• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Gun Makers Are Responsible?

Mike

Well-known member
Jesse Jackson was on America’s Newsroom today to discuss gun control. Jackson said assault weapons are a threat to national security. Jackson also said gun manufacturers should be held responsible for shootings.

“These semi-automatic weapons, these assault weapon, can only kill people and in fact are threats to national security. The young man who did the killing in Aurora, Colorado with the arsenal he had. He was right near the airport, right near the runways near the airport in Denver. He could shoot down airplanes. so this is a matter of homeland security… We need to make manufacturers more accountable for their product.“

It would be a lawyer’s dream.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
I believe this is not the first time the idiots on the left have made this argument. Would be alot more justifiable to sue the welfare state for the degradation of society.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Gunmakers responsible......maybe...in a cosmetic sort of way.


If the mfgs of these AR 15, etc assault type looking weapons would NOT make them look so military, my guess is that the infatuation with them and the ' look' would decrease.

They make the guns look ' sexy', like guns in movies, pink ones for women and so forth.

The cosmetic look of a gun does nothing for it's ability to shoot better or worse, that the person holding it that's in charge of it's performance.

Remember way back when when a rifle had a wooden stock and just a reg. steel barrel. It still shot just as good.

Me, personally, I would rather have a handsome piece of walnut for a stock and a chunk of plastic!

I say the US is suffering from LD Syndrome...Little Dick Syndrome. Everything owned has to be bigger and badder ( looking) to make up for some deficiencies.

After all, all these shooters are of the male species!

:wink:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Gunmakers responsible......maybe...in a cosmetic sort of way.


If the mfgs of these AR 15, etc assault type looking weapons would NOT make them look so military, my guess is that the infatuation with them and the ' look' would decrease.

They make the guns look ' sexy', like guns in movies, pink ones for women and so forth.

The cosmetic look of a gun does nothing for it's ability to shoot better or worse, that the person holding it that's in charge of it's performance.

Remember way back when when a rifle had a wooden stock and just a reg. steel barrel. It still shot just as good.

Me, personally, I would rather have a handsome piece of walnut for a stock and a chunk of plastic!

I say the US is suffering from LD Syndrome...Little Dick Syndrome. Everything owned has to be bigger and badder ( looking) to make up for some deficiencies.

After all, all these shooters are of the male species!

:wink:

On further evaluation it just proves how shallow the left really is on guns
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
so you'd go with an AK47 Kola?


Maybe they could only ban the "assault weapon", when it comes to these 2, seeing as it is about killing power


:roll:


th50d1f4dd.jpg



jh50d1f4f0.jpg
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Now, ya'll done went and got your feelins' hurt and are gettin' all pizzy cause I said you had a little dick!!

So I take it you think the cooler a gun looks the better it shoots!!


I stick with the LD Syndrome Dx!!
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Now, ya'll done went and got your feelins' hurt and are gettin' all pizzy cause I said you had a little dick!!

So I take it you think the cooler a gun looks the better it shoots!!


I stick with the LD Syndrome Dx!!

Nobody but you mentioned Little dick, you the one fixated on them. :roll:


Why did the government when they bailed out GM not tell them they could only make one style of automobile?

Since when does everyone have to have the same taste how they want things to look. Freedom of choice? Are we China of the 70's where everybody wore a uniform?

Have you ever bought a pair of shoes because you liked the color?
 

Mike

Well-known member
I once read a story about how Diane Feinstein chose which guns she wanted to ban in her Bill.

She looked through a catalog and chose the ones that "Looked" more dangerous than others.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Mike said:
I once read a story about how Diane Feinstein chose which guns she wanted to ban in her Bill.

She looked through a catalog and chose the ones that "Looked" more dangerous than others.


You are taking for granted that everyone should know about guns, they don't and that's where I say education of firearms and all weaponry it valuable!

And, you just took this back to my original post and point, it's a visual trigger for most people...some more than others!


That may be, and prob is, the reason these guys go for the AR's and AK's...instead of the .22mag's.
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Mike said:
I once read a story about how Diane Feinstein chose which guns she wanted to ban in her Bill.

She looked through a catalog and chose the ones that "Looked" more dangerous than others.


You are taking for granted that everyone should know about guns, they don't and that's where I say education of firearms and all weaponry it valuable!

And, you just took this back to my original post and point, it's a visual trigger for most people...some more than others!

The ones writing the laws should at least educate themselves before wanting to limit any gun types they know little to nothing about.

"Assault Weapons" are defined as a "Machine Gun" type weapon and they have been highly regulated since the 1930's.

Trends come and trends go, but the "Bruthas" with pistols and/or revolvers kill more people by far than any other gun type in the U.S.

If we must regulate guns to a higher degree, this is where we should start.

The "Mental Health" issue in this debate puzzles me as much as anything else. Who decides who is crazy or not? And how?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Mike said:
kolanuraven said:
Mike said:
I once read a story about how Diane Feinstein chose which guns she wanted to ban in her Bill.

She looked through a catalog and chose the ones that "Looked" more dangerous than others.


You are taking for granted that everyone should know about guns, they don't and that's where I say education of firearms and all weaponry it valuable!

And, you just took this back to my original post and point, it's a visual trigger for most people...some more than others!

The ones writing the laws should at least educate themselves before wanting to limit any gun types they know little to nothing about.

"Assault Weapons" are defined as a "Machine Gun" type weapon and they have been highly regulated since the 1930's.

Trends come and trends go, but the "Bruthas" with pistols and/or revolvers kill more people by far than any other gun type in the U.S.

If we must regulate guns to a higher degree, this is where we should start.

The "Mental Health" issue in this debate puzzles me as much as anything else. Who decides who is crazy or not? And how?


Sentence #1...I would agree with

Sentence#2... maybe the 'definition' needs to be revisited as technology has advanced greatly

Sentence#3... Sad but true

Sentence#4... We must ENFORCE the laws we presently have .

Sentence#5... I kinda agree with this. A problem is the people who ARE NOT identified as having " mental" issues until a horrible scene happens. Those who are already known, that's another issue totally.
 

Steve

Well-known member
I have to agree with Kola a bit.. in that liberals are "terrified" by appearances..

they fear a white man and a black gun... the feminization of liberal Obama supporters is appalling.. but to deal with that fact we must accept that liberal perception.

they also ignore that most criminals would take the same evil looking gun.. even if it was unable to fire... :?

so to counter their stupid proposals.. we should fight back.. on appearances..

First.. no film, movie comic book and video game ect shall have a banned or outlawed weapon or clip without an x rating for violence..

any film showing a person shooting more then a standard 5 round clip or killing another person must be rendered non-violant, as well as any past movies will be confiscated / destroyed if not rendered non-violent.


No non-military government official can use a semi-automatic weapon in his/her duties.. if the public can't have it, no point the EPA, IRS or the police having them..

the rational is that the liberal public is scared and acts out.. criminals feel outgunned .. thus the police having big scary guns recruits more violent criminals..

once those two pass.. then we can negotiate the rest of their stupid ideas..

see what standing in an hour long line at a gun show does... :twisted: :twisted:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I agree that mental health issues should be one of the top concerns-
BUT
the cost of adequate mental health treatment (including confinement for some) will be very expensive- including getting more psychiatric care workers, psych hospital units, courts, judges, and prosecuters just to name a few ...

Luckily some of that is already addressed in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) :

Mental Health Care Benefits Under Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

By Psych Central News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on July 2, 2012

Mental Health Care Benefits Under Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enacted by Congress in 2010. The only provision that was struck down was the federal government’s ability to coerce states to expand their Medicare program to help cover the poor.

Mental health care will benefit much like regular health care under the new law.

Under the provisions of the new law, people with low income and who cannot currently afford insurance will also have greater access to an expanded version of Medicaid, the federal/state program for the poor and disabled. It’s expected that eventually the new law will help 30 million more Americans enjoy health care coverage.

Although many of the law’s provisions will take years to fully implement, this is Psych Central’s analysis of the Affordable Care Act, as it pertains to mental health care:

•Mental health care will become more accessible to more people. With the passage of the federal mental health parity law a few years ago, many (but not all) insurers were required to treat mental disorders with the same coverage limits as any other disease or health concern. While this has helped many people obtain needed treatment without having to jump through as many insurance company hoops, it hasn’t really mattered much to the poor — who didn’t have insurance coverage in the first place.
With more people obtaining either private insurance or joining an expanded Medicaid program, the bet is that more people who have inexpensive access to mental health treatment.

•People won’t be denied coverage based upon their pre-existing condition. This is huge for many people with mental health concerns.
Changing employers or insurance providers often meant having to pretend that a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis didn’t exist. The new law says that you can’t discriminate against a person because of a pre-existing condition. This means that more people will get the care they need and have it covered by their insurance plan.
It also means an insurance plan can’t cancel your coverage for a pre-existing condition, something that was problematic for many in the past.

•People will get better overall care. The law is designed to help increase incentives to physicians and other health and mental health professionals to look after people across the entire continuum of care — holistically, not just Patient X presenting with Z symptoms. It’s also focused on preventative care, which can help keep a person out of the hospital.
Research suggests that this sort of integrated, coordinated care is ultimately beneficial to the patient. It can help catch health issues before they become more serious concerns. It can also ensure that if a person gets a life-threatening diagnosis, they’re also seen by a professional for their emotional health needs.

•Medication coverage gap in Medicare remains filled. If you’re a senior and enrolled in Medicare, the law has already helped save on your prescriptions. With the high cost of many psychiatric prescriptions, the law helped cut the amount a person pays for their name-brand drugs by half when they were in the “donut hole” (between $2,930 and $4,700 in total prescription costs).
This helps to ensure that seniors who need their psychiatric medications can continue to afford to take them.


Much of the law will be implemented in pieces over the next five to 10 years, but some components of the law are already in place. These components include insurance companies being forbidden to put a lifetime limit on the amount of health care dollars they spend on any single individual, and insurance companies being forbidden to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
 
Top