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.
There is no question at all that armed citizens are always safer than armed mercenary police who work for pay, because the mercenary will always be tempted by a higher bidder.
There is no question at all that armed citizens are always safer than armed mercenary police who work for pay, because the mercenary will always be tempted by a higher bidder.>>> “What do your colleagues think of the president?” It’s a question I hear a lot, not only from civilian friends in the United States, but on a regular basis over the last two years from allied officers at the German General Staff College. The truthful answer is that I don’t really know — politics has never been a watercooler topic in the U.S. military, to the point where I couldn’t tell which candidate any of my commanders voted for. The people I’ve worked with throughout my career focus on the profession of arms. When we do discuss politics, it is usually about the competing interests in Baghdad, or the dynamics of the Pashtuns in southern Afghanistan. Although every Army company has a voting assistance officer who keeps soldiers informed of upcoming elections and registration deadlines, our business is not domestic politics. As others have commented, this dynamic continues to hold true, even if imperfectly. Senior leaders made it clear that they foresee no role for the military in resolving any electoral dispute, reinforcing the apolitical nature of the U.S. military.<<<Will the Military Become Just Another Politicized Institution? - War on the Rocks
“What do your colleagues think of the president?” It’s a question I hear a lot, not only from civilian friends in the United States, but on a regularwarontherocks.com
Nice thread to see the comments in the past of the peeps like in my sig line.Guess people are seeing this turkey Joe in my Sigline............I've had that as a sigline for a very long time to remind people what he really is now....................
Old thread. Where I got my sigline from Joe.So...
- Victims of a wreck caused by someone DUI can sue alcohol manufacturers?
- Families whose loved ones die of heart attacks, obesity-related health conditions can sue Hersheys, Nabisco, Krispy Creme, etc...?
- Families of loved ones killed by someone wielding a hammer can sue the hammer manufacturer?
-Families of those killed by having their heads bashed in with a brick or baseball bat can sue the brick maker or lumber company / bat manufacturer?
It only stands to reason if families of deceased victims can sue a company for the misuse of its product after it was purchased all these other law suits would be potentially be allowed.....
These are the same kinds of judges that have brought us the Biden administration, the collusion hoax, unfettered abortion, men in women's sport's, and far to many more tragic rulings over the year's that keeps tearing this nation apart at it's seams.. Trump didn't make it far enough when it came to draining the swamp of these judge's (sending them packing).Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.
Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.
Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.
“They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.
“I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.
Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.
But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.
The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.
Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.
Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.
“We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”
Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.
U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
“It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”
This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......
www.govtrack.us
So...
- Victims of a wreck caused by someone DUI can sue alcohol manufacturers?
- Families whose loved ones die of heart attacks, obesity-related health conditions can sue Hersheys, Nabisco, Krispy Creme, etc...?
- Families of loved ones killed by someone wielding a hammer can sue the hammer manufacturer?
-Families of those killed by having their heads bashed in with a brick or baseball bat can sue the brick maker or lumber company / bat manufacturer?
It only stands to reason if families of deceased victims can sue a company for the misuse of its product after it was purchased all these other law suits would be potentially be allowed.....
So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers? Ridiculous.
I've had guns all my childhood to adult life, and right on up until now, and some of the gun's I still have to this very day. Yep as far as I know they've never hurt not one person in life. Now deer and such is another story.. lolOr if I crash my Corolla into a crowd of people then someone sue Toyota?
A gun is a god damned inanimate object. It can't do anything. I've had a loaded p226 in my night stand for 10 years and it's never harmed anyone.
The gun manufacturers can't be held responsible for what someone else does with their product.
Let nephews use my childhood weapons at my hunting land.......Brought some friends from school. Glass all over the driveway.........and low and behold my guns got STOLEN.I've had guns all my childhood to adult life, and right on up until now, and some of the gun's I still have to this very day. Yep as far as I know they've never hurt not one person in life. Now deer and such is another story.. lol
I've seen Henry rifle commercials, but come to think of it that's all I've ever seen. Maybe back in the day I might have saw a black powder gun commercial, but not to sure about that one either.Being able to sue does not mean you are going to win.
If gun makers put out inflammatory commercials of some sort, then sure, lawsuits may be appropriate.
But I have never seen any.
In fact, I have never seen any firearm commercial.
It's a shame what goes on.... We had a thief one time, and I couldn't catch that rascal for nothing. Finally we moved and got away from the bull crap. We didn't move because of the bull crap, but we were just going to move anyway. Glad we did. The problem these days though, is that anywhere you go anymore, it seems to be getting worse and worse.Let nephews use my childhood weapons at my hunting land.......Brought some friends from school. Glass all over the driveway.........and low and behold my guns got STOLEN.
Haven't replaced them. Was fond of my 30/30 Winchester. 22 Marlin I had since about 10. Compound bow with sights and trigger gone too. When I practiced a lot could hit a small square consistent at 50 yards with it. If I got one now I'd probably need a whole bunch of arrows.........lol
Or if I crash my Corolla into a crowd of people then someone sue Toyota?
A gun is a god damned inanimate object. It can't do anything. I've had a loaded p226 in my night stand for 10 years and it's never harmed anyone.
The gun manufacturers can't be held responsible for what someone else does with their product.
The difference is ... unlike a gun, your Corolla wasn't designed and built to kill.
Neither is the gun. It is designed to propel a projectile to a target. Just like a hammer is designed to hammer nails.
It takes an evil person to pervert the tools useage.
LOL
You're such a retard. If guns weren't designed and built to kill, they wouldn't be used in war.
Neither would trucks, motorcycles or airplanes.
DURRRRRR
