dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1
share rss forum feed


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to FFH5

Re: The Greedy Hacker

said by FFH5:

said by r81984:

That is why we should not get into the game of saying what devices that can be used for criminal activity are legal and what are not.
They all should be legal per the constitution, but if someone uses it for crime only the user should be prosecuted, not the manufacture or author.

The manufacture is not an accomplice or many industries can be shut down. The ruling is a dangerous ruling that opens up liability to authors and manufacturers.

Ridiculous argument. Under your theory, manufacturers should be able to sell rocket launchers, hand grenades, poison gas, flamethrowers to anyone who walks in off the street. Hey, it isn't their fault - it is the nut, criminal, or terrorist who is at fault. There is a reason that certain devices are not for sale to anyone and it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 1ST AMENDMENT.

Nope, you completely ignore what I wrote and are changing the subject.
Harris is protected in selling books that tell you how to commit crimes by the 1st amendment and he is protected just like arms manufactures are by selling hardware that can be used to commit crimes.

What you are talking about when it comes to weapons of war, our country regulates it to ensure it does not get into the hands of known bad guys. Completely different.
Im not talking about weapons of war or things that are a threat to national security. Remember you can still buy all kinds of guns/weapons and use them to commit crimes and the manufacture is not supposed to have any liability, but this ruling goes against that.
Your analogy is way off topic.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.