http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/27/22541/4655
The Republicans in Congress danged sure have their priorities in the correct order. You can bet your ass your local congressman ain't gonna put up with any "Paycheck Irregularities"! Voted themselves another pay raise. Hard work....hard....work.....
Charlie noticed:
Here's a fun little tidbit...John Roberts, Bush's Supreme Court nominee, doesn't think anyone in America should necessarily have the right to contraceptives.
Guns? Hell yeah!
Condoms? If righty Catholics and FundXtians get control...Well we can't have people just doing it and having fun, right? It's evil...Having sex and not making a baby....well that's the same as abortion, right?
Another little tidbit to keep in mind about John Roberts...He played a role in the Iran Contra pardons that kept George Bush, the daddy, from being impeached. Karl Rove will definitely try to orchistrate something along those lines to keep his own fat ass out of jail.
And for all of you who are keeping score on the republican values thing...Rove is not, I repeat, Not Gay. Well not all the time, anyway. Karl Rove has a wife and a mistress, so there! (How could I have been so wrong?)
And now, from Tom Tomorrow, something completely different..(Ok, not really...) But you have to go there.
Cartoonical Satire...I love it!
workingforchange
Peace,
Steve
http://whitescreek.blogspot.com/
http://commanderrapid.blogspot.com/
" Protecting gun manufacturers from being sued for selling weapons to known criminals "
ReplyDeleteThat's a lie.
-SayUncle
Now Unk, You can't just go around calling people liars without backing it up.
ReplyDeleteWell maybe you can, but don't you feel a little badly just saying things like that? Why don't you tell me exactly how gun manufacturers can get sued when their dealers sell weapons at gun shows without background checks?
Try google, it's a wonderful thing. here's a link to the law:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-397
It says it specifically protects against actions:
"....resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;"
Selling to a known criminal is negligence. Hence, you lied or did crappy research or repeated some other liar's talking points.
-SayUncle
Unk, Thanks for backing off on the "Liar" namecalling just the little bit that you did. That's not really a good way to have a discussion.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry my comment on merchant responsibility worries you so much that it takes away from the real point of the post which is the incredibly misplaced priorities of this Congress.
I don't really have time ot get in a pissing contest but I have looked at several parts of several bills and they all seem to have confusing language that might technically allow a lawsuit to go forward, the chances of any meaningful prosecution of the suit are pretty much nil.
Everything I can find, and I admit to not really doing exhaustive research here, seems to wind up with provisos that say something akin to this little jewel:
"...Section 4(5)(A)(v), the existing limited exception that allows certain product liability cases to go forward, but then takes away any benefit that language might have by stating that it does not allow actions involving criminal acts by the user of the gun "other than possessory offenses."
The devil is in the details, of course.
By lobbying so heavily against gun show background checks, the gun industry leaves itself a huge loophole by being able to claim, "Why we didn't know he was a criminal".
Well, duh! Do you see what I mean?
Lighten up, just a bit, will ya?
I didn't call you a "liar." I stated that a statement was a lie. you pressed the issue so i clarified. Perhaps I could have used a less ominous term like 'misleading' but that would be misleading because the statement was false. So, maybe 'false' would have been a better word.
ReplyDeleteYour comment was not about merchant responsibility but was making a false claim regarding the gun immunity bill.
Regarding Congress' misplaced priorities, we can agree on that. After all, how do they find time when they're busy with important things like baseball and video games. However, if your opener is a false statement, I can't overlook that.
I'm actually indifferent regarding the bill but expect people to discuss it fairly. In the event the bill passes, suits alleging criminal and negligent acts on the part of gun dealers/manufacturers can still go forward. It merely relieves their liability in the event the gun was used illegally by a third party.
And, at gun shows, buyers are subject to the same laws if they were at a gun store.
And i will not lighten up so long as misleading claims regarding guns are concerned.
Regards,
-SayUncle