And before bolt lock we had muzzle load. What’s your point on that?
I prefer the smaller round. As as I stated use a smaller one still.
Less penetration. Less damage to surrounding tissue.
You just aim smaller and target better.
The 5.56 is ideal for medium sized hunting. From large birds like wild turkeys to smaller deer.
You are absolutely correct, typo.
The 1909 based on the 1903 with a lengthened stock.
Itself based on the long barrel “long rifle”.
The m16 was a body variation of the AR15.
The AR15 was a military rifle from the outset. With the shorter barrel for close quarters combat.
The m4 is nothing other than a stock redesign in functional use.
I wasn’t attempting to do an actual ancestry tree. DK has a great series in weapons. But most new designs are based on old designs and the genetics, for lack of better word, are there.
But the military method of weapons armament is much like Microsoft in the 90s.
Embrace the civilian design. Extend it to military use.
But, in usage, how is an m16 any different in hunting from a k305, or the m14? or an M1 Garand From the 1909 from the 1903 from…
Except the smaller round… does less impact damage.
a debate where the talking points of US republicans started boiling down to, in reality
True. But I’m just as disenchanted with the pro corporate breaks the Dems look for in corporate giveaways in any plan that is is intended for “socialism”.
Because I truly believe rich individuals are simply the result of an out of control corporate policy.
Neither party wants to tax the people who fund their campaigns. The boards of big multinational corps.
Republicans rarely come up with anything helpful to the bottom half. And every dem plan that involves taxes ultimately raises the cost of living.
They may not directly tax the poor but where Republicans use top to bottom trickle down wealth (bull) the dems use trickle down taxing. And that DOES happen.
And fees and taxes hurt the poor for more than the rich.
Lol.
Well the average large predators here tend to be in the 500-700 lb range.
And my preference is sheathed 5.50 for an m16. Though 5.56 heavy works as intended when hiking/camping.
Any anyone who knows anything about rifles will recognise my preference requires hand loading single rounds. Not feeding a mag.
A well aimed 5.56 will deter a wondering bear.
And again outside of hunting my preference for deterrence is rock salt. Hurts like hell, stops a generic attack. And has more consistent results than tasers.
And the context is that in the US guns
-> people with guns.
I agree with you on the ‘wrong tree’ aspect and long have.
As taking away every legal recorded rifle does nothing for the supply of non-legal purchase supplies.
It also does nothing for societal gun crime. Mass (loosely) shootings get the attention, but they a only a tiny fraction of firearms victims.
We need to address the problems that lead to gun violence.
As I said my first thought and action is never going to be ‘die’.
Too many believe killing is a solution.
Let’s start by saying what I’m not going to cover:
Forced speech is just as bad as censorship. I don’t agree with it.
Company, vs community, flagging/tagging is a problem to be addressed elsewhere. Twitter walks a fine line between directed commentary and self publishing with their company comments. Facebook does the same.
That is a concern beyond 230 and more in line with right to be wrong debates.
So let’s look at how 230 is actually a good thing.
The poster is responsible for their own actions.
Be it face book or google. Algorithms or ai.
The poster is responsible for the post. To serve, link, rank, host, transmit, or supply: the sole responsible party is the source.
We can (and should) argue for better Jon/Jane doe Subpoena issuance.
Illegal posting should be dealt with. Be it libel, slander, scams, and cecp. Hosts should, and must, help in such cases. By supplying to law enforcement requested information.
But a host can not and should not be on the hook for users any more than any other manufacturer or provider should be responsible for the actions of clientele.
230 protects minority opinions. By allowing companies to host legal speech no mater how provocative or fringe, all voices are able to be offered by those willing to host it.
That’s a very important aspect lost in censorship debates.
“The greatest champions of free speech are those who die for for speech they abhor” ANC 1974
“Support of free speech mandates you support what you hate” -Flint 1989
“We disagree, but I support that” MLK (? via X-the story 1995)
“I fail to agree with Comrade Hai Kato but that is the point! Our future requires we fight with words and not with rifle or sword!” -Walentyna 1990
“It is not what he says but our reaction. To condemn a person by word is to condemn ourselves” -R J Hurst 1939
“Think not FORE the word but on them. For it is thy self that must acknowledge we can not, we must not, seek similarity! It is in difference we reach a greater place” Milton 4th 1879
“He who pleads superior is to thyne rest inferior in the eyes of all”— false Franklin 1801 (likely Hancock)
Ultimately 230 places the burden of consequences of speech on the person who opens their mouth, moves their fingers, and not on the person who owns the sidewalk.
As Augustus said ‘speak what you do. And say what you think. Or by your own sword should you be lost. It is a fool (jester) who speaks without action. But the dirt that speaks not at all! And the dirt is to stand upon!’
Note: you have a serious penis issue. 2 months from last post and you get all tied on on how deep.
You can find useful first-hand-experience helpers to talk through your problems and issues over at AnyChatz.
You fixation on the member is bordering on dangerous lust.
You could also try any of the many hundreds of sex groups nation wide to help work out physical concerns.
…
Where after 230 such cases are just not perused.
Be mindful that 230, though intense to cater to those who wanted to moderate, didn’t come out of thins air.
Sites were afraid of taking down stuff because they may be heals liable for what they missed, yes,
But other sites didn’t give two sheets to the wind of what was posted unless someone said a specific post was illegal.
Well, there’s a reason you post so regularly but refuse to attach a name to it.
I welcome you to add to any discussion. But comments like that are nothing more than trolling.
We all get it. You believe in the liberal elite plan to force everyone off their own land and into cities where a consistently rising tax rate will forever pull down anyone who breaks loose. Until we’re all literally 100% dependent on the federal government hand outs and are enslaved to a collective commune of forced labour for all but the very elites who a pushing to make that reality.
It’s not about protecting anyone. If it was there would be a focus on the tool designed for killing people.
It immediately disadvantages the people who reside on 90% of our land.
It eliminates principal access to food. It eliminates protection of food. And it eliminates the ability to not become food.
Feel free to com back with actual evidence on comparison tables because I actually know the statistics.
So come on back now: how many firearms assaults are conducted with a rifle vs a hand gun.
And while your at it you should probably look at firearms vs knife assaults.
Both of which hardly chart against physical assaults with the body alone.
Also do you do enough practice every day to be able to aim and fire accurately in under 1/2 a second
It doesn’t have to be daily. Or even weekly.
And yes, I’m still practiced on range enough that as long as the iron sight is preset to my eye I can raise, fire, and 4-shot group single hole to the target. It’s about 4-5 seconds though.
That’s two or three trips to the range per year.
That’s not exactly special either. Less common but not unique.
1/2 second? That is Hollywood myth.
As for being on the menu? Do recall those cities the Dems love started off by murdering as much wildlife as they could.
I don’t intend to kill anything unless it’s food or a threat. I don’t even kill insects if I can move them out without risk to myself.
America’s love of firearms has nothing to do with Hollywood. We’ve had them since day one. There’s less ownership today than ever in history.
We came to this land with our muskets.
We survived by our rifles as much as anything else.
Basically, you don’t need a 20+ mag semi-auto rifle for sport shooting
You’re a bit backwards there. You don’t need such a large storage of trade ammunition for hunting. It’s useful for sports use though.
And I’d agree to regulations on use to licensed range locations.
And while I won’t argue about “30 feral hogs” (which if you lived in such over-run areas isn’t as far fetched as it sounds) but I will say a 12 round magazine is extremely reassuring in the central and northern central states where wolves and bears are quite common.
As for select fire sourcing? They’re not automatics. Not by the original classification of single trigger depression self feeding self firing.
The 3-round burst mode is achieved by increasing the trigger sensitivity (resistance) to the point where an average shooter registers 3 depressions in one pull.
As evidenced by the shot shot jam order that happens for more experienced users.
The military has only produced a one fielded single user automatic rifle. The XR-15, fielded as the AR15 PAR, Produced for roughly 6 years.
It was in use for about 16 years. It’s primary usage, however, was not killing people. Rather indirect deterrent fire in Korea and foliage clearing/penetration in Vietnam where the 118 and 240 were better at the latter use.
The “spray and pray” usage in VN quickly had the trigger mechanism of the original x-15 replaced with the original “burst” mechanism based on trial use where the best trained users had 33-50% accuracy with full auto. Where burst fire had much higher control and accuracy rates.
But you also fail to recall, or are unaware, the premise of burst fire. When originally fielded in combat a few soldiers using burst fire sounds like a crew or squad weapon. It reduces the likelihood of small offensive enemy charges. Thus saving lives. Though that use has long since been lost. It’s rarely used in actual combat today. And never by hunters or sports shooters.
But you can’t generally buy a weapon with burst action.
So the whole discussion is moot.
And the idea that you should just burn armslist doesn’t solve anything.
The logical path is to require buyers to post foid licensing with the company. To record serial numbers. To ban hand made ghost weapons from unlicensed sale.
As for Rittenhouse? Well, be nice if the media could back up its race claim. Given a man who shot three white men in self defence has never shown any racist tendencies…?
But if that’s what you have to go on your rant is a little less stable.
And yet the ones who wish to strengthen and tighten such gun laws are completely arse up on it.
They talk of m4s and AR15s. Both descendants of the 1919. A dear rifle.
Both regularly used for hunting. Sport shooting.
The problem isn’t rifles. It’s hand guns.
Again, the hand gun was developed to kill people.
Aside from the largest cartridge sizes you aren’t going to stop a non-human predator with a hand gun.
The mass shootings are a problem. But the culprit is the society that leads to such an event.
I strongly support verification and training.
And I’d support eliminating small cartridge hand guns.
They don’t even work well for personal defence! Hence less-than-properly-trained-cops pumping 9 rounds into a man with a knife!
A single 40 will stop anyone no matter how much body shielding they have on.
You lipstick should is going to do nothing even if you can get it out and use it.
Well, thanks to Stephen and Scary, etc…
I’ve read 230 and the case law on it since.
As far as I can tell this case is a fluke.
The premise is to allow moderation without host fault for missed content.
It does NOT protect from known content. So the protection ends when someone reports the content to the host company. At that point the host must make their decision on the content to the best of their ability.
This judge is a bit of a nutter. There is zero federal level ruling that holds a legal seller liable for selling a legal product to a legal buyer. Let alone an intermediary who hosted the sale.
The reality here is the site is a form of digital flea market. You don’t sue the market for the legal transactions of sellers and buyers.
This is literally the equivalence of holding auto trader responsible for the legal sale of a legal car from a sober seller to a licensed sober driver who’s kid drove drunk.
Tell you what: you find video evidence of a gun… feel free.
… that gets up one morning, says out loud how it hates people.
Grabs a bunch of shiny pointy objects. Pushes them slowly down a shaft. And shoves the whole thing in its hole.
Then chases you down the street or heads into a quick shoppe.
Pills it’s own trigger. Pumps 9 rounds into you.
The moment you show me a firearm, a car, or the previously mentioned spork, get up and kill a human all by itself. Or kill anything all by itself.
At that point show me the evidence and I’ll be happy to listen.
Until then explain to me why I should be forced to eat only what is in the store. Not what the land provides.
Why should my family face off against a 1000+ pound carnivore looking to eat us with no defence while we sleep next to the lake.
Why must I resort to sticks and stones?
And why am I not hiding under the bead shaking over the rifle? It kills people, some anonymous person on the interwebs told me so!
Must be true!
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
And before bolt lock we had muzzle load. What’s your point on that?
I prefer the smaller round. As as I stated use a smaller one still.
Less penetration. Less damage to surrounding tissue.
You just aim smaller and target better.
The 5.56 is ideal for medium sized hunting. From large birds like wild turkeys to smaller deer.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
The only one fielded that was fully auto was the BAR 1918 and that was still a fireteam weapon.
The rest were only fielded as semi-automatic.
Mind the difference in equipped (it’s available) vs fielding (the default).
The AR15 remains the only fielded single user automatic.
You don’t hunt with a 1918 and there’s no reason for civilian use.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Dear->deer
You are absolutely correct, typo.
The 1909 based on the 1903 with a lengthened stock.
Itself based on the long barrel “long rifle”.
The m16 was a body variation of the AR15.
The AR15 was a military rifle from the outset. With the shorter barrel for close quarters combat.
The m4 is nothing other than a stock redesign in functional use.
I wasn’t attempting to do an actual ancestry tree. DK has a great series in weapons. But most new designs are based on old designs and the genetics, for lack of better word, are there.
But the military method of weapons armament is much like Microsoft in the 90s.
Embrace the civilian design. Extend it to military use.
But, in usage, how is an m16 any different in hunting from a k305, or the m14? or an M1 Garand From the 1909 from the 1903 from…
Except the smaller round… does less impact damage.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
True. But I’m just as disenchanted with the pro corporate breaks the Dems look for in corporate giveaways in any plan that is is intended for “socialism”.
Because I truly believe rich individuals are simply the result of an out of control corporate policy.
Neither party wants to tax the people who fund their campaigns. The boards of big multinational corps.
Republicans rarely come up with anything helpful to the bottom half. And every dem plan that involves taxes ultimately raises the cost of living.
They may not directly tax the poor but where Republicans use top to bottom trickle down wealth (bull) the dems use trickle down taxing. And that DOES happen.
And fees and taxes hurt the poor for more than the rich.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Lol.
Well the average large predators here tend to be in the 500-700 lb range.
And my preference is sheathed 5.50 for an m16. Though 5.56 heavy works as intended when hiking/camping.
Any anyone who knows anything about rifles will recognise my preference requires hand loading single rounds. Not feeding a mag.
A well aimed 5.56 will deter a wondering bear.
And again outside of hunting my preference for deterrence is rock salt. Hurts like hell, stops a generic attack. And has more consistent results than tasers.
I agree with you on the ‘wrong tree’ aspect and long have.
As taking away every legal recorded rifle does nothing for the supply of non-legal purchase supplies.
It also does nothing for societal gun crime. Mass (loosely) shootings get the attention, but they a only a tiny fraction of firearms victims.
We need to address the problems that lead to gun violence.
As I said my first thought and action is never going to be ‘die’.
Too many believe killing is a solution.
On the post: Texas Court Gets It Right: Dumps Texas's Social Media Moderation Law As Clearly Unconstitutional
Oped ahead:
Let’s start by saying what I’m not going to cover:
Forced speech is just as bad as censorship. I don’t agree with it.
Company, vs community, flagging/tagging is a problem to be addressed elsewhere. Twitter walks a fine line between directed commentary and self publishing with their company comments. Facebook does the same.
That is a concern beyond 230 and more in line with right to be wrong debates.
So let’s look at how 230 is actually a good thing.
The poster is responsible for their own actions.
Be it face book or google. Algorithms or ai.
The poster is responsible for the post. To serve, link, rank, host, transmit, or supply: the sole responsible party is the source.
We can (and should) argue for better Jon/Jane doe Subpoena issuance.
Illegal posting should be dealt with. Be it libel, slander, scams, and cecp. Hosts should, and must, help in such cases. By supplying to law enforcement requested information.
But a host can not and should not be on the hook for users any more than any other manufacturer or provider should be responsible for the actions of clientele.
230 protects minority opinions. By allowing companies to host legal speech no mater how provocative or fringe, all voices are able to be offered by those willing to host it.
That’s a very important aspect lost in censorship debates.
“The greatest champions of free speech are those who die for for speech they abhor” ANC 1974
“Support of free speech mandates you support what you hate” -Flint 1989
“We disagree, but I support that” MLK (? via X-the story 1995)
“I fail to agree with Comrade Hai Kato but that is the point! Our future requires we fight with words and not with rifle or sword!” -Walentyna 1990
“It is not what he says but our reaction. To condemn a person by word is to condemn ourselves” -R J Hurst 1939
“Think not FORE the word but on them. For it is thy self that must acknowledge we can not, we must not, seek similarity! It is in difference we reach a greater place” Milton 4th 1879
“He who pleads superior is to thyne rest inferior in the eyes of all”— false Franklin 1801 (likely Hancock)
Ultimately 230 places the burden of consequences of speech on the person who opens their mouth, moves their fingers, and not on the person who owns the sidewalk.
As Augustus said ‘speak what you do. And say what you think. Or by your own sword should you be lost. It is a fool (jester) who speaks without action. But the dirt that speaks not at all! And the dirt is to stand upon!’
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hello frosty. 🥶 ☃️
On the post: AT&T Set Up And Paid For OAN Propaganda Network; Yet Everyone Wants To Scream About Facebook
Note: you have a serious penis issue. 2 months from last post and you get all tied on on how deep.
You can find useful first-hand-experience helpers to talk through your problems and issues over at AnyChatz.
You fixation on the member is bordering on dangerous lust.
You could also try any of the many hundreds of sex groups nation wide to help work out physical concerns.
On the post: Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
Re:
So is it the action (bigotry) or is the choice of source (jealousy).
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
…
Where after 230 such cases are just not perused.
Be mindful that 230, though intense to cater to those who wanted to moderate, didn’t come out of thins air.
Sites were afraid of taking down stuff because they may be heals liable for what they missed, yes,
But other sites didn’t give two sheets to the wind of what was posted unless someone said a specific post was illegal.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
That depends.
From my understanding prior to 230 and back to the compuserve era a platform had to pay to fight liability concerns.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Well, there’s a reason you post so regularly but refuse to attach a name to it.
I welcome you to add to any discussion. But comments like that are nothing more than trolling.
We all get it. You believe in the liberal elite plan to force everyone off their own land and into cities where a consistently rising tax rate will forever pull down anyone who breaks loose. Until we’re all literally 100% dependent on the federal government hand outs and are enslaved to a collective commune of forced labour for all but the very elites who a pushing to make that reality.
It’s not about protecting anyone. If it was there would be a focus on the tool designed for killing people.
It immediately disadvantages the people who reside on 90% of our land.
It eliminates principal access to food. It eliminates protection of food. And it eliminates the ability to not become food.
Feel free to com back with actual evidence on comparison tables because I actually know the statistics.
So come on back now: how many firearms assaults are conducted with a rifle vs a hand gun.
And while your at it you should probably look at firearms vs knife assaults.
Both of which hardly chart against physical assaults with the body alone.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
It doesn’t have to be daily. Or even weekly.
And yes, I’m still practiced on range enough that as long as the iron sight is preset to my eye I can raise, fire, and 4-shot group single hole to the target. It’s about 4-5 seconds though.
That’s two or three trips to the range per year.
That’s not exactly special either. Less common but not unique.
1/2 second? That is Hollywood myth.
As for being on the menu? Do recall those cities the Dems love started off by murdering as much wildlife as they could.
I don’t intend to kill anything unless it’s food or a threat. I don’t even kill insects if I can move them out without risk to myself.
America’s love of firearms has nothing to do with Hollywood. We’ve had them since day one. There’s less ownership today than ever in history.
We came to this land with our muskets.
We survived by our rifles as much as anything else.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
You’re a bit backwards there. You don’t need such a large storage of trade ammunition for hunting. It’s useful for sports use though.
And I’d agree to regulations on use to licensed range locations.
And while I won’t argue about “30 feral hogs” (which if you lived in such over-run areas isn’t as far fetched as it sounds) but I will say a 12 round magazine is extremely reassuring in the central and northern central states where wolves and bears are quite common.
As for select fire sourcing? They’re not automatics. Not by the original classification of single trigger depression self feeding self firing.
The 3-round burst mode is achieved by increasing the trigger sensitivity (resistance) to the point where an average shooter registers 3 depressions in one pull.
As evidenced by the shot shot jam order that happens for more experienced users.
The military has only produced a one fielded single user automatic rifle. The XR-15, fielded as the AR15 PAR, Produced for roughly 6 years.
It was in use for about 16 years. It’s primary usage, however, was not killing people. Rather indirect deterrent fire in Korea and foliage clearing/penetration in Vietnam where the 118 and 240 were better at the latter use.
The “spray and pray” usage in VN quickly had the trigger mechanism of the original x-15 replaced with the original “burst” mechanism based on trial use where the best trained users had 33-50% accuracy with full auto. Where burst fire had much higher control and accuracy rates.
But you also fail to recall, or are unaware, the premise of burst fire. When originally fielded in combat a few soldiers using burst fire sounds like a crew or squad weapon. It reduces the likelihood of small offensive enemy charges. Thus saving lives. Though that use has long since been lost. It’s rarely used in actual combat today. And never by hunters or sports shooters.
But you can’t generally buy a weapon with burst action.
So the whole discussion is moot.
And the idea that you should just burn armslist doesn’t solve anything.
The logical path is to require buyers to post foid licensing with the company. To record serial numbers. To ban hand made ghost weapons from unlicensed sale.
As for Rittenhouse? Well, be nice if the media could back up its race claim. Given a man who shot three white men in self defence has never shown any racist tendencies…?
But if that’s what you have to go on your rant is a little less stable.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
True. However the seller is not the same entity/person/company as the platform that allowed them to come together.
Here the liability can only be forwarded to the platform if the platform had received prior knowledge that the buyer was legally restricted.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Totally without merit
Aiding in a criminal act is against the law.
Supplying a market place hub is not aiding.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
And yet the ones who wish to strengthen and tighten such gun laws are completely arse up on it.
They talk of m4s and AR15s. Both descendants of the 1919. A dear rifle.
Both regularly used for hunting. Sport shooting.
The problem isn’t rifles. It’s hand guns.
Again, the hand gun was developed to kill people.
Aside from the largest cartridge sizes you aren’t going to stop a non-human predator with a hand gun.
The mass shootings are a problem. But the culprit is the society that leads to such an event.
I strongly support verification and training.
And I’d support eliminating small cartridge hand guns.
They don’t even work well for personal defence! Hence less-than-properly-trained-cops pumping 9 rounds into a man with a knife!
A single 40 will stop anyone no matter how much body shielding they have on.
You lipstick should is going to do nothing even if you can get it out and use it.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Not trolling
Well, thanks to Stephen and Scary, etc…
I’ve read 230 and the case law on it since.
As far as I can tell this case is a fluke.
The premise is to allow moderation without host fault for missed content.
It does NOT protect from known content. So the protection ends when someone reports the content to the host company. At that point the host must make their decision on the content to the best of their ability.
This judge is a bit of a nutter. There is zero federal level ruling that holds a legal seller liable for selling a legal product to a legal buyer. Let alone an intermediary who hosted the sale.
The reality here is the site is a form of digital flea market. You don’t sue the market for the legal transactions of sellers and buyers.
This is literally the equivalence of holding auto trader responsible for the legal sale of a legal car from a sober seller to a licensed sober driver who’s kid drove drunk.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
It would not be liable if someone else bought the liquor and then sold it to a minor. That’s the difference.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Totally without merit
Tell you what: you find video evidence of a gun… feel free.
… that gets up one morning, says out loud how it hates people.
Grabs a bunch of shiny pointy objects. Pushes them slowly down a shaft. And shoves the whole thing in its hole.
Then chases you down the street or heads into a quick shoppe.
Pills it’s own trigger. Pumps 9 rounds into you.
The moment you show me a firearm, a car, or the previously mentioned spork, get up and kill a human all by itself. Or kill anything all by itself.
At that point show me the evidence and I’ll be happy to listen.
Until then explain to me why I should be forced to eat only what is in the store. Not what the land provides.
Why should my family face off against a 1000+ pound carnivore looking to eat us with no defence while we sleep next to the lake.
Why must I resort to sticks and stones?
And why am I not hiding under the bead shaking over the rifle? It kills people, some anonymous person on the interwebs told me so!
Must be true!
Next >>