NY Times Editorial PROVES that NRA is a bunch of sellouts and Bush is a gun grabber!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hillbilly

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
3,165
Location
Iowa
On second thought, I think I'll save the sarcasm on this one.

Those who still think that NRA is a bunch of gun-controlling sellouts, and that Dubya Bush is just a gun grabber won't see reason or logic or fact at all.

Folks who still don't get it are just not worth the effort anymore.

At any rate, here's the NY Times editorial today, just to remind us who our enemies really are, and what our enemies are really like.

hillbilly


P.S. Oh yeah, one more thing. I saw a thread saying something about a Hillary presidency not being really that bad and maybe even good for the gun rights movement.

Uh, just remember, with a Hillary presidency, you get folks like the NY Times editorial board in policy-making positions.

If you really think that a Hillary presidency would be good for gun rights, then you need to put down the crack pipe, now.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/opinion/18tue4.html



The Gun Industry Rolls Congress


Published: October 18, 2005
Three years ago, the nation's capital region lived in fear of a pair of snipers who killed 10 people and wounded three in random attacks with a Bushmaster XM-15 .223-caliber telescopic rifle - a gleaming civilian version of the Army's basic M-16 assault rifle popular with recreational shooters. In the aftermath, the rifle was traced to a shoddy gun dealer who claimed he somehow "lost" that war weapon and some 200 other guns to the underground market. Victimized families sued in grief and outrage and won $2.5 million in a settlement that most Americans - except Congress - would pronounce proper.

The House of Representatives, in callow disregard of cause and effect in the nation's harrowing gun carnage, is about to take aim at the Bushmaster settlement by voting what is expected to be final approval of a bill to grant assault-proof protection from damage suits to the gun industry, from manufacturers to dealers. This extraordinary shield, written to the diktat of the National Rifle Association, is so sweeping that it would have barred the D.C. sniper settlement and other valid negligence claims, according to legal experts stunned that any industry could ever win such blanket immunity.

With all the critical issues on the national agenda, from the Iraq war to hurricane recovery, the House's eagerness is obscene as the gun lobby herds lawmakers from both parties behind a bill to deny victimized families their fair day in court. The bill goes beyond barring lawsuits to shielding black-market dealers from administrative loss of their licenses without near impossible burdens of proof.

President Bush talked favorably about the assault weapons ban as a candidate but was notoriously mute when the Republican Congress let the ban expire last year. Surely he would not compound the nation's gun scourge by signing the immunity bill.
 
Yuck! The Hillary Beast! Run for your lives!!! . . . . .

This extraordinary shield, written to the diktat of the National Rifle Association, is so sweeping that it would have barred the D.C. sniper settlement and other valid negligence claims, according to legal experts stunned that any industry could ever win such blanket immunity.
Click to expand...
Good.
 
No author is given. I believe it is an Op-ed submission, not written by a staff writer. If true, the person accountable for this article is David Shipley, the Op-Ed editor. The email address is [email protected]. I don't believe they have to endorse op-ed content, but they could at least do a spell check. What would be interesting is allowing a balancing view by another writer, but these things are not debates. Thus a monolithic diatribe should be judged as whether it is at least well founded. The author apparently missed that the bill in pure form is firmly supported by the White House.
 
I am not opposed to the bill but why can't they just strip the ammo study??

Guns are already sold with trigger locks so that is moot but the ammo study gives me the willys.

Anyway I will celebrate once it is signed into law.
 
If the dealer lost 200 guns there may well have been a valid claim against the dealer, but I don't see how they made the jump to Bushmaster ( Deeper Pockets ).

Bushmaster sells a gun to a distributor, who sells the gun to a FFL who lost it. I don't see how anyone could assign blame to bushmaster and not to the BATF? The BATF takes responsibility for regulating FFLs and allowed the business to keep operating, it's not the gun manufacturer's job to regulate dealers.
 
LAR-15 said:
I am not opposed to the bill but why can't they just strip the ammo study??

Guns are already sold with trigger locks so that is moot but the ammo study gives me the willys.
Click to expand...

This is not a gun control bill, so it should not have gun control amendments.

Why couldn't Congress propose that gun manufacturers be required to offer a trigger lock OPTION? The police have an option when they order guns. Why can't it be left to gun owners to ask for trigger locks? The first survey that proves that trigger locks are not being used will bring forth the law that says if a gun provides a trigger lock, it must be used, otherwise the owner is subject to severe liability, including loss of his or her RKBA by way of felony negligence conviction.

I can't believe so many are letting this one slide by, not seeing the stealth involved and ignoring prior precedent for this strategy to force people to use some product feature. It starts as innocuous, feel good legislation, but then it is a Trojan Horse for something much more draconian.
 
I'd like to see that gleaming telescopic rifle the editorialist mentions.

I can't get anything on my AR to gleam except the bore, and NOTHING on the doggone thing telescopes...
 
I am willing to trade the ammo study and trigger locks for this bill. I know it would be better if they weren't in there, but the nature of politics is that unless you are in a one party system, you have to give and take to get what you want.

RealGun,
I see your point but the gungrabbers are going to do what they do regardless. Whether the ammo study and trigger locks are included in this bill or not, someone will later try and ban armor piercing "cop killer ammo" and enforce the use of trigger locks.

The world we live in is such that if we just wait for the perfect bill forever nothing will ever get done. Look at Ohio's concealed carry law. It sucks. But they took it and now they have the chance to CCW and to change the law for the better. That was a compromise.

I hate compromising on this, and I make no excuses, it is a compromise. I would not have traded immunity bill for renewed AWB. I would not trade immunity bill for ammo ban, trigger lock use law, etc. But the sheer magnitude of this victory is worth a lot more for the gun rights movement in political capital and actual practicality than selling gunlocks with handguns (which happens already) and studying ammo is worth to the anti gun movement. Again, I don't like those provisions, but the anti's are going to try and ban this and that no matter what.

The anti movement KNOWS now that one of their best chances to shut down the gun culture in America is to shut down the gun manufacturers...and make it so expensive to make, buy, and use guns that is withers away. They know this because that is the template of the liberal attack, through the courts. They will follow this strategy till it succeeds, and eventually it will, at least in some states, if not the whole country. Just like lawyers made entire careers off tobacco litigation, such will be done with the fleecing of Ruger, S&W, Barrett, Glock USA, etc. We can stop this now and we should.
BSR
 
It just grows the scope of the govt and wastes tax dollars.

There was no reason to bring the ammo study up for a vote. NONE
 
BowStreetRunner said:
I am willing to trade the ammo study and trigger locks for this bill. I know it would be better if they weren't in there, but the nature of politics is that unless you are in a one party system, you have to give and take to get what you want.

RealGun,
I see your point but the gungrabbers are going to do what they do regardless. Whether the ammo study and trigger locks are included in this bill or not, someone will later try and ban armor piercing "cop killer ammo" and enforce the use of trigger locks.

The world we live in is such that if we just wait for the perfect bill forever nothing will ever get done. Look at Ohio's concealed carry law. It sucks. But they took it and now they have the chance to CCW and to change the law for the better. That was a compromise.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that sounds like an NRA compromising logic, not a no-compromise GOA logic. Death by a thousand cuts.
 
bg said:
H.R.800 does NOT have the lock included in it. That's the one that
should be passed and sent to the Senate.
Click to expand...

How certain are you that H.R.800 will make it out of committee without amendments? What about when it goes to the Senate? H.R.1036 made it out of the House, but died in the Senate as S.1805.

Would round three bring better results?

H.R.800 is a "clean" bill, it can still be amended, it can still receive a "poison pill". Is it worth the gamble, I don't think so. The more time that passes, the more time it buys for lawyers to figure out the winning strategy. Unfortunately time is not something that the gun industry has right now.
 
The trigger lock amendment, which was proposed by Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl, was a way to get his vote.

Kohl is up for re-election next year, and needs to look good to gun owners, but he also needs to be able to say that he's done something to address the problem of "gun violence."

So, Kohl gets to have it both ways, and there's a amendment that mandates that manufacturers do what they are already doing voluntarily.

Do I like it? No. Was it necessary to add the amendment to get the votes? Don't know.
 
This extraordinary shield, written to the diktat of the National Rifle Association, is so sweeping that it would have barred the D.C. sniper settlement and other valid negligence claims, according to legal experts stunned that any industry could ever win such blanket immunity.
Click to expand...

The way I understand it, it would not protect criminal negligence, which is what the gunstore was.

If Bushmaster knew that guns were going missing from the store, then the ATF knew, which makes the ATF jsut as responsible for not pulling the store's FFL.
 
jefnvk said:
The way I understand it, it would not protect criminal negligence, which is what the gunstore was.
Click to expand...

No, but it protects the blood money piggy bank of the Evil capitalist gun industry. And we can't have that. Heaven forbid that a potential social fund for innocent victims of crime be cut off. Can't sue the ATF, that pesky sovereign immunity thing, no payments will ever come from that source. Sue a gun store they'll settle, declare bankruptcy, shutdown operations, No Payments. But firearms manufacturers well.....Payments.
 
No, but it protects the blood money piggy bank of the Evil capitalist gun industry.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know that I would call them "evil".

Here's my layman's query: If someone crashes a Corvette into a group of schoolchildren, can we sue General Motors? If the answer is "yes", gun manufacturers a getting special protections and I don't like it. If the answer is "no", the gun manufacturers are merely receiving equal protection, and that doesn't bother me.

The fact that they're obviously a capitalist industry merely seems like a typical American business.
 
There is a lot of misunderstanding here ...

If a company builds a truly defective firearm, and it blows up and hurts someone, they can sue for personal injury.

What this bill would stop is a practice the Clinton White House backed, of having suits brought against the entire handgun industry because criminals were able to obtain guns.

The purpose of the suits was to force the companies to pay legal costs that could drive them into bankruptcy, or sign an out-of-court agreement (which Smith & Wesson did) that would turn the management of the company(s) over to a so called "Oversight Committee" that would be controlled by gun control advocates and believe it or not, the BATF.

This, and only this, is what this current bill would stop. It was a close call. If Al Gore had been elected President we wouldn't have a functioning handgun industry today.
 
Interesting to note that KABA and NRA promote the idea of compromising to get the main bill provisions in place. GOA, on the other hand, does not accept the trigger lock Trojan Horse and promotes the House version, the clean bill.

It seems to me that the only reason the trigger lock provision would be mandatory is so that the features or devices would be assured as in place to eventually require their use, the penalty for lack of use in the case of an accident being criminal negligence. If a felony, one will lose the right to own guns.

The argument against locks is that a weapon is not ready for use in practical terms. The right of self defense is infringed. The gun in the nightstand would be the classic scenario.

Those who own guns with built in locks or which came with a removable trigger lock generally don't use them or even value them. In fact gun owners object to paying for features they don't want.

If one believes that this trigger lock provision is harmless, I don't believe they have addressed the question of why the law is believed necessary.

The useful historic parallel re how the law evolves would be seat belts. They were recommended, then offered as after market add ons, then offered as an option on new cars, then mandated for new cars, older cars were required to be retrofitted to pass State inspection, and then use of seat belts became mandatory. The concession by the law was that failure to use a seat belt could not be the primary reason for being stopped nor the only reason for being ticketed.

Just imagine the effect on your use of handguns if liable for not using a trigger lock.

If you want to later fight a move to make trigger lock use mandatory, recall that you could have seen it coming.
 
If Hillary becomes president it may force us to actually use the 2nd Amendment in its intended purpose. See my sig for details. This may actually be a good thing because the longer we wait the stronger they become. Giving money to the NRA and etc. just puts off the inevitable. The sooner they try to take my guns the sooner we can get this over with.
 
This gun bill is symbolism that shows the antis that they're not in charge anymore; just as the AWB and the Brady Bill showed gun owning Americans that their elected representatives were just paying lip service to the 2nd Amendment in 1994.

Sarah Brady and her crowd is really responsible for the dire straits that the Democrats have found themselves in since then. If I were the Dems I would toss their sorry ***** overboard because they haven't brought anything positive to elected Democrats.

Even today, they know Congress is about to hammer their lawsuit happy legal coffin shut and in general put them out of business, they are threatening the law, per se, with a lawsuit. Of course they'll find a gun grabbing judge in New York or California to grant an injunction or declare the law unconstitutional.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200510\NAT20051019a.html
 
RealGun said:
Interesting to note that KABA and NRA promote the idea of compromising to get the main bill provisions in place. GOA, on the other hand, does not accept the trigger lock Trojan Horse and promotes the House version, the clean bill.
Click to expand...

RealGun,
What's more important to you, being sold a trigger lock with a new gun or being able to buy a new gun?

Are you so naive that you belive that if H.R.800 were to pass that it would make it through the Senate without admendments. (Burned once, twice shy, third time ignorant?) H.R.1036 made it out of the house last year as a clean bill. When it was sent to the Senate it was amended to extend the AWB. This year S.397 has trigger locks and an ammunition "Study". I'm not sure what you're expecting from the third go-around, but I'm sure it would be the NRA's fault for selling us out.

H.R.800 is good if you assume the following will happen:
-The bill makes it out of committee and sub-committee without "bad" admendments or being tabled.
-The House votes on and passes the bill.
-It goes to the committee in the Senate and makes it out without "bad" amendments or being tabled. (Third times a charm?)
-The Senate votes on and passes the bill.
-If the bill is amended in the Senate and passes, it goes to conference committee, it's then reconciled and sent back to both houses to vote on. That's assuming of course that no riders are attached to the bill, and both houses find time to vote on the bill again.
-Bill goes to president to be signed into law.
 
H.R.800 is good if you assume the following will happen:
-The bill makes it out of committee and sub-committee without "bad" admendments or being tabled.
Click to expand...

It was already reported out of committee (clean) in June and is scheduled for debate on the floor this week. There are 257 sponsors.

Hey, come on. The House can be our way of telling the Senate that amendments not germane to tort reform are not okay. Just because the word "gun" is involved does not mean the bill becomes a magnet for gun control garbage. Why not support this bill being passed the "right way"?

If the issue circles often enough to pick up an AWB, the gun owning community has a much larger problem. That would be much more blatantly non-germane and cause for abandoning the GOP in droves.

House action is a way to counter Senate nonsense. If it goes back to the Senate, I believe amendments, no matter how trivial they may be seen to be, will have less support.

If it fails to pass this year, so what? It has already been sidetracked for a year and a half. Will the Senate not learn something about how they need to pass the main bill? Will they not learn that their gun control nonsense and procedural malarky will not be tolerated?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top