Baloo22

You may be referring to the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005. This was a needed response to a series of frivolous and reckless lawsuits that were intended to drive gun manufacturers and dealers out of business by holding those manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties who were totally beyond their control. Those lawsuits were a clear misuse of our legal system. Those frivolous lawsuits were the equivalent of suing General Motors or Ford because an individual committed a criminal act using an automobile produced by those companies.

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products by third parties beyond their control. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.

Yeah, we are and will be paying for Bush lunacy for next 50 to 100 years. Not sure how one man could cause so much trouble and economic problems in such a short period of time. Happens when everyone becomes near sighted and starts missing the forest for the trees. Sadly, I argued an Amicus Curiae position for Gun companies on one if the sensitive issues and won back during this timeframe.

Still ways to get around and it is amazing how the manufacturer of such dangerous products that serve one purpose and one purpose only thinks it should be absolved from liability. There will be a tort drive against gun companies when time, setting, political atmosphere and court is right. Us mass tort guys are just focusing on banks right now.

It is far more accurate and truthful to state that we will be paying for the lunacy of liberal politicians their liberal allies for next 50 to 100 years. It is sad how much sustained and severe damage that liberals have done to the United States.

Also, you are being truly deceitful saying that the firearms industry "only thinks it should be absolved from liability." The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005 allows suits based on knowing violations of federal or state law related to gun sales, or on negligent acts such as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person or breach of contract. The act also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm (as opposed to cases of intentional misuse).

Sorry buddy. You are a symptom of the problem and one cannot reason with the unreasonable. You are driven too much by emotion, fear and entitlement rhetoric spewed from organizations knowing how to use such to manipulate certain segments of our society. Actually, you completely miss what people like me advocate regarding guns due to fear and almost paranoid knee jerk reactions driving your emotional responses. Scarey to know people like this get their hands on weapons so easily. Mandatory federal registration with MMPIs would be a great start.

The deliberate deceit that you practice is much more unreasonable than anything that I have said. The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005 was a valid and needed law in response to multiple frivolous bad-faith lawsuits brought on by extremist politicians/organizations and aided by unscrupulous lawyers.

My statement stands as truthful, honest, and accurate. The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005 allows suits based on knowing violations of federal or state law related to gun sales, or on negligent acts such as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person or breach of contract. The act also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm (as opposed to cases of intentional misuse).

The NRA is a vested interest group and forms part of the gun lobby. You make it sound like the NRA is special for wanting to prevent criminals and mentally ill people owning weapons. Surely that is just common sense and a universal want in any civilised country?

You need to read my post again. Especially note "The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens." That is an important distinction!

Let's define mentally ill or term mentally fit. I think a good argument that a majority of those Knob Creek NRA machine gun totung guys are mentally ill and that any who really believes they need assault weapons and machine guns in US are mentally ill, unless paranoid and delusional thinking is no longer within ambit of mental illness. Most card carrying NRA survivalists types with walk-in gun safes and small arsenals are not poster children for defining the term mentally fit or mentally stable.

This will be a tough term for Courts to define and I am all for it provided NRA polices it's member and forces it's unstable members to cancel membership and turn their weapons in. Otherwise, just more empty rhetoric from money hungry small penile compensating NRA folks. On that note, Merry Christmas everyone, happy holidays, and give an extra big hug to those close and your children if applicable. Let's strive to make the world a better place for our children and be grateful for what we have and who we have in our lives.

When you use terms like " Knob Creek " and "money hungry small penile compensating", you sound more like you are desc ribing the money-grubbing civil-tort lawyers!

Your comment of "mentally ill, unless paranoid and delusional thinking is no longer within ambit of mental illness" fits civil-tort lawyers far more accurately than NRA members!

The United States will be a far better place when the American Bar Association "forces it's unstable members to cancel membership and turn their" licenses to play lawyer.

The Gun Lobby blames the deaths on "people, not guns", but they won't allow law changes to stop "people" getting guns.

Strange reasoning indeed, because only applied to guns. Every other business that makes a product that harms people can be taken to court, but not gunmakers.

You may be referring to the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005. This was a needed response to a series of frivolous and reckless lawsuits that were intended to drive gun manufacturers and dealers out of business by holding those manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties who were totally beyond their control. Those lawsuits were a clear misuse of our legal system. Those frivolous lawsuits were the equivalent of suing General Motors or Ford because an individual committed a criminal act using an automobile produced by those companies.

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products by third parties beyond their control. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.

Yeah, we are and will be paying for Bush lunacy for next 50 to 100 years. Not sure how one man could cause so much trouble and economic problems in such a short period of time. Happens when everyone becomes near sighted and starts missing the forest for the trees. Sadly, I argued an Amicus Curiae position for Gun companies on one if the sensitive issues and won back during this timeframe.

Still ways to get around and it is amazing how the manufacturer of such dangerous products that serve one purpose and one purpose only thinks it should be absolved from liability. There will be a tort drive against gun companies when time, setting, political atmosphere and court is right. Us mass tort guys are just focusing on banks right now.

It is far more accurate and truthful to state that we will be paying for the lunacy of liberal politicians their liberal allies for next 50 to 100 years. It is sad how much sustained and severe damage that liberals have done to the United States.

Also, you are being truly deceitful saying that the firearms industry "only thinks it should be absolved from liability." The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005 allows suits based on knowing violations of federal or state law related to gun sales, or on negligent acts such as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person or breach of contract. The act also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm (as opposed to cases of intentional misuse).

If by "gun lobby" you are referring to is the National Rifle Association (NRA), you are totally wrong to say they support "unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible". The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens.

By the way, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is not a lobby group for gun manufacturers. It is a citizen advocacy group with over four million dues paying members!

The NRA is a vested interest group and forms part of the gun lobby. You make it sound like the NRA is special for wanting to prevent criminals and mentally ill people owning weapons. Surely that is just common sense and a universal want in any civilised country?

You need to read my post again. Especially note "The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens." That is an important distinction!

Baloo22, I might be misunderstanding your post...but it sounds even worse when you underline that point.

Quite the opposite! It makes my statement even more clearly in accords with the intent of the drafters of our Bill of Rights!

The Gun Lobby blames the deaths on "people, not guns", but they won't allow law changes to stop "people" getting guns.

Strange reasoning indeed, because only applied to guns. Every other business that makes a product that harms people can be taken to court, but not gunmakers.

You may be referring to the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005. This was a needed response to a series of frivolous and reckless lawsuits that were intended to drive gun manufacturers and dealers out of business by holding those manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties who were totally beyond their control. Those lawsuits were a clear misuse of our legal system. Those frivolous lawsuits were the equivalent of suing General Motors or Ford because an individual committed a criminal act using an automobile produced by those companies.

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products by third parties beyond their control. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.

The gun lobby has a vested interest in selling guns and allowing unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible. It is THE GUN LOBBY! Of course they would not support a ban on the ownership any guns

If by "gun lobby" you are referring to is the National Rifle Association (NRA), you are totally wrong to say they support "unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible". The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens.

By the way, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is not a lobby group for gun manufacturers. It is a citizen advocacy group with over four million dues paying members!

The NRA is a vested interest group and forms part of the gun lobby. You make it sound like the NRA is special for wanting to prevent criminals and mentally ill people owning weapons. Surely that is just common sense and a universal want in any civilised country?

You need to read my post again. Especially note "The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens." That is an important distinction!

So be careful everywhere basically...or just stay in your hotel room

Mr Kent said travellers should be cautious in "crowded markets, tourist sites, bus or train stations and festivals". "It is best to avoid isolated neighbourhoods, shortcuts, narrow alleys and poorly lit streets, especially late at night," he said.

Apparently, if you are in Phuket, then the answer is yes!

Had never been there so took a short "vacation" from Chiang Mai to visit Phuket last summer. Definitely regret it. I thought of it as worse than Pattaya (scam and rip-off wise) and twice as expensive. The place reminded me of that famous quote from the original Star Wars movie. The one where Obi Wan (played by Alec Guinness) turns to Luke Skywalker and says "Phuket Island. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.”

This year I've been to Kanchanaburi, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, and Bangkok. Liked all four much better than Phuket. Yes, with the MRT, two BTS lines, the ARL, the Chao Phraya River providing transport and a number of really neat spots to visit, I even liked Bangkok much better than Phuket!

The gun lobby has a vested interest in selling guns and allowing unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible. It is THE GUN LOBBY! Of course they would not support a ban on the ownership any guns

If by "gun lobby" you are referring to is the National Rifle Association (NRA), you are totally wrong to say they support "unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible". The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens.

By the way, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is not a lobby group for gun manufacturers. It is a citizen advocacy group with over four million dues paying members!

Doesn't the second amendment state something like "while it may be necesary to raise a millitia then a citizen of the USA has to right to keep and bear arms". Would it be fair to say that in modern day America the millitia would be the National Guard in which case only members of that organization would be able to "keep and bear arms" under the constitution and Joe Public would have no rights to keep guns at all.

The Supreme Court of the U.S. has fairly recently ruled that the 2nd. Amendment means that individual Americans have the right to own and bear arms - guns... case closed... the militia argument has been tossed by SCOTUS

There have also been several detailed and scholarly researched reports that included the drafts, notes, and correspondence of the writers of our Bill of Rights as they were being constructed. Also examined were other writings and statements of the writers of our Bill of Rights. It is well settled that they intended those rights, including those in the First and Second Amendment to be individual rights.

Also, back when our Bill of Rights was constructed, the term "militia" did not mean "National Guard" type organizations that could be "federalized" by the stroke of a pen. The common usage was the entire body of adult male citizens. And, yes, those rights have now been extended to adult female citizens and also non-white citizens. The extension of rights to those citizens was the correct action.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is defending the rights of U.S. citizens, specifically the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights. I will not surrender my rights because of the actions of a mentally deranged criminal. For decades now the liberals have proceeded with their efforts to "mainstream" mentally ill persons and, in some cases, prevent the mandatory medication such persons when medical professionals have prescribed such medication as necessary. This, and multiple other liberal policies, have much more to do with these tragic incidents than gun ownership.

You can still have the right to bear arms Baloo22, but why does it need to be the right to bear such powerful and unneccessary weapons?

There's those terms "such powerful and unnecessary weapons". The problem is the people that end up deciding what is too powerful or is "unnecessary" for the law-abiding non-criminal citizen to possess. All too often you end up with the Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C situations where the criminals have the guns and the law-abiding non-criminal citizens are stripped of their right to own "powerful and unnecessary weapons". And the law-abiding non-criminal citizens are then deemed to be criminal for simply asserting their Second Amendment rights.

The truly "powerful and unnecessary weapons", such as fully-automatic weapons, etc, are already either totally banned or severely restricted with very restrictive licensing requirements. The problem is NOT guns in the hands of law-abiding, non-criminal citizens.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is defending the rights of U.S. citizens, specifically the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights. I will not surrender my rights because of the actions of a mentally deranged criminal. For decades now the liberals have proceeded with their efforts to "mainstream" mentally ill persons and, in some cases, prevent the mandatory medication such persons when medical professionals have prescribed such medication as necessary. This, and multiple other liberal policies, have much more to do with these tragic incidents than gun ownership.

I have the perfect solution for all those people who are outraged at McDonalds and Starbucks having their "loitering policy". Those outraged persons should invest their own money, time, and effort in creating a business offering free WiFi and aircon for their paying customers. Then be happy when bunches of people decide to freeload off of their business!

This article presents a false equivalency between the April-May 2010 Red-Shirt protests and the recent Pitak Siam protest. One, the 2010 Red-Shirt "protest" included the multi-month violent occupation in the center of Bangkok, arson of several buildings, and the use of grenades that resulted in death and injuries to both soldiers and civilians. The other, the Pitak Siam protest, was a one-day event that did not involve the firing/throwing of grenades, arson, or death and injuries to both soldiers and civilians.

The two events were nowhere near equivalent and the justifiable level of force needed by the government to maintain/regain public order and public safety was also nowhere near equivalent. I have not seen any accounts of the Pitak Siam protesters shooting bullets or firing grenades at the police. Also, face facts; The challenged roadblock(s) during the Pitak Siam rally served one purpose and that was to increase the difficulty of access to the rally so as to decrease the numbers of people protesting the current government.

I believed in 2010, and still hold the opinion today, that Prime Minister Abhisit demonstrated remarkable patience and restraint during the April-May 2010 protests/occupation. He restrained the military and attempted negotiations/talks for weeks. While that was occurring, I was continually surprised that the government was allowing such an occupation in the center of the capital city to continue for so long.

"The two events were nowhere near equivalent and the justifiable level of force needed by the government to maintain/regain public order and public safety was also nowhere near equivalent."

The New York based HRC maintained in their report Descent into Chaos that they think otherwise

"The high death toll and injuries resulted from excessive and unnecessary lethal force on the part of security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers."

They also point out that

"The extensive casualties also resulted from deliberate attacks by militant armed elements of the UDD", "The heavily armed “Black Shirt” militants, apparently connected to the UDD and operating in tandem with it, were responsible for deadly attacks on soldiers, police, and civilians.

But that does not detract from the reference to the excessive and unnecessary lethal force being used by the armed forces, in fact the by reference to the casualties caused by the black shirts (none proven so far) it makes the message even stronger so they and I disagree with you.

The challenged road blocks in 2010 had a two fold purpose - to prevent more red shirts reaching (or returning to) the main rally site and to provide a non legally tested precedent of setting up killing zones.

Abhisit held back from going in because Gen Anupong refused to crackdown on the UDD claiming the government was putting too much pressure on to the army for a crackdown. Anupong wanted to plan it properly to avoid unnecessary loss of life. . This ultimately led to Prayuth being given the job and we all know the result.

It's good to hear that this HRC also assigns blame to the Red Shirts/UDD and acknowledges that they were "responsible for deadly attacks on soldiers, police, and civilians."

As far as criticizing the government for the use of live ammunition; When the rioters (let's face it, that's what they were) are using lethal weapons and explosive grenades (M79/M203 types), you are not left with much choice.

IMO, when faced with these types of situations, what the Thai government needs is a police element with proper riot-control equipment and training. And also Police Command that will enforce the law, maintain public order and public safety irregardless of the political orientation of the rioters. That is essential to get the type of response that the HRC and most people would prefer.

The reason is the different training and responses to threats from police officers and soldiers. Properly trained police are trained to control and arrest. The soldier's response to a threat, especially an armed threat, is very simple; kill it and move on. That's what soldiers are trained to do. That's why it is generally a bad idea to use soldiers in crowd control/police operations.

WOW!!!!!!!!!! maybe we can also stop the tradition of dual pricing with one price for Thai people and a higher price for Foreigners for medical care. In Satahip Naval Hospital there is a posted sign on the cashiers window, it says "Foreigners will be charges 50% more". Please respond if any info is available........

Satahip Naval Hospital may present a different case if it is a Thai taxpayer supported institution and the charge differences are based on whether one is a resident of Thailand or not rather than simply based on race.

This article presents a false equivalency between the April-May 2010 Red-Shirt protests and the recent Pitak Siam protest. One, the 2010 Red-Shirt "protest" included the multi-month violent occupation in the center of Bangkok, arson of several buildings, and the use of grenades that resulted in death and injuries to both soldiers and civilians. The other, the Pitak Siam protest, was a one-day event that did not involve the firing/throwing of grenades, arson, or death and injuries to both soldiers and civilians.

The two events were nowhere near equivalent and the justifiable level of force needed by the government to maintain/regain public order and public safety was also nowhere near equivalent. I have not seen any accounts of the Pitak Siam protesters shooting bullets or firing grenades at the police. Also, face facts; The challenged roadblock(s) during the Pitak Siam rally served one purpose and that was to increase the difficulty of access to the rally so as to decrease the numbers of people protesting the current government.

I believed in 2010, and still hold the opinion today, that Prime Minister Abhisit demonstrated remarkable patience and restraint during the April-May 2010 protests/occupation. He restrained the military and attempted negotiations/talks for weeks. While that was occurring, I was continually surprised that the government was allowing such an occupation in the center of the capital city to continue for so long.

These aren't my thoughts but best sum up the differences in the mindset between many Americans and the rest of the world.

Yet another one who claims to speak for 6.7 billion people across the planet. Well, Americans care what "the rest of the world" thinks as much as "the rest of the world" cares what Americans think. Americans won't look to "the rest of the world" to tell them what laws they should have be it gun control or anything else.

A couple of things. All I meant by that quoted line should be attributed to another source/article which I had read (though I can't remember the article). But good to see you are insecure enough to think that I am claiming the role of global spokesperson. As for what the rest of the world think, they care plenty. Just because you couldn't give a rats arse about anyone else doesn't mean others don't. The recent massacre wouldn't be front page two days in a row if people didn't care.

You are still trying to speak for the rest of the world with, "As for what the rest of the world think, they care plenty.". You can type it a thousand times, doesn't make it true.

Being on the front page of a newspaper has zero to do with "caring" and everything to do with selling papers and/or pushing a position. In this case, as we see on these forum pages, most non-Americans aren't saying how much they care, but are saying how bad laws and people are in America. Go through the posts and count for yourself if you don't believe me.

Koheesti is 100percent correct! I would like to add additional comment that is both valid and very pertinent but, alas, I already hear a Stuka diving!

Excellent web site exposing 'hidden' dual pricing:-

here

This link should feature on every tour operator, travel agent and airline website about Thailand. Kudos to the people who maintain the site. I salute the endeavour.

I don't know if this happened to anyone else, but when I tried to go to the linked website (http://www.2pricethailand.com), I got a "Warning: Suspicious Site" from my McAfee Antivirus Plus. Said it "found it exhibited one or more risky behaviors." Don't know exactly what.

Here is an update from Mr. Richard Barrow: "Asiatique Backs Down on Two Price Policy after Barrage of Criticism on Social Media" This is some good reading.

I think that the lesson learned here is that in cases like this, getting mass involvement from travel bloggers, comments on sites like TripAdvisor, and social media outlets is the key. It seems that combination is what worked in this case.

Funny, me and the wife also hoing to Lao end of Dec. Looking for exact opposite experience. Tubing was worst thing to ever come to Lao. Will be happy to get rid of that entire element, especially the Israelis. Funny what a lovely place it was on my visits in 95, 97 even visit Lao year in 2000. Then the scrum arrived. Make no mistake, real riff raff. The guy in the article likens it to movie the Beach. Pretty dam_n close. Bunch of drunken, doped up children Last decade I only used it as a stopping point between cities. Was impossible to get proper Laotian food. Even noodles a chore. Ive heard the other side of yhe street is more quiet and local. We will sleep there thanks. You can have your tubes. Im sure your new Thai gf will be enthralled with it all...

You say "Will be happy to get rid of that entire element, especially the Israelis."

I'm curious. How in heck are the Israelis getting singled out for the blame for this? I have a hard time believing that there were more Israeli's involved in "the scrum" than Europeans, North Americans, Australians, etc. ???

I traveled from Bangkok to Chiang Mai via one of the overnight sleeper trains. They have "first class" cabins, some with two beds, and some with only one bed. If you want one of those, you need to book early. You can book up to 60 days before your trip. I traveled "second class" and still found it a pretty decent way to travel. A good website for info on train travel in Thailand is "The Man in Seat 61" If I'm facing the choice of traveling by train or bus, I would definitely choose traveling by train.

I also took a regular train from Kanchanaburi to Nam Tok and then song-theaw to Hellfire Pass. The train trip was enjoyable and some nice river scenery.

As much as the Gun nuts wring their hands and wail and gnash their teeth over things like this, the truth is that they consider the odd Austin, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Colorado or Connectitut to be an acceptable price to pay to keep their toys. It is nigh on impossible to reason with people that think this way.

There isn't much limit to the price they would be willing to pay to feed that ideology.

And after reading the two comments above, we have found at least two people that would have willingly boarded the train to their assigned "Arbeit macht frei" camp!

Mania is not in your list of quoted posts. Try making some sense in your next post and actually connect your response to the posts you are quoting.

Does he have to be for me to refer to him? Or does that just make it easier for you to follow things? Just a refresher as to what I was refering to.

The Second Amendment remains the final check. If the government, yes our own, tried to seize power & the rights of the people. That final check is there. Hopefully it in itself is enough of a deterrent. So the Second Amendment is as valid today than 250 years ago. I am sure someone will now say that is the job of the military but it should be obvious why it is not. Yes it is controversial for folks who are not American. Even for many who are.

The right to defend one self and family, and also, as a "final check" against a tyrannical dictatorship are both valid justifications for the writers of our Bill of Rights to include the Second Amendment in said Bill of Rights.

Americans have a very skewed concept of "rights". There is absolutely no way that carrying a lethal weapon - gun, knife, grenade, whatever - can be described as a "right" in anyone's eyes other than a republican american.

I repeat, it is NOT just Republicans that defend the right to bear arms. Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, etc all have supporters of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA doesn't contribute nearly as much money as the anti-gun crowd likes to pretend. If you need a group to blame, I would guess that people in urban areas are probably more for gun control laws than people in rural areas regardless of politics.

I agree with you that it's not just Republicans that defend the Second Amendment. As for the urban areas; It's more the self-serving politicians in the urban areas that keep wanting to refuse their citizens the right to defend themselves and to exercise their Second Amendment rights. For a long time it has been the areas with the most violent crime that have also had the most restrictive gun control laws. Most often it's one of the elite left-wing politicians demanding stronger and more restrictive gun laws for the common citizen while they manage to obtain their "specially issued" permit for concealed carry or have their own armed bodyguards.