The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-16-2002, 10:23 PM   #1
Chefranden
Disorderly Disciplinarian
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Superior
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally posted by slang
...If you look at who the jury found most responsible for the shooting, you will see that the the actual shooter isn't even listed. The owner of the pistol was most liable, the school slightly less liable, and the gun distributor was dramatically less liable. According to the jury , Valor was 5% responsible. Even at being 5% responsible , the writer put that in the headline. It was in one respect a noteable win. The precedence has been set (although this must pass through the appeals process) that a criminal can use a product illegally to hurt someone and those responsible for the manufacture or sale may be held liable. I'm not a lawyer, but that seems to be the case, although I dont have any supporting opinions or references...
This is very curious. I wonder if this kid had beaten the teacher to death with a Louisville Slugger if Hillerich & Bradsby would have had to pay 5%? I guess that would depend in part on the widow's lawyer's skill in convincing a jury that H & B had designed the bat for killing in the first place. That might be a bit of a stretch for a bat, but people get the purpose of a gun no matter how it may be described.

What is more curious is the media's seemingly broad based bias against gun ownership. Bleeding heart, leftie, pinko that I am; I agree that the bias is there. What I don't get is why. Most of the media is owned by a small group of powerful corporate giants that in large measure depend on the Right to keep us pinko's from taking them apart and giving newsprint and bandwidth back to "the people" to whom it belongs. I certainly don't find these companies to be on "our" side, the left one that is. What are they up to?- I keep thinking. That said, I am for gun ownership: Not for protection from the criminal element, I remain unconvinced that it provides more protection than it causes danger; Not for sporting purposes though eating venison is slightly more honest than buying chicken at the store; The reason for gun ownership is to provide the means for revolution should that become necessary as at least Jefferson intended.
.
__________________
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. Major General Smedley Butler, USMC
Chefranden is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:01 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.