What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Scary Quiz - Do you have what it takes to attract women? view!
doubleyourdating.com - Think you know a thing or two about meeting women? Take this quiz and find out...
65 Comments
- inactive, on 03/09/2009, -6/+63This is a very good thing. It's too bad that the legal businesses can't get back their money that they spent in defending themselves. Having a "loser pays" system would force the government to mind its business.
- SuperVepr308, on 03/09/2009, -6/+55I completely agree with Russet. NYC should foot the bill for the legal fees. This was frivolous from the get-go and they should not be allowed to just take the loss and move on. Using the courts to try to bankrupt an industry with no ramifications is not justice. I would support a punitive judgement as well.
- novaculus, on 03/09/2009, -2/+40
FTA:
"The law, formally the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, banned suits against the firearms industry, except when a plaintiff could prove that gun makers had violated state or federal statutes in their sales and marketing practices.
In its suit, New York City contended that the gun makers had done just that, by failing to monitor firearms retailers closely enough and thus allowing guns to end up in the hands of criminals. Therefore, the city argued, the manufacturers had created a “condition that negatively affects the public health or safety,” and consequently were in violation of New York State’s public-nuisance law.
But the federal appeals court, in the ruling that the Supreme Court declined on Monday to reconsider, said the public-nuisance law did not create an exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that would allow a suit." - rebrad, on 03/09/2009, -5/+42Unfortunately, this is only a battle loss to the our socialist overlords. They will use other attack strategies until they find one that will inflect economic pain to gun manufactures. They've been in this assault on freedom and justice for over a century and now they have the Obamanites on their side. As for the other point of "loser pays" you have to remember that they aren't playing with their money. They are using the wealth confiscated from the people they purport to represent so they wouldn't look at that as a deterrent.
- wilgeno, on 03/09/2009, -10/+35I think it is California that is now trying to ban ammunition. They failed at banning guns, so they are going after the bullets. This is only one battle won on our side, the war still rages on.
Can you imagine the news media if the Government trying to restrict the freedom of the press? By this I mean if they actually told ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN what to report or not report. The MSM would revolt (unless they're being told what to report by Obama and they agree with it). Liberals have no issues with limiting the Second Amendment. They have limited the First Amendment by placing restrictions of the Free Exercise of Religion in schools and laws governing politically correct speech have restricted our Freedom Of Speech.
If you want to have a free country in four years you better get off your back sides and stop this now and vote Conservatives into the House of Representatives in 2010. - inactive, on 03/10/2009, -2/+26Virginia Techs occur BECAUSE of gun control, not in spite of it. Shooters go to places like churches and universities and schools because they know they will not face armed opposition. When have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a firing range, a police station or a gun club meeting?
- supercandy, on 03/09/2009, -7/+30* thankful GW Bush got Roberts and Alito on the SC.
- inactive, on 03/10/2009, -5/+27It's about time. Bloomberg seems to think HE is president. Here in Virginia, we had to pass legislation to keep his thugs out of the state.
- inactive, on 03/10/2009, -4/+26Guns are used defensively more than two million times a year. Most of the time, just the sight of a gun will deter a criminal. Private ownership of guns is the most cost-effective form of crime prevention we have. Self-defense is a human right, not a political right. When seconds count, police are only minutes away.
- spritom, on 03/09/2009, -2/+23FTA: New York City’s nine-year lawsuit
So what's a bank of attorneys cost for 9 years? - illDecree, on 03/10/2009, -2/+22i guess we should sue manufacturers of gardening equipment for flooding the illicit drug market with tools to grow marijuana too, right?
- jmones, on 03/10/2009, -7/+26Why do people think that the founding fathers were too stupid to know that guns kill people? Guns guarantee your rights more than any piece of paper and they knew that better than anyone. That's why it was put in the Bill of Rights directly after the freedom of speech.
- URnotheonly1, on 03/10/2009, -2/+199 years of wasted tax payers money on a case that was never going to win so lawyers could have a 10 year job
- active1x0, on 03/10/2009, -3/+18This whole thing reeks of political posturing, with all of it financed by New York's taxpayers.
- shuvsqueen, on 03/10/2009, -2/+15"If you want to have a free country in four years you better get off your back sides and stop this now" (!!!!!)
- Infidelcastr0, on 03/10/2009, -1/+13Good.
Once you sell something to someone else it becomes their property, and thus their responsibility. It would be one thing if they knowingly made a defective product that blew up in someone's face or something like that, but policing retailers is the BATF/FBI/NICS, etc's job, not the manufacturer's. If anyone is to blame for allowing illegal sales through "legitimate" vendors it should be those who are supposed to enforce the laws. - inactive, on 03/10/2009, -2/+13I believe that was the same excuse used to defend slavery. Democrats never change.
- SuperVepr308, on 03/10/2009, -0/+10"What you need is smaller, much, much smaller government that doesn't get involved in such nonsense." Dude, you couldn't be more correct.
- richgustavson, on 03/10/2009, -2/+12Guns don't kill, people do!!
- faskill, on 03/10/2009, -1/+11Hmmm. How deep to go in this comment... The NY Times is a publication that espouses certain ideals. This one is more mainstream. There are other publications, ones that are capable of indirectly inciting hate and violence towards: religions, minorities, members of the opposite sex, those with different sexual orientations (preferences), etc. (think homophobic, racist, feminist etc.). These publications help to indoctrinate their base into a way of thinking that can include the notion that violence against the groups mentioned above is a correct or right thing to do. So no, it may not be death by NY Times, but free speech, with its ability to instill ideologies into the willing, can have an adverse affect on you.
Oh, and also, "...Without the 2nd amendment, there would be no first amendment." - jeffiek, on 03/10/2009, -0/+9The difficulty here is that there is no "NYC", at least not financially. That "NYC" is not an entity with assets to lose. "NYC" is a gang (see note) that will take money (taxes) from the residents in the area to pay that judgment.
What you need is smaller, much, much smaller government that doesn't get involved in such nonsense. Unfortunately, people seem to support huge, intrusive government, the kind that pisses money away. And they call libertarians crazy. Go figure.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define= ...
2 [n] an organized group of workmen
They're organized, they're a group, and they work. Don't blame me, I didn't invent the English language. - shuvsqueen, on 03/10/2009, -3/+12indeed this is a good thing!
- Demand911Truth, on 03/10/2009, -0/+9FTA:
"The court didn’t rule the way we wanted,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said at a news conference, calling the lawsuit “one part of our strategy to fight against illegal guns.”
Sorry that we won't be as easily controlled and manipulated as you might wish, Mr. Bloomberg. Now go away forever. - grey580, on 03/10/2009, -1/+10An armed society is a polite one. And a safe one also.
Look at the swiss. Gun ownership is near 100%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switz ...
If every US citizen was required to carry a gun. We'd have less crime. Cuz I'd sure as hell blow some carjacker away. - jeffiek, on 03/10/2009, -0/+8Don't be so quick. "loser pays" may have merits, but I'm not sure they apply here.
From the governments side: Why would they care? It's not their money at risk. The money they pissed away prosecuting this case didn't stop them. What's a few more bucks?
From the other side: Would you want to risk having to pay for the governments expenses? They can rack up as large a bill as they want. The outcome of a case is never certain, especially in today's world where "law" is so vague and/or complex that it can mean almost anything.
Try on a limited judicial system and see if it fits. One that would have laughed this case out of court from the beginning. One that supports real law ( see "The Law" http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G1793 ). - MisterFizzle, on 03/10/2009, -2/+10Now the state should pay the gun manufacture's legal fees.
- Nickolassc, on 03/10/2009, -1/+8It is one of the few good things he managed to get done. Although he wanted Myers. I'm not sure she would have been a very good choice.
It's probable that Ginsberg and/or Scalia will be replaced by Obama. - novaculus, on 03/10/2009, -0/+7The defense side will also be funded by taxpayers, but those taxpayers are the gun makers' customers who will pay higher prices to cover the costs of defense. All part of the hoplophobes' plans.
- inactive, on 03/10/2009, -9/+16***** you, Bloomberg.
- BadAshe86, on 03/10/2009, -0/+7True, the government wouldn't care, but how many businesses go out of business because of a warantless lawsuit? (I'm not that old, but I know of three small businesses.)
I'd love to see a study, but I suspect somebody would sue the firm doing the research. /s - RedHeadedFreak, on 03/10/2009, -4/+11I'm not religious, and I think abortion is wrong. Destroying future generations is not good from a religious and naturalistic perspective. I think it's really indefensible in 95% of the cases.
- inactive, on 03/10/2009, -3/+9one more reason to never vote for a Democrat
- Samurai77, on 03/10/2009, -0/+6Hey I think you are on to something there.
- paulvq, on 03/11/2009, -1/+7Guns are currently banned from school campuses.
Cho brought a gun into a VT building and killed more than 30 people and himself.
The Columbine killers brought guns into their school and also killed fellow students and teachers.
Did the ban stop them from murdering innocent people? - illDecree, on 03/10/2009, -0/+5@Samurai77:
Absolutely! Let's not target the real problem here, let's go after everything surrounding the REAL issue!
I'm really getting sick of this tactic.... - Samurai77, on 03/10/2009, -0/+5Sorry I guess I needed to put the /s for sarcasm, my fault I thought his post and mine were obvious enough as sarcasm.
- madtechnologist, on 03/10/2009, -1/+6I swear, there are more idiot politicians than anywhere else in the country? What? Did they all descend from the same Ivy League, crap skools? The state and city have already taxed their wealth out the state. Now they're left with a bunch of uneducated, dependent plebes that think guns are running around killing people by themselves.
- Yinepuhotep, on 03/11/2009, -0/+4Thank you, kward711, for giving me the first real laughter of my day.
Now...where should I send the bill for the pulled muscles from all that laughing? - BadAshe86, on 03/10/2009, -1/+5My father had a friend murdered "while" wielding a copy of the New York Post. He had the misfortune of working part time delivering newspapers in college and the NY Post was on strike.
- lingum, on 03/10/2009, -0/+4Holy *****, a court did something right for a change?!?
- tnrich, on 03/10/2009, -0/+3"Only religious whackos give a flying ***** about "abortion." Get a life, plz."
We have lives, and care about the lives of those who can't defend themselves. If I were you I would tremble in fear knowing that a just God will judge all of mankind. I would not want to try and explain your comment to Him. - inactive, on 03/12/2009, -0/+3Oh yes, everyone knows how safe NYC is....
/s - illDecree, on 03/10/2009, -0/+3@Samurai77:
/s
;-) - wilgeno, on 03/11/2009, -0/+2And the last time I check, no gun ever got up and just killed someone. It takes a criminal attached to the gun to kill someone illegally.
Millions of law abiding gun owners have never killed a person with or without their guns. - ShindeKudasai, on 03/10/2009, -0/+2It is worth noting that the Militia Act of 1792, passed the year after the Bill of Rights was ratified, required all white male citizens between 15 and 45 to enroll in the militia and provide their own weapon an ammunition. It is also worth noting that following the Civil War, when there were about 2 million men in uniform, the government allowed the soldiers to return home with their arms after the armies were disbanded. Can you imagine the gubment today allowing soldiers today to return home with their M16s or SAWs? Obviously, we as a people were never meant to be disarmed and up until recently the gubment hasn't attempted to outright disarm us. But statistically speaking about 20%, or 60,000,000 people, own guns in this country so good luck with that.
- inactive, on 03/16/2009, -0/+2as if another reason was needed.
LOL - Samurai77, on 03/10/2009, -2/+4I guess killing babies isn't a problem for normal people then huh?
- inactive, on 03/12/2009, -0/+2Head to head in a fair fight or when they bust in doors at 3am using flash-bangs? Don't underestimate the power of the people.
- bongilante, on 03/10/2009, -1/+2they probably can they just haven't filled out the paperwork yet, or it hasn't been reported yet.
- Yinepuhotep, on 03/11/2009, -0/+1Abortion is what the Statists use to keep freedom-fighters too busy fighting EACH OTHER to fight the State.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is