Law Suit By Sandy Hook Parents Against Remington Arms Dismissed

[nat4900]

Billionaires and millionaires write the tax laws to benefit them (just ask the likes of a Trump and his $1 billion capital losses)

Gun manufacturers write the laws to SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT them from any culpability for selling weapons of war.

Yep, great system and great "justice" for those parents who had their kids torn apart in pieces by a bastard with a weapon that should ONLY be used in combat.....

 

[Londoner]

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.

I also think it was correct to dismiss this case.

As you know, they did not indicate negligence in the product itself, but the sale to untrained civilians. They theory being that Remington's gun sale in this instance would have been legal if the user had some training certificate, like a car license (where the user goes through a training process/exam before using a potentially deadly vehicle).

However, the deaths did not result from a lack of training, so the suit itself didn't make sense. I guess you could argue that requiring some kind of advanced training/certificate would make it harder for lazy or incompetent people to own these weapons, which itself might limit these gun slaughters, but we will never put an end to gun violence or vehicular death. Best you can do is find legislative ways to limit the death while still vigorously defending the rights of legal/responsible gun owners.

Keeping with the car metaphor: Stop Signs are not seen as unfair government intrusions. Having a 17 year old go through training to obtain a license or having a law against blind people driving are not seen as intrusions on freedom, but sensible regulations. The notion that there can't be any regulations surrounding the operation and use of potentially deadly instruments is crazy, but the gun lobby controls one of our two party's, so everyone knows that introducing even mild legislation is impossible. Every attempt at regulation is strategically turned into a slippery slope Constitutional Crisis. This kind of feminine hysteria is ironic coming from uber-masculine gun owners, but, regardless, the Left should either get a pair of balls and fight these morons with more skill and force or go home.

The fact that nobody on the Left ever does anything about the under-regulated slaughter factory of gun ownership means that the Left is just talking tough for their base, but they don't have an interest in a genuine legislative battle where sensible reforms are enacted (like what Reagan did with the Brady Bill).

My point: this was a fucking show trial, and a waste.

 

[GLASNOST]

Give it up child ....

Child? I'm probably old enough to be your father, perhaps even your grand-father.

..... the Sandy Hook parents are nothing but regressive political pawns. They should realize that and move on.

Do your countrymen know you feel that way about the US, its' citizens, and its' judicial system?

The people who are actually responsible are dead, there's no justice to be had.

The parents of the children at Sandy Hook are much better qualified on that subject than you are.

 

[kaz]

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?

It's pathetic how Democrats always trot out that tired canard to justify your oppressive policies. So what if it doesn't work, we have to do "something," so let's do it my way even though it doesn't make sense.

How does disarming the honest citizens help reduce gun violence? It just makes it easier for criminals

 

[Vastator]

Give it up child ....

Child? I'm probably old enough to be your father, perhaps even your grand-father.

..... the Sandy Hook parents are nothing but regressive political pawns. They should realize that and move on.

Do your countrymen know you feel that way about the US, its' citizens, and its' judicial system?

The people who are actually responsible are dead, there's no justice to be had.

The parents of the children at Sandy Hook are much better qualified on that subject than you are.

Wrong. Justice is a social construct. What you imply is vengeance. They are two different things. Very different things.

 

[2aguy]

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.

I also think it was correct to dismiss this case.

As you know, they did not indicate negligence in the product itself, but the sale to untrained civilians. They theory being that Remington's gun sale in this instance would have been legal if the user had some training certificate, like a car license (where the user goes through a training process/exam before using a potentially deadly vehicle).

However, the deaths did not result from a lack of training, so the suit itself didn't make sense. I guess you could argue that requiring some kind of advanced training/certificate would make it harder for lazy or incompetent people to own these weapons, which itself might limit these gun slaughters, but we will never put an end to gun violence or vehicular death. Best you can do is find legislative ways to limit the death while still vigorously defending the rights of legal/responsible gun owners. This is why Stop Signs as not seen as unfair government intrusions on freedom. The notion that there can't be any regulations surrounding the operation and use of potentially deadly instruments is crazy, but the gun lobby controls one of our two party's, so everyone knows that introducing even mild legislation is impossible, and will be conflated with the death of the 2nd Amendment.

How exactly are there no gun regulations......? You guys throw that line out there and just think that is all you have to say.......try explaining what you mean when you say

"The notion that there can't be any regulations....." considering all of the regulations around owning and using guns......

 

[nat4900]

So, right wingers you then MUST agree that Saudi Arabia should NOT be sued by the 9-11 families...Correct???
Otherwise you'd be a bunch of low-life hypocrites, don't you think?

 

[OKTexas]

The people who are actually responsible are dead, there's no justice to be had.

The above from the right wing side that was rejoicing that Obama's veto was overturned regarding the 9-11 families suing of Saudi Arabia.......Interesting!!!

And the hackery continues, feel free to point where I've ever commented on that bill. Also stay on topic or move on.

 

[2aguy]

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.

I also think it was correct to dismiss this case.

As you know, they did not indicate negligence in the product itself, but the sale to untrained civilians. They theory being that Remington's gun sale in this instance would have been legal if the user had some training certificate, like a car license (where the user goes through a training process/exam before using a potentially deadly vehicle).

However, the deaths did not result from a lack of training, so the suit itself didn't make sense. I guess you could argue that requiring some kind of advanced training/certificate would make it harder for lazy or incompetent people to own these weapons, which itself might limit these gun slaughters, but we will never put an end to gun violence or vehicular death. Best you can do is find legislative ways to limit the death while still vigorously defending the rights of legal/responsible gun owners.

Keeping with the car metaphor, this is why Stop Signs as not seen as unfair government intrusions on freedom. The notion that there can't be any regulations surrounding the operation and use of potentially deadly instruments is crazy, but the gun lobby controls one of our two party's, so everyone knows that introducing even mild legislation is impossible, and will be conflated with the death of the 2nd Amendment.

and how about specifying the "mild legislation" that you think can't be passed...and then explain how the "mild legislation" is actually useful and achieves what you say it would achieve...

You guys don't get to throw out B.S. lines like that and not get called on it......explain what you just said....show us what you mean ......

 

[Vastator]

So, right wingers you then MUST agree that Saudi Arabia should NOT be sued by the 9-11 families...Correct???
Otherwise you'd be a bunch of low-life hypocrites, don't you think?

Wrong.

 

[2aguy]

So, right wingers you then MUST agree that Saudi Arabia should NOT be sued by the 9-11 families...Correct???
Otherwise you'd be a bunch of low-life hypocrites, don't you think?

Nope....members of the Saudi government actively helped the terrorists.......the Saudi Government failed to stop it..which is their actual job.....

 

[nat4900]

Nope....members of the Saudi government actively helped the terrorists.......the Saudi Government failed to stop it..which is their actual job.....

So, one can equally say that members of the US government actively help gun manufacturers to openly sell weapons of war to anyone who wants such a weapon.....

 

[paulitician]

So much about the Sandy Hook event is shrouded in mystery. No one knows for sure what really happened. The Government has kept it completely 'Hush-Hush.' Personally, i don't believe the Government/Corporate Media's narrative. I do believe they're lying. 'Crisis Actors' were obviously employed immediately after the event. They were hired to push 'Anti-2nd Amendment' hysteria. And i'm very skeptical of the 'Parents' who showed up on all the Corporate Media Outlets right after the event. Were they even actual parents of murdered children?

Anyway, i know i'll be dismissed as a 'Tin Foil Hatter, by the sheep. Or be accused of 'hating children and America.' But i'll always believe there's something very wrong with the Government/Corporate Media's Sandy Hook narrative. And i'm very happy with this decision. The Gun Grabbers clearly tried to exploit this event for their Anti-2nd Amendment agenda. A very shallow lowdown move. Shame on em.

 

[2aguy]

Nope....members of the Saudi government actively helped the terrorists.......the Saudi Government failed to stop it..which is their actual job.....

So, one can equally say that members of the US government actively help gun manufacturers to openly sell weapons of war to anyone who wants such a weapon.....

Nope.....felons and the dangerously mentally ill are forbidden by law to buy, own or carry these weapons....gun makers do not sell to felons, or the dangerously mentally ill...twit.

 

[GLASNOST]

It's pathetic how Democrats always trot out that tired canard to justify your oppressive policies. ...

Who are you talking about?

 

[nat4900]

gun makers do not sell to felons, or the dangerously mentally ill...twit.

"True", except when they do........You don't want to go that route there, fella......

 

[Londoner]

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.

I also think it was correct to dismiss this case.

As you know, they did not indicate negligence in the product itself, but the sale to untrained civilians. They theory being that Remington's gun sale in this instance would have been legal if the user had some training certificate, like a car license (where the user goes through a training process/exam before using a potentially deadly vehicle).

However, the deaths did not result from a lack of training, so the suit itself didn't make sense. I guess you could argue that requiring some kind of advanced training/certificate would make it harder for lazy or incompetent people to own these weapons, which itself might limit these gun slaughters, but we will never put an end to gun violence or vehicular death. Best you can do is find legislative ways to limit the death while still vigorously defending the rights of legal/responsible gun owners. This is why Stop Signs as not seen as unfair government intrusions on freedom. The notion that there can't be any regulations surrounding the operation and use of potentially deadly instruments is crazy, but the gun lobby controls one of our two party's, so everyone knows that introducing even mild legislation is impossible, and will be conflated with the death of the 2nd Amendment.

How exactly are there no gun regulations......? You guys throw that line out there and just think that is all you have to say.......try explaining what you mean when you say

"The notion that there can't be any regulations....." considering all of the regulations around owning and using guns......

Fair.

Let me try to say it better.

There are regulations, but whenever regulations are proposed, those regulations are seen as a slippery slope to the death of the 2nd Amendment.

And whenever a politician proposes legislation, that politician is accused of having a secret agenda to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

This makes it hard to both maintain and improve upon the metaphorical equivalent of Stop Signs, Traffic Lights, Speed Limits, Licenses and the entire infrastructure of laws & regulations that help ensure safe driving while not limiting the rights of legal, responsible car owners. (Again, though, I agree that the lawsuit was frivolous. My mother's family is from a rural part of the US and are big hunters. They are extremely responsible gun owners. I fully support their right to gun ownership, but I wish we could discuss gun regulations without such a toxic backdrop of miscommunication and slippery slope'ism)

 

[kaz]

gun makers do not sell to felons, or the dangerously mentally ill...twit.

"True", except when they do........You don't want to go that route there, fella......

"Making" your shit "up" again. It'll be "interesting to" see you try to back this one up. Go for it. A slap of my glove to your "face"

 

[saveliberty]

We really should make the military sign an agreement not to kill people with the arms they buy....

 

[nat4900]

Why NOT sell weapons of mass destruction, then? After all, the right wingers' "argument" is that NO US citizen should be deprived of owning anything that the military or law enforcement uses...