SITKA Gear

Ghost Guns

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
10,446
Location
Manetheren
Corporate accountability is an American trait as well. If there's a company actively marketing to militia members, gangs, etc, wouldn't we wan to hold them liable for the damages that they caused by bad marketing & intentional conflict generation?
Did you get your PFOA check, I'm still waiting on mine....

Of all the companies that continued selling/marketing their products long after they new they were dangerous to consumers, I think Remington/Bushmaster/etc etc are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy down the list.

If anything I think corporate irresponsibility/lobbying/ and avoiding responsibility through legal maneuvering are American traits not so sure about accountability.



The vast majority of gun violence is suicide. Access to mental health means far less gun violence. Mental Health is often stigmatized & ignored by men, who are most likely to kill themselves with firearms. Normalizing & funding and providing it to folks like Veterans and others means better outcomes for everyone.
Agreed.
 

mstevens317

Active member
Joined
Nov 20, 2020
Messages
155
Corporate accountability is an American trait as well. If there's a company actively marketing to militia members, gangs, etc, wouldn't we wan to hold them liable for the damages that they caused by bad marketing & intentional conflict generation?


The vast majority of gun violence is suicide. Access to mental health means far less gun violence. Mental Health is often stigmatized & ignored by men, who are most likely to kill themselves with firearms. Normalizing & funding and providing it to folks like Veterans and others means better outcomes for everyone.
So who then decides what is appropriate and who is appropriate to market to? Is Sig Sauer immune because law-enforcement use them, but on the other side of the coin any civilian can buy an MPX? Is that millitia use?

Again, it is a slippery slope to go down.

I think the bigger point here is there’s an agenda that’s trying to be accomplished by not being transparent. Your, mine and everyone gun rights are being grabbed at.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
6,638
Location
Twin Cities
I don't like bump stocks, 80% lowers, or forearm "stocks". They are just ways to skirt the NFA and background checks and have no other legitimate purpose.

In turn, I don't like litigation as a way of getting around a lack of votes in congress, SCOTUS, or agency rulemaking process. Gun torts aren't about compensating victims for corporate wrongdoing, they are meant to terminate otherwise lawful businesses.

Whether it be guns, wildlife management, or environmental regulation. "Legislation by Litigation" is the LEAST democratic process we have to address public policy issues. And I really really hate when a sympathetic chief executive (mayor, governor, or president) colludes to get litigation instituted and then capitulates in a "settlement" that binds the city/state/fed to carry out actions they could have never passed through representative legislation. That activity is criminal in my mind. I wish SCOTUS would kill that pathway to tyranny.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
6,638
Location
Twin Cities
And your thoughts on the filibuster? :)
We are a representative democracy - our democracy is about how we select our representatives, not the procedural practices that they choose to guide their work. Our duly elected senators may set whatever parliamentary process they agree upon - the fillibuster is not imposed upon them any more than committee size or adjournment procedures.

In every newly seated Congress that Congress gets to affirm or set new rules via simple majority - and even after that it may further change or amend these processes at any time via a simple majority vote (even with a 50-50 tie if they have the VP). Not a single 51 senatorial majority on any issue at any point in history has ever been blocked from passing legislation by the fillibuster rule - as they could just change it - see, Schumer for Obama appointees and McConnel for Trump SCOTUS appointees for simple evidence of this truth.

The fillibuster lives because a majority of our democratically elected senators choose to keep it. Apparently, enough senators in each party see value in keeping it to limit big swings between election cycles so it survives. It is not some alien being that holds them hostage - but they like to pretend it is to hide from responsibility for the outcomes it drives.

Personally, I have mixed feelings - I don't like the gridlock it can create, but I also don't like the current tendency for both parties to act like a 1 vote majority (or even a 50-50 vote with the VP) somehow gives one group carte blanche to re-write our society every 2 years as the majority ping pongs back and forth. So it may be the necessary evil many (including Biden) believe is needed. I would like to think it could be removed and then politicians would be circumspect about the thin support a 50-50 senate has for any action and it would act with appropriate humility, but sadly I don't see true leadership in Congress (by either side) that would be able to actually behave in this manner.
 

mevertsen

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2016
Messages
350
Location
Rural Nevada
Depends on your state that’s why I put in parentheses that I was referring to the laws in California because I’m Not familiar with other states laws.
I ignored state laws in this discussion. Because it's the president of the US and giving direction to a federal law. So I should have clarified, it's not against federal law.

Every state has its own rules though.
 

ImBillT

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
2,036
THIS is the challenge. HIPPA laws severely restrict the ability to make the mental health of the individual a matter of public record. If we can't get together on not allowing those on the No-Fly list from buying guns, how can we agree on folks who've sought help for depression, anger, or suicide issues?
The main reason we couldn’t get together on keeping guns away from people on the No-Fly list is that there was zero due process involved in getting put on or off that list. If I’m not mistaken, there was even a law maker accidentally placed on that list. For the general public, if you end up there somehow, you don’t know until you try to fly, and it’s pretty much impossible to get off that list, even if you’re there entirely by mistake.

Can you imagine if someone simply started adding people to such a list for little to no reason? If it kept you from getting guns, the number of people on that list would increase 100 fold overnight.
 
Last edited:

ajricketts

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
1,688
Location
South Florida
I paid an out of pocket deductible of $500 for a basic eye exam last week, and I have "good insurance." I disagree
I'm a cash payer, with no insurance for the last 5+ years. Two of my kids wear glasses. I've never paid that much for a basic eye exam. . . . I feel different about your quality of insurance.

And to be fair, this is exactly the problem. That is the deductible that your insurance company has "negotiated" and agreed upon with the doctor. I have a friend who works for United Healthcare and presumably has good insurance. His wife needed an MRI and the deductible/co-pay was $500. The nurse was kind enough to let them know that if they didn't run it through their insurance and instead put them down as cash payers, the cost would only be something like $300. That's not insurance, that's a scam.
 

nick87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
2,955
Location
Northern Illinois
I'm a cash payer, with no insurance for the last 5+ years. Two of my kids wear glasses. I've never paid that much for a basic eye exam. . . . I feel different about your quality of insurance.

And to be fair, this is exactly the problem. That is the deductible that your insurance company has "negotiated" and agreed upon with the doctor. I have a friend who works for United Healthcare and presumably has good insurance. His wife needed an MRI and the deductible/co-pay was $500. The nurse was kind enough to let them know that if they didn't run it through their insurance and instead put them down as cash payers, the cost would only be something like $300. That's not insurance, that's a scam.
That's interesting. I agree the whole thing is a scam.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
13,509
Location
Cedar, MI
"Free" would be nice, but somone's gotta pay for it. Be nice if it was not me...

I also think the loss of the traditional family unit, especially 2 parents, have impacts that are greatly underplayed by most folks. I'd not be surprised if it's not one of the highest correlation predictors for success/wealth, however that is defined.

You're already paying for it. America spends over $180 billion every year for incarceration. Healthcare spending in the US is at roughly $3.8 TRILLION per year. The idea is to shift the cost into programs that break the cycle, not perpetuate it.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
13,509
Location
Cedar, MI
I am 100% with you on fixing a profoundly broken approach to mental health. I just don't trust the Govt to actually fix it. So I should have said in my prior remarks, "I agree with all but your first word".

The private sector has had over 70 years to make their case that they should remain in control of your healthcare, and they've failed miserably to do so.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
6,638
Location
Twin Cities
The private sector has had over 70 years to make their case that they should remain in control of your healthcare, and they've failed miserably to do so.
Physical health care in US is world-class for 80% of us. We still haven't solved for the 20%, but destroying what works for the 80% in the process is not progress.

Mental health not so much.

I have a lot of exposure to global medical systems and none come close to the US system (for the 80%) in quality, and mental health care sucks in all of them.

We can do better and we have to do better, but govt. medical systems reduce the quality of care for most.
 
Top