Law Suit By Sandy Hook Parents Against Remington Arms Dismissed

[Rustic]

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.....

Hey shit for brains, you do know people kill people not firearms?
An ar15 would never pass muster as a military grade weapon you dumb fuck... lol

 

[2aguy]

Congress has removed federal funding for firearms-related research.

Funding used to be set aside for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the impact of gun ownership — but that was taken away in the mid-90s.

The New York Times explains that as the CDC became "increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon," the National Rifle Association assailed its findings as politically skewed and lobbied to defund research.

One study commissioned by the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control found that the risks of keeping a gun in the home outweigh the benefits: "A gun kept in the home is far more likely to be involved in the death of a family member of the household than it is to be used to kill in self-defense," its authors wrote in 1993.

In 1996, an amendment proposed by then-Arkansas Republican Congressman Jay Dickey removed $2.6 million from the center's budget, the same amount earmarked for firearms research. When funding to CDC was later restored, legislation included the directive that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Critics charge that language had a chilling effect on CDC's support for gun-related research.

Five Federal Policies on Guns You’ve Never Heard Of

Sorry..this is a lie......we have all linked to actual research done by the CDC that deals with gun research.....they did not lose funding for studying guns they were told not to advocate gun control..which is what they were doing in the 90s, ignoring any research that went against that agenda.....this is an old anti gun lie....you should really stop spreading it....

 

[TooTall]

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?

We could ban guns and Fords and that would solve both problems. Do you see any problem with that?

 

[Londoner]

Is a law forbidding criminals in prison cells from owning guns a violation of (or threat to) the 2nd Amendment? Since the Constitution doesn't expressly state that criminals in SuperMax prisons can't own guns, is forbidding their gun possession a Constitutional Violation, or does the Constitution leave room for regulated enforcement, to be scrupulously adjudicated with full course to the Supreme Court?

The above question aims to ferret out Constitutionally illiterate people (who are being strategically created and manipulated on the right). These are the people who think that because something isn't expressly, literally, word-for-word stated in the Constitution, than it is not legally permitted. This ignores the parts of the Constitution which contain a structure for adjudicating disputes and requiring interpretations by the judiciary. It's why we have an Amendment process or other structures of both discretion and redress, so we are not bound by what the Framer's couldn't have seen and did not address, like the Internet or the specific rights of prisoners in SuperMax prisons.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Firearms are harmless on their own, get over it. Dip shit
Lol

 

[Rustic]

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?

Suing will not bring the kids back, water under the bridge. Unless money is more important to the parents than their own kids? These type of lawsuits are absolutely frivolous and little minded... lol

 

[Rustic]

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.....

You need to educate yourself you have no clue what the military grade weapons is, it's best if you stay at your mothers basement in isolation. Dip shit

 

[mdk]

Good. It was a foolish lawsuit to begin with.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

How is the little guy screwed when people who have no case lose?

 

[Londoner]

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?

Suing will not bring the kids back, water under the bridge. Unless money is more important to the parents than their own kids? These type of lawsuits are absolutely frivolous and little minded... lol

Finally. A sane person. Well said.

I agree that real justice cannot be found in a court room, which is often unintentionally abused by the aggrieved as misguided catharsis.

Can you explain this to Trump, who is the most litigious candidate to run for president in history?

He doesn't understand that suing everyone all the time doesn't address the original problem - it only clogs the system with the petty grievances of those who don't realize that you can't recover life's most important things from a court room.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Law Suit By Sandy Hook Parents Against Remington Arms Dismissed

Halleluiah...

 

[Rustic]

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...

Over the counter AR's are not the same thing as what the military and police use. Dip shit
Lol

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Something can be done. Exercise your second amendment right and learn to defend yourself

 

[Rustic]

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?

Suing will not bring the kids back, water under the bridge. Unless money is more important to the parents than their own kids? These type of lawsuits are absolutely frivolous and little minded... lol

Can you explain this to Trump, who is the most litigious candidate to run for president in histroy (by a scary margin).

He doesn't understand that suing everyone all the time doesn't address the original problem - it only clogs the system with the petty grievances of those who don't realize that you can't recover life's most important things from a court room.

People that sue for any reason are compensating for something lacking… LOL
Frivolous lawsuits and unions are the reason why things are as expensive as they are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What I think personally? I think that all guns should be destroyed. Each and every one is a weapon of murder. Shooting holes in cans serves no practical purpose. Knives can be used for cooking et al. (practical purposes) and cars can be used to get from point A to point B, also practical purposes.

But that's my line of thinking, perhaps not yours. Let's use yours instead. How about we use the favourite amongst gun lovers: "It's not the gun that kills .... it's the person using it." There is some obvious logic to that, we MUST agree, right? Well, if it's the person holding the gun that kills then I suggest that citizens ought to be allowed to own fire arms in every country in the Western World except for the US. I mean, just look at how many Americans are murdering one another with fire arms!

again...try to think this time....

Which is deadlier in this country...the rifle used in Sandy Hook, or the knife?

Rifles with magazines....162 dead over 34 years.

knives...1,500 dead every single year.

Another stat genius...according to the bill clinton Department of Justice Study on gun self defense....Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives, many times stopping mass public shootings like what happened at Sandy Hook.....

gun murder 2015.... 9,616

1,500,000 crimes stopped and lives saved.... v. 9,616 gun murders....90% of which are committed by people who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns.

Can you tell the difference in these numbers?

again...try to think this time.... What I think of the difference in those numbers? I think that all guns should be destroyed. Each and every one is a weapon of murder. Shooting holes in cans serves no practical purpose. Knives can be used for cooking et al. (practical purposes) and cars can be used to get from point A to point B, also practical purposes.

But that's my line of thinking, perhaps not yours. Let's use yours instead. How about we use the favourite amongst gun lovers: "It's not the gun that kills .... it's the person using it." There is some obvious logic to that, we MUST agree, right? Well, if it's the person holding the gun that kills then I suggest that citizens ought to be allowed to own fire arms in every country in the Western World except for the US. I mean, just look at how many Americans are murdering one another with fire arms!

BUT YOUR REAL QUESTION IS: "Which is deadlier in this country...the rifle used in Sandy Hook, or the knife?" The rifle is most definitely more deadly. One shot (by even a novice or accidentily) will often kill you.

so...no response then.......we have 8 million rifles with magazines in this country....they were used in mass shootings to kill 162 people in 34 years.......

8,000,000 vs. 162

Can you tell which number is bigger?

knives kill 1,500 people every single year...rifles with magazines killed 162 people in mass public shootings in 34 years.......

Can you tell which weapon kills more people every single year?

Math isn't the Libs strong suit.

You know...there really isn't anything in this world that is a strong suite for lefties......

Whining and sniveling.

 

[Rustic]

Congress has removed federal funding for firearms-related research.

Funding used to be set aside for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the impact of gun ownership — but that was taken away in the mid-90s.

The New York Times explains that as the CDC became "increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon," the National Rifle Association assailed its findings as politically skewed and lobbied to defund research.

One study commissioned by the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control found that the risks of keeping a gun in the home outweigh the benefits: "A gun kept in the home is far more likely to be involved in the death of a family member of the household than it is to be used to kill in self-defense," its authors wrote in 1993.

In 1996, an amendment proposed by then-Arkansas Republican Congressman Jay Dickey removed $2.6 million from the center's budget, the same amount earmarked for firearms research. When funding to CDC was later restored, legislation included the directive that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Critics charge that language had a chilling effect on CDC's support for gun-related research.

Five Federal Policies on Guns You’ve Never Heard Of

What a fucking waste of money and time, is one reason.
It's personal responsibility for someone not to fucking murder or violently injure someone else, the "gun" did not make them do it. God progressives are a fucked up bunch. Lol

 

[Darkwind]

Why is it you think that doing something to address the problem involves harming the innocent?

Excuse me?

Gun control harms the innocent citizen who has caused no harm to anyone. Gun control punishes the law abiding.

That any clearer to you?

 

[Rustic]

The gun industry is shielded from many lawsuits involving criminal misuse of guns.

In 2005, Congress enacted a law that immunizes gun dealers and manufacturers from liability for injuries resulting in the "criminal or unlawful misuse" of a firearm. The law authorized dismissal of any applicable pending lawsuits and prohibited future claims.

Five Federal Policies on Guns You’ve Never Heard Of

As it should be, never in the history of the world has a gun made someone violent. 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. Lol

 

[Timmy]

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

 

[Rustic]

A federal firearms trace database is off-limits to the public.

How often do federally licensed gun dealers sell guns that are then used in crimes? It's hard to know, because for nearly a decade such gun trace data has been hidden from the public. Even local law enforcement had been, until recently, barred from accessing the database for anything but narrow investigations.

Outside research tying seized guns to a small handful of dealers spurred the federal government to impose tougher sanctions and inspections on gun retailers and manufacturers.

But those sanctions sparked a backlash: Since 2003, the Tiahrt Amendments, so named after the former Kansas Republican congressman who introduced the measures, have concealed the database from the public. Prior to 2010, local police could access the database only to investigate an individual crime but not to look for signs of broader criminal activity.

Five Federal Policies on Guns You’ve Never Heard Of

Any type of gun registration is absolutely unacceptable, that shit should be put down in the slightest mention of it. It's a control thing progressives/career politicians cannot be trusted with this information. Fucking assholes LOL