Tophat665

You are missing the point, probably because I didn't make it well. It's not so much a matter of whether or not one has the right to buy 10,000 guns as it is that one will only expend their resources on what they need or think they need. People who have multiple firearms with similar functional purposes (hunting rifles, target pistols, derringers) have sunk a huge chunk of change into them for some reason other than their functionality, in response to some other percieved need (status, for instance). The bottom line of the need argument is not that it should be impossible for a person to buy a ridiculous number of firearms, but that there is going to be a statisically predictable number of people who will, and that they will be a small minority of gun owners. The vast majority of gun owners will own one gun to a purpose.

My dad, f'rinstance, had one pistol for target shooting, one 12 gague shotgun for hunting, one 410 shotgun for skeet and to teach my brother and I to shoot, and a 22 rifle for target and varmint shooting. For home defense, he had a baseball bat. (Small house, short encounter range, and a kid probably can't kill himself with a baseball bat.) My granddad had the same, except his pistol was an old military one that he kept as memoribilia. I have no need for a gun, so I don't own one. At some point, I may develop a need for a skeet and varmint gun, so I may get a 410. I rely on a (n unsharpened) broadsword for home defense.

When you make a killing product, I would say that you have a higher degree of responsibility to make sure you are selling it to a responsible user. I agree that dealers knowing selling to criminals should be held responsible. In fact, I would say that they would become an accessory to every crime facilitated by every gun they sold to any one who would have been exposed as a criminal with due diligence. Similarly, gum manufacturers have a responsibility to not sell their product to dealers who habitually sell to criminals. Given that guns are sold at a place, statistical can be used to determine where there is a local oversupply, and, if that oversupply nonetheless moves, it does not move to a legitimate market.

Stipulated: Guns are legal. Though I am uncomfortable with the general disregard for the "militia" aspect of the 2nd ammendment, I agree that current legal thought holds that the 2nd amendment allows any responsible adult to own a gun or as many guns as they care to or other weapons that do not present a clear and present danger to their neighbors (bomb making, f'rinstance, is not protected). I support that. I hold it in every bit as high esteem as the first amendment. If you are correct that the demand is legal, or even that there is no reasonable way for the gun manufacturers to discover that it is illegal, then this lawsuit will fail. If you are incorrect, though, then this is not a second ammendment matter, it is a matter of aiding and abetting violent criminals.

While it would be disingenuous to say that those who bring the lawsuit are not trying to undermine the 2nd ammendment thereby, if that is all the suit seeks, then it would be laughed out of court. If it were the primary purpose, it would be sternly rejected. If, however, it is about willful ignorance on the part of dealers and manufacturers, then it has merit and should be litigated.

I'm not even saying that it is necessarily true that gun manufacturers are liable, merely that it is not a ridiculous assertion and it should be investigated.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.