5 ms·

I'm not sure what you mean by "equivalent of MPAA", but there are plenty of well-funded anti-gun lobbying groups who fund lawsuits against the gun industry. Bra

by cle 4y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "equivalent of MPAA", but there are plenty of well-funded anti-gun lobbying groups who fund lawsuits against the gun industry. Brady, Giffords Law Center, and Everytown for Gun Safety are some major ones. But OP was talking broadly about lawsuits, not lobbying groups specifically. Example: California recently enacted a law to "create a powerful incentive for the firearm industry" by allowing citizens to sue them for "failured to implement 'reasonable' controls", by using a similar mechanism as Texas' bill that enables people to sue doctors who perform abortions. Senator Portantino: "If Texas can outrageously use this type of law to attack a woman’s reproductive freedom, we can do the same thing in California to hold gun dealers accountable for their actions." OP said: > The tactic used to bring one to it's knees will be used to stifle other freedoms as well. Which seems to be exactly what was done in California with its lawsuit legislation that was modeled after Texas'. I can't help but agree with OP that this is a similar tactic of using lawsuits to bully people into compliance by draining their resources. It's an old tactic, but it's still unjust, regardless of the particular legal issue.

the_gipsy 4y ago
You can't really compare a public health & safety issue with piracy. Firearms are not freedom of speech. Guns kill. Just like vehicles kill and are therefore subject to regulation (or outright prohibition in many spaces) above individual freedom.
- cle 4y ago
  I'm not talking about whether it's justified to regulate firearms, abortion, or piracy. I'm talking about whether it's justified to bully your adversaries with lawsuits in order to drain their resources. The particular legal issue doesn't matter--it's subverting and abusing the justice system.
- hatware 4y ago
  You sure can when the tactics are the same. They should have made the second amendment the first. Then I think you'd get it.
  - the_gipsy 4y ago
    Then any movement == any movement, by that logic. That's just the essence of politics. Pro-gun does fit the comparison much better, because there are obvious industry profits behind the lobbies - at the cost of violence and death.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      i think you're confusing the massive and well-funded military lobby (the people who make 40mm autocannon) with the mixed civilian/military/police small arms industry (who make your everyday .223 AR-15). it's much harder to make it in the latter as a small businessman due to massively onerous regulation. edit: tired of this. i own lots of guns and have never killed anybody. i had this same argument with somebody else yesterday over financial KYC: we do not fight crime by stripping law-abiding Americans of their freedoms and subjecting them to increased state control.
      - the_gipsy 4y ago
        Well, anyway, this pro-gun stuff has nothing to do with piracy freedom. Piracy hurts some millionaire CEOs bank accounts, and guns literally kill people.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  This is going to sound harsh, but you need to hear it I think. Society has done a really good job of allowing people to pretend reality doesn't exist and not die for it. See, in the past, you had to believe bears were not to be poked or you risked dying from poking a bear. At some point someone had to learn this lesson. Probably Bold Billy poked a bear, his buddy Timid Terry watched the bear eat him, then decided poking bears wasn't a good idea. Timid Terry then went back to the village and described what happened to Bold Billy, showed everyone Bold Billy's remains, and thus was their respect for reality both reaffirmed and their survival increased. So then the village started teaching its children to be careful around caves and not to poke bears. Jackass Jerry grew up hearing stories by Timid Terry about the time Bold Billy helped a bear make it through winter by allowing said bear to partake of his flesh. Only Jackass Jerry never believed it, so one day, he decided to go poke the bear. Well, Jackass Jerry turned into Jambalaya Jerry and thus the bear once again get assisted in it's preparations for the winter. And thus was the lesson taught by Bold Billy reinforced years later by Jambalaya Jerry, who wanted to make sure the rest of the village was kept safe by their understanding of reality. --- Society in general has become so good at protecting its members that many of those members can survive despite believing things that are patently untrue. Today, Jackass Jerry may never have turned into Jambalaya Jerry despite the mistaken belief that poking a bear isn't dangerous. That's just how good the guard rails are. The point is that your reasoning here is _PATENTLY_ untrue, but you've been allowed to rationalize your way into whatever feels right because the guardrails of society don't force a respect of reality on you. In this case, the reasons for regulation are many and varied. Something NOT outright killing someone is not, nor has it ever been, a justification for letting it remain unregulated. You disagree with the poster you responded to. And that's great, it's certainly within your rights to do so. But your rationalization of that disagreement is patently untrue and makes me wonder if we're looking at what would have happened if Jackass Jerry had never met a bear. Imagine if someone argued theft should be unregulated because no one died.
  - the_gipsy 4y ago
    Get your head out of your ass. Jimmy-and-bear stories are for little children, it's just some weak strawman here. You keep saying I'm wrong, but can't get to the point of why. The theft/death comparison is absurd because theft and death are two different things. If you wanna own a gun, great, but the regulations should be extreme - just like anything else hazardous, like motorized vehicles. I can't speed in urban areas just because "it's muh freedom of movement" and I haven't run anybody over (yet). Statistics are statistics and guns increase crime, violence, and death.
HelloNurse 4y ago
> there are plenty of well-funded anti-gun lobbying groups who fund lawsuits against the gun industry. Well funded by people for selfless political reasons, not by large corporations: as the parent comment says, the situation with USA gun control is the exact opposite of MPAA-related entities suing citizens.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Actually the vaat majority of anti-gun funding comes from a very small set of billionaires: Everytown is very heavily funded by Michael Bloomberg. Meanwhile most firearm manufacturers are not super viable and the NRA gets almost all of it's money from donations below $1,000.
  - HelloNurse 4y ago
    You seem to confirm that gun control is a relatively healthy political struggle between people who want more or less guns, while copyright enforcement is a struggle between greedy corporations and personal rights.
Terr_ 4y ago
> I'm not sure what you mean by "equivalent of MPAA", but there are plenty of well-funded anti-gun lobbying groups I think parent-poster's point is that there's a fundamental funding asymmetry between (A) a political-action group directly sustained by a current money-making industry and its future growth opportunities (B) a political-action group which is not and relies on ideological/altruistic donations. In the case of media/DRM/piracy, the profit/politics nexus mainly lies with the big media companies and the RIAA/MPAA etc. In the case of US-gun-stuff, the profit/politics nexus predominantly lies with the gun-manufacturers and NRA etc.

by cle 4y ago

the_gipsy 4y ago

You can't really compare a public health & safety issue with piracy. Firearms are not freedom of speech. Guns kill. Just like vehicles kill and are therefore subject to regulation (or outright prohibition in many spaces) above individual freedom.

cle 4y ago
I'm not talking about whether it's justified to regulate firearms, abortion, or piracy. I'm talking about whether it's justified to bully your adversaries with lawsuits in order to drain their resources. The particular legal issue doesn't matter--it's subverting and abusing the justice system.
hatware 4y ago
You sure can when the tactics are the same. They should have made the second amendment the first. Then I think you'd get it.
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  Then any movement == any movement, by that logic. That's just the essence of politics. Pro-gun does fit the comparison much better, because there are obvious industry profits behind the lobbies - at the cost of violence and death.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    i think you're confusing the massive and well-funded military lobby (the people who make 40mm autocannon) with the mixed civilian/military/police small arms industry (who make your everyday .223 AR-15). it's much harder to make it in the latter as a small businessman due to massively onerous regulation. edit: tired of this. i own lots of guns and have never killed anybody. i had this same argument with somebody else yesterday over financial KYC: we do not fight crime by stripping law-abiding Americans of their freedoms and subjecting them to increased state control.
    - the_gipsy 4y ago
      Well, anyway, this pro-gun stuff has nothing to do with piracy freedom. Piracy hurts some millionaire CEOs bank accounts, and guns literally kill people.
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
This is going to sound harsh, but you need to hear it I think. Society has done a really good job of allowing people to pretend reality doesn't exist and not die for it. See, in the past, you had to believe bears were not to be poked or you risked dying from poking a bear. At some point someone had to learn this lesson. Probably Bold Billy poked a bear, his buddy Timid Terry watched the bear eat him, then decided poking bears wasn't a good idea. Timid Terry then went back to the village and described what happened to Bold Billy, showed everyone Bold Billy's remains, and thus was their respect for reality both reaffirmed and their survival increased. So then the village started teaching its children to be careful around caves and not to poke bears. Jackass Jerry grew up hearing stories by Timid Terry about the time Bold Billy helped a bear make it through winter by allowing said bear to partake of his flesh. Only Jackass Jerry never believed it, so one day, he decided to go poke the bear. Well, Jackass Jerry turned into Jambalaya Jerry and thus the bear once again get assisted in it's preparations for the winter. And thus was the lesson taught by Bold Billy reinforced years later by Jambalaya Jerry, who wanted to make sure the rest of the village was kept safe by their understanding of reality. --- Society in general has become so good at protecting its members that many of those members can survive despite believing things that are patently untrue. Today, Jackass Jerry may never have turned into Jambalaya Jerry despite the mistaken belief that poking a bear isn't dangerous. That's just how good the guard rails are. The point is that your reasoning here is _PATENTLY_ untrue, but you've been allowed to rationalize your way into whatever feels right because the guardrails of society don't force a respect of reality on you. In this case, the reasons for regulation are many and varied. Something NOT outright killing someone is not, nor has it ever been, a justification for letting it remain unregulated. You disagree with the poster you responded to. And that's great, it's certainly within your rights to do so. But your rationalization of that disagreement is patently untrue and makes me wonder if we're looking at what would have happened if Jackass Jerry had never met a bear. Imagine if someone argued theft should be unregulated because no one died.
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  Get your head out of your ass. Jimmy-and-bear stories are for little children, it's just some weak strawman here. You keep saying I'm wrong, but can't get to the point of why. The theft/death comparison is absurd because theft and death are two different things. If you wanna own a gun, great, but the regulations should be extreme - just like anything else hazardous, like motorized vehicles. I can't speed in urban areas just because "it's muh freedom of movement" and I haven't run anybody over (yet). Statistics are statistics and guns increase crime, violence, and death.

HelloNurse 4y ago

> there are plenty of well-funded anti-gun lobbying groups who fund lawsuits against the gun industry. Well funded by people for selfless political reasons, not by large corporations: as the parent comment says, the situation with USA gun control is the exact opposite of MPAA-related entities suing citizens.

vorpalhex 4y ago
Actually the vaat majority of anti-gun funding comes from a very small set of billionaires: Everytown is very heavily funded by Michael Bloomberg. Meanwhile most firearm manufacturers are not super viable and the NRA gets almost all of it's money from donations below $1,000.
- HelloNurse 4y ago
  You seem to confirm that gun control is a relatively healthy political struggle between people who want more or less guns, while copyright enforcement is a struggle between greedy corporations and personal rights.

Terr_ 4y ago

> I'm not sure what you mean by "equivalent of MPAA", but there are plenty of well-funded anti-gun lobbying groups I think parent-poster's point is that there's a fundamental funding asymmetry between (A) a political-action group directly sustained by a current money-making industry and its future growth opportunities (B) a political-action group which is not and relies on ideological/altruistic donations. In the case of media/DRM/piracy, the profit/politics nexus mainly lies with the big media companies and the RIAA/MPAA etc. In the case of US-gun-stuff, the profit/politics nexus predominantly lies with the gun-manufacturers and NRA etc.