If you support gun manufactures being sued you will support this

[bigrebnc1775]

Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued if someone misuses a firearm that causes another to be harmed or killed. How say you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So much for conservatives’ advocacy of property rights.

The politics of firearms illustrates well the inconsistency and hypocrisy common to most on the right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So much for conservatives’ advocacy of property rights.

The politics of firearms illustrates well the inconsistency and hypocrisy common to most on the right.

So you don't support Remington being sued?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives oppose public accommodation laws allowing patrons to sue a business owner who discriminates against his customers – public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in particular – claiming such laws violate private property rights.

If a business owner should be allowed to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple without being sued for refusing to do so, a business owner should likewise be allowed to prohibit firearms on his private property without being subject to a lawsuit.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Conservatives oppose public accommodation laws allowing patrons to sue a business owner who discriminates against his customers – public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in particular – claiming such laws violate private property rights.

If a business owner should be allowed to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple without being sued for refusing to do so, a business owner should likewise be allowed to prohibit firearms on his private property without being subject to a lawsuit.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

LOL I'm not a Conservative. I do have some Conservative views
I'm more of a Lincoln Republican
So you oppose Remington being sued?
It does appear you are wanting it both ways.

 

[satrebil]

Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued if someone misuses a firearm that causes another to be harmed or killed. How say you?

So much for conservatives’ advocacy of property rights.

The politics of firearms illustrates well the inconsistency and hypocrisy common to most on the right.

As much as I hate to agree with one of the resident leftist dumbkopfs, he's right. Property rights should and must reign supreme. They are the foundation of any and every form of democracy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued if someone misuses a firearm that causes another to be harmed or killed. How say you?

So much for conservatives’ advocacy of property rights.

The politics of firearms illustrates well the inconsistency and hypocrisy common to most on the right.

As much as I hate to agree with one of the resident leftist dumbkopfs, he's right. Property rights should and must reign supreme. They are the foundation of any and every form of democracy.

He never answered the question presented
Does he oppose Remington being sued
He wants it both ways

 

[satrebil]

Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued if someone misuses a firearm that causes another to be harmed or killed. How say you?

So much for conservatives’ advocacy of property rights.

The politics of firearms illustrates well the inconsistency and hypocrisy common to most on the right.

As much as I hate to agree with one of the resident leftist dumbkopfs, he's right. Property rights should and must reign supreme. They are the foundation of any and every form of democracy.

He never answered the question presented
Does he oppose Remington being sued
He wants it both ways

Well, he actually did. Your hypothetical was "Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued".

"Any place" implies, well, any place - including private property. As staunch a 2A advocate as I am, I cannot say that 2A rights should supersede property rights. I have every right to dictate who may be armed on my property. Public property is a different story.

Damn you for making me defend this moron.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued if someone misuses a firearm that causes another to be harmed or killed. How say you?

So much for conservatives’ advocacy of property rights.

The politics of firearms illustrates well the inconsistency and hypocrisy common to most on the right.

As much as I hate to agree with one of the resident leftist dumbkopfs, he's right. Property rights should and must reign supreme. They are the foundation of any and every form of democracy.

He never answered the question presented
Does he oppose Remington being sued
He wants it both ways

Well, he actually did. Your hypothetical was "Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued".

"Any place" implies, well, any place - including private property. As staunch a 2A advocate as I am, I cannot say that 2A rights should supersede property rights. I have every right to dictate who may be armed on my property. Public property is a different story.

Damn you for making me defend this moron.

I'm still not seeing where he said Remington should not be sued
And the title should have been the guide
If you support gun manufacturers being sued you will support this

 

[satrebil]

Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued if someone misuses a firearm that causes another to be harmed or killed. How say you?

So much for conservatives’ advocacy of property rights.

The politics of firearms illustrates well the inconsistency and hypocrisy common to most on the right.

As much as I hate to agree with one of the resident leftist dumbkopfs, he's right. Property rights should and must reign supreme. They are the foundation of any and every form of democracy.

He never answered the question presented
Does he oppose Remington being sued
He wants it both ways

Well, he actually did. Your hypothetical was "Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued".

"Any place" implies, well, any place - including private property. As staunch a 2A advocate as I am, I cannot say that 2A rights should supersede property rights. I have every right to dictate who may be armed on my property. Public property is a different story.

Damn you for making me defend this moron.

I'm still not seeing where he said Remington should not be sued
And the title should have been the guide
If you support gun manufacturers being sued you will support this

Sorry friend, you're simply off base on this. Remington is not being sued upon where the shooting took place, they're being sued because they manufacture guns and supposedly ran ads that encouraged mass shootings. You know and I know it's complete bullshit, but it has nothing to do with the way you framed this thread.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued if someone misuses a firearm that causes another to be harmed or killed. How say you?

So much for conservatives’ advocacy of property rights.

The politics of firearms illustrates well the inconsistency and hypocrisy common to most on the right.

As much as I hate to agree with one of the resident leftist dumbkopfs, he's right. Property rights should and must reign supreme. They are the foundation of any and every form of democracy.

He never answered the question presented
Does he oppose Remington being sued
He wants it both ways

Well, he actually did. Your hypothetical was "Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued".

"Any place" implies, well, any place - including private property. As staunch a 2A advocate as I am, I cannot say that 2A rights should supersede property rights. I have every right to dictate who may be armed on my property. Public property is a different story.

Damn you for making me defend this moron.

I'm still not seeing where he said Remington should not be sued
And the title should have been the guide
If you support gun manufacturers being sued you will support this

Sorry friend, you're simply off base on this. Remington is not being sued upon where the shooting took place, they're being sued because they manufacture guns and supposedly ran ads that encouraged mass shootings. You know and I know it's complete bullshit, but it has nothing to do with the way you framed this thread.

But Remington is being sued for the accountability of their product
If the property owner says they restrict something then they are taking it upon themselves to protect the guests on their property.

 

[Likkmee]

 

[satrebil]

As much as I hate to agree with one of the resident leftist dumbkopfs, he's right. Property rights should and must reign supreme. They are the foundation of any and every form of democracy.

He never answered the question presented
Does he oppose Remington being sued
He wants it both ways

Well, he actually did. Your hypothetical was "Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued".

"Any place" implies, well, any place - including private property. As staunch a 2A advocate as I am, I cannot say that 2A rights should supersede property rights. I have every right to dictate who may be armed on my property. Public property is a different story.

Damn you for making me defend this moron.

I'm still not seeing where he said Remington should not be sued
And the title should have been the guide
If you support gun manufacturers being sued you will support this

Sorry friend, you're simply off base on this. Remington is not being sued upon where the shooting took place, they're being sued because they manufacture guns and supposedly ran ads that encouraged mass shootings. You know and I know it's complete bullshit, but it has nothing to do with the way you framed this thread.

But Remington is being sued for the accountability of their product
If the property owner says they restrict something then they are taking it upon themselves to protect the guests on their property.

No they are not. Let me tell you a story:

A few years ago I and my family moved to a new house. We hired movers. They worked late into the night moving all of our stuff. When their work was done, I offered up and provided them some beer as a thank you for their hard work. One of the guys, apparently, was a coke head. After a couple of beers he decided to inform me he had an "8-ball" in his pocket and asked if I wanted to... well... "enhance the festivities" shall we say. I told him no, and that I didn't want that shit it my house. He left.

What you're saying is that if he had partaken in his white powder celebration and potentially overdosed, without my knowledge, is that I should be held responsible for his illegal activity. While my homeowners insurance likely would have covered him if he got injured moving my couch, I never gave permission or consent to illegal actions and my insurance damn sure wouldn't have covered it.

You're suggesting, in your hypothetical, that I should and would be liable for illegal acts. Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from. I understand your premise. But property owners have the right to set rules on what is permissible for their property and you simply cannot hold them accountable if someone acts outside those rules.

 

[2aguy]

Conservatives oppose public accommodation laws allowing patrons to sue a business owner who discriminates against his customers – public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in particular – claiming such laws violate private property rights.

If a business owner should be allowed to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple without being sued for refusing to do so, a business owner should likewise be allowed to prohibit firearms on his private property without being subject to a lawsuit.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

We don't want it both ways you doofus.....it is the left that wants it both ways.......they are the ones who want to sue Cake Makers and gun makers....we say, if you want to sue cake makers for violating Rights, you have no leg to stand on to keep gun owners from suing anti-gun businesses.....you moron.

 

[2aguy]

Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued if someone misuses a firearm that causes another to be harmed or killed. How say you?

So much for conservatives’ advocacy of property rights.

The politics of firearms illustrates well the inconsistency and hypocrisy common to most on the right.

As much as I hate to agree with one of the resident leftist dumbkopfs, he's right. Property rights should and must reign supreme. They are the foundation of any and every form of democracy.

I agree....but if they succeed in destroying cake makers and photographers and their Right to Freedom of Religion, then we can't let them get away with denying the Right to bear arms......if they want to sue private owners, then sadly, we will have to punish them too.......

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He never answered the question presented
Does he oppose Remington being sued
He wants it both ways

Well, he actually did. Your hypothetical was "Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued".

"Any place" implies, well, any place - including private property. As staunch a 2A advocate as I am, I cannot say that 2A rights should supersede property rights. I have every right to dictate who may be armed on my property. Public property is a different story.

Damn you for making me defend this moron.

I'm still not seeing where he said Remington should not be sued
And the title should have been the guide
If you support gun manufacturers being sued you will support this

Sorry friend, you're simply off base on this. Remington is not being sued upon where the shooting took place, they're being sued because they manufacture guns and supposedly ran ads that encouraged mass shootings. You know and I know it's complete bullshit, but it has nothing to do with the way you framed this thread.

But Remington is being sued for the accountability of their product
If the property owner says they restrict something then they are taking it upon themselves to protect the guests on their property.

No they are not. Let me tell you a story:

A few years ago I and my family moved to a new house. We hired movers. They worked late into the night moving all of our stuff. When their work was done, I offered up and provided them some beer as a thank you for their hard work. One of the guys, apparently, was a coke head. After a couple of beers he decided to inform me he had an "8-ball" in his pocket and asked if I wanted to... well... "enhance the festivities" shall we say. I told him no, and that I didn't want that shit it my house. He left.

What you're saying is that if he had partaken in his white powder celebration and potentially overdosed, without my knowledge, is that I should be held responsible for his illegal activity. While my homeowners insurance likely would have covered him if he got injured moving my couch, I never gave permission or consent to illegal actions and my insurance damn sure wouldn't have covered it.

You're suggesting, in your hypothetical, that I should and would be liable for illegal acts. Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from. I understand your premise. But property owners have the right to set rules on what is permissible for their property and you simply cannot hold them accountable if someone acts outside those rules.

Yes, Remington is being sued to hold them accountable for the damage their product created.
Look you're trying to use normal logic to make your case use liberal logic and you'll realize what I am doing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued if someone misuses a firearm that causes another to be harmed or killed. How say you?

So much for conservatives’ advocacy of property rights.

The politics of firearms illustrates well the inconsistency and hypocrisy common to most on the right.

As much as I hate to agree with one of the resident leftist dumbkopfs, he's right. Property rights should and must reign supreme. They are the foundation of any and every form of democracy.

I agree....but if they succeed in destroying cake makers and photographers and their Right to Freedom of Religion, then we can't let them get away with denying the Right to bear arms......if they want to sue private owners, then sadly, we will have to punish them too.......

Thank you
You get it.

 

[Dana7360]

Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued if someone misuses a firearm that causes another to be harmed or killed. How say you?

That is stupid.

A person has the right to not allow weapons in their home or establishment.

Your idea is so way beyond stupid and unconstitutional.

 

[Blackrook]

Conservatives oppose public accommodation laws allowing patrons to sue a business owner who discriminates against his customers – public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in particular – claiming such laws violate private property rights.

If a business owner should be allowed to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple without being sued for refusing to do so, a business owner should likewise be allowed to prohibit firearms on his private property without being subject to a lawsuit.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Who are these "conservatives" bozo? I support accommodation laws, and I'm a conservative.

 

[2aguy]

Any place that does not allow a person to lawfully carry a firearm should be sued if someone misuses a firearm that causes another to be harmed or killed. How say you?

That is stupid.

A person has the right to not allow weapons in their home or establishment.

Your idea is so way beyond stupid and unconstitutional.

If that is the case, they also have the right to not bake a cake or take a picture at a wedding.

Religious freedom is specifically stated in the Bill of Rights.....