If he really wants to, he can defy the courts, as Jackson did with the execution of the Indian Removal Act over the Worcester v. Georgia ruling. The courts are great, but they have no power to enforce their rulings on their own, and other than impeachment, the legislature's major course of action against the…

I know you're being pedantic. I am, too. But the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments are now part of the Constitution, not the original Constitution, but the Constitution, nonetheless.

You may want to loosen that tin-foil hat.

It is in the Constitution, being an amendment to the Constitution, but it's so ambiguous as to mean virtually nothing.

The text of the 2nd amendment is so ambiguous that appealing to it to defend ownership of any gun you want is ludicrous. It isn't event clear that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an individual right. It isn't "the right of persons to keep and bear arms."

Well, I've seen someone do that without jamming or damaging the gun, so I don't know what to tell you.

Gun manufacturers have way more money than most people who would sue them, though.

Most people who buy guns that are not legal to hunt with would say self-defense and target shooting are the intended primary uses. While I don't agree with that, it's sort of a subjective argument.

I think with the marketing aspect you should be able to sue. Sort of like how people sue cigarette companies for targeting kids and lying about health effects in their ads. But people seem to want to sue gun companies simply for making a gun that is legal to make, rather than getting mad at Congress for allowing…

Except some states have sadly tried to make those fingerprint scanners illegal. I don't know if any have succeeded, but even an attempt would be a strong incentive not to develop those guns.

There are conversations in these comments about the point you brought up, but if you join them, please adopt a more civilized mode of discourse.

Wouldn't a more analogous feature be the safety catch?

If all these cases would get dismissed, how does it substantively change anything? Like I said before, we should be yelling at Congress, to make more restrictions on firearm sales and production, and allow CDC studies of gun violence. I don't think this law suit issue is going anywhere.

I'm not an expert on guns, but knowing more than my fair share of gun nuts, the easy "conversion to automatic" thing is sort of a byproduct of the mechanics of semi-autos. At least some of them have pieces that move after each shot, so that you have to pull the trigger again for the next shot. If you hold that piece…

Without knowing the details, that law makes sense to me. I would find it really bizarre if you could sue Ford if someone drove an F-150 into your living room, which seems like an analogous situation. The only reason we are even talking about this is that it deals with guns.

I honestly cannot figure out why people think suing gun manufacturers makes sense. They are acting within the law and there are 3 layers of decisions between a gun's manufacture and a shooting: the choice to sell to a particular gun dealer, the choice of the dealer to sell to a shooter, and the choice of the shooter…

That's not a kid, that's Katt Williams.

I see him every day, and that bastard keeps spelling my name wrong.

Martin Shkreli, maybe? Kinda close call.

I can't even get a non-fucking date!