xturner

CT lawmaker - “how much ammo do you need?”


Just another Women’s Studies genius to help all us ignorant bastards that are cursed by living in reality.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Not sure if serious.

The ordinance affects companies which have donated money to (sponsored) the NRA, or otherwise conducted business with it. In other words, if a company in the printing business accepted an order from the NRA to print pamphlets, they will be required to disclose that fact.

Makes sense (from an ultra-lib) standpoint if you are trying to decrease the amount of funding available to the NRA or make it difficult for them to do business with companies in California- imply that you are going to blackball any company which donates money to, or receives orders from, the NRA.

It's also a good way of coloring public perception of the NRA. "Oh, man, this group is so evil that companies which do business with it are required to DISCLOSE that fact!" In a few years, we'll start to see clickbait headlines about some random city councilman who hired a lawncare company which "had failed to disclose its previous connections with the NRA." My interpretation: LA is playing the long-game here.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

I think it's a fairly simple game. If you're a Democrat and want to get ahead in the party, you need to set yourself apart in extreme ways to get noticed by the power-players. Coming up with with **** like this is one way to please Feinstein at least. The councilman who wrote it, Mitch O'Farrel will probably be appointed by the Mayor to a higher position... then accuse the mayor of sexual assault and run for Mayor. Then run for state congress. Then claim native american 1/64 and become a Senator, then Governor... and in 20 years, be a Presidential hopeful... with a strong record of "taking on the NRA".

The problem for him is that it's tough to stand out as a Democrat in California, that's at war with Oregon and Washinton to be the most "woke" state on the left coast. Ocasio-Cortez could likely be appointed God-Emperor of Los Angeles County if she just showed up and flashed her ****.

A quick Google'ing reveals that O'farrel is 100% about development. His disctrict encompasses Hollywood. My guess is that there is a large LA contractor/developer/real-estate whatever that voted for Trump who he wants to "out" so he can funnel business to some company owned by one of Feinsteins cousins.

What really sucks for the people of Los Angeles, is that the first company who actually does have a "tie" to the NRA... and doesn't win a bid where they were clearly the best candidate... will sue the city to the tune of tens or hundreds of millions that will be paid by taxpayers.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

z31maniac

Breaking News from April 2016!

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

did you have a point? would it matter if the video was from 1995?

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

You're just mad that this story isn't out of OK.

Be happy that you have a strong Contitutional Conservative as Governor now who will sign permitless carry when it gets to him.

z31maniac

Hardly chief. In reality, I'm not worried about permitless carry. Ultimately, anyone who wants to carry a gun, legally or not, is just going to do it. Criminality be damned.

As for the "strong Constitutional Conservative" governor? Nah, he's a bonafide crook who had his own company barred from doing business in the state until he stacked the committee after being elected, he never voted in an Oklahoma gubernatorial election until he himself ran for office, and he and his kind in the state house constantly propose or pass laws, that go explicitly against the state constitution, which costs us wasted money and time in court, to play to the religious base of this state.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

I'm going to stray off topic for a moment to address the comment above.

I'm just an amateur student of the teachings of Jesus, but he was pretty outspoken against legislation of morality. He said he wanted people to do things willingly because they knew it was the right thing to do. He said the people who behave a certain way only because of the compulsion of law are worse than those who don't follow any law, because they're Hypocrites at a minimum.

Your politicians are either poor scholars of what they're purporting to follow or more likely just pandering as politicians so often do.

Jesus's teachings were far more libertarian than many of his more vocal followers would lead you to believe.

z31maniac

Correct.

Sorry, there are things I love about Oklahoma, but many of the idiots who live that constantly vote against their own interests just because someone goes to church blows my mind.

But this state was literally founded by cheaters, who then try to use Jesus as a moral compass. It's mind boggling.

Diamond Dave

I thoroughly enjoyed that.

Oregon is definitely racing California to be more inept. California with their ammunition background check wasn't stupid enough for the Oregon legislature; not by a long shot. Oregon is introducing a bill that limits magazine size to 5 rounds AND limits monthly ammunition purchases to 20 cartridges. Another bill would further restrict the rights of Concealed Carry holders from additional public places.

confiscated guns used by criminals in Chicago




Military fully automatic M16



can anyone explain how limiting the access to semi-automatic weapons to law-abiding citizens, that go through comprehensive background checks will help curb "gun violence" ?

BGordon

Probably has something to do with stolen guns that end up I the hands of criminals.
Just like other boys, criminals like bigger toys.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Presumably, most of the guns being used by criminals to commit crimes were not stolen or purchased from the police or the military, but rather from law-abiding citizens.

Comprehensive background checks are not the end goal, they're an intermediate step. The end goal is to eliminate all firearms and ammunition from the civilian hands. Once that's done, there will be no more privately-owned guns for criminals to steal / purchase and then use to commit crimes with. They'll have to start using knives / baseball bats, etc., and then we'll start the process every again from 1934, until all potentially harmful things have been legislated out of existence.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

If they make marijuana and prostitution illegal then they will go away too. Oh wait.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Interesting headline from yesterday:

Court rules gun-maker Remington can be sued over Newtown shooting

Full text of the ruling: https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supa...1/331CR865.pdf

The specific fact at issue was whether Remington irresponsibly marketed the AR-15 to young people, extolling its virtues as a military, rather than a sporting, gun.


Excerpts from the court's ruling:


"The plaintiffs’ second theory of liability was that the defendants marketed the rifle, through advertising and product catalogs, in an unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous manner by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of the rifle as a combat weapon that is intended to be used for the purposes of waging war and killing human beings. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants advertised this rifle differently from how they would promote and sell rifles intended for legal civilian purposes such as hunting and recreation."


"(1) Remington allegedly marketed its assault rifles to young men who play violent, first person shooter video games and who, as a class, have a history of using such rifles in real mass shootings, and (2) there is evidence that individuals who legally purchase weapons such as the AR-15 often share the weapons with family members, including young men."

Roda

That's some serious lawyer BS talk, right there.

The sugar filled cereals marketed towards kids by Kellogs, General Mills and others probably do far more actual harm than the millions of AR15s in circulation...

Not to mention, the marketing of the gun is irrelevant to the Sandy Hook incident, since the gun was obtained illegally. The shooter murdered the gun's owner, he didn't buy it...

This ruling is simply a liberal state court decision designed to skirt Federal Law on the issue and allow a frivolous suit against Remington to proceed.

BGordon

This state Supreme Court ruling is headed for the Federal Supreme Court, no question about it.

If she lives that long we will see what sort of dissenting opinion Ginsberg writes unless the court actually agrees with the state court idiots then her opinion will be the majority opinion.
She has been wanting to pen a gun related opinion for years and years but has been stifled by how few gun focused cases the Supreme Court agrees to hear.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Following the CT case, it has nothing to do with gun “ownership” or how they were obtained. If the plaintiffs can convince a jury that the mfg, in this case Remington, by way of marketing, managed to “manipulate” or “cause” the shooter to commit the crime then it served it’s purpose. From a legal perspective, it’s a pretty slick way to circumnavigate a federal law within that one state and provide a path to the biggest pool of money.

In the end, whatever decision(s) comes from it would be appealed into eternity anyway.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

^ This.

The court cited several parallel rulings, demonstrating that manufacturers could be guilty of negligence if their advertising led someone to injure themselves or others by imitating the activity depicted.

This is why all car commercials now say "Professional Driver on a Closed Course: Do Not Attempt" every time they depict a vehicle in motion, even if it's just backing into a parking space.

Examples given were:

• Advertising that depicts young children operating bicycles and tricycles in an unsafe or unlawful manner; In re AMF, Inc., 95 F.T.C. 310, 313–14 (1980);
• Advertising the use of electric hairdryers by children in close proximity to a filled bathroom sink; In re Mego International, Inc., 92 F.T.C. 186, 189–90 (1978);
• Advertising that depicts children attempting to cook food without close adult supervision; In re Uncle Ben’s, Inc., 89 F.T.C. 131, 136 (1977)

(@Robb M. , it sure would be neat if that bullet list were intended. It'd make me not look like an incompetent moron who doesn't know how to format text.)


And it's not like Remington's advertising of the AR15 actually focused much on the weapon itself. (Build quality, reliability, etc.) It was all about how owning a rifle that's "good enough for the professional" will make you a man.