1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Senate Votes to Guard Gunmakers From Suits

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by poncho, Jul 29, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Friday to shield firearms manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes, a measure opponents said had been ordered up by the gun lobby.

    The 65-31 vote passed a bill that supporters said protects the industry from financial disaster and bankruptcy caused by damage lawsuits.

    "This bill says go after the criminal, don't go after the law-abiding gun manufacturer or the law-abiding gun seller," said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Craig (news, bio, voting record), R-Idaho.

    But Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., and other opponents said the gun industry needs no such special protection. "This bill has one motivation — payback by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the Congress to the powerful special interest of the National Rifle Association," he said.

    SOURCE
     
    #1 poncho, Jul 29, 2005
  2. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    42,005
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [​IMG]
     
    #2 KenH, Jul 29, 2005
  3. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good for the Senate. If it's a legitimate and legal firearm, then to hold the gunmaker responsible for the actions of someone who abuses a firearm is simply crazy.
     
    #3 Johnv, Jul 29, 2005
  4. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Smith & Wesson Holding Corp(AMEX:SWB)
    Up 1.21 (25.42%)

    Sturm Ruger & Co Inc (NYSE: RGR)
    Up 1.14 (11.34%)

    [​IMG]
     
    #4 JGrubbs, Jul 29, 2005
  5. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    They protected companies from asbestos litigation too, didn't they? That certainly was a blessing in disguise for Haliburton, wasn't it?
     
    #5 Baptist in Richmond, Jul 29, 2005
  6. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apples and oranges. Actually, apples and skyscrapers. Use of asbestos is not a constitutionally protected right.
     
    #6 Johnv, Jul 29, 2005
  7. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    I am talking about protection for companies. I am not talking about a "Constitutionally protected right."
     
    #7 Baptist in Richmond, Jul 29, 2005
  8. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is simply no comparison between the issue of legal firearms and asbestos. None.
     
    #8 Johnv, Jul 29, 2005
  9. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    42,005
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In today's climate protecting the gun manufacturers is necessary to protect our second amendment rights from the Centralists.
     
    #9 KenH, Jul 29, 2005
  10. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just more of the GOP looking out for corporate contributors instead of the average citizen.
     
    #10 Magnetic Poles, Jul 29, 2005
  11. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    42,005
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since when is defending the people's second amendments rights not looking out for the average citizen?
     
    #11 KenH, Jul 29, 2005
  12. One View

    One View New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Suing gun makers over a crime committed with a gun is purely dishonest profiteering. There is no justice involved. These lawsuits seek “deep pockets” that only benefit lawyers and corrupt plaintiffs at the expense of American jobs and legitimate manufacturers.
     
    #12 One View, Jul 29, 2005
  13. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    42,005
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Plus the anti-second amendment people know they don't have the support to amend the U.S. constitution to repeal the second amendment so they are trying to kill the manufacturing of guns in the U.S. If they can do that, then they can try to stop the importation of guns as well.
     
    #13 KenH, Jul 29, 2005
  14. JamesBell

    JamesBell New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    The notion that you should be able to sue a company that makes a gun because someone else shoots you is ridiculous. It is this mentality that has fat people thinking they can sue McDonalds because their food isn't healthy.

    You know, my mother was seriously injured in a car crash years ago. Anyone think she should sue Ford for making the car? Of course not. Ford didn't have anything to do with the wreck. And if I get shot by a Colt 1911 tonight, it won't be Colt's fault. Let's try to blame those responsible for the crime.
     
    #14 JamesBell, Jul 29, 2005
  15. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree 100% with this bill!

    We should hold those who misuse weapons responsible for their conduct with those weapons - not the weapons or the manufacturers of them.

    There's still much more to be done to reverse years of stupid laws that have eroded our basic right and need to be armed with weapons for self defense, protection of our families, protection of our property, and as a firm reminder to any over ambitious government.
     
    #15 Dragoon68, Jul 30, 2005
  16. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is good news! It is wrong to hold a manufacturer responsible for what a consumer does with their product.
     
    #16 Terry_Herrington, Jul 30, 2005
  17. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    Your post speaks volumes about your total ignorance of the Constitution and Justice.
     
    #17 Hardsheller, Jul 30, 2005
  18. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    Why couldn't the same be said for distillaries or tobacco companies?
     
    #18 StraightAndNarrow, Jul 30, 2005
  19. hillclimber

    hillclimber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    Johns Corning, you mean, Haliburton didn't manufacture it.
     
    #19 hillclimber, Jul 30, 2005
  20. hillclimber

    hillclimber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look what we did to the tobacco industry. Actually the smokers that still smoke. They are paying the governments extortion.
     
    #20 hillclimber, Jul 30, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...