Frivolous litigants crucified by court-Rachel Maddow melts down

[westwall]

You have YET to make any kind of valid point whatsoever. Just a bunch of paranoid blathering is all we can get out of you. Like you've been told before, there are at least TWICE as many DGU than crimes committed with guns. How many more times do you need to be given the information before it sinks into your thick retard skull?

Actually, DGU's are a fantasy. The FBI says there aren't more than 65,000 legit DGU's a year, and only 200 justified homicides with guns. compared to 32,000 gun deaths, and 300,000 gun crimes, it isn't worth it.

Oh? Within HOURS after the crime? You see? Do you see how retarded you really are? You dumb arse, there is no way (if said person has on CRIMINAL RECORD) that anyone would know they are going to shoot someone.

Oh, besides the fact that criminal records really don't stop crooks from getting guns DUE TO Gun show and private eller loopholes, the point is, everyone in this man's life knew he was crazy. His school was in the process of expelling him.

Not only that, but your constant references to "mass shootings" are meaningless since they make up LESS THAN 1% of all homicides.

Why are you not complaining about black on black gang violence which is, by FAR, a bigger problem. Why? Because you are a dumb fool, that's why.

No, you deal with the obvious problems, first. While domestic violence is a problem, a mass shooting incident is more likely to affect my life. And the problem is pretty fixable.

1) real background checks
2) limits to the power of weapons available
3) Hold the gun industry accountable.

Tell that to the 65,000 DGU users (your number, and artificially low) every year. They would disagree with you.

 

[turtledude]

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.

Hey Shitforbrains. it was not a MILITARY GRADE WEAPON and there is no such thing as a 100 round CLIP

stupid is as Joeb posts

 

[turtledude]

That's not a sensible question. Looking to find fault, following up a chain to find a weak link, why not just blame the Pope or the Dalai Lama for not praying hard enough, or better yet, why not blame the Colorado Rockies for not hitting enough home runs to distract people from going to the movies so they never see Batman or get any ideas they're the Joker in real life to begin with. Could always just chalk it up to global warming and/or climate change, if only there were no cars in the world the shooter would never have made it to the scene of the crime. You maybe need a degree in Chaos Theory to sort this one out

No, actually, I really don't. In countries where they don't let average citizens buy guns, they don't have incidents like these.

yeah like Nazi German, Maoist China and Pol Pot's cambodia

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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

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? No . . .

It is total BS. People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

 

[ChrisL]

That's not a sensible question. Looking to find fault, following up a chain to find a weak link, why not just blame the Pope or the Dalai Lama for not praying hard enough, or better yet, why not blame the Colorado Rockies for not hitting enough home runs to distract people from going to the movies so they never see Batman or get any ideas they're the Joker in real life to begin with. Could always just chalk it up to global warming and/or climate change, if only there were no cars in the world the shooter would never have made it to the scene of the crime. You maybe need a degree in Chaos Theory to sort this one out

No, actually, I really don't. In countries where they don't let average citizens buy guns, they don't have incidents like these.

yeah like Nazi German, Maoist China and Pol Pot's cambodia

Joe should move to North Korea or some place like that. I think he would like it there and fit right in. He could have no rights, he could lose a bunch of weight, and he could worship a dear leader.

 

[ChrisL]

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

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? No . . .

It is total BS. People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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

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? No . . .

It is total BS. People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

 

[ChrisL]

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

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? No . . .

It is total BS. People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

 

[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

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? No . . .

It is total BS. People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

do you think its ok to try to ban guns by having Democrat run cities and Democrat pawns (the parents of dead children) filing multiple lawsuits against gun makers in the hope of bankrupting them?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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

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? No . . .

It is total BS. People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

do you think its ok to try to ban guns by having Democrat run cities and Democrat pawns (the parents of dead children) filing multiple lawsuits against gun makers in the hope of bankrupting them?

I'm a guns right advocate; but I'm still questioning whether or not this is a perversion of the legal system. I get that people like Rachel Maddow have an unholy agenda though.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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

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? No . . .

It is total BS. People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

 

[ChrisL]

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? No . . .

It is total BS. People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

That is why the lawyers should also have to pay.

 

[turtledude]

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? No . . .

It is total BS. People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

you mean slime sucking plaintiff's attorneys who filed this suit

they should be subjected to massive fines as well.

 

[turtledude]

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? No . . .

It is total BS. People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

do you think its ok to try to ban guns by having Democrat run cities and Democrat pawns (the parents of dead children) filing multiple lawsuits against gun makers in the hope of bankrupting them?

I'm a guns right advocate; but I'm still questioning whether or not this is a perversion of the legal system. I get that people like Rachel Maddow have an unholy agenda though.

if the gun was made properly and not sold illegally by the maker to a dealer, what other possible legitimate grounds for a suit exists

 

[ChrisL]

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

you mean slime sucking plaintiff's attorneys who filed this suit

they should be subjected to massive fines as well.

Yes they should, because it is they who make the decision on whether or not to take a case.

 

[ChrisL]

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? No . . .

It is total BS. People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

It's a good point. The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

It's a good point. The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.

Maybe. But that's a dangerous precedent. If lawyers start having to pay for lost cases, many will not take legit cases or otherwise leave the profession. There could be unwanted consequences.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

It's a good point. The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.

Maybe. But that's a dangerous precedent. If lawyers start having to pay for lost cases, many will not take legit cases or otherwise leave the profession. There could be unwanted consequences.

Nope, I disagree. I think a lawyer knows darned well when a "frivolous" case is being brought before him. If the lawyer doesn't know, then he or she should probably leave the profession.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

It's a good point. The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.

Maybe. But that's a dangerous precedent. If lawyers start having to pay for lost cases, many will not take legit cases or otherwise leave the profession. There could be unwanted consequences.

Nope, I disagree. I think a lawyer knows darned well when a "frivolous" case is being brought before him. If the lawyer doesn't know, then he or she should probably leave the profession.

Yea, lawyers do know a frivolous case; but what happens when you have a case that has merit but is not a slam dunk? Then, you're asking lawyers to take a huge risk that they won't take and then you're taking away good legal representation from the citizenry.

 

[ChrisL]

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

It's a good point. The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.

Maybe. But that's a dangerous precedent. If lawyers start having to pay for lost cases, many will not take legit cases or otherwise leave the profession. There could be unwanted consequences.

Nope, I disagree. I think a lawyer knows darned well when a "frivolous" case is being brought before him. If the lawyer doesn't know, then he or she should probably leave the profession.

Yea, lawyers do know a frivolous case; but what happens when you have a case that has merit but is not a slam dunk? Then, you're asking lawyers to take a huge risk that they won't take and then you're taking away good legal representation from the citizenry.

Well, as long as they aren't knowingly taking a frivolous suit, I don't see why they would have to worry.