Frivolous litigants crucified by court-Rachel Maddow melts down

[ChrisL]

[The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.

Gun sellers? You are full of it. Why do you lie? If you have an argument, then make it (although we all know that you do not) without lying.

So essentially your profound ignorance of stuff is the other person lying?

Katrina vanden Heuvel The case for gun liability laws - The Washington Post

Then, in 2005, after a civil lawsuit brought after the Washington, D.C., sniper killings left the manufacturer Bushmaster with a $2 million bill, the NRA aggressively and successfully lobbied for the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , which offered permanent protection to gun makers.

You said the gun SELLER.

 

[turtledude]

Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim s Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers

its about time the courts start doing this. Assholes trying to slake their grief by suing innocent makers or being used as pawns by scumbags like Bloomberg need to get absolutely destroyed for this sort of nonsense

Pissing Rachel Madcow off-added bonus

god I hate that man

still jealous over the fact that he's better hung than you are

 

[turtledude]

more idiocy. the gun makers don't water down background checks

nor do the dealers. Idiot

Of course thy have. The reason why this couple lost (and it makes you feel good to soak grieving parents for a quarter of a million doesn't it?) is because after the DC Sniper went on his rampage, a court found the gun dealers and manufacturers liable for one million dollars. (Mohammed was a convicted felon and Malvo was a minor- either of which should have disqualifed them from buying guns). The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.

and rightfully so. unless the gun was defective or the dealer violated the dozens of laws that restrict whom he sells to, he should not be liable. I believe the maker settled, there was no admission of liability. people who sue gun makers when the maker provided a well made product to a legal dealer should be destroyed financially for bringing such a bogus suit

 

[turtledude]

What is the line? Oh yeah, that's right. If you don't want to have a gun, don't buy one.

And watch out, I heard there are packs of feral guns roaming the countryside, and there's one in your backyard

Actually, what I had in my condo complex was a neighbor who shot out into the parking lot in a suicide attempt before doing it right a few weeks later.

If the cops had taken his gun then, he might still be alive today.

if they had taken his building away he could have been prevented from jumping

his kitchen knife away-no slitting his wrists

his clothesline away-no hanging

 

[turtledude]

[The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.

Gun sellers? You are full of it. Why do you lie? If you have an argument, then make it (although we all know that you do not) without lying.

So essentially your profound ignorance of stuff is the other person lying?

Katrina vanden Heuvel The case for gun liability laws - The Washington Post

Then, in 2005, after a civil lawsuit brought after the Washington, D.C., sniper killings left the manufacturer Bushmaster with a $2 million bill, the NRA aggressively and successfully lobbied for the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , which offered permanent protection to gun makers.

Katrina von Communist-the foxy fabian who should be obscene and not heard. The people who brought that suit should have been bankrupted for filing a bogus suit. their claim was that the AR-15 has no legitimate purpose. that alone is a bald faced lie that should have subjected the lawyers to "rule 11" sanctions

 

[ChrisL]

more idiocy. the gun makers don't water down background checks

nor do the dealers. Idiot

Of course thy have. The reason why this couple lost (and it makes you feel good to soak grieving parents for a quarter of a million doesn't it?) is because after the DC Sniper went on his rampage, a court found the gun dealers and manufacturers liable for one million dollars. (Mohammed was a convicted felon and Malvo was a minor- either of which should have disqualifed them from buying guns). The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.

and rightfully so. unless the gun was defective or the dealer violated the dozens of laws that restrict whom he sells to, he should not be liable. I believe the maker settled, there was no admission of liability. people who sue gun makers when the maker provided a well made product to a legal dealer should be destroyed financially for bringing such a bogus suit

Immunized the gun sellers, TD? Or is it the manufacturers?

 

[turtledude]

more idiocy. the gun makers don't water down background checks

nor do the dealers. Idiot

Of course thy have. The reason why this couple lost (and it makes you feel good to soak grieving parents for a quarter of a million doesn't it?) is because after the DC Sniper went on his rampage, a court found the gun dealers and manufacturers liable for one million dollars. (Mohammed was a convicted felon and Malvo was a minor- either of which should have disqualifed them from buying guns). The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.

and rightfully so. unless the gun was defective or the dealer violated the dozens of laws that restrict whom he sells to, he should not be liable. I believe the maker settled, there was no admission of liability. people who sue gun makers when the maker provided a well made product to a legal dealer should be destroyed financially for bringing such a bogus suit

Immunized the gun sellers, TD? Or is it the manufacturers?

it prevents suing a maker or seller of a weapon if the weapon was not defective and no laws were broken. Liberal cocksuckers in office-chagrined over not being able to ban guns decided to file multiple suits against makers and seller in the hope that such lawsuits would bankrupt the businesses. The theory normally is

1) the guns they make or sell have no legitimate purpose-of course assholes like JoeB do not think anyone should be able to own a gun for ANY reason

2) that the makers/sellers KNOW that some of the guns will be used illegally. Can you imagine that logic being applied to the makers of cars, booze or SUDAPHED?

3) that these weapons are a "nuisance" and no one should own them

 

[ChrisL]

more idiocy. the gun makers don't water down background checks

nor do the dealers. Idiot

Of course thy have. The reason why this couple lost (and it makes you feel good to soak grieving parents for a quarter of a million doesn't it?) is because after the DC Sniper went on his rampage, a court found the gun dealers and manufacturers liable for one million dollars. (Mohammed was a convicted felon and Malvo was a minor- either of which should have disqualifed them from buying guns). The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.

and rightfully so. unless the gun was defective or the dealer violated the dozens of laws that restrict whom he sells to, he should not be liable. I believe the maker settled, there was no admission of liability. people who sue gun makers when the maker provided a well made product to a legal dealer should be destroyed financially for bringing such a bogus suit

Immunized the gun sellers, TD? Or is it the manufacturers?

it prevents suing a maker or seller of a weapon if the weapon was not defective and no laws were broken. Liberal cocksuckers in office-chagrined over not being able to ban guns decided to file multiple suits against makers and seller in the hope that such lawsuits would bankrupt the businesses. The theory normally is

1) the guns they make or sell have no legitimate purpose-of course assholes like JoeB do not think anyone should be able to own a gun for ANY reason

2) that the makers/sellers KNOW that some of the guns will be used illegally. Can you imagine that logic being applied to the makers of cars, booze or SUDAPHED?

3) that these weapons are a "nuisance" and no one should own them

Okay, thanks. I thought that lawsuits COULD be brought against a seller and that those rules only applied to the manufacturer. I think it is a good law. If the law wasn't broken and procedure was followed, I don't see how a person or people could sue either the manufacturer or the seller for selling a legal weapon to a person. Other than the usual procedures, there is no way to tell what a person will do with a weapon and no way to prevent a person from doing something illegal with the weapon unless you are a mind reader or something.

 

[JoeB131]

why should the makers of a legitimate product be sued for the wrongful use of that product, hmmm? By that "logic' car makers should be liable for anyone who uses a car to kidnap, steal, kill, rape, etc, or to escape from justice. The entire concept of suing gunmakers was just a backdoor attempt at taking guns from legitimate owners, and we beat you at it. Just as we'll always beat you, cause we outnumber you, we're more passionate than you, we're smarter than you, we've got logic, reason and right on our side. Plus we've got all the guns, silencers, explosives and ability and willingness to use them.

The best argument for gun control is to let the Gun nuts fantasize about ALL the people they want to murder.

Actually, there is a precedent for the gun lawsuits, and that was the tobacco settlement. When it was found the tobacco companies were marketing to children and hid the dangers of their product, people were able to sue them for damages.

The same should be done to the gun industry. If they are marketing to the James Holmes of the world, they should be held accounatable.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, thanks. I thought that lawsuits COULD be brought against a seller and that those rules only applied to the manufacturer. I think it is a good law. If the law wasn't broken and procedure was followed, I don't see how a person or people could sue either the manufacturer or the seller for selling a legal weapon to a person. Other than the usual procedures, there is no way to tell what a person will do with a weapon and no way to prevent a person from doing something illegal with the weapon unless you are a mind reader or something.

Okay, the guy was dressed as the FUCKING JOKER and wanted an AR-15 and a 100 round magazine. What did you think he intended to do with it?

You hold the manufacturers responsible, and guess what, they are going to make sure guns don't get in the hands of the wrong people.

 

[JoeB131]

it prevents suing a maker or seller of a weapon if the weapon was not defective and no laws were broken. Liberal cocksuckers in office-chagrined over not being able to ban guns decided to file multiple suits against makers and seller in the hope that such lawsuits would bankrupt the businesses. The theory normally is

1) the guns they make or sell have no legitimate purpose-of course assholes like JoeB do not think anyone should be able to own a gun for ANY reason

2) that the makers/sellers KNOW that some of the guns will be used illegally. Can you imagine that logic being applied to the makers of cars, booze or SUDAPHED?

3) that these weapons are a "nuisance" and no one should own them

Uh, guy, we already apply this kind of logic to Sudaphed. If you go into a store and try to buy enough Sudaphed to re-enact the Second Season of Breaking Bad, the store is supposed to stop you and report you.

As for cars, cars are already licensed, registered, regulated, and required to be insured. If we held gun owners to the same standards we hold car owners, I probably wouldn't have as much of a problem.

32,000 gun deaths, 78,000 gun injuries and 300,000 gun crimes are more than a nuisance. It's more like a crisis.

 

[JoeB131]

[The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.

Gun sellers? You are full of it. Why do you lie? If you have an argument, then make it (although we all know that you do not) without lying.

So essentially your profound ignorance of stuff is the other person lying?

Katrina vanden Heuvel The case for gun liability laws - The Washington Post

Then, in 2005, after a civil lawsuit brought after the Washington, D.C., sniper killings left the manufacturer Bushmaster with a $2 million bill, the NRA aggressively and successfully lobbied for the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , which offered permanent protection to gun makers.

You said the gun SELLER.

Go back and ready the article. Then have someone help you with the big words, stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

Katrina von Communist-the foxy fabian who should be obscene and not heard. The people who brought that suit should have been bankrupted for filing a bogus suit. their claim was that the AR-15 has no legitimate purpose. that alone is a bald faced lie that should have subjected the lawyers to "rule 11" sanctions

Yes, totally bankrupt greiving parents for asking a sensible question like,

"Why was the crazy fucker who thought he was the Joker allowed to buy a military grade weapon?"

You guys might have to be worried that now people see what these laws are like... and question them. Even Chris the gun nut didn't know there was a liability protection for gun makers and sellers.

 

[JoeB131]

if they had taken his building away he could have been prevented from jumping

his kitchen knife away-no slitting his wrists

his clothesline away-no hanging

Any one of those things, there's a reasonable chance to stop him or save him after the attempt. Guns, not so much.

Not to mention his first attempt sent a bullet flying across a parking lot that hundreds of people use.

 

[BlackSand]

I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer?

Uh, yeah. Pool manufacturers get sued all the time. For instance, there was the little girl who got sucked into a filter, and her large intestine turned inside out, anD John Edwards cleaned their clocks.

Now, here you have gun manufacturers who have watered down background checks and insiste that people who think they are The Joker from the Batman comics have a right to a military grade M-16 and a 100 round drum of ammo.

Product manufacturers can generally be held liable for product failure or fault ... But not consumer misuse (except in progressive hellholes where everything is upside down).
The gun manufacturers do not write legislation ... So if you don't like the legislation, take it up with your representatives in Congress.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Product manufacturers can generally be held liable for product failure or fault ... But not consumer misuse (except in progressive hellholes where everything is upside down).
The gun manufacturers do not write legislation ... So if you don't like the legislation, take it up with your representatives in Congress.

If you are so fucking delusional that you don't think special interests are writing our laws, just don't think there is anything I can do for you, other than recommend that the people you live with secure all sharp objects.

Product manufacturers CAN be held responsible for unethical business practices and reckless marketing strategies. Again, I go back to the tobacco industry, which did things like marketing to children with cartoon characters.

 

[ChrisL]

[The NRA went back to congress and got a law passed that immunized gun sellers from liability.

Gun sellers? You are full of it. Why do you lie? If you have an argument, then make it (although we all know that you do not) without lying.

So essentially your profound ignorance of stuff is the other person lying?

Katrina vanden Heuvel The case for gun liability laws - The Washington Post

Then, in 2005, after a civil lawsuit brought after the Washington, D.C., sniper killings left the manufacturer Bushmaster with a $2 million bill, the NRA aggressively and successfully lobbied for the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , which offered permanent protection to gun makers.

You said the gun SELLER.

Go back and ready the article. Then have someone help you with the big words, stupid.

Maybe you should learn to spell before you call anyone else "stupid." Also, you specifically said the gun "seller" and not "manufacturer." The two terms are NOT interchangeable.

 

[ChrisL]

Katrina von Communist-the foxy fabian who should be obscene and not heard. The people who brought that suit should have been bankrupted for filing a bogus suit. their claim was that the AR-15 has no legitimate purpose. that alone is a bald faced lie that should have subjected the lawyers to "rule 11" sanctions

Yes, totally bankrupt greiving parents for asking a sensible question like,

"Why was the crazy fucker who thought he was the Joker allowed to buy a military grade weapon?"

You guys might have to be worried that now people see what these laws are like... and question them. Even Chris the gun nut didn't know there was a liability protection for gun makers and sellers.

Gun nut? Thanks again for proving your idiocy. I am a "rights nut." ALL of our rights deserve protection from assholes like you.

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe you should learn to spell before you call anyone else "stupid." Also, you specifically said the gun "seller" and not "manufacturer." The two terms are NOT interchangeable.

The law as written covers both, Stupid. If you bothered to do any research, you'd know this. But again, you are a stupid person.

 

[JoeB131]

Gun nut? Thanks again for proving your idiocy. I am a "rights nut." ALL of our rights deserve protection from assholes like you.

Stupid, there are no "rights. There are privileges the rest of society thinks you should have. Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".

Now, the question is, should you be allowed the privilege of owning a military grade weapon? Well, no. Not in most cases. you certainly don't need one to protect your home in the unlikely event of a crime. Even ignoring the reality a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. A regular gun is perfectly adequate for you to kill your housemate in that argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.

There is simply no good reason for a guy like Joker Holmes to be able to buy a military grade weapon and a 100 round clip.