Nashville School Shooting

[UnionStrong]

Not trying to get picky but IMO everything after the word unconstitutional in your post meets my understanding of what constitutes a straw man argument (one of my new words).

Trying to keep to the actual discussion, you said “unconstitutional”. How?

It’s not a straw man argument. It merely points out the absurdity of your argument. Where do you draw the line? Life is dangerous.

 

[UnionStrong]

Don't forget the car companies!

Especially

 

[vantexan]

Don't forget the car companies!

Oops, saw that you mentioned cars above.

 

[Integrity]

Nope, I think I got it 100% right.

Doesn’t seem that way to me?

All good.

And I noticed you went back and edited your post before replying to me.

I edited the word “funded” to “fund”.

You said the gun corporations should be held liable for all vetting failures.

Yes

So if a criminal act is committed with a gun who is held liable?

That all depends upon what is found during an investigation, I guess.

The perpetrator?

If found guilty, yes.

The gun corporation?

Possibly, I guess.

Both?

Possibly, I guess

 

[Integrity]

Don't forget the car companies!

I suggest you start a thread on this one too. You won’t.

 

[UnionStrong]

Doesn’t seem that way to me?

All good.

I edited the word “funded” to “fund”.

Yes

That all depends upon what is found during an investigation, I guess.

If found guilty, yes.

Possibly, I guess.

Possibly, I guess

Back door way to get guns out of the hands of the law abiding, go after the manufacturer. The Democrats have been trying to do it for years. I guess we know where you stand now.

 

[Integrity]

It’s not a straw man argument. It merely points out the absurdity of your argument. Where do you draw the line? Life is dangerous.

Trying to keep to the actual discussion, you said “unconstitutional”. How?

 

[vantexan]

I suggest you start a thread on this one too. You won’t.

I'm sorry, didn't know it was your thread and you could control what is said between two other posters. You should start a thread on this. You probably will.

 

[Integrity]

I'm sorry, didn't know it was your thread and you could control what is said between two other posters. You should start a thread on this. You probably will.

My bad it was just a suggestion.

I retract both thread starting suggestions I have made.

Please forgive me.

Peace be with you.

 

[UnionStrong]

Not trying to get picky but IMO everything after the word unconstitutional in your post meets my understanding of what constitutes a straw man argument (one of my new words).

Trying to keep to the actual discussion, you said “unconstitutional”. How?

Is a drug manufacturer responsible for vetting the end user? An auto maker? A knife maker? Et cetera. Of course not. Why? Because it would never hold up in court. I don’t know what it would fall under, but I know it would be thrown out of court.

 

[vantexan]

My bad it was just a suggestion.

I retract both thread starting suggestions I have made.

Please forgive me.

Peace be with you.

You are forgiven. Now go thy way and sin no more.

 

[vantexan]

Is a drug manufacturer responsible for vetting the end user? An auto maker? A knife maker? Et cetera. Of course not. Why? Because it would never hold up in court. I don’t know what it would fall under, but I know it would be thrown out of court.

And he can't seem to grasp that the sheer expense of vetting every gun purchaser, paying for their psych evaluations, and being held liable in court for damages for every illegal act committed with their product would bankrupt gun companies. Apparently he thinks they have an endless supply of money to pay for it all. Either that or he knows damn well what he's saying and wants to bankrupt the gun companies.

 

[Integrity]

Is a drug manufacturer responsible for vetting the end user? An auto maker? A knife maker? Et cetera. Of course not. Why?

I never mentioned any of these things. Not part of my argument point of view.

Because it would never hold up in court. I don’t know what it would fall under, but I know it would be thrown out of court.

This is an interesting hypothetical.

Trying to keep to the actual discussion, you said “unconstitutional”. How?

 

[UnionStrong]

And he can't seem to grasp that the sheer expense of vetting every gun purchaser, paying for their psych evaluations, and being held liable in court for damages for every illegal act committed with their product would bankrupt gun companies. Apparently he thinks they have an endless supply of money to pay for it all. Either that or he knows damn well what he's saying and wants to bankrupt the gun companies.

The latter. IMO he’s anti gun, but wants to sound “reasonable”. Wolf in sheep’s clothing. Smell them a mile away, always the same schtick.

 

[Integrity]

And he can't seem to grasp that the sheer expense of vetting every gun purchaser, paying for their psych evaluations, and being held liable in court for damages for every illegal act committed with their product would bankrupt gun companies. Apparently he thinks they have an endless supply of money to pay for it all. Either that or he knows damn well what he's saying and wants to bankrupt the gun companies.

I have no desire either front door or back door to bankrupt gun manufacturers.

This is simple a false assumption made by those who make it.

 

[UnionStrong]

I never mentioned any of these things. Not part of my argument point of view.


This is an interesting hypothetical.

Trying to keep to the actual discussion, you said “unconstitutional”. How?

Your argument is specious, sir. And I said i didn’t know where it fell constitutionally, but it wouldn’t hold up in court. It’s been tried, and it failed.

 

[vantexan]

I have no desire either front door or back door to bankrupt gun manufacturers.

This is simple a false assumption made by those who make it.

We just try to deduce the meaning of vague statements.

 

[Integrity]

The latter. IMO he’s anti gun, but wants to sound “reasonable”. Wolf in sheep’s clothing. Smell them a mile away, always the same schtick.

I am 100% pro gun.

I am 100% pro increased corporate responsibility in the legal selling and distribution of firearms.

 

[Integrity]

Your argument is specious, sir. And I said i didn’t know where it fell constitutionally, but it wouldn’t hold up in court. It’s been tried, and it failed.

So it’s not unconstitutional to your knowledge?

 

[Integrity]

We just try to deduce the meaning of vague statements.

Not sure about this one?