Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[bripat9643]

What form would this defense take, shooting up Congress?

Damn, but you're an IDIOT! Learn to think before you put fingers to keyboard, fool!

I asked a simple question: how would women use guns to defend their reproductive rights?

 

[Coyote]

No. As long as the gun was functioning properly why should they be allowed to? Can victims of drunk drivers sue car manufacturers?

No.

 

[Rustic]

Here's N example of the bushmaster ad.

Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO)

That is not a military grade firearm. Dumbass

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Liberal justification:

Years ago, during the infamous LA riots, a black mob pulled a white truck driver out of the cab of his truck at a blocked intersection and beat the man. One particular black rioter was on camera picking up a brick, smashiing it down on the driver's head, and dancing around the nearly unconscious man..

This individual was eventually arrested and charge with attempted murder. He was not convicted, the case / charge was thrown out because - NO $HIT - they decided a BRICK was not a 'weapon', that it was 'construction material', and thus - not being a 'weapon', like a gun or knife, the infividual could / not be charged with attempted murder. This PO$ WALKED!

WTF?!

Got a link to that? I think you are in error.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The type of handgun that Lanza allegedly used ejects shells.....and they fly up....if you believe this 19 year old shrimp had a semi automatic and then used it to kill himself? That is your deal......

Shells don't eject into your face with any regularity, who could sell such a gun? I did have a .45acp round hit my forehead once, but only once. Were you doing the gansta sideways shooting?

Lanza used a handgun, not the AR. Yes, you can put a semi-auto round through your skull, why wouldn't you be able to?

As far as the OP, I believe the suit would only apply to Connecticut manufacturer, like Bushmaster (last I heard). Many of them are fleeing the north due to this sort of hostility. I don't see how a Connecticut ruling could effect another state. But as said, the suit will be a big loser for the idiots, the weapon, even if used, wasn't defective.

Incorrect.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No I will not. I've seen your posts time and time again over my time on these boards........you in the past said you will get our guns. That is your agenda...........Now you are going the path they recommend to get us to register them.

I'm not buying that..........because I know your end game........we're gonna fight you gun grabbers every step of the way

You can fight. But as long as you keep letting the nuts have guns and kill the kiddies, I'm always going to have an argument.

Your agreeing with suing the manufacturer for a criminal using the product is asinine..............and nothing more.......This case will go to the upper courts...............and of course if you get the Supreme Court Hacks of your choice........they will ditch the constitution and call it legal in an effort to push your agenda...........They will not be judges for the Consititution........they will be Political hacks in a black robe....

Actually, there is a shitload of case law on the side of the plaintiffs on this one. If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, you can be held liable.

The gun industry made this situation when it decided Crazy Nancy was a key market. The real problem was the Congress passing a blanket immunity for the gun industry, which probably IS unconstitutional.

Guns are not dangerous to the owner. They are only dangerous to thugs trying to rob you or kill you. I can kill you with a baseball bat, and many people have been killed with them. Why aren't you lobbying to have them made illegal?

We know there are endless idiotic arguments you can use to attack guns, but they remain idiotic.

Not dangerous tonthe owner ? People accidently shoot Themsleves all the time !

Only an idiot can shoot themselves.

 

[turtledude]

What if...

Banoid "thinking" is pretty pathetic, this is the nadir of it.

 

[turtledude]

the people who voted yes are the usual collection of banoid idiots

btw they are actually correct in the sense that yes, idiots can use the firearms makers but
the real answer is-no the morons who filed the suits cannot win.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Do we sue the pool manufacturers when someone's child drowns in their own backyard pool?

I'm sure people have .

The point is that they have the opportunity . The sandy hook suit hinges on the gun companies marketing of their product . I think they will lose.

But the point is they have the ABILITY to go to court . But u have congress passing laws to protect gun makers from lawsuits . Why not leave them tonthe courts like every other biz ?

Post a link. I don't believe you. There are no commercials on television about guns. However, there are PLENTY on about alcohol and the "joys" of drinking. My father died as a direct result of alcohol. Should I be able to sue the alcohol manufacturers? Yes or no.

I know a boy who was killed by a hit and run drunk driver. The guy was also driving after a suspended license. Should we be able to sue the manufacturer's of alcohol and the city as well, since this guy was driving when he shouldn't have been?

Ever look in a Gun magazine ? Do they not have adds ???!

No, but they do have subtractions. That's the opposite of "adds", isn't it?[/sarcasm]

Who forced you to look at that gun magazine?

 

[Clementine]

If liberals really believed that their gun control worked-

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The PLCAA prohibits suing the manufacturer in this case. It will be thrown out on appeal

No. The judge who hears the case will throw it out if they can read. The decision was to allow the case to go to trial, that is the stupid part. It will be a defense attorneys first motion to request summary judgement based on the federal law.

 

[Dale Smith]

No one was killed at Sandy Hook...and if anyone pursues a court case against the gun makers from Sandy Hoax???? They better be ready for "discovery" where everything has to be revealed including the info that they have been refusing to release under the FOIA. I would LOVE to be apart of the defense team for the gun manufacturers.

 

[JoeB131]

Most killing are committed by gang members. They kill each other off, and these killings are a blessing to the community.

We have 16,000 homicides a year in this country, of which only 1800 a year a gang related. Most of the rest are domestic arguments that got out of hand.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So if someone kills someone with a knife, can they sue the knife manufacturers? Ridiculous.

Who do you sue if a guy beats someone to death with his fists?

 

[JoeB131]

[
Non-disclosure that they would not say what they had seen or had not seen. I am always amused by people like you that just assume that everything they see on TV is reality. I am also amused by people that haven't done 10 minutes of research and reading that lamely attempt to marginalize someone that has spent hundreds and hundreds of hours looking for documentation and information both pro and con. I believed that it actually happened at first and I was going to try and prove the trolls wrong. But the more I looked into this, the more questions than answers was all I found. You believe that your beloved "gubermint" would never lie to you and that is fine....but I know that they lie with impunity and often with great gusto.

You can't fix crazy, dude. I've dealt with all sorts of nuts on the internet. JFK conspiracy theorists, 9/11 Truthers, Waco Nuts, Birthers, not to mention whacks who think things about Aliens and Chem Trails. And usually you documentation and information is repeating what other nuts have posted or reposted on the internet.

 

[JoeB131]

The PLCAA prohibits suing the manufacturer in this case. It will be thrown out on appeal

No. The judge who hears the case will throw it out if they can read. The decision was to allow the case to go to trial, that is the stupid part. It will be a defense attorneys first motion to request summary judgement based on the federal law.

Again, the courts can rule the federal law unconstitutional. Granting a blanket immunity for an industry is insane.

So let's consider what will happen if the plaintiffs DO prevail here. Bushmaster will pay out a shitload of money. Then a lot of other people will sue other gun companies for their lost loved ones, and the gun industry will settle a lot of those out of court because they'd be too expensive to litigate.

THEN you will see the gun industry clean up its act. They'll be the ones driving comprehensive background checks for buyers and sellers.

Can't see this as a bad thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Cigarettes, which contain KNOWN carcinogens that give people cancer and other ingredients that cause illness and death, yet those are still perfectly legal. Alcohol, which is literally a poison and kills millions of people and it is still legal.

Yes, you did hear about the tobacco settlement,right? The one where the tobacco companies paid billions of dollars to the states and now have to support anti-smoking plans? Or that the Alcohol industry has to put disclaimers on their products to "Drink responsibly" and discourage pregnant women and drunk drivers? If you want to apply that standard to the gun industry, I'm good with that.

 

[JoeB131]

No. The founding slave racists said you couldn't take my gu..firearms.

no, the Founding Slave Rapists said your state could have a well-regulated militia. I know you guys get confused on this point.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Cigarettes, which contain KNOWN carcinogens that give people cancer and other ingredients that cause illness and death, yet those are still perfectly legal. Alcohol, which is literally a poison and kills millions of people and it is still legal.

Yes, you did hear about the tobacco settlement,right? The one where the tobacco companies paid billions of dollars to the states and now have to support anti-smoking plans? Or that the Alcohol industry has to put disclaimers on their products to "Drink responsibly" and discourage pregnant women and drunk drivers? If you want to apply that standard to the gun industry, I'm good with that.

Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The PLCAA prohibits suing the manufacturer in this case. It will be thrown out on appeal

No. The judge who hears the case will throw it out if they can read. The decision was to allow the case to go to trial, that is the stupid part. It will be a defense attorneys first motion to request summary judgement based on the federal law.

Again, the courts can rule the federal law unconstitutional. Granting a blanket immunity for an industry is insane.

So let's consider what will happen if the plaintiffs DO prevail here. Bushmaster will pay out a shitload of money. Then a lot of other people will sue other gun companies for their lost loved ones, and the gun industry will settle a lot of those out of court because they'd be too expensive to litigate.

THEN you will see the gun industry clean up its act. They'll be the ones driving comprehensive background checks for buyers and sellers.

Can't see this as a bad thing.

You can't see government using the courts to put companies out of business that they don't like as a bad thing? Because if anybody would set that precedent, then alcohol companies are next. Who would you like to live in a dry country????