Law Suit By Sandy Hook Parents Against Remington Arms Dismissed

[GLASNOST]

When the little guy brings a frivolous lawsuit, he or she deserves to get fucked.

So you dislike Capitalism. What sort of government would you prefer?

Apparently you fundamentally misunderstand what capitalism is.

Your misunderstanding of Capitalism is fundamental.

 

[OKTexas]

[N]ever in the history of the world has a gun made someone violent.

True. Cars don't make people kill other people, but we have traffic lights and stop signs. Nuclear weapons don't make people kill people, but we have policies against their proliferation, especially for terrorist nations. Guns don't make prisoners in SuperMax prisons violent, but we have rules against possession in this instance.

Fucking control freaks like yourself know the real reason for gun-control it's for control - is has nothing to do with preventing any type of violent crime.

By pathologizing the opposition, you're clogging the debate with irrelevant speculative garbage that cannot be proven or disproven.

The sentence "2 + 2 = 4" is true even if the person uttering it is a control freak. The veracity of a sentence or proposed regulation should be considered apart from the unknown psychological state of the speaker. I happen to believe that most opposition to gun regulation is driven by a deep paranoia, but this fact has no bearing on the evidence/arguments I would consider when determining whether to limit the rights of prisoners or suspected terrorists.

Stop clogging the debate with vague generalizations and make some intelligible arguments for why a particular proposal would or would not work.

Millions of people just like me own firearms and have never committed a violent act against another person, very few violent crimes are committed by Ar15.
Enforce current laws and leave it at that, more gun control laws are frivolous and wrongheaded.

I agree with you to a bigger extent than you realize, but it doesn't follow from your point that we can't seriously consider and intelligently discuss (say) limiting the gun rights of American citizens on the terrorist watch list.

But, yes, I too am afraid of giving government too much power.

When the Bush administration used the threat of terror to create a whole new infrastructure of federal surveillance over American citizens (Patriot Act/Homeland Security), I didn't think these well-intentioned things were going to make us safer. My worry was that we were giving incompetent bureaucrats too much power over our rights to privacy. I saw whole new opportunities for Federal abuse, like when the Bush administration used provisions in the Patriot Act to bring down political enemies like Eliot Spitzer, who merely wrote an unfavorable op-ed about Bush's complicity in the housing meltdown. This is exactly what happened in the old Soviet Union where the government used national security laws to protect itself from the people.

Which is to say, I think you are right to worry about unintended consequences and incrementalism. However, none of these problems make me lose faith in the ability of free Democratic citizens to discuss these issues and solve problems if some kind of consensus can be found. If we thought that all government action and legislation was hopeless, Hitler would never have been stopped and we would have never put a man on the moon - and great Republican Presidents like Eisenhower would never have been able to get the Interstate built so that suppliers/consumers could see an exponential increase in profits/convenience.

Simply throwing up your hands and saying that everything is impossible and everyone is corrupt leaves the hard work to other people.

Who places someone on the secret terrorist watch list and no fly list?

 

[OKTexas]

knives kill more people every year than these rifles do......ban knives.

Same sophomoric argument from low-intelligence gun nuts.........

Knives have a myriad of functional purposes.......Military-style weapons are manufactured simply to KILL other human beings (sure, use those weapons for target practice??? use those weapons to kill a deer because you want instant chopped deer meat?).................and the STUPID assertion that you need those weapons to "defend" yourself you'll always have to face the question: FROM WHOM????............and morons will respond with the "I have to defend myself from the US armed forces coming to take away my TV remote.

Maybe you should as the nearly 2 million people who us guns for self defense annually, from whom they were defending themselves.

 

[kaz]

knives kill more people every year than these rifles do......ban knives.

Same sophomoric argument from low-intelligence gun nuts.........

Knives have a myriad of functional purposes.......Military-style weapons are manufactured simply to KILL other human beings (sure, use those weapons for target practice??? use those weapons to kill a deer because you want instant chopped deer meat?).................and the STUPID assertion that you need those weapons to "defend" yourself you'll always have to face the question: FROM WHOM????............and morons will respond with the "I have to defend myself from the US armed forces coming to take away my TV remote.

There "are" lots of military-style "weapons," so "why" aren't more "people" killed "by them then?"

 

[FA_Q2]

When the little guy brings a frivolous lawsuit, he or she deserves to get fucked.

So you dislike Capitalism. What sort of government would you prefer?

Apparently you fundamentally misunderstand what capitalism is.

Your misunderstanding of Capitalism is fundamental.

And yet you are claiming that blocking frivolous lawsuits is anti-capitalist.

It has nothing to do with capitalism at all.

 

[kaz]

When the little guy brings a frivolous lawsuit, he or she deserves to get fucked.

So you dislike Capitalism. What sort of government would you prefer?

Apparently you fundamentally misunderstand what capitalism is.

Your misunderstanding of Capitalism is fundamental.

What does government enabling frivolous lawsuits to ruin people and businesses have to do with "capitalism?"

 

[GLASNOST]

And yet you are claiming that blocking frivolous lawsuits is anti-capitalist. It has nothing to do with capitalism at all.

What does government enabling frivolous lawsuits to ruin people and businesses have to do with "capitalism?"

 

[PredFan]

When the little guy brings a frivolous lawsuit, he or she deserves to get fucked.

So you dislike Capitalism. What sort of government would you prefer?

You are just too fucking stupid to be talking.

 

[PredFan]

When the little guy brings a frivolous lawsuit, he or she deserves to get fucked.

So you dislike Capitalism. What sort of government would you prefer?

Apparently you fundamentally misunderstand what capitalism is.

He's an idiot attempting a "gotcha" statement about something he doesn't understand anyway.

 

[GLASNOST]

Anyone who's ever lived in the US knows that the favourite pass-time in American society is face-lifting and suing someone (for trivial matters) 'for lots of money'.

Suing people left and right is the corner-stone of American Capitalism and one of the few ways for uneducated Americans to find an income without joining the military.

 

[GLASNOST]

Who places someone on the secret terrorist watch list and no fly list?

NSA? I assume that individual airlines can ban someone for disorderly conduct, but wouldn't that apply to their airline alone?

 

[Rustic]

Frivolous lawsuits by ignorant people, ends up costing everyone. .......

Maybe. But nothing is ever accomplished without that first step. Your complaint is about 'cost in dollars'. Others are more concerned about 'cost in lives', mostly innocent ones. SOMETHING should be done about gun violence, don't you think?

So stop shooting people. Problem solved.

Grammatically incorrect.

Grammar nazi always = losing debate

 

[Cecilie1200]

More to the point how does allowing manufacturers to be sued for the criminal misuse of their products help anyone

Manufacturers should take the less of revenue and make LESS of easily available WMDs to slaughter children...with guns that basically cuts these children's bodies into 4 or 5 parts.

Okay, enough with flinging out buzzwords and hoping they stick. Guns are NOT "weapons of mass destruction". That term refers strictly to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

 

[Cecilie1200]

knives murder 1,500 people every single year.....

over 34 years that is 51,000 people murdered with knives....

rifles with magazines.... 162.... vs.... knives 51,000

Tell us oh bright one, which is deadlier....?

...and THAT is why I urge you to "open-carry" lots and lots of knives....... (may piss off the NRA, but, hey, you'd be carrying the more DEADLIER of weapons.....LOL)

At what point did you think you had a vote in MY personal safety and security?

 

[Cecilie1200]

...... SOMETHING should be done about gun violence, don't you think?

That something is not suing manufactures because people use their produce ILLEGALLY.

That's not for you to say. Those who are trying to sue disagree with you. And how many of your children were killed at Sandy Hook, anyway?

... SOMETHING should be done about gun violence, don't you think?

More laws will never work, enforcement of current ones. It's really a nonissue...

Who said anything about laws. I'm sure it wasn't me. The Sandy Hook parents aren't trying to add more laws. They are trying to sue by using the laws already in existence.

The only problem is that there is a law that exists that says they cannot sue.

Yeah, it's a legal concept called "culpability", and it protects EVERY manufaacturer of EVERY legal product.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Just heard on the news, this illegal law suit has been dismissed. Parents say they will appeal, such a waste of money, their gonna lose. Remington made a legal product and is not responsible for damages. Firearms manufactures are protected by law against these unjust suits.

good

 

[Cecilie1200]

So the gun company DIDNT need a special law to protect them .

Good point......But gun manufacturers can BUY extra insurance from corrupt politicians and an equally corrupt NRA.

Why would they need insurance to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits?

Because liberals want to cost EVERY industry they don't approve of so much money just protecting themselves from liberal attacks that it's impossible to do business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Liberals constantly encourage people to act according to their emotions rather than logic and law. We see it in the way they try to garner sympathy for people like Sandra Fluke, who want their birth control paid for even though there is no basis in law for making such a demand. What is right and legal takes a back seat as they want everyone to focus on people's feelings.

I believe that your ilk of conservatives were cheering when Obama's veto was overturned so that 9-11 families could sue the Saudi government..........Emotions vs. logic and law????? Hardly

Faulty analogy. The Saudi government actually has some culpability in regards to 9/11. Gun manufacturers have no culpability in Sandy Hook.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Doesn't matter ...

It does matter.

Ford didn't manufacture it for the purpose of unlawfully killing people .......

And Remington didn't manufacture their rifles for the purpose of unlawfully killing people either.

The point remains; when it comes to large sums of money the little guy is going to fucked every time.

no they are not

remington like any other company can be sued for their product failing

such as the class action case against them for faulty triggers

Remington Trigger Class Action Settlement

 

[nat4900]

Okay, enough with flinging out buzzwords and hoping they stick. Guns are NOT "weapons of mass destruction". That term refers strictly to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

Of course you may have in your mind an actual number of dead people before you bestow your definition of an WMD...

So, is it 50 dead in Orlando by guns......or is it 130 in Paris by guns????