And once again, misdirection...

[tortoise1956]

It never ceases to amaze me just how far the posters in the echo chamber that calls itself Gun Control Reform Activism will go to convince others of the sanctity of their cause. case in point: a post on May 25th ranting about Senate Bill S 397, passed to prevent gun manufacturers from being sued when their products are used by criminals in unlawful acts.

The post specifically discusses three cases. Of the three cases, only one had a true basis in fact, and that one case was actually decided in favor of the plaintiff and a judgment was entered against the defendant, Kahr arms. In the other two cases, one concerned a gun that was shoplifted (and the owners of the shop where it occurred lost their license because it was not an isolated incident), and the other was a case where the plaintiffs tried to sue the manufacturer because they claimed that the manufacturer should have known that the gun would be used by criminals. In this case, The California Supreme Court found against them - BEFORE S 397 was passed, I might add.Link provided:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17214429197270120189&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

I realize that the intent of the GCRA is to provide a "Safe Space" for those who believe that the Second Amendment is a useless appendage of the Constitution. However, it does their argument no good when the evidence they refer to is not applicable to the point they're trying to make.

Finally, anyone who actually reads the bill as passed with an open mind will be able to determine very quickly that manufacturers are not protected if they sell a defective firearm. Also, anyone who willfully sells a firearm to someone that they have reason to believe is going to commit a criminal act is open to being sued under this law. Link to actual text:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/397/text

In other words, the post I refer to is, while not quite a lie, very close to it. At the very least, it would appear to be a case of willful ignorance of the law.

And for those of you who wonder why I don't argue it in their forum, I will point out that anyone who tries to argue rarely has time to post more than 1 or 2 replies before they are banned from the group. Thus, there is no utility in following that path...

[Alea]

1. Spot on with your post and especially trying to discuss anything they post

Their 85 member ban list says all anyone needs to know. I keep expecting to be added to the list preemptively even though I never post/reply there.

[flamin lib]

2. "Not quite a lie" to which you reply with not quite the truth. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. Could you be specific about what's 'not quite the truth' in their reply?

[oneshooter]

9. Please do not hold your breath while awaiting a reply.

I don't want you to hurt yourself.

[tortoise1956]

8. So don't leave me hanging...

what was not quite the truth? I'm interested in finding out exactly what you take issue with...

[tortoise1956]

10. Still waiting

I pride myself on presenting facts, and documenting them. Once again, what parts are not quite the truth?

Nothing but crickets...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Back at the ranch: According to GCRA...

...we should probably dedicate ourselves to finding the next "grand dragon" of the NRA.

[flamin lib]

12. It took two days for your first response so I felt no urgency in responding to the

standard gunner 'here's my proof and it's better than your proof' nonsense.

You have cites, BIllH has cites. You have an opinion, BillH has an opinion. Both cites and opinions have some validity. Had it stopped there it would have stopped there.

But that wasn't good enough for ya'. You had to go the extra step of personal attack on Bill. You accuse him of misdirection, as if simply presenting his cites and making inferences is somehow nefarious. Then ya' go the extra step of saying that he didn't quite lie which is, face it, calling him a liar.

You owe Bill an apology.

[tortoise1956]

14. Apology?

I credited him with the intelligence to actually understand what the law covered. If he truly understood what the law, then it was willful misdirection when he said that S. 397 is (and I quote):

"a bill that prohibits victims of the gun industry’s negligent practices from filing lawsuits in America’s courts."

That is utter bullshit. The law does nothing of the kind. It simply prevents firearms manufacturers from being sued when otherwise properly functioning firearms are used in criminal acts after they have been legally transferred to sellers. Negligence on the part of the manufacturer is still actionable under this law, and I expected Bill to know that - especially considering that one of his cites was one where Kahr Arms was held to be criminally negligent because they did not accurately track and protect their stock. (This judgment occurred AFTER the law was passed, so obviously the law must cover negligent practices, right?)

Why was the law passed? Because individuals and groups were suing firearms manufacturers for merely building firearms. It reached the point where D.C. actually passed a law holding manufacturers liable for any violence caused by "assault weapons". That would be like saying that anyone injured in a car accident could sue the auto manufacturers for damages, even if the auto was functioning properly and the driver was at fault. Even though there was no legal foundation, and the lawsuits were eventually thrown out of court, they were still costing firearms manufacturers millions of dollars by having to respond to them. Thus, S. 397 was proposed and passed (House 283-144, Senate 65-31) and signed into law.

Now, if Bill really can't understand that, then I apologize for having mistakenly believed him capable of that level of perception and basing my reply on that belief.

[flamin lib]

15. See, there ya' go again.

Just can't help yourself, have to go after the DUer instead of the post.

Now you owe two apologies; one for calling Bill a liar and one for saying he's stupid.

[Alea]

16. You sure you're not projecting what you think of Bill?

I reread both replies twice to find the liar and stupid comment and don't see where he called him a liar or said he was stupid, or even implied that. Those words came from you. Stop the drama.

[flamin lib]

17. 1. You don't have a dog in this fight and

2. Sorry to disabuse you but that is EXACTLY what happened.

[tortoise1956]

20. And STILL nothing

to back up your accusation that I called him a liar. I said his post contained willful misdirection, then used his own example to prove it. At that point, a rational being would concede that his statement that the S. 397 prevented firearms manufacturers from being sued for negligence simply wasn't true. Evidently you also are capable of ignoring evidence that is not to your liking.

And while we're at it, nothing at all detailing how I supposedly lied. As a matter of fact, the only person so far that has called anyone a liar here is you.

If you're waiting for an apology, you got a long wait ahead of you. Think of the old saw, "Wish in one hand and shit in the other, see what fills up first." At least your hand will be warm for a while...

[oneshooter]

21. This is a common among the Banners.

Make a visibly false accusation and when called on it they run.

[flamin lib]

22. I didn't call you a liar in the same way you didn't call Bill a liar.

You said he answered with not quite a lie. I said you answered with not quite the truth.

I never expected an apology. Gunners don't apologize for character assassination. They wrap themselves in righteous indignation, declare victory and stomp off with a "I know I am but what are you."

Like you just did.

[tortoise1956]

25. I've given you the benefit of the doubt more than once...

and you haven't still deigned to answer my request for a clarification of the "not quite lies" you claim I wrote. And even after I pointed out - twice - the reason that Bill's statement rose to the level of willful misdirection, using his own example, you persist in maligning me. So far, the only person carrying out any character assassination here (defined as "the act of deliberately attempting to destroy a person's reputation by defamatory remarks&quot is you.

Buh-bye, little birdie.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Bill did, in fact, promulgate at least one untruth. 'Poor fact-checking' is simply one explanation

Having taken 2/3rds of his post from a webpage of the former 'National Coalition to Ban Handguns',
he merely repeated (and riffed on) their conclusions without further research that would have shown
that at least two of their claims had no basis in fact.

There can be only one other explanation for him having done so:

He knew the CSGV page was (and still is, as of 17 June) factually wrong- yet used the piece anyway
as the basis of *his* OP as a form of... call it 'faith-promoting rumor'.

I leave it to the disinterested observer to decide for themselves which explanation is correct...

[GreydeeThos]

3. I was once requested to post in Gun Control Reform Activism

I was banned within minutes.

I have no use for that group at all, not even for entertainment purposes.

[yagotme]

18. I merely asked a question on some numbers a member posted.

Banned.

[sarisataka]

4. Our "activism" group

Last edited Fri Jun 9, 2017, 03:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Can be summed in one sentence.

They supported Mark Kirk(R) over Sen. Tammy Duckworth in the general election.

No one in this group has ever said vote issue over party. "Gunners" have always supported even the most anti-gun Democrats in the general election.

[yagotme]

19. And I can't understand that.

1. Kirk is worthless.
2. He's a Repub. (I guess 1 and 2 are complimentary )
3. He's not really pro gun, more anti, actually.

1. Duckworth is an injured Vet, and would certainly give Vets better representation.
2. Compared to Kirk's voting record on guns, she probably would be better.
3. Democrat, and proud of it.

Only thing I can guess at, is that Kirk is with the "in" crowd in Springfield, and Duckworth didn't pay her dues, or ticked off the local party for some reason. Didn't seem to be a lot of support for her in my area, for whatever reason. I sure tried.

[pablo_marmol]

23. "They supported Mark Kirk(R) over Sen. Tammy Duckworth in the general election."

This can't be underscored frequently enough. Inconvenient truths get deleted, while unforgivable behavior like this is allowed to stand. Astonishing.

[pablo_marmol]

5. They'll never learn. "Gun Control" is a religion for those folks. Facts are irrelevant.

We lost Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by less than 1 percent. It is guaranteed that stupidity/dishonesty on gun restriction was one of the many stand-alone factors for Clinton's loss. Perhaps even the single sub-issue of "assault weapon" bans.

[The Polack MSgt]

6. Kick and rec -

The Democratic Party should support all of or Constitutional rights.

I like the 2nd, but worry about the 5th and you KNOW fer sure the Trump Party hates all of the amendments - other than the 2nd

[flamin lib]

13. Aw c'mon. Show me where the Democratic party does not Support the constitution. nt

[pablo_marmol]

24. Aw c'mon......do you really think that anyone falls for your strawman?

There is a radical difference between 'failure to support all of our Constitutional rights' and 'failure to support the Constitution'.

And by the way -- I believe that there is a question that you are dodging upthread.