Interesting PBS poll on gun control

[jon_berzerk]

they have to defend against the lawsuit

the lawsuit is full of holes to begin with

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your friends are now going after the gun manufacturer The basis for the lawsuit is so far fetched that it ought to be thrown out before Bushmaster is required to spend one penny defending itself.

.


Lawsuit Blames Gun Maker for Sandy Hook Massacre
Jacob Sullum|Dec. 15, 2014 1:06 pm

Anyone can sue anybody over anything at all. That is what America so great, dontcha know?

Gun manufacturers make dangerous products that don't come with safety stickers all over them like every other product that can injure and kill people.

Isn't the whole purpose of guns to defend the rights of the people?

Why do you want to deny these people their god given right to sue whomever they like?

Fine they can file their lawsuit.


Bushmaster should NOT Be required to respond or hire an attorney to defend itself.


.

Loser pays the winner's legal expenses would stop a lot of frivolous lawsuits.

Doesn't work that way in this nation. Both sides pay their own costs and can ask the judge to rule that they be compensated. However most lawsuits are settled out of court and each side picks up their own costs.

Bushmaster is stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one. It has a precedent of settling which makes it hard to stand it's ground in this instance because that question will have to be answered and that is not an answer that will reflect well on Bushmaster. The public sentiment is with the plaintiffs irrespective of the merits of their case. If Bushmaster tries to contest this case it risks not only bad publicity for itself but for the entire gun manufacturing industry. And if it loses then it sets a really bad precedent for the industry. From Bushmaster's POV this is a lose-lose scenario. The smart move is to settle and have the settlement sealed.

No, the smart move is to fight it or they'll be on the hook every time someone misuses their product. Even Michael Jackson came to understand you have to fight these assholes or the lawsuits will never stop. I'm sure Bushmaster has attorneys who are smarter than you which I estimate to be not very difficult.

If Bushmaster decides to fight this in court what happens?

The MSM gets to display the faces of 20 innocent children and a beloved school teacher to the nation for weeks on end. It can show the grief stricken parents, how they are coping with the loss of their children, interviews with siblings, etc, etc.

Explain how that is going to help the firearms industry and the NRA in the perception of the public.

Smart attorneys will advise Bushmaster to agree to a sealed settlement. The alternative is a PR nightmare.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I understand that you are an asshole. I understand that you suffer from irrational fear.
And I understand that the 14 guns in my house are in no danger from being taken away by anybody in government.
I understand that NO ONE who had a legal right to own a gun had their guns taken away from them since Obama was elected. I understand that Ronnie St Reagan himself was opposed to having assault weapons on the streets of America.

What I don't understand is why you gun nutters are so fucking whacked out claiming repeatedly that your guns are being taken away.from you. When you know that is a lie.

Your friends are now going after the gun manufacturer The basis for the lawsuit is so far fetched that it ought to be thrown out before Bushmaster is required to spend one penny defending itself.

.


Lawsuit Blames Gun Maker for Sandy Hook Massacre
Jacob Sullum|Dec. 15, 2014 1:06 pm

Anyone can sue anybody over anything at all. That is what America so great, dontcha know?

Gun manufacturers make dangerous products that don't come with safety stickers all over them like every other product that can injure and kill people.

Isn't the whole purpose of guns to defend the rights of the people?

Why do you want to deny these people their god given right to sue whomever they like?

Fine they can file their lawsuit.


Bushmaster should NOT Be required to respond or hire an attorney to defend itself.


.

Loser pays the winner's legal expenses would stop a lot of frivolous lawsuits.

Doesn't work that way in this nation. Both sides pay their own costs and can ask the judge to rule that they be compensated. However most lawsuits are settled out of court and each side picks up their own costs.

Bushmaster is stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one. It has a precedent of settling which makes it hard to stand it's ground in this instance because that question will have to be answered and that is not an answer that will reflect well on Bushmaster. The public sentiment is with the plaintiffs irrespective of the merits of their case. If Bushmaster tries to contest this case it risks not only bad publicity for itself but for the entire gun manufacturing industry. And if it loses then it sets a really bad precedent for the industry. From Bushmaster's POV this is a lose-lose scenario. The smart move is to settle and have the settlement sealed.

It has a precedent of settling which makes it hard to stand it's ground in this instance because that question will have to be answered and that is not an answer that will reflect well on Bushmaster

not really they settled a year before the liability law went into effect

plus as precedent bushmaster also won a federal case in 2002

when the judge ruled bushmaster was not to blame for a shooting spree that killed a postal worker

the complainants will have to prove that bushmaster

sold the firearm with full knowledge it would be used to cause injury

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Anyone can sue anybody over anything at all. That is what America so great, dontcha know?

Gun manufacturers make dangerous products that don't come with safety stickers all over them like every other product that can injure and kill people.

Isn't the whole purpose of guns to defend the rights of the people?

Why do you want to deny these people their god given right to sue whomever they like?

Fine they can file their lawsuit.


Bushmaster should NOT Be required to respond or hire an attorney to defend itself.


.

Loser pays the winner's legal expenses would stop a lot of frivolous lawsuits.

Doesn't work that way in this nation. Both sides pay their own costs and can ask the judge to rule that they be compensated. However most lawsuits are settled out of court and each side picks up their own costs.

Bushmaster is stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one. It has a precedent of settling which makes it hard to stand it's ground in this instance because that question will have to be answered and that is not an answer that will reflect well on Bushmaster. The public sentiment is with the plaintiffs irrespective of the merits of their case. If Bushmaster tries to contest this case it risks not only bad publicity for itself but for the entire gun manufacturing industry. And if it loses then it sets a really bad precedent for the industry. From Bushmaster's POV this is a lose-lose scenario. The smart move is to settle and have the settlement sealed.

No, the smart move is to fight it or they'll be on the hook every time someone misuses their product. Even Michael Jackson came to understand you have to fight these assholes or the lawsuits will never stop. I'm sure Bushmaster has attorneys who are smarter than you which I estimate to be not very difficult.

If Bushmaster decides to fight this in court what happens?

The MSM gets to display the faces of 20 innocent children and a beloved school teacher to the nation for weeks on end. It can show the grief stricken parents, how they are coping with the loss of their children, interviews with siblings, etc, etc.

Explain how that is going to help the firearms industry and the NRA in the perception of the public.

Smart attorneys will advise Bushmaster to agree to a sealed settlement. The alternative is a PR nightmare.

I'd be more worried about the parents looking bad. people are generally sickened when victims file a meritless lawsuit for "unspecified damages" (in other words millions) to cash in on their tragedy.

 

[Iceweasel]

If Bushmaster decides to fight this in court what happens?

The MSM gets to display the faces of 20 innocent children and a beloved school teacher to the nation for weeks on end. It can show the grief stricken parents, how they are coping with the loss of their children, interviews with siblings, etc, etc.

Explain how that is going to help the firearms industry and the NRA in the perception of the public.

Smart attorneys will advise Bushmaster to agree to a sealed settlement. The alternative is a PR nightmare.

You are basically saying the media runs the country. Bushmaster followed the "smart" attorney's advice with the DC sniper case and now they're in the crosshairs again. And will be every time some lawyer decides to milk the cash cow.

It a good argument for reform, it's wrong for an innocent party to have to pay and it would cut a lot of this crap out. But of course lawyers write the laws.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If Bushmaster decides to fight this in court what happens?

The MSM gets to display the faces of 20 innocent children and a beloved school teacher to the nation for weeks on end. It can show the grief stricken parents, how they are coping with the loss of their children, interviews with siblings, etc, etc.

Explain how that is going to help the firearms industry and the NRA in the perception of the public.

Smart attorneys will advise Bushmaster to agree to a sealed settlement. The alternative is a PR nightmare.

You are basically saying the media runs the country. Bushmaster followed the "smart" attorney's advice with the DC sniper case and now they're in the crosshairs again. And will be every time some lawyer decides to milk the cash cow.

It a good argument for reform, it's wrong for an innocent party to have to pay and it would cut a lot of this crap out. But of course lawyers write the laws.

between the 2002 sniper case and now they have a buffer

a law that limits liability

they should fight it

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your friends are now going after the gun manufacturer The basis for the lawsuit is so far fetched that it ought to be thrown out before Bushmaster is required to spend one penny defending itself.

.


Lawsuit Blames Gun Maker for Sandy Hook Massacre
Jacob Sullum|Dec. 15, 2014 1:06 pm

Anyone can sue anybody over anything at all. That is what America so great, dontcha know?

Gun manufacturers make dangerous products that don't come with safety stickers all over them like every other product that can injure and kill people.

Isn't the whole purpose of guns to defend the rights of the people?

Why do you want to deny these people their god given right to sue whomever they like?

Fine they can file their lawsuit.


Bushmaster should NOT Be required to respond or hire an attorney to defend itself.


.

Loser pays the winner's legal expenses would stop a lot of frivolous lawsuits.

Doesn't work that way in this nation. Both sides pay their own costs and can ask the judge to rule that they be compensated. However most lawsuits are settled out of court and each side picks up their own costs.

Bushmaster is stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one. It has a precedent of settling which makes it hard to stand it's ground in this instance because that question will have to be answered and that is not an answer that will reflect well on Bushmaster. The public sentiment is with the plaintiffs irrespective of the merits of their case. If Bushmaster tries to contest this case it risks not only bad publicity for itself but for the entire gun manufacturing industry. And if it loses then it sets a really bad precedent for the industry. From Bushmaster's POV this is a lose-lose scenario. The smart move is to settle and have the settlement sealed.

It has a precedent of settling which makes it hard to stand it's ground in this instance because that question will have to be answered and that is not an answer that will reflect well on Bushmaster

not really they settled a year before the liability law went into effect

plus as precedent bushmaster also won a federal case in 2002

when the judge ruled bushmaster was not to blame for a shooting spree that killed a postal worker

the complainants will have to prove that bushmaster

sold the firearm with full knowledge it would be used to cause injury

That weapon was designed for the battlefield and not for hunting. Therefore it was designed to cause injury.

The fact that it was used by the DC sniper will count against them and so will the magazine size.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Fine they can file their lawsuit.


Bushmaster should NOT Be required to respond or hire an attorney to defend itself.


.

Loser pays the winner's legal expenses would stop a lot of frivolous lawsuits.

Doesn't work that way in this nation. Both sides pay their own costs and can ask the judge to rule that they be compensated. However most lawsuits are settled out of court and each side picks up their own costs.

Bushmaster is stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one. It has a precedent of settling which makes it hard to stand it's ground in this instance because that question will have to be answered and that is not an answer that will reflect well on Bushmaster. The public sentiment is with the plaintiffs irrespective of the merits of their case. If Bushmaster tries to contest this case it risks not only bad publicity for itself but for the entire gun manufacturing industry. And if it loses then it sets a really bad precedent for the industry. From Bushmaster's POV this is a lose-lose scenario. The smart move is to settle and have the settlement sealed.

No, the smart move is to fight it or they'll be on the hook every time someone misuses their product. Even Michael Jackson came to understand you have to fight these assholes or the lawsuits will never stop. I'm sure Bushmaster has attorneys who are smarter than you which I estimate to be not very difficult.

If Bushmaster decides to fight this in court what happens?

The MSM gets to display the faces of 20 innocent children and a beloved school teacher to the nation for weeks on end. It can show the grief stricken parents, how they are coping with the loss of their children, interviews with siblings, etc, etc.

Explain how that is going to help the firearms industry and the NRA in the perception of the public.

Smart attorneys will advise Bushmaster to agree to a sealed settlement. The alternative is a PR nightmare.

I'd be more worried about the parents looking bad. people are generally sickened when victims file a meritless lawsuit for "unspecified damages" (in other words millions) to cash in on their tragedy.

Trying to make the parents look bad will backfire in this instance. It will be seen as victimizing the grieving parents. There is no way to spin this and make Bushmaster out to be the "victim" here.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If Bushmaster decides to fight this in court what happens?

The MSM gets to display the faces of 20 innocent children and a beloved school teacher to the nation for weeks on end. It can show the grief stricken parents, how they are coping with the loss of their children, interviews with siblings, etc, etc.

Explain how that is going to help the firearms industry and the NRA in the perception of the public.

Smart attorneys will advise Bushmaster to agree to a sealed settlement. The alternative is a PR nightmare.

You are basically saying the media runs the country. Bushmaster followed the "smart" attorney's advice with the DC sniper case and now they're in the crosshairs again. And will be every time some lawyer decides to milk the cash cow.

It a good argument for reform, it's wrong for an innocent party to have to pay and it would cut a lot of this crap out. But of course lawyers write the laws.

Bushmaster is not an "innocent party" unless you want to say that it is the victim of the NRA. That doesn't pass the LOL test.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If Bushmaster decides to fight this in court what happens?

The MSM gets to display the faces of 20 innocent children and a beloved school teacher to the nation for weeks on end. It can show the grief stricken parents, how they are coping with the loss of their children, interviews with siblings, etc, etc.

Explain how that is going to help the firearms industry and the NRA in the perception of the public.

Smart attorneys will advise Bushmaster to agree to a sealed settlement. The alternative is a PR nightmare.

You are basically saying the media runs the country. Bushmaster followed the "smart" attorney's advice with the DC sniper case and now they're in the crosshairs again. And will be every time some lawyer decides to milk the cash cow.

It a good argument for reform, it's wrong for an innocent party to have to pay and it would cut a lot of this crap out. But of course lawyers write the laws.

between the 2002 sniper case and now they have a buffer

a law that limits liability

they should fight it

Partisan laws like that will be tested for constitutionality. The precedent for manufacturer liability has been proven in the courts on countless occasions. Trying to exempt a single industry will fail because it must either apply to all or none.

 

[Iceweasel]

That weapon was designed for the battlefield and not for hunting. Therefore it was designed to cause injury.

The fact that it was used by the DC sniper will count against them and so will the magazine size.

The 1911 was designed for the battlefield too so using your warped sense of logic any 1911 manufacturer can be taken to the cleaners by some greedy lawyer.

But hunting rifles were designed to cause injury and many came from military designs. Probably all guns benefited from military designs.

My Bushmaster has killed no one. No guns were designed for murder. Misusing a tool doesn't make it the tool maker's fault.

 

[Iceweasel]

Bushmaster is not an "innocent party" unless you want to say that it is the victim of the NRA. That doesn't pass the LOL test.

When lunatics lol all we can so is sit back with amazement. Your opinions fail the intelligence test.

 

[Iceweasel]

Partisan laws like that will be tested for constitutionality. The precedent for manufacturer liability has been proven in the courts on countless occasions. Trying to exempt a single industry will fail because it must either apply to all or none.

Back that up. And don't use settlements outside of court as "evidence".

 

[Flash]

You do understand that an assault weapons ban is "taking guns away" don't you?

I understand that you are an asshole. I understand that you suffer from irrational fear.
And I understand that the 14 guns in my house are in no danger from being taken away by anybody in government.
I understand that NO ONE who had a legal right to own a gun had their guns taken away from them since Obama was elected. I understand that Ronnie St Reagan himself was opposed to having assault weapons on the streets of America.

What I don't understand is why you gun nutters are so fucking whacked out claiming repeatedly that your guns are being taken away.from you. When you know that is a lie.

If you lived in one of the commie ban states and you had a firearm that the government didn't like you would have to turn it in and that idiot Obama proposed doing that on a national level.

The government has no right tell me what firearm I can own or requiring that I have to get permission to own one and that is what exactly Obama has proposed.

Aren't you a dumbass for voting for Obama and then claiming that he will support your right to keep and bear arms?

You are as confused as this dickhead greedy Union puke:

 

[Derideo_Te]

Partisan laws like that will be tested for constitutionality. The precedent for manufacturer liability has been proven in the courts on countless occasions. Trying to exempt a single industry will fail because it must either apply to all or none.

Back that up. And don't use settlements outside of court as "evidence".

Was BP held directly liable? How about Exxon?

How about drug manufacturers?

Alabama Supreme Court Holds Again That Plaintiffs Who Use Generic Drugs Can Recover From Brand-Name Manufacturers

Interesting case because the original brand manufacturer is being held held for a misrepresentation of what ended up in a generic drug.

The courts hold car manufacturers liable for defective products even if they didn't actually make the part that failed.

No industry is exempt except for the firearms. There are no legal grounds for exempting an entire industry from litigation.

When you look at this from the SCOTUS viewpoint they have to decide if Congress has the power to exclude an industry from the law. The 3rd branch of government takes a very dim view of any infringement on it's own powers. In my opinion the SCOTUS will rule this law unconstitutional since Congress does not have the power to exempt industries from being subject to the law of the land.

 

[Iceweasel]

Partisan laws like that will be tested for constitutionality. The precedent for manufacturer liability has been proven in the courts on countless occasions. Trying to exempt a single industry will fail because it must either apply to all or none.

Back that up. And don't use settlements outside of court as "evidence".

Was BP held directly liable? How about Exxon?

How about drug manufacturers?

Alabama Supreme Court Holds Again That Plaintiffs Who Use Generic Drugs Can Recover From Brand-Name Manufacturers

Interesting case because the original brand manufacturer is being held held for a misrepresentation of what ended up in a generic drug.

The courts hold car manufacturers liable for defective products even if they didn't actually make the part that failed.

No industry is exempt except for the firearms. There are no legal grounds for exempting an entire industry from litigation.

When you look at this from the SCOTUS viewpoint they have to decide if Congress has the power to exclude an industry from the law. The 3rd branch of government takes a very dim view of any infringement on it's own powers. In my opinion the SCOTUS will rule this law unconstitutional since Congress does not have the power to exempt industries from being subject to the law of the land.

No one said anything about exempting the firearms industry from any suits. Your toggle switch way of thinking came up with that. Guns were misused if they were used to murder. In no way is that similar to neglect.

 

[g5000]

Online polls are completely and utterly meaningless

This.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Partisan laws like that will be tested for constitutionality. The precedent for manufacturer liability has been proven in the courts on countless occasions. Trying to exempt a single industry will fail because it must either apply to all or none.

Back that up. And don't use settlements outside of court as "evidence".

Was BP held directly liable? How about Exxon?

How about drug manufacturers?

Alabama Supreme Court Holds Again That Plaintiffs Who Use Generic Drugs Can Recover From Brand-Name Manufacturers

Interesting case because the original brand manufacturer is being held held for a misrepresentation of what ended up in a generic drug.

The courts hold car manufacturers liable for defective products even if they didn't actually make the part that failed.

No industry is exempt except for the firearms. There are no legal grounds for exempting an entire industry from litigation.

When you look at this from the SCOTUS viewpoint they have to decide if Congress has the power to exclude an industry from the law. The 3rd branch of government takes a very dim view of any infringement on it's own powers. In my opinion the SCOTUS will rule this law unconstitutional since Congress does not have the power to exempt industries from being subject to the law of the land.

No one said anything about exempting the firearms industry from any suits. Your toggle switch way of thinking came up with that. Guns were misused if they were used to murder. In no way is that similar to neglect.

BZZZT Wrong, Job_bezerk raised it as a defense against the lawsuit and then you unwittingly stumbled into the quagmire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html

Congress Passes New Legal Shield for Gun Industry
Published: October 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - The Republican-controlled Congress delivered a long-sought victory to the gun industry on Thursday when the House voted to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits. The bill now goes to President Bush, who has promised to sign it.

The gun liability bill has for years been the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association, which has lobbied lawmakers intensely for it. Its final passage, by a vote of 283 to 144, with considerable Democratic support, reflected the changing politics of gun control, an issue many Democrats began shying away from after Al Gore, who promoted it, was defeated in the 2000 presidential race.

"It's a historic piece of legislation," said Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, who said the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20, the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."

The bill, which is identical to one approved in July by the Senate, is aimed at ending a spate of lawsuits by individuals and municipalities, including New York City, seeking to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for negligence when their weapons are used in crimes.

While it bars such suits, the measure contains an exception allowing certain cases involving defective weapons or criminal behavior by a gun maker or dealer, such as knowingly selling a weapon to someone who has failed a criminal background check.

President Bush said in a statement that he looked forward to signing the bill,​

Congress passed this bill exempting the firearms industry from legal liability. That is what will have to pass the test of Constitutionality and it is unlikely to do so in my opinion.

 

[Flash]

90% of the American people, including gun owners and Republicans support background checks. The NRA has obstructed all attempts at even the most reasonable of provisions that would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

.

I would like to see a valid poll that said that Americans want to be required to get permission from the filthy government in order to enjoy the rights proscribed in the Bill of Rights. If they do they are idiots.

The Cruz-Grassley Bill actually strengthened the ability of the government to identify the mentally ill when it came to gun rights but the Democrats voted it down so don't tell me that the Libtrads care about things like that.

 

[Care4all]

It's rigged with multiple votes by the same people, or maybe it IS accurate and contrary to the threads on this board to abolish gvt funding for PBS, many more Right Wingers watch PBS than has been conjectured on this board?

But if the poll had been the other way around then the Libtards would have used it as proof that Americans want to do away with that pesky Bill of Right's item about the right to keep and bear arms.

It was so high because many posters from the gun forums voted in it. Why don't you go to CPUSA.com or Demomocratunderground.com and post a link to the poll so those Libtard idiots can sway it the other way and then you can brag about it?

I do understand Flash....I was just teasing.... mainly to get in the point about PBS programing and the requests to defund it over the years here....