The alpha-Male...

[Saniflush]

Garman,

Here's the funny thing...it would appear that you and I are on the same side of the 2nd Amendment issue, and are arguing over something that matters little.

Fucking a right.  Cause what matters is getting rounds downrange and on target.

[CCTAU]

Fucking a right.  Cause what matters is getting rounds downrange and on target.

While employing the use of adequate hearing and eye protection.


The NRA will not budge. They know that there is no compromise on the left. The left has stated adamantly that they want ALL guns out of the hands of citizens. There can be no compromise. And any gun owner that thinks there can be, will be a former gun owner in the years that come if it is allowed to take place.

[GH2001]

While employing the use of adequate hearing and eye protection.


The NRA will not budge. They know that there is no compromise on the left. The left has stated adamantly that they want ALL guns out of the hands of citizens. There can be no compromise. And any gun owner that thinks there can be, will be a former gun owner in the years that come if it is allowed to take place.

CCT -sometimes I just really agree with you. This is one of those times.

[JR4AU]

While employing the use of adequate hearing and eye protection.


The NRA will not budge. They know that there is no compromise on the left. The left has stated adamantly that they want ALL guns out of the hands of citizens. There can be no compromise. And any gun owner that thinks there can be, will be a former gun owner in the years that come if it is allowed to take place.

They shouldn't budge, but they have, in the form of failure to act at times.  On paper, and in the public areana, they hold fast...in reality, they've given in a time or two.

[Snaggletiger]

Truer words have never been spoken. Unless you have been trained or brought up with knowledge of safety and responsible use of firearms, you are a product of a victim society. A society where lawyers have everyone afraid of getting sued. At one point in this great country, people were afraid to protect their own homes due to reprisals from the criminal and civil legal system. Thank God we have the right to protect our own without fear of the lawyers. No longer are we homeowners required to by a shovel when we purchase a gun for self defense.

I won't even go into your constant and pathetic generalizations, stereotyping and bashing of an entire profession, one of which I am a proud member.  There was no point in this country, ever, where people were afraid to defend themselves as they saw fit for fear of getting sued.  Utter bullshit. If you choose to purchase a gun for protection and train yourself in it's proper usage, at NO time is a person ever going to be faced with a life threatening situation and go..."Well golly gee, I've got this gun here and this guy is coming at me with a knife.  Hmm, maybe I should just go ahead and let this guy stab me because I just might get sued."  

Are there those who would threaten our 2nd Amendment rights?  Sure there are.  Always has been and always will be. As I've said before, I'm also a proud gun owner and plan on staying that way. And if me or my family find ourselves in a life threatening situation, I WILL use that gun for protection.  Despite the fact that I am a lawyer, I am afforded the same protections and face the same possible reprisals that you say exist from all those other nasty lawyers. I can safely say that if faced with that situation, at no time will I ever consider the possibility of reprisals either criminally or civilly if mine or my family's lives are in danger.  If that's what's on your mind, you need to focus.      

[GarMan]

So, Heston's puffery is a no holds barred, absolute political stand by the NRA?  Words my friend, mere words.  A good motto, but in the real world of Washington D.C. it's not what flies.  

Of course...  But, you see the sharp contrast.  I'm sure that you understand the point that I'm making.  

I can't tell you you're wrong without you declaring that because you don't see it that way or  b ecause you don't believe that it's not true.  The NRA's compromises have come more in the form of being passive on some issues.  You can read what some think here (on which I agree in part):

http://www.nrawol.net/Compromising_Strategy.html

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/15731-does-nra-compromise-too-much.html  

And, there we go.  I agree with you.  This is what I would have expected to conduct a rational discussion, but instead, you just threw spins at me without supporting your position.  Yes, the NRA has backed down from expecting tanks, grenades and atom bombs in every citizen's garage.  I think that we'd agree the intent of the 2nd Amendment didn't support that level of arms.  I really don't think they've ever argued that, but you hear differently from the media and the left-wing nutjobs out there.  And from some of the discussions on these websites, I definitely agree with you.  The NRA has backed away from fully automatic firearms, and in several ways, they've become a little passive as you've identified.  Most of us really don't need or want a Gatling gun.  We just want the basic arms to support our sporting and defensive activities, as I would suggest, the basic intent of the 2nd Amendment.  

The Nuge's article isn't anything different.  It's a hardline look at the basic right simplified for everyone in terms that all can understand.  If you take some of those statements and post them without the context of the article, they appear wacko and kooky.  I don't disagree, but the NRA isn't compromising basic gun rights between the hours of x and y.  We either have gun rights, or we don't.  There is no compromise, and there are no gray areas.

http://www.youtube.com/v/bpFDHO-tqUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&]http://www.youtube.com/v/bpFDHO-tqUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&

[CCTAU]

I won't even go into your constant and pathetic generalizations, stereotyping and bashing of an entire profession, one of which I am a proud member.  There was no point in this country, ever, where people were afraid to defend themselves as they saw fit for fear of getting sued.  Utter bullshit. If you choose to purchase a gun for protection and train yourself in it's proper usage, at NO time is a person ever going to be faced with a life threatening situation and go..."Well golly gee, I've got this gun here and this guy is coming at me with a knife.  Hmm, maybe I should just go ahead and let this guy stab me because I just might get sued."  

I just like the thin skin.

There WAS a time in the late 70s to early 90s where many homeowners were charged for shooting an assailant on THEIR property. It was to the point where the old joke was that if you shoot them coming through the window, pull them in so you won't get sued. If you shot through the door when someone was trying to break it down, you got arrested. Not sure how old you are, but growing up this was a common occurrence. I guess all of these castle laws that have been passed in the last few years were just from a random common sense  thoughts. No. They were because of all of the lawsuits that folks had to endure when they tried to protect their family on their property and it was alleged by lawyers in court that force was not needed.

I subscribe to the southern way of self protection:



Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Southerner?

     

Here is a little test that will help you decide.



The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a
deserted street with your wife
and two small children.

Suddenly, an Islamic
Terrorist with a huge knife
comes around the corner,
locks eyes with you,
screams obscenities, praises
Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you...

You are carrying a
Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?




THINK CAREFULLY AND
THEN SCROLL DOWN:



Democrat's Answer:

·   Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

·   Does the man look poor or oppressed?

·   Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

·   Could we run away?

·   What does my wife think?

·   What about the kids?

·   Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?

·   What does the law say about this situation?

·   Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?

·   Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

·   Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?

·   Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

·   If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

·   Should I call 9-1-1?

·   Why is this street so deserted?

·   We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day.

·   Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

·   I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

·   This is all so confusing!


............................................................................

Republican's Answer:

BANG!



.......................................................................

 

Southerner's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG ! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
Click

Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy!'
'Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Point s?! '

Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!'

Wife: 'You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!

[JR4AU]

I just like the thin skin.

There WAS a time in the late 70s to early 90s where many homeowners were charged for shooting an assailant on THEIR property. It was to the point where the old joke was that if you shoot them coming through the window, pull them in so you won't get sued. If you shot through the door when someone was trying to break it down, you got arrested. Not sure how old you are, but growing up this was a common occurrence. I guess all of these castle laws that have been passed in the last few years were just from a random common sense  thoughts. No. They were because of all of the lawsuits that folks had to endure when they tried to protect their family on their property and it was alleged by lawyers in court that force was not needed.

I subscribe to the southern way of self protection:



Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Southerner?

     

Here is a little test that will help you decide.



The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a
deserted street with your wife
and two small children.

Suddenly, an Islamic
Terrorist with a huge knife
comes around the corner,
locks eyes with you,
screams obscenities, praises
Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you...

You are carrying a
Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?




THINK CAREFULLY AND
THEN SCROLL DOWN:



Democrat's Answer:

·   Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

·   Does the man look poor or oppressed?

·   Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

·   Could we run away?

·   What does my wife think?

·   What about the kids?

·   Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?

·   What does the law say about this situation?

·   Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?

·   Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

·   Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?

·   Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

·   If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

·   Should I call 9-1-1?

·   Why is this street so deserted?

·   We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day.

·   Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

·   I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

·   This is all so confusing!


............................................................................

Republican's Answer:

BANG!



.......................................................................

 

Southerner's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG ! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
Click

Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy!'
'Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Point s?! '

Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!'

Wife: 'You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!

Really classic little funny story, but typical of how you'd support your position. 

Unfortunately, you're dead wrong.  Nobody has ever been prosecuted for shooting an assailant on their property, when it was a reasonable and proper defense of themselves or another person, and even in some cases, mere defense of property.  The funny thing about the "make sure you drag them inside" theory, is that if you have to do that, you probably had no reasonable need to use deadly force to begin with.  And, it's a hell of a lot easier to justify your own fear of your own life, than to justify tampering with a crime scene to make it APPEAR you feared for your life.   

Fear of getting sued, in large part, stems from anti-lawyer blowhards like you who don't know anything and think every lawsuit is frivolous, or that anybody sued for shooting a "bad guy" is being wrongfully sued.

[CCTAU]

Really classic little funny story, but typical of how you'd support your position. 

Unfortunately, you're dead wrong.  Nobody has ever been prosecuted for shooting an assailant on their property,

Total bullshit. Maybe they didn't get convicted. But then again, who did that help support?

THE LAWYERS. The only ones who ever win..........

Seems sensible for you to take this position (more money for you), but the rest of us lived it.

[GarMan]

Total bullpoop. Maybe they didn't get convicted. But then again, who did that help support?

THE LAWYERS. The only ones who ever win..........

Seems sensible for you to take this position (more money for you), but the rest of us lived it. 

This is why we need a "loser pays" system.  If you lose the lawsuit, you get to pay all of the expenses for trying the case including the defense costs, administrative costs (judge, jurry, etc.) and your own costs.  It would solve a lot of problems!

[Snaggletiger]

This is why we need a "loser pays" system.  If you lose the lawsuit, you get to pay all of the expenses for trying the case including the defense costs, administrative costs (judge, jurry, etc.) and your own costs.  It would solve a lot of problems!

No, it wouldn't.  Not totally.  Again, you can't go black and white here.  Actually, there may be some merit in part of that theory.  The majority of lawsuits that seem baseless at the outset will ultimately be thrown out of court on Summary Judgment anyway.  There are also motions that defense counsel uses called an Offer of Judgment in many civil cases.  This means that they will file an offer with the Court.  Should you choose to accept it, you settle the case and move on.  If you decide to reject it and go forward with the case...and lose...the Court can order you to take care of exactly what you're talking about.

I would have no problem with a Court making a finding that a suit was absolutely frivolous and ordering defense costs paid.  But many of the judgments made by the public about the merits of a case are based on misinformation (Many times intentional) or a lack of information...or as has been discovered many times, outright fabrications made by Tort Reformers (The guy suing because he wrecked when he left the drivers seat to walk to the back of his motor home...oh yeah, that was one of many).  If a case truly has a legitimate question of fact that a jury should decide, the case will pass muster in Summary Judgment and move on.  If not, it will be tossed. (Which you rarely hear about with our media).  However, I would have no problem with a Judge finding that a case was truly frivolous (It would have to be obvious after all facts were in) and making the Plaintiff bear the costs.     

[AWK]

This is why we need a "loser pays" system.  If you lose the lawsuit, you get to pay all of the expenses for trying the case including the defense costs, administrative costs (judge, jurry, etc.) and your own costs.  It would solve a lot of problems!

Wrong, it would deter legitimate law suits as well as the "fraudulent" ones.

[CCTAU]

Wrong, it would deter legitimate law suits as well as the "fraudulent" ones.

Good. Cut down on the whole lot of them so that more important cases can be heard.

[AWK]

Good. Cut down on the whole lot of them so that more important cases can be heard.

Reading comprehension is a much valued skill.

[GarMan]

No, it wouldn't.  Not totally.  Again, you can't go black and white here.  Actually, there may be some merit in part of that theory.  The majority of lawsuits that seem baseless at the outset will ultimately be thrown out of court on Summary Judgment anyway.  There are also motions that defense counsel uses called an Offer of Judgment in many civil cases.  This means that they will file an offer with the Court.  Should you choose to accept it, you settle the case and move on.  If you decide to reject it and go forward with the case...and lose...the Court can order you to take care of exactly what you're talking about.

I would have no problem with a Court making a finding that a suit was absolutely frivolous and ordering defense costs paid.  But many of the judgments made by the public about the merits of a case are based on misinformation (Many times intentional) or a lack of information...or as has been discovered many times, outright fabrications made by Tort Reformers (The guy suing because he wrecked when he left the drivers seat to walk to the back of his motor home...oh yeah, that was one of many).  If a case truly has a legitimate question of fact that a jury should decide, the case will pass muster in Summary Judgment and move on.  If not, it will be tossed. (Which you rarely hear about with our media).  However, I would have no problem with a Judge finding that a case was truly frivolous (It would have to be obvious after all facts were in) and making the Plaintiff bear the costs.   

I can agree with that.  Perhaps, more Judges need to step up and make the losing side bear the costs more often.  If both sides had more risk, it would discourage a lot of ridiculous cases, whether you assess them to be entirely frivolous or not.  

[CCTAU]

Reading comprehension is a much valued skill.

Its OK. With the increased traffic, the bambalances are slower than ever now. So it will still be easy to get cases. Nobody is gonna pass any tort reform any time soon. Hell, all of the legislators are lawyers anyhow. They know which side the bread is buttered on.

What is a legitimate lawsuit anyway?

We alpha males just want our pound of flesh.

[CCTAU]

I can agree with that.  Perhaps, more Judges need to step up and make the losing side bear the costs more often.  If both sides had more risk, it would discourage a lot of ridiculous cases, whether you assess them to be entirely frivolous or not.  

Judges are afraid to judge. Everything has been boiled down to a precedent and whether or not the case will get overturned by a more librul interpretation of the law. So judges just pass it on to an ignorant public masquerading as jurors.

In a jury trial, would any of us really get a jury of our "peers".

[JR4AU]

Total bullshit. Maybe they didn't get convicted. But then again, who did that help support?

THE LAWYERS. The only ones who ever win..........

Seems sensible for you to take this position (more money for you), but the rest of us lived it.

No you didn't, you dreamed it, or made it up talking tough over cheap beer.

[GarMan]

Wrong, it would deter legitimate law suits as well as the "fraudulent" ones.  

Many of these so-called legitimate law suits need to be discouraged, especially when they needlessly tie up our legal system, but you can argue with these guys.

Tort Law
A ‘Loser Pays’ Legal System Will Cut Frivolous Lawsuits, Report Says
Posted Dec 2, 2008 6:34 PM CDT
By Rachel M. Zahorsky

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research released a report today advocating for a "loser pays" rule to help staunch the exorbitant litigation costs that arise from nuisance lawsuits in the U.S.

“Greater Justice, Lower Cost: How a 'Loser Pays' Rule Would Improve the American Legal System,” reports that Americans spend more on tort litigation every year, which is often unfair and inefficient, than on new cars. A loser-pays rule, which is already in place in the rest of the developed world, “would discourage meritless lawsuits,” while ensuring “plaintiffs of modest means but strong legal cases access to justice,” the study says.

The report comes on the heels of a federal judge’s order granting sanctions to Walt Disney Co.’s mobile phone division, LG Electronics and Pantech & Curitel Communications Inc. for a “frivolous” patent infringement suit brought by Triune Star Inc.
<snip>

LOSER PAYS
By Walter Olson, 05-21-2004
Adapted from a fuller treatment originally written for overlawyered.com

America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.

Our editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". For a more extensive look at an argument for the loser-pays system, see chapter 15 of The Litigation Explosion, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".

As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.
<snip>

[JR4AU]

Judges are afraid to judge. Everything has been boiled down to a precedent and whether or not the case will get overturned by a more librul interpretation of the law. So judges just pass it on to an ignorant public masquerading as jurors.

In a jury trial, would any of us really get a jury of our "peers".

Have you had any contact with the legal system?  Your rants against it are so cliche and ignorant, it boggles the mind!