View Poll Results: Yes or No?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 44.44%
  • No

    5 55.56%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1 The Smith-Suprynowicz Test. Do you pass? 
    Senior Member FeebMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,008
    Do you support the right of a nine-year-old girl to walk into a hardware store and, without signing anything or producing identification of any kind, pay cash for a submachinegun, several hundred rounds of ammunition, and a supply of morphine?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    I pass. I also support the right of the police to take her out in a blaze of glory if she uses any of those items in a way that endangers my life or property. :)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    No.

    I support the hardware store's right to refuse to sell an inherently dangerous item to someone that they believe is incapable of responsible use.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member FeebMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    I pass. I also support the right of the police to take her out in a blaze of glory if she uses any of those items in a way that endangers my life or property. :)
    Of course, assuming you want to wait for the police.



    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    No.

    I support the hardware store's right to refuse to sell an inherently dangerous item to someone that they believe is incapable of responsible use.
    I believe that's a given.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by FeebMaster View Post
    I believe that's a given.
    Um, no, it's not. The test presumes that the 9 year old has the right to enter, purchase, and possess the firearm without precondition. One of those preconditions considered waived would be the store owner's judgement.

    Rights are unequivocal. The right to vote can't be contingent on the judgment of the ballot supplier. The right to speech cannot be contingent on the opinion of the microphone supplier.

    Even if you do provide for the gun seller's judgment in your scenario, the instant an individual uses the gun to inflict harm, the issue of the seller's negligence comes into play. The argument is simple: the gun seller should have known that the 9 year old was incapable of responsible gun ownership. He sold her the gun anyway. Therefore, when she was playing with her friend and blew his brains out, the act was foreseeable and the gun seller should be held liable.

    Apply this to every situation - mental distress, convicted felons, minors - and soon you have gun liability strict enough to satisfy even the most stringent fantasies of the left. Sure, you could sell a firearm to that guy. But if you do a background check for felonies and mental defects, you wouldn't risk being sued out of business in a week.

    Quick question for you Feebmaster: Do you support the RIAA's ability to sue (on behalf of their clients) those who download copyrighted works of music without paying royalties to the RIAA?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member FeebMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,008
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Um, no, it's not. The test presumes that the 9 year old has the right to enter, purchase, and possess the firearm without precondition. One of those preconditions considered waived would be the store owner's judgement.
    I disagree. Nothing in the test precludes the right of the store owner to do or not do business with anyone they see fit.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Rights are unequivocal. The right to vote can't be contingent on the judgment of the ballot supplier. The right to speech cannot be contingent on the opinion of the microphone supplier.
    The right to vote, if you want to call it that, is contingent on the judgment of the ballot supplier. The ballot supplier is the government and they can revoke your right to vote for any number of reasons.

    Microphones aren't required to exercise your freedom of speech, but even assuming they were, I'm sure you could find a retailer or manufacturer who would be more than happy to supply you with one.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Even if you do provide for the gun seller's judgment in your scenario, the instant an individual uses the gun to inflict harm, the issue of the seller's negligence comes into play. The argument is simple: the gun seller should have known that the 9 year old was incapable of responsible gun ownership. He sold her the gun anyway. Therefore, when she was playing with her friend and blew his brains out, the act was foreseeable and the gun seller should be held liable.
    I disagree in general that the gun/drug seller should be held liable, but even assuming they could or should be, that has nothing to do with the right of the nine year old to purchase the guns or drugs or the right of the business owner from doing business with the customers they choose to service.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Apply this to every situation - mental distress, convicted felons, minors - and soon you have gun liability strict enough to satisfy even the most stringent fantasies of the left. Sure, you could sell a firearm to that guy. But if you do a background check for felonies and mental defects, you wouldn't risk being sued out of business in a week.
    You always risk being sued and out of business in a week. Background checks for felonies and mental defects aren't going to prevent that anymore than they're going to prevent said criminals and mental defectives from getting guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Quick question for you Feebmaster: Do you support the RIAA's ability to sue (on behalf of their clients) those who download copyrighted works of music without paying royalties to the RIAA?
    RIAA can sue whomever they want. I think they're idiots for doing so, but it's up to them. Frankly, if the RIAA and company had spent half as much time, money, and energy on coming up with a halfway decent digital distribution system that allowed people to buy things online for a reasonable price instead of trying to fight technological advances tooth and nail, online piracy probably wouldn't have gotten as big as it is, although it certainly it would still be around.

    Basically, they were lazy and they've screwed themselves. They wanted the government to ensure their profits without innovating on their own. Now people have an expectation of free, or close to it, music without unpleasant DRM schemes built in. It doesn't matter how many people they sue now. The cat's out of the bag.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,268
    She should be immediately declared an enemy combatant, arrested, stripped of all rights and shipped to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba unless she’s Arab in which case she should be sold the items with no questions asked because anything less would be racial profiling.

    What do I win?

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Resident Unliked Meanie Shannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    She should be immediately declared an enemy combatant, arrested, stripped of all rights and shipped to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba unless she’s Arab in which case she should be sold the items with no questions asked because anything less would be racial profiling.

    What do I win?
    I don't know but you made me LOL.:D
    Loyalty Binds Me- Motto of Richard III
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    TANSTAAFL. asdf2231's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The greatest country on Earth.
    Posts
    2,619
    I'll pass on this poll.

    I do support the right of witless leftists to post leading polls to try to fulfill their worst expectations of what they think of conservatives though. So Kudos.
    Last edited by asdf2231; 07-07-2008 at 05:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    John
    Guest
    I also support the right of that girl's mama to take a strap to her backside for wasting good money on the morphine. The submachine gun and ammunition are passable in my house though.

    That and I want to know where this hardware store is and how I to get it. Sounds like a good store to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •