Comments on: The Obligatory “Obama May Use Executive Orders to Effect Gun Control” Post

By: Milhouse

Milhouse — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:01:03 +0000

Speaking of which, here’s a question for y’all: I remember reading a few years ago that gun manufacturers were small businesses that didn’t make much money and were constantly on the verge of bankruptcy, which is why a successful lawsuit could bring them down. That’s why Congress protected them. But recently I’ve read that they’re doing well enough that pension funds and hedge funds are invested in them. What gives? Has everything changed in the last few years?

By: Milhouse

Milhouse — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:55:17 +0000

Now that’s one thing Biden might want to propose be changed, but this is almost a technical issue, and, most likely, he won’t touch that, because allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for allowing their guns to be sold by stores that weren’t careful enough might easily turn the gun industry into the asbestos industry. Their liability insurance would rise to the sky, they’d risk bankruptcy and probably have to shut down.

Duh. That was the whole point.

By: Milhouse

Milhouse — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:54:03 +0000

Of course there was Fast and Furious and similar “investigations” where the stores that routinely allowed straw buyers to buy guns were known to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and this was allowed to continue, supposedly in order to catch “bigger fish.”

Say what?! Are you on drugs, or do you live in some alternative universe where this happened? Those dealers reported their suspicions, and were ordered to make the sales.

By: Milhouse

Milhouse — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:49:34 +0000

You only need a parade permit if you’re going to walk on the road and block traffic. You always have the right to walk together on the footpath, holding signs and shouting or singing, without any notice to anybody. So the equivalent with guns would be requiring a permit to set up a shooting range on a public street; and guess what, that’s already required, and in fact is probably impossible to get, and nobody on the right objects to this. So you can take that strawman away and burn it.

By: redc1c4

redc1c4 — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:58:38 +0000

hey askeptic! if your shop is anywhere in the greater LA area, drop Pat a note or add “@drunkenbastardsDOTorg” to my nick, and i’ll talk Resident Evil into coming buy and seeing if you have anything left to sell.

before Kman gets around to banning everything that is.

By: Gazzer

Gazzer — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 05:03:14 +0000

I’ll just sit here and eat cake…

By: Gazzer

Gazzer — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 05:02:28 +0000

Sammy, back in the day Billy Jeff decided that, going forward, all ex-Presidents would only receive 10 years of SS protection. Starting right after him, of course. This new law re-instates life-long protection for Barry and Bush 43 and all future presidents, as I believe it should.
However, the timing, as Barry works to take away my guns, is a little tone deaf. Especially, as it is moot for another 4 years.

By: askeptic

askeptic — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 04:37:53 +0000

Yes, just another loophole….though, here in CA I have to get a right thumb print from whomever submits it, so that they can’t in the future say “It wasn’t me” when they come to arrest them for a straw-purchase, or perjury, or whatever.

By: askeptic

askeptic — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 04:35:45 +0000

That’s it daley, I’m reporting you to Bloomie.

By: daleyrocks

daleyrocks — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 04:33:17 +0000

askeptic @270 – That form is just a loophole, right? I filled one out last week.