Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[Soggy in NOLA]

I cut my finger, I'm suing Henckels.

 

[TooTall]

Stupid is and stupid does... any lawsuit against firearm manufacturers is a stupidly weak action and frivolous at best and most likely criminal. People kill not firearms...
The people that sue deserve the shit that rained down on them... cowardly frivolous fucks.

What this country needs is a Loser Pays All law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the suit, then you have to pay all the expenses of the person or business you tried to sue.

That would stop most cases like this.

I agree, but it would put 10,000 lawyers out of business and most of the people in Congress that pass the laws are lawyers.

 

[whitehall]

Why can't the families of hit and run victims sue Budweiser or Ford?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree, but it would put 10,000 lawyers out of business and most of the people in Congress that pass the laws are lawyers.

Winner. Absolutely. That's why none of them will ever do it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yep.....that was some sIcK ass shotgun in the glove compartment of Lanza's Civic!!

 

[Ambivalent1]

Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?

What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.

Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.

We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.

I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.

It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter. It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.

The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government.

The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.

The second one is even dumber. The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.

"So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction."

I invite you to try.
Neither the Military nor the Police will help you with this.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?

What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.

Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.

We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.

I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.

It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter. It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.

The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government.

The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.

The second one is even dumber. The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.

"So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction."

I invite you to try.
Neither the Military nor the Police will help you with this.

ahh the line in my sig and the day I put that asshole on ignore.

 

[miketx]

Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?

What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.

Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.

We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.

I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.

It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter. It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.

The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government.

The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.

The second one is even dumber. The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.

Spews the same lies over and over. Come get them sgt frag.

 

[initforme]

This is another non issue.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?

What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.

Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.

We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.

I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.

It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter. It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.

The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government.

The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.

The second one is even dumber. The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.

I have to step in and say something.

There is NO way to make the statements you do as fact. It is impossible to determine how many physical assaults, murders, etc. are prevented because would be assailants are deterred by a citizen with a firearm.

Secondly, most people DO NOT own a firearm with the intention of fighting the government. If that were true, somebody would have stood up when Trump outlawed bump stocks - that move violated the Constitution three different ways.

In that context that you allude to, people own firearms to prevent tyranny in government. As United States Supreme Court Justice Story stated:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

 

[iceberg]

You cannot cite a single case where the manufacturer of a knife, baseball bat or automobile was held liable when someone stole the item in question and then killed other people.
Note one.

I don't have access to nexis lexis to give specific examples NOR DO I NEED THEM to state basic facts. There is only one way to prevent suing - a special law that grants immunity. Gun industry is nearly unique in that it has such immunity.

fine. remove the immunity.

you lose the case, you pay *all* court costs.

 

[Rigby5]

The people who should be sued over Sandy Hook, is Congress for the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
When I was a kid, there was always some school employee who was armed or had arms access.
It was insane to disarm teachers.

The schools are legally liable.
As en loco parentis, schools are liable for the defense of the children, just as the parents at home traditionally had a shotgun over the mantel.
Schools unable to defend the children should be charged with child endangerment.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The people who should be sued over Sandy Hook, is Congress for the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
When I was a kid, there was always some school employee who was armed or had arms access.
It was insane to disarm teachers.

The schools are legally liable.
As en loco parentis, schools are liable for the defense of the children, just as the parents at home traditionally had a shotgun over the mantel.
Schools unable to defend the children should be charged with child endangerment.

If an apartment owner allows you to get hurt or killed, they can be sued if they didn't provide adequate security. Shouldn't people on government property expect that same level of security and know they can sue for damages when the government does not adequately protect you?

The Courts have said that the LEOs have no duty to protect the individual and then they tell the individual you cannot carry a weapon into certain places. Is there something wrong with that picture or is it my imagination?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FFS conservatives are stupid.

 

[Andylusion]

Proud to fight against lawsuit stupidity.

 

[Andylusion]

FFS conservatives are stupid.

All true, and yet still not nearly as dumb as left-wingers.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

FFS conservatives are stupid.

What is an FFS conservative?

 

[Rigby5]

The people who should be sued over Sandy Hook, is Congress for the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
When I was a kid, there was always some school employee who was armed or had arms access.
It was insane to disarm teachers.

The schools are legally liable.
As en loco parentis, schools are liable for the defense of the children, just as the parents at home traditionally had a shotgun over the mantel.
Schools unable to defend the children should be charged with child endangerment.

If an apartment owner allows you to get hurt or killed, they can be sued if they didn't provide adequate security. Shouldn't people on government property expect that same level of security and know they can sue for damages when the government does not adequately protect you?

The Courts have said that the LEOs have no duty to protect the individual and then they tell the individual you cannot carry a weapon into certain places. Is there something wrong with that picture or is it my imagination?

Yes, clearly gun control only infringes upon the ability of self defense, because it can never reduce weapons in the hands of those intent on violating law with far greater punishments, like murder.

 

[Rigby5]

FFS conservatives are stupid.

What is an FFS conservative?

Not sure, but found this:

{...
dubbed FFS(which is an acronym for Friends For Sensibility but also a reference to the popular acronym used to express frustration),
...}

 

[g5000]

The people who should be sued over Sandy Hook, is Congress for the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
When I was a kid, there was always some school employee who was armed or had arms access.
It was insane to disarm teachers.

The schools are legally liable.
As en loco parentis, schools are liable for the defense of the children, just as the parents at home traditionally had a shotgun over the mantel.
Schools unable to defend the children should be charged with child endangerment.

If an apartment owner allows you to get hurt or killed, they can be sued if they didn't provide adequate security. Shouldn't people on government property expect that same level of security and know they can sue for damages when the government does not adequately protect you?

The Courts have said that the LEOs have no duty to protect the individual and then they tell the individual you cannot carry a weapon into certain places. Is there something wrong with that picture or is it my imagination?

Yes, clearly gun control only infringes upon the ability of self defense, because it can never reduce weapons in the hands of those intent on violating law with far greater punishments, like murder.

In the advanced nations like ours which have strict gun control, the homicide rate is a tiny fraction of what it is here.