A Valid Question

Mar 21, 2023 2:44 PM

SisterMidnight

Views

82481

Likes

1859

Dislikes

50

Oooh, good Q!

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

no that's different because reasons and such furthermore comma freedom christian soldiers flag. Eagle.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But the thing is, Murder is not against their religion.... /s

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Yes! I’m waiting for the day when heterosexual couples start getting arrested. They alone are responsible for most gay people. Just saying 🤣

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Edit…they alone are responsible for making most of the gay population.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Maybe the makers of guns should have to keep a record of where their guns are?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Of course it does

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Yes, the shopkeeper, manufacturer and politicians making the purchase of the firearm and/or bullets possible are all responsible.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

No guys. That's totally different. Totally. Different.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hypocrisy is virtue to them A stall tactic to tire the opposition They dont care if find fault in their logic Punch a nazi Write humane laws

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Of course it does.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

That's Different !!! - magas. ..... >>>

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

>>> Reference magas who said trump voting by mail was different than Democrats voting by mail.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

by the transitive property, YES

3 years ago | Likes 284 Dislikes 10

Trans?

3 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 4

Yes. Trains 🚊

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It does if they knew the intention was to kill other people.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's a gun. That's what they're for.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Guns are also for hunting and target practice. If they ask what your intended use is and you say "I'm going to shoot someone" they are1/2

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

legally required to not sell you that weapon. If they did the. They would be accomplices to murder.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes, it absolutely does.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

See also dram shop laws

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

YES !!!

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Yea but this is America, GOD is always on outside /s

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Participating in firearm murder is the most important Republican Jesus sacrament.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

by that logic a muslim could refuse to sell beer to you, a jew to sell bacon, a hindu beef...enjoy your sober poultry BBQ 'christians'... ^^

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Priorities! Mentioning,”Sober” could “out” the studies that prove that Alcohol kills more women and children than Drag Queen Story Hour.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nope, unless the gun store owner knew the gun he was selling was for a murder OR the baker didn't know what the cake was to be used for.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Yes, as well as the pricks who made it legal.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

yes

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Well if a bar over-serves somebody and they go out and get in a wreck, the bar is liable under the law, soooo

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Just as a gun store could be liable if they sold a gun to someone who told them he was going to use it to kill his wife. They can tell (1/2)

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

if someone is acting drunk, or how many rounds he had. Otherwise, the bar isn't liable. Without knowledge, the gun shop isn't either. (2/2)

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No, cause... see it's not that simple... hold on, have a talking point for this /drops note cards... um TRANSGENDERS IN THE BATHROOM!!!

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

A baker can assume that a gay wedding cake is intended for a gay wedding. A gun shop can't always assume that a gun will be used for murder.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

There it is, whew thanks! /scoops up notecards

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yeah, for example, I bought MY gun as a gay wedding present.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I support the right of gays to use guns to protect their Arab hashish.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

No, not unless the store knew that the customer was going to kill someone with it. I'm anti-gun and pro-gay cake but this is a BAD argument.

3 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 15

real Christians dont use guns, they turn the other cheek

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Depends on the gun being sold you can imply intent when you get high capacity magazines and armor piercing rounds and fully automatic guns.

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 10

Please show me where in America I can walk into a store and buy a fully automatic weapon

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

If they knew what it's for, yes, and that is indeed a crime. Bit of ignorance on display here.

3 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 1

So you're saying just don't tell the baker you're going to shoot their cake?

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

no, don't tell the baker that you're using the cake to shoot someone.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

But what if the cake has school children decorated on it?

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Many 'accidental' deaths create legal liability. It makes not one bit of sense that intentional deaths often don't. A firearm death isn't...

3 years ago | Likes 118 Dislikes 6

Guns are designed to kill. If the gun kills, it's working as intended. Ban the goddamn guns.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This isn't a post about legal liability. By their argument they participated in murder which is a no no in their faith. But it's ok...

3 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

Thou shalt not kill?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

According to picking and choosing and grace over law.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

an accident; it's an example of a product working as designed.

3 years ago | Likes 69 Dislikes 5

guns are designed for them to be safe for the operator to use, not others. but america does need more gun control.

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

"gun control" is the big bad words. More accurately, "gun education". My example: kids at anime cons w prop guns, no finger discipline.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Rifles are generally designed to kill hoofstock. Misusing them to kill humans is not an example of them working as designed.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Yes, guns were designed for harm, but they aren't intended for CRIME. Unless the store reasonably knew a crime was the intention.

3 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 19

*buys an assault rifle without a background check* “Don’t worry it’s for huntin”

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

I hear you, but in a vehicular death the driver, the municipality, the vehicle manufacturer, etc. are all potentially on the hook.

3 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 4

The vehicle manufacturer is only on the hook if the car had a design flaw that contributed to the accidents or injuries.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Ah no. If not all the alcohol companies would have been sued out of existence by now. People make decisions they are responsible.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 7

Then I should be allowed to sell flamethrowers and fireworks. If some dork burns down a forest or blows up their neighbors.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

The user of any properly functioning device (car/gun/whatever), not the device - bears the blame for misuse or crimes committed.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Firearms manufacturers do not deserve the protected status that they enjoy.

3 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 5

That was a good act, it's makes good sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Drunk driving enforcement increased exponentially after people started litigating drunk driving deaths and injuries.

3 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

ONLY if there were faults in the manufacturing or the roads, and the dealership is NEVER responsible for selling the car.

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

Like if a self-driving car swerves into pedestrians, yes. But when that guy drove his truck into protesters the company who made it wasn't.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

At this point I'd refer you back to what you wrote: "designed for harm". Designed for harm, but held harmless...you can see how that sounds.

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

I this again? It wasn’t about the sell of the cake. They offered to sell a blank cake. Even referred to another baker. The decoration was…

3 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

the issue. And it depends on if you perceive cake decoration as an art form. As an artist I can relate to this somewhat. This always has…

3 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

a misleading title to say they refused a sale. Should a painter be also sued for refusal to paint something?

3 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

thank you. I am also an artist and have had this SAME conversation. So by this standard if a guy asked me to draw gay porn for him am I 1/

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

not allowed to say "No, I don't want to draw gay porn"? doesn't mean I hate gay people, I just don't want to draw your porn dude. No 2/

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

person or business owner is obligated to take on every client that comes to them, most will because they want money, but if something 3/

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Also other bakers including lgbt ones were happy to bake their cake, but they refused, they were kinda being pricks.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

yes...

3 years ago | Likes 460 Dislikes 10

Spoiler alert: they don't care.

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

Here, you forgot this :) ...

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

P -> Q can be true even if P is never true

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

🤣

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0