Gun control debate (merged)

#18,404
#18,404
Vol8188 said:
It’s not
Click to expand...
It indeed is. Not with regard to the manufacturer of clinic equipment but the law allows suing of anybody providing a service to assist in the performing the abortion. An example was even given of suing an Uber driver whom gave a lift to the clinic for the individual. (Edit: an example of what might be pursued not claiming that it has already bad wording on my part)

It’s an extremist legislation which attempts to shift the burden of enforcement from the state to private citizens. Which from a quick read is basically what this piece of trash legislation similarly looks like.

Abortion after 6 weeks is still legal in Texas. People just need to be prepared to defend performing them in civil court. Which seems to be the similar tack taken here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#18,405
#18,405
NorthDallas40 said:
It indeed is. Not with regard to the manufacturer of clinic equipment but the law allows suing of anybody providing a service to assist in the performing the abortion. An example was even given of suing an Uber driver whom gave a lift to the clinic for the individual.

It’s an extremist legislation which attempts to shift the burden of enforcement from the state to private citizens. Which from a quick read is basically what this piece of trash legislation similarly looks like.

Abortion after 6 weeks is still legal in Texas. People just need to be prepared to defend performing them in civil court. Which seems to be the similar tack taken here.
Click to expand...

Can you provide an example of the Uber driver claim within the law or from the way the law was written? Not just nonsense from the young Turks
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#18,406
#18,406
Vol8188 said:
Can you provide an example of the Uber driver claim within the law or from the way the law was written? Not just nonsense from the young Turks
Click to expand...
I said it allows for a private citizen to pursue the claim. Which was enough for the providers in Texas to close up shop. Upon reading my post it could be inferred it had already occurred which wasn’t my intent. Poor wording on my part. (Post edited above to clarify) The example I read stated that as written the law allows that kind of aggressive pursuit. I’m not claiming they will succeed but that doesn’t prohibit people trying. And I’ve read the legislation and that interpretation jives with what I read. I live here when it was passed and the SCOTUS request to overturn was filed we all got to hear all about it. I believe it will eventually get overturned as it’s trash legislation pitting citizen against citizen. And when it was passed people said copy cat laws like this CA one would pop up. Voila here they are. They will all eventually get overturned.
 
#18,407
#18,407
NorthDallas40 said:
I said it allows for a private citizen to pursue the claim. Which was enough for the providers in Texas to close up shop. Upon reading my post it could be inferred it had already occurred which wasn’t my intent. Poor wording on my part. The example I read stated that as written the law allows that kind of aggressive pursuit. I’m not claiming they will succeed but that doesn’t prohibit people trying. And I’ve read the legislation and that interpretation jives with what I read. I live here when it was passed and the SCOTUS request to overturn was filed we all got to hear all about it. I believe it will eventually get overturned as it’s trash legislation pitting citizen against citizen. And when it was passed people said copy cat laws like this CA one would pop up. Voila here they are. They will all eventually get overturned.
Click to expand...

People aren’t prohibited from trying a lot of lawsuits. So that’s a poor standard. I’ve read the legislation too and it does jive.

Even if everything you believed about the bill true the drive would have to know the person was going to get an abortion, know the fetus has a heartbeat, and know the mother has no life threatening issues.

That’s a hefty burden, given all of those would be legal abortions, you’d have to prove the driver knew all of that information.

It’s just a left wing scare tactic to claim they can sue Uber
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#18,408
#18,408
Vol8188 said:
People aren’t prohibited from trying a lot of lawsuits. So that’s a poor standard. I’ve read the legislation too and it does jive.

Even if everything you believed about the bill true the drive would have to know the person was going to get an abortion, know the fetus has a heartbeat, and know the mother has no life threatening issues.

That’s a hefty burden, given all of those would be legal abortions, you’d have to prove the driver knew all of that information.

It’s just a left wing scare tactic to claim they can sue Uber
Click to expand...
It’s an effective scare tactic in Texas with regard to abortions being performed after 6 weeks as there is plenty of data to show those have pretty much ceased. Will it be as effective in CA on firearms before they are all over turned? No idea 🤷‍♂️
 
#18,409
#18,409
NorthDallas40 said:
It’s an effective scare tactic in Texas with regard to abortions being performed after 6 weeks as there is plenty of data to show those have pretty much ceased. Will it be as effective in CA on firearms before they are all over turned? No idea 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
This is just a plot by Newsome. He is smart enough to know it'll never hold up and his followers are too simple to understand the difference... the abortion texas law, the parties have to have knowledge of what they are a part of. Ie an abortion clinic and dr know why the person is there and of the roe v wade is overturned or a time set to determine when a fetus is alive... they parties that participate in what essentially becomes murder are liable..... same way a getaway driver would be liable..
 
#18,410
#18,410
NorthDallas40 said:
It’s an effective scare tactic in Texas with regard to abortions being performed after 6 weeks as there is plenty of data to show those have pretty much ceased. Will it be as effective in CA on firearms before they are all over turned? No idea 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

By “those have pretty much ceased”, you mean the doctors are no longer performing them. Which is a different standard than you started with. Doctors seem like the appropriate party to go after.
 
#18,411
#18,411
Vol8188 said:
By “those have pretty much ceased”, you mean the doctors are no longer performing them. Which is a different standard you started with. Doctors seem like the appropriate party to go after.
Click to expand...
It’s the only standard that matters. And I’m not sure that’s different than what I started with but ok. They are the ones whom perform the abortions. Extrapolating that example to Newsome’s tripe power play would be going after the firearm dealers in the state. And I have no idea how effective that would be since AR platforms are already fairly restricted there from what I understand.
 
#18,412
#18,412
whodeycin85 said:
This is just a plot by Newsome. He is smart enough to know it'll never hold up and his followers are too simple to understand the difference... the abortion texas law, the parties have to have knowledge of what they are a part of. Ie an abortion clinic and dr know why the person is there and of the roe v wade is overturned or a time set to determine when a fetus is alive... they parties that participate in what essentially becomes murder are liable..... same way a getaway driver would be liable..
Click to expand...
Actually no they don’t. Thus the Uber example I somebody presented which I referred to.
 
#18,414
#18,414
NorthDallas40 said:
It’s the only standard that matters. And I’m not sure that’s different than what I started with but ok. They are the ones whom perform the abortions. Extrapolating that example to Newsome’s tripe power play would be going after the firearm dealers in the state. And I have no idea how effective that would be since AR platforms are already fairly restricted there from what I understand.
Click to expand...

You started with Uber drivers being compared to gun manufacturers, which is more fair. Then you moved to doctors. The doctors would obviously be comparable to then gunman here, which we would all agree is the appropriate party.

Surely you don’t see doctor as equivalent to gun manufacturer in the comparison?
 
#18,415
#18,415
Vol8188 said:
You started with Uber drivers being compared to gun manufacturers, which is more fair. Then you moved to doctors. The doctors would obviously be comparable to then gunman here, which we would all agree is the appropriate party.

Surely you don’t see doctor as equivalent to gun manufacturer in the comparison?
Click to expand...
I wasn’t even trying to split hairs to that level. As we’ve both agreed to upon reading and interpreting the legislation the private citizen is empowered to pursue anybody they see connected to the abortion service and by extrapolation the facilitating the firearm purchase.

Anti gun Karens and Kens will get just as fired up in threatening lawsuits as the Karens and Kens on the Texas abortion legislation. ANYBODY they believe was party and they are the arbiter of who that want to sue.

Right now it’s just bluster from Newsome. But it’s bluster anybody could see coming a mile off. That’s the whole point, pick hot button topic of the day to attach the citizen enforcement tripe on.

When the Texas legislation came out I actually thought it was kinda novel. It’s classic Texas house stuff, thinking outside the box. I have it high marks for creativity and the fact that nobody has successfully attacked it yet I think reinforces that. But I do expect it to get overturned eventually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#18,416
#18,416
NorthDallas40 said:
I wasn’t even trying to split hairs to that level. As we’ve both agreed to upon reading and interpreting the legislation the private citizen is empowered to pursue anybody they see connected to the abortion service and by extrapolation the facilitating the firearm purchase.

Anti gun Karens and Kens will get just as fired up in threatening lawsuits as the Karens and Kens on the Texas abortion legislation. ANYBODY they believe was party and they are the arbiter of who that want to sue.

Right now it’s just bluster from Newsome. But it’s bluster anybody could see coming a mile off. That’s the whole point, pick hot button topic of the day to attach the citizen enforcement tripe on.

When the Texas legislation came out I actually thought it was kinda novel. It’s classic Texas house stuff, thinking outside the box. I have it high marks for creativity and the fact that nobody has successfully attacked it yet I think reinforces that. But I do expect it to get overturned eventually.
Click to expand...

We’ve not agreed to that at all. A citizen would have to things they’re completely incapable of knowing in order to sue an Uber driver. However knowing who manufactured a gun is not difficult at all.

Do you consider these both positives? The ability to go after gun manufacturers and the make believe ability to go after Uber drivers?
 
#18,417
#18,417
Vol8188 said:
We’ve not agreed to that at all. A citizen would have to things they’re completely incapable of knowing in order to sue an Uber driver. However knowing who manufactured a gun is not difficult at all.

Do you consider these both positives? The ability to go after gun manufacturers and the make believe ability to go after Uber drivers?
Click to expand...
It think the Texas legislation is trash and any resulting follow on legislation is also trash. Does that fit within your answer space you allowed me?
 
#18,418
#18,418
NorthDallas40 said:
It think the Texas legislation is trash and any resulting follow on legislation is also trash. Does that fit within your answer space you allowed me?
Click to expand...

It seems you still avoided a direct answer. Do you consider the ability to sue a gun manufacturer as “trash”?

What’s trash about the Texas bill?
 
#18,419
#18,419
Vol8188 said:
It seems you still avoided a direct answer. Do you consider the ability to sue a gun manufacturer as “trash”?

What’s trash about the Texas bill?
Click to expand...
I’ve stated multiple times now what is trash about the bill. In a straight forward direct fashion. Texas created legislation abdicating their enforcement responsibilities to private citizens in a matter those citizens have no jurisdiction or authority on. There I’ve said it again. In a direct fashion. For at least the second time. Should I state it again a third time, expecting you to imply that I’m not answering the question? And yes I extrapolated any copy cat legislation as trash. That would include being able to sue a gun mfgr with no standing.
 
#18,420
#18,420
NorthDallas40 said:
I’ve stated multiple times now what is trash about the bill. In a straight forward direct fashion. Texas created legislation abdicating their enforcement responsibilities to private citizens in a matter those citizens have no jurisdiction or authority on. There I’ve said it again. In a direct fashion. For at least the second time. Should I state it again a third time, expecting you to imply that I’m not answering the question? And yes I extrapolated any copy cat legislation as trash. That would include being able to sue a gun mfgr with no standing.
Click to expand...

You’re still comparing two very different things and pretending they’re the same. Going after the doctor who committed the crime as opposed to the manufacturer are two very different things
 
#18,422
#18,422
Vol8188 said:
You’re still comparing two very different things and pretending they’re the same. Going after the doctor who committed the crime as opposed to the manufacturer are two very different things
Click to expand...
No. I’ve been 100% direct and clear and you’re being obstinate in deflecting to a point I’m not making. The POINT is these citizens are magically imbued with power they have no business having as they have no standing in the matter. That’s the trash in the TX legislation and the proposed CA legislation. And it isn’t my responsibility to reconcile that for you or win some debate I’m not having.

Your turn.
 
#18,424
#18,424
NorthDallas40 said:
No. I’ve been 100% direct and clear and you’re being obstinate in deflecting to a point I’m not making. The POINT is these citizens are magically imbued with power they have no business having as they have no standing in the matter. That’s the trash in the TX legislation and the proposed CA legislation. And it isn’t my responsibility to reconcile that for you or win some debate I’m not having.

Your turn.
Click to expand...

So your only issue is you feel the party has no claim?

Meaning if it were only the father, or the mother if she later had regret, allowed to sue for abortions you’d have no issues with it?

If California only allowed relatives of those killed to sue, would you now support both laws?

Or is that not your real problem with either law?
 
#18,425
#18,425
Vol8188 said:
So your only issue is you feel the party has no claim?

Meaning if it were only the father, or the mother if she later had regret, allowed to sue for abortions you’d have no issues with it?

If California only allowed relatives of those killed to sue, would you now support both laws?

Or is that not your real problem with either law?
Click to expand...
The model of the TX legislation and the follow on CA legislation is they imbue parties with enforcement power and entitle them to damages recovery for things they are not party to and have zero jurisdiction on.

I’m against abortion as convenient birth control and late term abortion pretty much across the board. But the TX approach to solving it is trash. It’s effective right now. But it’s going to get over turned.

I see no merit playing your narrowing game on instances they are a waste of time and in fact don’t even pertain to the TX law. In the cases you present those individuals at least have some attachment to each incident.

For example the Sandy Hook families suing the gun mfgrs. I think they at least can make an argument that they have standing. But to be clear I think their case was crap and ridiculous. Now Bubba that lived three streets over from one of the kids that got killed has zero standing but under this law model would be granted standing. That’s asinine
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top