Sandy Hook- It's the guns fault, it's always the guns fault.

How are safe drivers and non-polluters penalized? People are safe drivers until they’re not. And if we didn’t have regulations we would all be polluters. I have to assume you don’t have children so that you could be that in different to the air they breathe. But maybe you don’t eat in restaurants where food is inspected. We should do away with that so they can serve horse meat and roach infested food. We should be able to drive anywhere and anyway we want.

 

You can't follow a simple discussion.

 

Yes; it means you can be called to keep and bear Arms for your State or the Union. There is no excuse to not have an Army Group in reserve under the federal doctrine.

 

special pleading and appealing to ignorance are fallacies; only the nine hundred ninety-nine, do that.

 

We were talking about governmental powers and you started rambling idiotically about the second amendment. Pointing out your scatter brained nonsense isn't special pleading or appealing to ignorance.

You abandoned a topic, I assume it's because you are incompetent.

 

There is no such thing as a person that is a non polluter if we consider carbon dioxide pollution.

We are all polluters. If you use any form of transportation you pollute if you exhale you pollute.

If this is an argument for more gun restriction it is a stupid one. Gun ownership and possession is heavily restricted.

 

Non sequitur. Again. Additionally providing for calling forth the militia is not in the 2a. That's not how the BOR works. Art 1 Sec 8 is where that power is provided.

 

unless specified by the customer or the seller, the normative state of coffee (and tea) the world over is hot. hot liquids do carry an inherent risk. as it is known that these beverages are served hot, and the seller's product is conforming to worldwide standards, the responsibility rests with the customer to handle them appropriately and with due care once received from the seller. in the mcdonalds case, the lady who burned her cooch would have a case if a mcdonalds employee spilled the coffee on her. but that is not what happened. she misused the product thus causing her injuries. when i order a fajita plate, the restaurant always informs me not to touch the plate because it is extremely hot. this is not common knowledge as it is for coffee, hence the purveyor has a special obligation to inform me of the potential hazard.

are you a medical professional? how can make this claim? please define "the proper temperature," counselor.

conductive and convective heat loss already insure this. but as the liquid does need to boil during the preparation process, it is a reasonable expectation that the resulting beverage will be hot. very hot in fact. you may need to blow on it, or add some chilled cream... the last thing you should evert do is put it between your legs. darwin award...

i am not the topic of this thread, counselor.

wrong. the one person responsible for the vaginal trauma is the owner of said vagina. by placing the cup between her legs while sitting in a motor vehicle, she and she alone is responsible for her injuries.

i never claimed it was served "roiling," nor is it. as i'm sure you know, water stops boiling almost immediately when removed from the heat source. i ask again, what is the "proper temperature"? and will you assign any of the blame to the customer who misused the product?

i was lamenting the fact that some ambulance chasers are looking to line their pockets. this was not an indictment of the legal profession. i am not offended, just trying to teach you something about civility.

[/quote]Because you dont want to catch a homicide charge since your liable for your backstop absolutely?[/QUOTE]
it would not be homicide if it were an accidental shooting. you said you are a lawyer?

we do it for one simple reason: it is the right thing to do. as firearms are designed to propel a projectile to a specified velocity and on a given vector, the potential to injure someone far down range from the discharge site is real. we would not want to cause injury to another person, so we take extraordinary measures to insure that doesn't happen. my point? when you fire a gun, the outcome of that act is solely your responsibility. you own that bullet until it stops. it is not glock's responsibility, not sig sauer's, not smith&wesson's, and not remington's. suing them for the actions of someone else is the height of absurdity.

 

I was being sarcastic. Obviously, regulations, rules, laws, controls....are necessary and useful, especially to those that actually follow the rules.

 

Because you dont want to catch a homicide charge since your liable for your backstop absolutely?
it would not be homicide if it were an accidental shooting. you said you are a lawyer?
[/QUOTE]
we do it for one simple reason: it is the right thing to do. as firearms are designed to propel a projectile to a specified velocity and on a given vector, the potential to injure someone far down range from the discharge site is real. we would not want to cause injury to another person, so we take extraordinary measures to insure that doesn't happen. my point? when you fire a gun, the outcome of that act is solely your responsibility. you own that bullet until it stops. it is not glock's responsibility, not sig sauer's, not smith&wesson's, and not remington's. suing them for the actions of someone else is the height of absurdity.[/QUOTE]


Hot is not then boiling. One is appropriate the other is not. FFS lady Fajita plates are exactly what we're talking about: If they serve you food that cannot then be safely consumed, or if extreme care must be taken to do so, a warning is required. Hence when they serve you coffee hot enough to leave terrible, thick scarring from tissue damage because it is so far above normal serving temperature (which while hot remains consumable without tissue damage), it is required they warn you of same.

You don't need to be a medical professional to know that liquids are not intended to be consumed while at a temperature sufficient to cause tissue damage lady. You're being hysterical again.

Odd, they didn't in the McDonalds case where the product was served then boiling into its container.

When you're running off at the mouth all into the weeds like that? Sure you are.

Not true, the damage would not have occurred with coffee at a servable temperature rather than then at boiling point.

I'm sorry, are you not familiar with the facts of the case? The liquid was served at a roiling boil in the cup.

She was assigned blame, have you never read the case lady? Just not all of it and not more than mcdonalds who committed the tort by serving the food stuff at a dangerous temperature in a flimsy container without warning. The proper temperature, as it applies to this discussion about avoidance of liability by the server, should be 1 degree less than that temperature which would cause tissue damage. If its hot enough to cause tissue damage, its too hot to serve to someone when you're billing the product as "consume now". IF you billed it as "consume in 5" or "consume at own risk", now that's a different story, as you've warned them. But when you bill it as "consume now"? It must be safe to do so without injury.

Perhaps you should read the case before you go running off at the mouth about it? Most of your pearl clutching outrage is answered in the case. Honestly, is it REALLY such an imposition to ask that you be familiar with what you're bringing into the discussion? Is it me? Am I being unreasonable expecting people to know what they're talking about when they bring something up?

You seem mildly offended by the quips. As I am by yours. Squarzies.

Sure and legal liability I'm sure never once enters into your thought processes I'd also like to speak with you about purchasing ocean front property outside of Phoenix.

Again I agree suing the manufacturer would be a non-starter, for numerous reasons, that doesn't mean its not what's at issue in the case, nor does describing the theory make me a proponent. Enhance your calm.

If you don't check your backstop and you shoot your gun and kill someone that's negligent homicide lady. Homicide means death of a person, not murder 1. It can be reckless homicide (or depraved heart murder as its called) if you first realize by not checking your backstop you are substantially likely to kill someone and you think to yourself "ah **** it who cares". Still homicide.
Again: Is it TRULY unreasonable to expect you to know ANYTHING AT ALL about the topics you bring up?

 

Thank you.

So all laws infringe.

Yet gun people go on about "shall not be infringed".

And, gun people also support laws, including gun/weapon laws.

So gun people support infringement.

You can say all you want about why one infringement is okay with you, and another is not...

but you simply can't have it both ways, in regard to the 2nd Amendment. You can't go on and on and on and on about how it's all there in the 2nd, and then turn around and say it's not all there. It depends, etc etc etc.

So, well, that changes everything, don't it.

 

Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of a free State; we should have no security problems in our free States by organizing more militia of the People.

 

simply referencing the necessity of well regulated militia for the security of a free State makes calling forth the militia, not incurring the cost of alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror right wing doesn't believe in Paying for, but financing.

 

That's just a random string of phrases. I've long suspected you of being a bot. Ever since uspoliticsonline.
Sloppy.

 

This has nothing to do with the division an of power.

You're just way out in the field picking daises.

 

sounds like an inferior failed attempt at reasoning.

 

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State; our State legislators should be organizing more militia until we have no security problems in our free States.

 

More evasion if the discussion.

What are you afraid of?

 

I provided a common law based solution; what are you afraid of; "hard work"?

 

No; the people are the people, and the right cited belongs to every citizen. Or are you going to argue the right of free speech belongs to the state and not to the people??

 

Those who claim the Constitution is a "living document" want to be able to enact laws without regard to the Constitution. The ONLY way to modify the Constitution is through the legal process laid out within the Constitution itself; you cannot ignore the Constitution just because you find it inconvenient to an agenda, like most gun controllers like to do.

 

That's not what the Constitution says, and the "collective rights" argument has been utterly rejected by the Supreme Court.

 

There is no way to eliminate all danger to people. "Safety" is, for the most part, an illusion.

I am armed to defend myself, and alive today because of that choice. I also make decisions not related to firearms, such as to not go to open air concerts where I can be trapped in a crush of humanity cranked up on alcohol and drugs. Especially now, in the time of terrorism, it makes no sense to expose oneself in such a manner.

We live in a time of war, and it behooves us to comport ourselves as such.

 

Japan is an authoritarian state. But, if you think they're so awesome, you're welcome to move there.

 

You are perfectly justified in pursuing a Constitutional Amendment to alter the 2nd if you wish.

You can't just dismiss the 2nd Amendment because a new weapon gets developed.