Canada became the first common law appellate court to allow a child born alive to succeed in negligence against a third party for pre-natal injuries. Though the Court maintained that legal personhood commences at birth, it created the judicial artifice allowing a child born alive to be granted the legal rights of personhood the moment a careless act is committed against it in utero. While the “born alive” rule may appear unproblematic vis-a-vis third party negligence, it becomes theoretically unruly in cases where a child sues his or her own mother for pre-natal injuries, The Supreme Court faced this issue in Dobson v. Dobson and for policy reasons found that pregnant women are immune from maternal tort liability in negligence. Notwithstanding the nobles of the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the autonomy of women, the Author argues that the decision to adopt public policy considerations to the exclusion of a principled approach ultimately sidesteps the issue of when the relationship between a pregnant woman and her foetus gives rise to a legal duty of care.

Or this one. http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:jy1qgwFvg7QJ:mhlp.mcgill.ca/texts/volume1/pdf/ali.pdf+canada+torts+prenatal+injury&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Brooklynn Hannah George Rewega was born with brain damage, blindness, and cerebral palsy, and
suffers up to ten seizures a day.
1
These conditions are the result of injuries she sustained in a car accident
when she was in her mother’s womb. When her mother Lisa Rewega was driving to church on New Year’s
Eve of 2000, she lost control on the highway and was thrown through the windshield. Four months later,
Brooklynn was born prematurely with severe health problems. Hoping their insurance company would
pay for Brooklynn’s special health care needs, Doug Rewega sued his wife for negligence, as well as the
owners of the vehicle, George and Tina Rewega. Justice Moreau of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
and Justice Ritter of the Alberta Court of Appeal, confirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobson
(Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson,
2
holding that a child cannot sue his or her mother for prenatal
injuries.
3
However, had Brooklynn’s father been the one driving the car, Brooklynn would have been
permitted to sue him since the Dobson decision draws a distinction between pregnant women and third parties

Waiting for my apology

[iverglas]

105. do you misrepresent EVERYTHING you read???

What I said:

I assure you that nobody where I'm at gets convicted of "harming fetuses",
or sued civilly by anyone but the pregnant woman for harming her if a pregnancy is interfered with,
or sued civilly by anyone but a human being for harm suffered by that human being
(i.e. after birth) as a result of something done before birth.

What your source says:

In 1933, the Supreme Court of Canada became the first common law appellate court
to allow a child born alive to succeed in negligence against a third party
for pre-natal injuries.

An intelligent, perceptive person will observe that the two things are the same.

You, on the other hand, say:

Iverglas I'm stunned that you spoke with such certainty about something you know nothing about.

I will not say I'm stunned at anything here. I yawn at the predictability of it, in fact.


I will try a very little bit to help you out here:

However, had Brooklynn’s father been the one driving the car, Brooklynn would have been permitted to sue him >> AFTER BROOKLYNN WAS BORN << since the Dobson decision draws a distinction between pregnant women and third parties.

Did you really imagine that Brooklynn could have sued anyone BEFORE she was born?

(We'll assume that you say: No.) So what point exactly do you imagine you might have?

Do I wait for an apology?

hahahahahahaha.

[Hoosier lawyer]

107. read a little further

The reason that the live Child can sue is that the Court goes back and gives the child person status before it was born. The court requires it to be born alive first but never the less considers it a person before birth for the purposes of the tort suit. Lets keep it real, you were wrong, my point remains. If a fetus is only a part of the mother then why can you be sued for injuries to a person before birth, and not simply injury to the mother?


And btw, why do people mourn miscarriages? Are they just right wing nuts too? I think I get you now, you are blinded by emotion, and thus immune to logic, must be nice to never be wrong.

[iverglas]

109. truly amazing

Where are the hordes of torch-wielding villagers berating you for all the noise you're making about something YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT? A Hoosier, lawyer or not, is not a Canadian legal expert, would I be right?

Here is the Dobson decision:
http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1999/1999rcs2-753/1999rcs2-753.html

(to find Supreme Court of Canada decisions, google the case name + lexum)

I read it quite some years before you had heard of it.


The reason that the live Child can sue is that the Court goes back and gives the child person status before it was born. The court requires it to be born alive first but never the less considers it a person before birth for the purposes of the tort suit.

Perhaps you would identify a passage in one of the majority reasons in Dobson that supports that assertion.

If I am not born until 10 years after a bridge is built, and if the bridge collapses while I am walking across it, as a result of a design flaw dating from the time of construction, do I have a cause of action against the engineer? Is that cause of action based on my "personhood" before I was conceived??

If you look at a tangelo, are you obsessed with identifying it as either a tangerine or an orange -- and do you then demand that the rest of the world govern itself according to your decision?

A fetus is a fetus. Not a tapeworm, not a human being, not a kidney. A fetus. Just as I am a human being and not a tapeworm or a kidney or a fetus.

You've heard of legal fictions?

If a fetus were a human being / had rights (the two are synonymous), the pregnant woman would have a duty of care, at least as high as the duty of care owed by a third party stranger, to the person that the fetus may become. The cases you cite hold that a pregnant woman does NOT have a duty of care to the fetus or the person it may become. There is simply no way that a duty of care could be owed by one person but not by another engaged in equally negligent / potentially prejudicial conduct, if the victim were a human being.


And btw, why do people mourn miscarriages? Are they just right wing nuts too?

Do you people have to work at this?

Why did I mourn the death of my cat? Am I some sort of PETA loon? Let me assure you I'm not.

Why do I mourn the loss of my youth? The missed opportunity to fling myself on Phil Ochs' neck after he sang The Highwayman to me and run off to New York and make faces behind Bobby Dylan's back?


I think I get you now, you are blinded by emotion, and thus immune to logic, must be nice to never be wrong.

Must be nice never to have to make sense. You find that misogynist insults and misrepresentatins of reality work well for you as a substitute for civility and reason and truth in the real world, do you?

[L1A1Rocker]

114. Laughing!!!!

Just what color is the sky in your world?

Your ability to talk around, ignore, and discount facts, logic, and reason is beyond ANY human ability.

























































LOL

[slackmaster]

26. I have a better idea

You mind your own business about how I decorate my stuff.

[lapfog_1]

28. Sorry...

That's a stupid selfish attitude.

"It's MINE and I'll do what I want!!! Waaaah"

So yeah, I do mind.

[slackmaster]

30. Am I selfish, or are you authoritarian?

:nuke:

[lapfog_1]

32. No, I'm democratic

and we pass laws.

One such law that I hope to see soon is to outlaw painting guns bright colors.

I just drafted a letter to that affect and am sending to my nephew to circulate in the Sheriffs department here. If I can get them on board, it will go to our state representative. I'm sure the majority of people feel the way I do. There isn't any good reason to have real guns that look like toys. Not a single one.

[EricTeri]

34. Good luck with that.

There is precisely no authority for government to dictate that and it would be impossible to enforce. It is also a blatant violation of the 1st, 2nd, 4th through 6th amendments as well as the 9th and 10th.

You really might want to work on that authoritarian streak. It kinda pisses people off

[slackmaster]

43. We already have laws that MANDATE that toy guns look a certain way

That makes sense to me.

Dictating that real ones have to be - What? Black, or blue, or brown, or green, or stainless, or nickel, or some combination of the above? - Makes no sense.

[EricTeri]

44. Doesnt matter that the laws mandating toy construction exist

Mandating the colors and finishes of an actual firearm would be a different story.

[slackmaster]

45. Oh well, as has already been pointed out a few times

The federal government has no authority to create such a law, so it isn't going to happen anyway.

[Hoosier lawyer]

97. looks like a toy to you maybe

To me a blue Glock looks like a Glock. But I guess that because I am not a chicken little gun grabber.
Kids won't get shot for having a toy gun, they might get shot for not complying with a police order, or for pointing said gun at the wrong person, but as has been said, people have been shot for having cell phones and wallets...

[krispos42]

36. I don't understand the lure either...

I think it's a bad idea to make real guns look like toys, or toy guns to look real. Not so much long guns, but more for handguns.

However, that's my personal opinion on the matter. I don't want a law or anything like that, but I would hope that gun manufacturers limit themselves to the traditional black, silver (nickel-finished or stainless steel), or natural case-hardening for the metal, and black, natural wood, grey, camo, olive drab, or tan colors for the wood, plastic, or synthetic parts of the rest of the gun.

Leave this brightly-colored stuff to the aftermarket gunsmiths. There finishes costs hundred of dollars, and if you have $300 lying around to color your .45 Auto purple-and-white with Minnesota Vikings grip panels, you have enough money to keep your Purple Pride Piece in a child-proof safe.

The more this gets harped on, the more people will do it just to piss you off.

[SteveM]

60. Some notes...

"...though why you would go hunting with pistols is beyond me..." Actually, the .44 magnum revolver (made famous by the Dirty Harry movies) was originally designed (and used) as a good hunting weapon and as a sidearm for guides in areas where Grizzly bears are present. There are now other revolvers (not actually pistols) suitable for this purpose. It is not a very good personal defense weapon, unless down loaded to a .44 Special.

Hunters across the nation are now required to wear "international orange" when on public lands. This has been the case for many years and is cited as a contributing factor in the big drop in hunting deaths/wounds due to gun fire.

I don't see the fuss here. I suspect a kid running around in the street with a real pink gun would be rare; as a matter of fact, does anyone know of this happening?

This is pre-eminently an area for better parental training of kids, esp. with regards firearms. We don't need yet more laws, trying to impose a standardized decor group.

[EricTeri]

20. Um - nope i'm not.

I dont give a fuck what the police believe. I do not report to them.

They can CLAIM they couldn't tell it was real all they want. The problem there is not the color of the gun, but the reaction of the officer. If one is not certain of his target, one should not shoot. Thats one of the 4 primary rules of firearm safety.

The point of having them refinished is because you WANT to. Typically the people who pay for these finishes are competitive shooters and they're putting a custom finish on a highly customized gun.

This really isn't an issue anyway. I mean, seriously, you might have one gun owner in 1,000,000 who may wish to spend ~$500 to have a pistol re-finished in day-glo-green. Your scenario has a probability of happening so close to nil that it isn't worth calculating.

That picture of a bomb doesn't scare me at all. Why should I be afraid of an inert museum piece? Hell, i wouldn't be afraid of it if it were painted white and sitting in a bomb bay with the pre-flight tags removed. If YOU are afraid of it - that is YOUR problem.

[selador]

62. let's deal with reality

i've faced men (never women fwiw) with guns pointed at me, i've been in shootouts.

i also had somebody pull what i thought MIGHT be a fake gun that was in fact real. that became apparent when he pulled the trigger.

cops, or ANYBODY in a shoot/don't shoot decision necessarily acts in a dynamic situation, with little room for introspection and examination, and often (most police shootings happen in dim light) in dim light, etc.

there are a LOT of guns (airsoft) comes to mind that are fake but look very real.

anybody who uses a fake gun that looks like a real gun in ANY situations where it could put themselves in danger is a frigging moron, and has himself to blame when he gets shot. .

similarly, having a real gun that attempts to mimic the colors of safe guns (safe/fake guns are often painted different colors. for example, our less lethal shotguns are orange and can only fire less lethal rounds) is also retarded.

COULD the govt. ban gun alterations as to specific colors? even assuming post-heller we go individual rights all the way - probably.

i'm not going to get all strict scrutiny (which will probably be the standard for gun laws if heller goes the right way - pro individual rights) but it could still be argued as legally justifiable under that standard imo, just as requiring guns to have serial #'s and just as laws prohibiting you from filing the serial # off your gun still apply even with the 2nd.

again, im not advocating for these laws but assuming that they are prima facie unconstitutional is not exactly kosher

[iverglas]

52. isn't it the luckiest thing

The real assholes here, my friend, are those with knee-jerk reactions to irrational fears over inanimate objects who expect the rest of us to support their psychosis.

that there's no one here who fits the italicized description?

Otherwise, you might be having a little problem involving your interface with the rules of the game.

[L1A1Rocker]

67. What "game" are you referring to?

[L1A1Rocker]

80. Care to elaborate?

[L1A1Rocker]

84. Still waiting. What GAME are you talking about?

[L1A1Rocker]

87. Everglass, please explain what "game" you are referring to.

[iverglas]

92. for any of the truly clueless in the vicinity

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html


Perhaps it will have been noticed that the post to which I was referring is no longer with us.

[L1A1Rocker]

96. I appreciate your evasion of the question but that did not answerer What GAME

your referring to. Please do so as I'm very curious.

[iverglas]

98. it's really quite unbelievable

I said, in response to an impermissible and false statement about other DU members:

Otherwise, you might be having a little problem involving your interface with the rules of the game.

If the rules in question are the rules for participation in these discussion boards, what do you imagine the game is?

"The rules of the game" are THE RULES FOR PARTICIPATION IN D.U. DISCUSSION BOARDS.

"The rules of the game" is a rather well known figure of speech.

Now I realize that you need everything spelled out for you, for some reason I could only guess. (Since I find it very hard to believe that you actually need everything spelled out for you, I think, rather, that you just want everything spelled out for you -- and in this case I wouldn't even like to guess the reason.)

The "game" is PARTICIPATION IN D.U. DISCUSSION BOARDS.

Feeling better now?

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

7. Do you have info on how many kids using black/blue "guns" have been shot

[lapfog_1]

8. No, but I know it happens...

because I've read the newspaper articles.

Probably rare. But why come out with paints and finishes that further confuse people?

[slackmaster]

10. It doesn't confuse me

Kids should be taught gun safety at an early age. That includes not pointing objects at strangers in a manner that might be construed as brandishing a weapon.

[lapfog_1]

16. Yeah, lets blame kids

for not knowing about gun safety when they play with their water pistols.

The toy companies have gone a long ways to make toy guns LOOK like toys, not real guns. Why would a responsible gun accessory company want to chase after them and make real guns LOOK like toys?

[slackmaster]

18. Toy guns that don't look like real ones have not been around very long

When I was a kid the idea was to make them look as much like the real thing as possible.

Here in California they added blaze orange muzzle caps back in the '80s. What do you suppose was the very first thing most kids did when they got those toy guns home?

"Mom, where's the Magic Marker?"

[lapfog_1]

27. Try to buy a squirt gun today that looks like

a .45... I'm sure you can do it, but it's really very hard.

But this avoids the question "Why paint real guns to look like TOYS?" What's the point? Because it's "cool"?

(or as one idiot posted here... they want to "customize their toys"? What is this now... "Pimp my pistol"???)

I'm not saying that gun owners shouldn't have guns... and I'm not a anti-gun nut. But I was taught that guns were tools, not toys. Tools that you bring out to use, not play with. And they should LOOK like tools, serious tools, dangerous tools. Because that is what they are.

[benEzra]

39. Most bright-colored guns are competition guns.

Here's a Ruger 10/22 that looks like it's set up for Sportsman's Team Challenge target competition:



Here's a more tastefully done AR-15 target rifle (Bushmaster, I think):



And a Colt .45 pistol with a compensator, pretty obviously a competition gun:



From the UK, a long-range precision rifle with a brightly colored stock:




And some are just works of art...

[EricTeri]

13. Because some people shoot for a hobby

And a lot of people like to customize their toys.

[lapfog_1]

14. Guns are not TOYS...

You sure don't know much about guns.

First rule of gun safety.... GUNS ARE NOT TOYS.

[slackmaster]

15. I hate to admit it but I find your indignation highly entertaining

The real first rule of gun safety is that every gun is always loaded.

At least that's how I learned it.

[EricTeri]

23. No it isnt.

1) Treat every gun as if it were loaded.
2) Never let the muzzle of a gun point at anything you do not want to destroy or kill.
3) Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4) Be absolutely certain of your target and what is behind it.

So, after that brief class in firearms safety, you can see that a cop who would shoot a kid over a toy would be violating rules 2 and 4.

[SteveM]

24. Please consider this: kids with real "colored" guns are trained by parents/adults..

Rather than viewing the brightly colored guns an attractive nuisance, kids probably select a color after becoming familiar with guns. At the range and in the field, what does it matter if Suzie is using a pink gun with hippie flowers all over it? The worst which can happen is a deer might spot the chromatic conglomeration and run off. One has to ask: In what situations would a child be shot because of a colored gun?

I believe the color follows interest in/use of guns, instead of the other way around. What some folks don't like is what they view as "luring in" kids to use guns. I imagine most kids express interest in guns (or not) regardless of color.

"We cannot but pity the boy who has never fired a gun; he is no more humane, while his education has been sadly neglected." -- Thoreau, Walden.

[lapfog_1]

29. This isn't about kids with colored guns

please try to follow the posts.

[EricTeri]

35. I'm not sure WHAT its about

Because you sure as hell don't have the right to tell others what to do

[NickTX]

37. Anti-Gun people are amusing.

I mean seriously these people will throw a tantrum over the silliest things. Is a custom finish really that awful?

Personally I think it has very little to do with the finish and everything to do with the gun. No gun with any finish or in any form will be acceptable to some people.

[iverglas]

54. "please try to follow the posts"

In case you miss my other post on the topic, you have to read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=10520

If you aren't in need of absorbent tissue when you're done, well ...

(If you can't find your way through it at all, posts 14 and 16 will help.)

[L1A1Rocker]

42. They already react that way now. So what's your point?

[virginia mountainman]

4. I saw a nice SKS carbine, done up in ..

Silver, with a black synthetic stock...

Looked great!!

What a great product!!

BTW, Lauer, has been offering the "bloomberg collection" for quite sometime, ever since Bloomberg, called them "Sick"....

What a great bit of effective advertising!!

Much like the great Bloomberg gun giveaway down here in Virginia.

Bloomberg opens his mouth....sales go up!!!

[benEzra]

38. Boy, a little spin there...

Nothing is being "disguised." Competitive shooters often like personalized guns.



Personally, if I were going to buy a coated firearm, I'd like one like this:


Remington R-15 hunting rifle (.204 Ruger or .223 Remington)

The NY Daily News would probably say that that rifle is disguised to look like an innocent plant in order to fool police and children, though...

You have to admit that the "Bloomberg edition" rifle is funny:



...but it's most likely a Photoshop.

[michreject]

51. Looks real similar to mine

[TheMightyFavog]

48. What the hell! "Bloomberg Collection?"

I'm ashamed of my fellow Wisconsinites here. New Yorkers are supposed to be the ones who act like assholes, not us Wisconsinites! :p

Don't get me wrong I'm pro RKBA, and I've no problem with the paint jobs, but putting Bloomberg's face on the slide is going a bit too far, IMHO.

[benEzra]

58. I think they're making fun of Bloomberg for his attempts to ban Duracoated guns. (n/t)

[MaryCeleste]

59. Not like he doesn't have that and much more coming to him

[beevul]

108. I agree.

And I think bloomie being made fun of is quite fair game, his history reguarding guns being what it is.