Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WillHaftawaite is right ... you Baz Ares are kind of a fruit loop.They should watch some rap videos
They are the only Companies that can't be sued in America. For the damage their crap does.
Why is that? Their detective flying butllets hit unintended peoples all the time.
If they hit and kill humans that are unarmed, they are co-conspirators in MURDER!
SOooo! Using that logic above.
So when my car breaks from a defective wheel.
The people I kill family needs to repair my car.
And pay me 500K for my time having to deal with the event.
And then there's always trucks these days.There were plenty of ways that wacko Lanza could have killed the kids.The only good thing about Sandy Hook is that it proves again that schools must have iron clad security -- same as the airports do -- and the schools must have armed security guards on site to protect the kids.
The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
They did not need to in the 40's, 50's, 60's etc.
Where AR murdering guns were not Marketing ownership for Mass Murder.
What's changed from the 80's on?
To wit:
He could have used a sawed off shotgun.
He could have set fire to the school.
Etc.
Funny.
Lanza was a wacko that hated his mother and his neighbors.
You love to blame the gun.
But the gun is made to defend us.
The wacko perverts its use to kill other people's kids.
Lanza was wacko and should not have had access to guns.
His father is responsible for NOT getting the court order saying so.
His mother is responsible for giving him the guns.
Funny.
Lanza was a wacko that hated his mother and his neighbors.
You love to blame the gun.
But the gun is made to defend us.
The wacko perverts its use to kill other people's kids.
Lanza was wacko and should not have had access to guns.
His father is responsible for NOT getting the court order saying so.
His mother is responsible for giving him the guns.
The doctors who prescribed SSRIs should hold some accountability. Once off his meds, he became a ticking timebomb.
“Kathleen Koenig, a nurse specialist in psychiatry at Yale, gave some follow-up treatment. While seeing her, Adam tried Lexapro, which Fox had prescribed. Nancy reported, “on the third morning he complained of dizziness. By that afternoon he was disoriented, his speech was disjointed, he couldn’t even figure out how to open his cereal box. He was sweating profusely…it was actually dripping off his hands. He said he couldn’t think…He was practically vegetative.” Later the same day, she wrote, “He did nothing but sit in his dark room staring at nothing.” Adam stopped taking Lexapro and never took psychotropics again, which worried Koenig. She wrote, “While Adam likes to believe that he’s completely logical, in fact, he’s not at all, and I’ve called him on it.” She said he had a biological disorder and needed medication. “I told him he’s living in a box right now, and the box will only get smaller over time if he doesn’t get some treatment.”
Adam Lanza Medical Records | AbleChild.org
The mental health community KNEW the guy was dangerous, but put him back with rest of society... but, it's a hell of a lot easier to blame the guns.
Sandy Hook families argue in court gun companies 'courted' shooter
Family members of Newtown victims say gun companies’ macho advertising for AR-15-style rifles helped draw Adam Lanza to ‘the weapon he needed’
Sandy Hook families push to reinstate lawsuit against gun manufacturer
Well, The NRA Members are not done Murdering Americans for Profits.
A former National Rifle Assn. instructor, Willeford took with him the AR-15-style assault rifle that he keeps in a safe.
What happened next was a scenario nearly unheard of in mass shootings, but one often suggested by those in favor of a well-armed citizenry: An armed bystander got in a shootout with a mass killer and chased him out of town.
In Texas, a good guy with a gun took on a bad guy with a gun, feeding both sides of the gun control debate
A former National Rifle Assn. instructor, Willeford took with him the AR-15-style assault rifle that he keeps in a safe.
What happened next was a scenario nearly unheard of in mass shootings, but one often suggested by those in favor of a well-armed citizenry: An armed bystander got in a shootout with a mass killer and chased him out of town.
In Texas, a good guy with a gun took on a bad guy with a gun, feeding both sides of the gun control debate
FFS! !.........1 in 10K shootings. It that.
Gee. Thanks, NRA. For the Cowardly used Gun Nutter BS Spews as the public safety Morons.
These claims are Fully ALT-FACT thinking. It's so rare to see any Gun Nutter Loser saving the day.
Other than paid LE! You will win betting 99.9999 of the times that an armed Gun Nutter will be there.
Thay NEVER ARE!
First, you can sue a firearms maker if the weapon is unsafe, or badly designed. Remington was sued for design flaws in the 700 series of rifles. But let’s talk about what you really want to do, blame the makers when a gun is used to murder someone.
Let’s say I am driving home, my wife and child are in the car. A drunk behind the wheel of a Ford F-150 pick up truck runs a red light and smashes into my car. He kills my wife, and child. Who is to blame? Is it Ford’s fault that the truck was driven by a drunk? Is the dealer to blame for selling the truck to someone who would drink and drive one day? They both did their jobs. Ford built a truck, the dealer sold it.
The protection act you are ranting about in a circular manner prevents frivolous lawsuits from bankrupting companies who like Ford in the example above, are making a product. It is not Boeing’s fault that idiots flew the plane into a building. It isn’t Microsoft’s fault that their simulator program allowed the terrorists to practice flying.
The dirty secret is you don’t want to sue a manufacturer for a defective weapon, you want to sue them for making a functional firearm to bankrupt them. If Smith and Wesson sells a defective weapon, they are liable. It isn’t anyone’s fault but theirs. The act you are raging against does not protect them from liability for manufacturing mistakes or design flaws.
FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?
If you tried to sue Ford for the drunk driver, the case would be thrown out as frivolous. If you tried to sue Boeing for 9-11 the case would be thrown out for the same reason. It would never get to the point where a Jury would decide. We aren’t talking about reasonable liability lawsuits. You want to sue them for how their products are used. Behavior that is already prohibited by law.
You want to drive them out of business by flooding them with frivolous lawsuits. They did not grow them to kill people.As where guns were, And should pay for that.
That is exactly what the law is designed to protect against. It infuriates you because what is common sense for everything else, is the law for gun makers.
First, you can sue a firearms maker if the weapon is unsafe, or badly designed. Remington was sued for design flaws in the 700 series of rifles. But let’s talk about what you really want to do, blame the makers when a gun is used to murder someone.
Let’s say I am driving home, my wife and child are in the car. A drunk behind the wheel of a Ford F-150 pick up truck runs a red light and smashes into my car. He kills my wife, and child. Who is to blame? Is it Ford’s fault that the truck was driven by a drunk? Is the dealer to blame for selling the truck to someone who would drink and drive one day? They both did their jobs. Ford built a truck, the dealer sold it.
The protection act you are ranting about in a circular manner prevents frivolous lawsuits from bankrupting companies who like Ford in the example above, are making a product. It is not Boeing’s fault that idiots flew the plane into a building. It isn’t Microsoft’s fault that their simulator program allowed the terrorists to practice flying.
The dirty secret is you don’t want to sue a manufacturer for a defective weapon, you want to sue them for making a functional firearm to bankrupt them. If Smith and Wesson sells a defective weapon, they are liable. It isn’t anyone’s fault but theirs. The act you are raging against does not protect them from liability for manufacturing mistakes or design flaws.
FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?
If you tried to sue Ford for the drunk driver, the case would be thrown out as frivolous. If you tried to sue Boeing for 9-11 the case would be thrown out for the same reason. It would never get to the point where a Jury would decide. We aren’t talking about reasonable liability lawsuits. You want to sue them for how their products are used. Behavior that is already prohibited by law.
You want to drive them out of business by flooding them with frivolous lawsuits. They did not grow them to kill people.As where guns were, And should pay for that.
That is exactly what the law is designed to protect against. It infuriates you because what is common sense for everything else, is the law for gun makers.
They sell murdering devices, cars are not made to do same.
"At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported."
This is BS! But legal. Its, not the public responsibility that they need to pay for their clean up!
For what a private business produced.
Like farmers growing contaminated veggies. They can be sued.
Funny.
Lanza was a wacko that hated his mother and his neighbors.
You love to blame the gun.
But the gun is made to defend us.
The wacko perverts its use to kill other people's kids.
Lanza was wacko and should not have had access to guns.
His father is responsible for NOT getting the court order saying so.
His mother is responsible for giving him the guns.
The doctors who prescribed SSRIs should hold some accountability. Once off his meds, he became a ticking timebomb.
“Kathleen Koenig, a nurse specialist in psychiatry at Yale, gave some follow-up treatment. While seeing her, Adam tried Lexapro, which Fox had prescribed. Nancy reported, “on the third morning he complained of dizziness. By that afternoon he was disoriented, his speech was disjointed, he couldn’t even figure out how to open his cereal box. He was sweating profusely…it was actually dripping off his hands. He said he couldn’t think…He was practically vegetative.” Later the same day, she wrote, “He did nothing but sit in his dark room staring at nothing.” Adam stopped taking Lexapro and never took psychotropics again, which worried Koenig. She wrote, “While Adam likes to believe that he’s completely logical, in fact, he’s not at all, and I’ve called him on it.” She said he had a biological disorder and needed medication. “I told him he’s living in a box right now, and the box will only get smaller over time if he doesn’t get some treatment.”
Adam Lanza Medical Records | AbleChild.org
The mental health community KNEW the guy was dangerous, but put him back with rest of society... but, it's a hell of a lot easier to blame the guns.
But, but, the Great Douche tells me the Insane Can have GUNS. IT signed a law letting the insane buy guns. As the Taxpayers cover all damages done by guns.
I would think you would want others to pay these Billions. These shooters are always broke, so you must like paying for clean up. Very Conservative thinking.
GOP/DOPers. Why won't gun dealers and Nutters not keep guns out of these insane hands?
Are the dealers defective? Are the Makers deflective marketing guns to raise the self- esteem of Gun Nutter Losers?
We know the GOP/DOPers are defective.
First, you can sue a firearms maker if the weapon is unsafe, or badly designed. Remington was sued for design flaws in the 700 series of rifles. But let’s talk about what you really want to do, blame the makers when a gun is used to murder someone.
Let’s say I am driving home, my wife and child are in the car. A drunk behind the wheel of a Ford F-150 pick up truck runs a red light and smashes into my car. He kills my wife, and child. Who is to blame? Is it Ford’s fault that the truck was driven by a drunk? Is the dealer to blame for selling the truck to someone who would drink and drive one day? They both did their jobs. Ford built a truck, the dealer sold it.
The protection act you are ranting about in a circular manner prevents frivolous lawsuits from bankrupting companies who like Ford in the example above, are making a product. It is not Boeing’s fault that idiots flew the plane into a building. It isn’t Microsoft’s fault that their simulator program allowed the terrorists to practice flying.
The dirty secret is you don’t want to sue a manufacturer for a defective weapon, you want to sue them for making a functional firearm to bankrupt them. If Smith and Wesson sells a defective weapon, they are liable. It isn’t anyone’s fault but theirs. The act you are raging against does not protect them from liability for manufacturing mistakes or design flaws.
FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?
If you tried to sue Ford for the drunk driver, the case would be thrown out as frivolous. If you tried to sue Boeing for 9-11 the case would be thrown out for the same reason. It would never get to the point where a Jury would decide. We aren’t talking about reasonable liability lawsuits. You want to sue them for how their products are used. Behavior that is already prohibited by law.
You want to drive them out of business by flooding them with frivolous lawsuits. They did not grow them to kill people.As where guns were, And should pay for that.
That is exactly what the law is designed to protect against. It infuriates you because what is common sense for everything else, is the law for gun makers.
They sell murdering devices, cars are not made to do same.
"At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported."
This is BS! But legal. Its, not the public responsibility that they need to pay for their clean up!
For what a private business produced.
Like farmers growing contaminated veggies. They can be sued.
You really are terribly ignorant. A gun is not a murdering device. If it was, there wouldn’t be anyone left alive in the nation. There are hundreds of millions of guns out there, and if they had murder on their mind, there wouldn’t be anyone left. A gun is a tool. It is designed to fire ammunition safely, and as accurately as possible for a given price.
It is not designed to be a murdering tool any more than the Nissan GTR is intended to be a getaway vehicle for criminals.
Your example proves my point. The farmer who grows and sells contaminated veggies knows that he has contaminated the veggies. He sold a defective product. Yes, he is liable, just as the gun makers are if they sell a defective product. That is the reason the products go through testing, to find and eliminate any defects, before they are sold to the public.
But let me explain this to you as simply as possible. You are not winning this argument. Not just with me, but in general. The public does not support an assault weapons ban. The most recent poll after the Church Shooting found that just 36% of the people support a ban on “assault weapons” which should be called scary because that’s all they are for the ignorant like yourself.
The Democratic Party getting behind this nonsense are literally playing into the Republican’s hands. They are doing everything possible to hand the victory over to the Republicans.
Funny.
Lanza was a wacko that hated his mother and his neighbors.
You love to blame the gun.
But the gun is made to defend us.
The wacko perverts its use to kill other people's kids.
Lanza was wacko and should not have had access to guns.
His father is responsible for NOT getting the court order saying so.
His mother is responsible for giving him the guns.
The doctors who prescribed SSRIs should hold some accountability. Once off his meds, he became a ticking timebomb.
“Kathleen Koenig, a nurse specialist in psychiatry at Yale, gave some follow-up treatment. While seeing her, Adam tried Lexapro, which Fox had prescribed. Nancy reported, “on the third morning he complained of dizziness. By that afternoon he was disoriented, his speech was disjointed, he couldn’t even figure out how to open his cereal box. He was sweating profusely…it was actually dripping off his hands. He said he couldn’t think…He was practically vegetative.” Later the same day, she wrote, “He did nothing but sit in his dark room staring at nothing.” Adam stopped taking Lexapro and never took psychotropics again, which worried Koenig. She wrote, “While Adam likes to believe that he’s completely logical, in fact, he’s not at all, and I’ve called him on it.” She said he had a biological disorder and needed medication. “I told him he’s living in a box right now, and the box will only get smaller over time if he doesn’t get some treatment.”
Adam Lanza Medical Records | AbleChild.org
The mental health community KNEW the guy was dangerous, but put him back with rest of society... but, it's a hell of a lot easier to blame the guns.
But, but, the Great Douche tells me the Insane Can have GUNS. IT signed a law letting the insane buy guns. As the Taxpayers cover all damages done by guns.
I would think you would want others to pay these Billions. These shooters are always broke, so you must like paying for clean up. Very Conservative thinking.
GOP/DOPers. Why won't gun dealers and Nutters not keep guns out of these insane hands?
Are the dealers defective? Are the Makers deflective marketing guns to raise the self- esteem of Gun Nutter Losers?
We know the GOP/DOPers are defective.
But, but, the Great Douche tells me the Insane Can have GUNS. IT signed a law letting the insane buy guns.
First, you can sue a firearms maker if the weapon is unsafe, or badly designed. Remington was sued for design flaws in the 700 series of rifles. But let’s talk about what you really want to do, blame the makers when a gun is used to murder someone.
Let’s say I am driving home, my wife and child are in the car. A drunk behind the wheel of a Ford F-150 pick up truck runs a red light and smashes into my car. He kills my wife, and child. Who is to blame? Is it Ford’s fault that the truck was driven by a drunk? Is the dealer to blame for selling the truck to someone who would drink and drive one day? They both did their jobs. Ford built a truck, the dealer sold it.
The protection act you are ranting about in a circular manner prevents frivolous lawsuits from bankrupting companies who like Ford in the example above, are making a product. It is not Boeing’s fault that idiots flew the plane into a building. It isn’t Microsoft’s fault that their simulator program allowed the terrorists to practice flying.
The dirty secret is you don’t want to sue a manufacturer for a defective weapon, you want to sue them for making a functional firearm to bankrupt them. If Smith and Wesson sells a defective weapon, they are liable. It isn’t anyone’s fault but theirs. The act you are raging against does not protect them from liability for manufacturing mistakes or design flaws.
FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?
If you tried to sue Ford for the drunk driver, the case would be thrown out as frivolous. If you tried to sue Boeing for 9-11 the case would be thrown out for the same reason. It would never get to the point where a Jury would decide. We aren’t talking about reasonable liability lawsuits. You want to sue them for how their products are used. Behavior that is already prohibited by law.
You want to drive them out of business by flooding them with frivolous lawsuits. They did not grow them to kill people.As where guns were, And should pay for that.
That is exactly what the law is designed to protect against. It infuriates you because what is common sense for everything else, is the law for gun makers.
They sell murdering devices, cars are not made to do same.
"At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported."
This is BS! But legal. Its, not the public responsibility that they need to pay for their clean up!
For what a private business produced.
Like farmers growing contaminated veggies. They can be sued.
You really are terribly ignorant. A gun is not a murdering device. If it was, there wouldn’t be anyone left alive in the nation. There are hundreds of millions of guns out there, and if they had murder on their mind, there wouldn’t be anyone left. A gun is a tool. It is designed to fire ammunition safely, and as accurately as possible for a given price.
It is not designed to be a murdering tool any more than the Nissan GTR is intended to be a getaway vehicle for criminals.
Your example proves my point. The farmer who grows and sells contaminated veggies knows that he has contaminated the veggies. He sold a defective product. Yes, he is liable, just as the gun makers are if they sell a defective product. That is the reason the products go through testing, to find and eliminate any defects, before they are sold to the public.
But let me explain this to you as simply as possible. You are not winning this argument. Not just with me, but in general. The public does not support an assault weapons ban. The most recent poll after the Church Shooting found that just 36% of the people support a ban on “assault weapons” which should be called scary because that’s all they are for the ignorant like yourself.
The Democratic Party getting behind this nonsense are literally playing into the Republican’s hands. They are doing everything possible to hand the victory over to the Republicans.
What are guns used for?
You need to practice a little to hit a target.
Unless the gun is like 12 inches from the target.
And they can still miss.
But other than that above, what do they do?
I don't change the Tee Vee with them.
I don't plant seeds with them.
I don't use them to clear a toilet clog.
So, what are they used for? Dang?
I just don't know. Please explain?
Oops! Forget.
Killing animals is for Food or Murder.
Killing a Human is Murder or Justifiable.
They are for Killing living thangs.
FFS! That's right. For Murdering thangs!
btw:
'Thou shalt not kill'
"The word in the original text that is translated as "murder" or "kill", but it has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder"
...
Why is that? Their detective flying butllets hit unintended peoples all the time.
If they hit and kill humans that are unarmed, they are co-conspirators in MURDER!
...
First, you can sue a firearms maker if the weapon is unsafe, or badly designed. Remington was sued for design flaws in the 700 series of rifles. But let’s talk about what you really want to do, blame the makers when a gun is used to murder someone.
Let’s say I am driving home, my wife and child are in the car. A drunk behind the wheel of a Ford F-150 pick up truck runs a red light and smashes into my car. He kills my wife, and child. Who is to blame? Is it Ford’s fault that the truck was driven by a drunk? Is the dealer to blame for selling the truck to someone who would drink and drive one day? They both did their jobs. Ford built a truck, the dealer sold it.
The protection act you are ranting about in a circular manner prevents frivolous lawsuits from bankrupting companies who like Ford in the example above, are making a product. It is not Boeing’s fault that idiots flew the plane into a building. It isn’t Microsoft’s fault that their simulator program allowed the terrorists to practice flying.
The dirty secret is you don’t want to sue a manufacturer for a defective weapon, you want to sue them for making a functional firearm to bankrupt them. If Smith and Wesson sells a defective weapon, they are liable. It isn’t anyone’s fault but theirs. The act you are raging against does not protect them from liability for manufacturing mistakes or design flaws.
FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?
If you tried to sue Ford for the drunk driver, the case would be thrown out as frivolous. If you tried to sue Boeing for 9-11 the case would be thrown out for the same reason. It would never get to the point where a Jury would decide. We aren’t talking about reasonable liability lawsuits. You want to sue them for how their products are used. Behavior that is already prohibited by law.
You want to drive them out of business by flooding them with frivolous lawsuits. They did not grow them to kill people.As where guns were, And should pay for that.
That is exactly what the law is designed to protect against. It infuriates you because what is common sense for everything else, is the law for gun makers.
They sell murdering devices, cars are not made to do same.
"At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported."
This is BS! But legal. Its, not the public responsibility that they need to pay for their clean up!
For what a private business produced.
Like farmers growing contaminated veggies. They can be sued.
If the gun is defective, you can sue the company, (tho most will either replace or repair it)
If the shooter is defective?
Who do you sue?
