Someone who has been stabbed with a pen would disagree with you.

Criminals use guns to increase their threat level, legal gun owners buy them for hobbies, collector value and for defense. If someone is able to get around solid security measures for keeping the gun out of the hands of others, how much liability should be assigned to them?

Car owners aren't blamed very often when they leave their keys or fob in a car that's stolen and used in a crime or when it's involved in a chase that kills others- how do you want to do this- hearsay? Random decisions?

Arms design was much different when the 2nd amendment was written. The current design of firearms essentially make them an unsafe and defective product when handled by untrained or "crazy" people. One day the gun industry will have to deal with this when the majority of the voting public gets tired of walking around as potential targets for all the guns sold in the USA.

Hey anti-semite, I'll bet the Holocaust was a hoax too? You're an idiot and no doubt probably separated at birth from Alex Jones.

Anything can be turned into a weapon...


If a car you own kills a child, it will not matter how, there will be a lawyer bringing a case against you...how well you fare will depend on the how...

You can have your opinion of firearms all you want. But you still are missing the part that without repealing a constitution amendment, owning firearms is a right. Just like free speech and the right to privacy and the right to vote. The Supreme Court has already ruled that rights cannot be conditional or subjected to things like tests. So you would never get a required test to own firearms to hold up in court. It doesn’t matter one ounce that the technology today is not the technology of 1796. The founding fathers also never invisioned the internet where people could make false and ridiculous political statements and they be viewed instantaneously by millions all over the world.

And one thing I do find humorous in your claim that a pen doesn’t kill people like a gun is that currently trump’s critics are trying to blame his speech for inciting violence and hate. So either one or the other is possible, but not both.

So you're referring to civil liability now? Stay on topic.

But the intent of gun ownership and the Amendment are the important part. Guns are weapons, but self-defense is a right and guns happen to be a very effective way to stop a threat, or to be one. Being stupid is just something that happens sometimes, but it's when stupid people get their grubby mitts on a gun that bad things happen. Whether it's leaving it where little kids can get it, leaving it in a car for someone to break into and use in a robbery gone bad or accidentally firing through their wall and hitting someone on the other side, it's not an easy thing to stop. There's no question on the application that asks "Are you stupid?" but it does ask if the applicant has been treated for addiction or mental illness and that makes it possible for them to lie and possibly get away with it because HIPAA acts as a stumbling block for looking into someone's past medical history. If anyone says they want to change that, the ACLU will be on them like stink on crap.

Yes, however, I actually never specified a type of liability in my original comments.

I heard a scanner call earlier this morning about a suspicious person at the local JCC school- was wearing some kind of puffy vest and face mask. That place has had several threats called in over the last few years and fortunately, nothing has come of them other than disrupting normal activities.

Since you referred to an Amendment, it's a legal issue.

This is what makes it an inherently defective product.

Speaking of firing through a wall, a while back I lived in an apartment adjacent to and apartment lived in by a police officer. One day he knocked on my door and asked if everything was OK because his gun accidentally discharged and went into the wall between our apartments. Luckily it never showed up on our side. I thought of filing a report but gave the guy a break. I could have been dead due to the defective design of a gun that fired when the user did not intend to fire it.

lol, calling someone out as "anti-semite" is about as nonsensical as the idiots chanting "racist". Usually there's just another whiny jew behind that kind of talk.

You'd be more accurate just to call me out as another deplorable filthy goyim. I've listened to racist old jews most of my life.

That's odd because the criminal liability and insurance payout is based on who is in control of the vehicle when any damage is caused by that vehicle. I've never heard of anyone going after the owner of a vehicle that was being driven by someone else. If that was the case rental car companies wouldn't be in business.

I am not arguing over anyone's right to own a weapon. I am simple stating that the current design of firearms makes them inherently defective. Changing the laws that govern their ownership and use to keep up with this technology is simply long overdue.


Here I completely disagree with you, using a pen is free speech (it also happens to be amendment #1 for a reason). You can say what you want, however, in some cases it is impossible to walk away from the carnage your words can cause.

Just watch a few episodes of Judge Judy and there's bound to be another case dealing with this...