Connecticut SC rules gun maker can be sued

[M14 Shooter]

But the principle is the same. Remington will not be held liable because guns were designed to kill. And automobile manufacturers can be held responsible under the same guidelines as firearms.

i never said they would... however, they can be made to be very expensive & difficult to acquire.

You understand that if the state raises the cost of the exercise of right wit the intent to make it more difficult to exercise said right, it violates the constitution.
Right?

Absolutely right. Same as requiring ID to vote, or so some have claimed.

You being the person you say you are in an integral and necessary component to the meaningful exercise of the right to vote.
So... no.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wait... you think the sole design and purpose of a gun is to kill?

the original purpose was

Do you need help moving that goalpost? Sure looks heavy.
I have innumerable guns - I'll give you a list, and you show us how its sole design and purpose is to kill.

lol... why was a gun invented?

What's that?
You know you can't show the sole design and purpose of my guns is to kill?
Thought not. Thanks.

the product is not what you use it for... but that doesn't mean anything. you can use your car as a hotel room, but that's not what it's intent by design is used for.

I have innumerable guns - I'll give you a list, and you show us how its sole design and purpose is to kill.
Ready?

 

[playtime]

Court rules gun maker can be sued over Newtown shooting

Yup...you make deadly weapons..you die with deadly weapons.

I thought federal law prohibited those suits. Hmmmmm

Liability/wrongful death suits, yes.
But this concerns marketing practices subject to state regulation.

Where did Lanza buy his gun?

he stole them from his survivalist mama....

So the better background check would have helped how?

so don't have better background checks, why?

 

[playtime]

But the principle is the same. Remington will not be held liable because guns were designed to kill. And automobile manufacturers can be held responsible under the same guidelines as firearms.

i never said they would... however, they can be made to be very expensive & difficult to acquire.

You understand that if the state raises the cost of the exercise of right wit the intent to make it more difficult to exercise said right, it violates the constitution.
Right?

every hear of sin taxes? it's done all the time. alcohol & tobacco are legals products that people have the right to consume....

& firearms are a legal constitutional product funny how they are all under one roof too.

 

[WinterBorn]

Wait... you think the sole design and purpose of a gun is to kill?

the original purpose was

Do you need help moving that goalpost? Sure looks heavy.
I have innumerable guns - I'll give you a list, and you show us how its sole design and purpose is to kill.

lol... why was a gun invented?

What's that?
You know you can't show the sole design and purpose of my guns is to kill?
Thought not. Thanks.

the product is not what you use it for... but that doesn't mean anything. you can use your car as a hotel room, but that's not what it's intent by design is used for.

lol... next?

The gun itself has no intent. That is strictly the user.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You understand that if the state raises the cost of the exercise of right wit the intent to make it more difficult to exercise said right, it violates the constitution.
Right?

every hear of sin taxes? it's done all the time. alcohol & tobacco are legals products that people have the right to consume....

So, you'd argue a, say, $1500 tax laid on abortions does not violate the constitution.
Good to hear.

 

[WinterBorn]

I thought federal law prohibited those suits. Hmmmmm

Liability/wrongful death suits, yes.
But this concerns marketing practices subject to state regulation.

Where did Lanza buy his gun?

he stole them from his survivalist mama....

So the better background check would have helped how?

so don't have better background checks, why?

Not what I asked.

The current background check system will refuse to authorize the sale of any firearm to anyone who:

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is a fugitive from justice;
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
• Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
• Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)[21]

What would you add to that?

And it is required by federal law to report people to the system that fit the above criteria.

 

[playtime]

the original purpose was

Do you need help moving that goalpost? Sure looks heavy.
I have innumerable guns - I'll give you a list, and you show us how its sole design and purpose is to kill.

lol... why was a gun invented?

What's that?
You know you can't show the sole design and purpose of my guns is to kill?
Thought not. Thanks.

the product is not what you use it for... but that doesn't mean anything. you can use your car as a hotel room, but that's not what it's intent by design is used for.

lol... next?

The gun itself has no intent. That is strictly the user.

 

[WinterBorn]

But the principle is the same. Remington will not be held liable because guns were designed to kill. And automobile manufacturers can be held responsible under the same guidelines as firearms.

i never said they would... however, they can be made to be very expensive & difficult to acquire.

You understand that if the state raises the cost of the exercise of right wit the intent to make it more difficult to exercise said right, it violates the constitution.
Right?

every hear of sin taxes? it's done all the time. alcohol & tobacco are legals products that people have the right to consume....

& firearms are a legal constitutional product funny how they are all under one roof too.

I doubt the sin taxes are in place for the expressed purpose of making the products more difficult to obtain. And that is obviously why you want taxes added to firearms.

In other words, the poorer people should not be able to defend themselves or provide food by hunting. Good plan.

 

[WinterBorn]

You understand that if the state raises the cost of the exercise of right wit the intent to make it more difficult to exercise said right, it violates the constitution.
Right?

every hear of sin taxes? it's done all the time. alcohol & tobacco are legals products that people have the right to consume....

So, you'd argue a, say, $1500 tax laid on abortions does not violate the constitution.
Good to hear.

I guess bringing back a poll tax will be ok too?

 

[playtime]

Liability/wrongful death suits, yes.
But this concerns marketing practices subject to state regulation.

Where did Lanza buy his gun?

he stole them from his survivalist mama....

So the better background check would have helped how?

so don't have better background checks, why?

Not what I asked.

The current background check system will refuse to authorize the sale of any firearm to anyone who:

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is a fugitive from justice;
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
• Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
• Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)[21]

What would you add to that?

And it is required by federal law to report people to the system that fit the above criteria.

then why is there a problem? & what is the common denominator?

 

[playtime]

But the principle is the same. Remington will not be held liable because guns were designed to kill. And automobile manufacturers can be held responsible under the same guidelines as firearms.

i never said they would... however, they can be made to be very expensive & difficult to acquire.

You understand that if the state raises the cost of the exercise of right wit the intent to make it more difficult to exercise said right, it violates the constitution.
Right?

every hear of sin taxes? it's done all the time. alcohol & tobacco are legals products that people have the right to consume....

& firearms are a legal constitutional product funny how they are all under one roof too.

I doubt the sin taxes are in place for the expressed purpose of making the products more difficult to obtain. And that is obviously why you want taxes added to firearms.

In other words, the poorer people should not be able to defend themselves or provide food by hunting. Good plan.

you don't hunt with nor use an AR15 for defense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Probably....but the pressure is beginning to take a toll....the GOP and the NRA will pay...you can't keep condoning mass murders and not pay the price..

Fuck off, Troll

 

[playtime]

You understand that if the state raises the cost of the exercise of right wit the intent to make it more difficult to exercise said right, it violates the constitution.
Right?

every hear of sin taxes? it's done all the time. alcohol & tobacco are legals products that people have the right to consume....

So, you'd argue a, say, $1500 tax laid on abortions does not violate the constitution.
Good to hear.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Court rules gun maker can be sued over Newtown shooting

Yup...you make deadly weapons..you die with deadly weapons.

It's dumb because they will only bankrupt the gun makers, it will not stop the criminals and terrorist from murdering people.

 

[WinterBorn]

Where did Lanza buy his gun?

he stole them from his survivalist mama....

So the better background check would have helped how?

so don't have better background checks, why?

Not what I asked.

The current background check system will refuse to authorize the sale of any firearm to anyone who:

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is a fugitive from justice;
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
• Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
• Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)[21]

What would you add to that?

And it is required by federal law to report people to the system that fit the above criteria.

then why is there a problem? & what is the common denominator?

One common denominator is mental health professionals not reporting their patients.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you don't hunt with nor use an AR15 for defense.

The AR15 platform is perfectly suitable for both - indeed, perfectly suitable for every traditionally legal use of a firearm.
How do you not know this?

 

[playtime]

he stole them from his survivalist mama....

So the better background check would have helped how?

so don't have better background checks, why?

Not what I asked.

The current background check system will refuse to authorize the sale of any firearm to anyone who:

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is a fugitive from justice;
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
• Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
• Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)[21]

What would you add to that?

And it is required by federal law to report people to the system that fit the above criteria.

then why is there a problem? & what is the common denominator?

One common denominator is mental health professionals not reporting their patients.

nooooooooo........... that would be guns. g-u-n-s. however, there certainly are peripheral reasons why mass murders are just so frequent in this country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What's what?
Can't address what I said?
Does a $1500 tax laid on abortions does violate the constitution, or not?
Why?

 

[WinterBorn]

But the principle is the same. Remington will not be held liable because guns were designed to kill. And automobile manufacturers can be held responsible under the same guidelines as firearms.

i never said they would... however, they can be made to be very expensive & difficult to acquire.

You understand that if the state raises the cost of the exercise of right wit the intent to make it more difficult to exercise said right, it violates the constitution.
Right?

every hear of sin taxes? it's done all the time. alcohol & tobacco are legals products that people have the right to consume....

& firearms are a legal constitutional product funny how they are all under one roof too.

I doubt the sin taxes are in place for the expressed purpose of making the products more difficult to obtain. And that is obviously why you want taxes added to firearms.

In other words, the poorer people should not be able to defend themselves or provide food by hunting. Good plan.

you don't hunt with nor use an AR15 for defense.

Wrong. The AR is commonly used when hunting feral swine. I used one for a few years hunting coyote. I was able to bag several doubles because of the rapid 2nd shot.

But if the legality of a given firearm is to be based on whether it is used for hunting, who will decide which ones are used for hunting? Obviously, you are not well versed on the subject. Also, you would need a constitutional amendment to implement that one.